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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
45835
|
How to clean an octopus - and is it worth it
I've bought an octopus from my fish monger, but, when I asked if he could clean it, he openly admitted he's never done octopus before and doesn't know how. Well, neither do I but I've taken it on myself. This is clearly a poor decision, I don't even like gutting fish!
I'm reading up on this, and a certain website says the following
Octopus must also be cleaned, so you may want to ask your fish monger to do it if you're uncomfortable doing so yourself. Hold the head under running water to simply remove and discard the ink sac, stomach, and eyes. Then use a sharp knife to cut out the beak, which is found at the bottom of the head
I'm very lost with this statement; it seems like the article suggests by holding the head under water, everything will just fall away (doubtful otherwise it would have a rubbish time being a sea creature!). Has it glossed over the 'how' because it's very difficult?
More reading on other sites suggests that the head is very gelatinous and the vast majority of meat/flavor is from the arms.
So, based upon my own research (if it is correct), is it worth cleaning an octopus (and if so, can some one explain how) or would I be better off just chopping the head off (and removing the beak) and discarding them, keeping just the legs/arms?
Once you conquer this task, you'll be immune to just about anything else. Breaking down octopus has a pretty high squick factor (though it is actually pretty easy over a large, clean sink). Cleaning fish is mundane in comparison.
...also, find a new fishmonger.
This a a great video that explains every step. She cuts the head off by slicing above the eyes, so removing the beak is a part of cleaning the tentacles.
These are your first cuts.
Cut the head off above the eyes, and slit the head open. Rinse out the guts, there will be some connective tissue that needs to be cut away or broken to get to all of the yucky stuff. Rinse thoroughly and peel. It's easy.
Cut the tentacles away below the eyes (the slice now that contains the eyes can just be tossed). That will expose the beak, which is at the center, where the tentacles meet. That just pops out.
The tentacles can just be rinsed and cut as desired.
Easy, and totally worth it. Good luck.
Of course you can keep the octopus "whole" by slicing out the eyes in a kind of pie wedge shape cut, exposing the beak and guts to be cleaned away but keeping the connection between the tentacles and head intact at the "back", otherwise following the instructions in the video.
The meat of the head sac is relatively thin, so you're not losing much if you take the easy route and just lop off the tentacles and discard the entire head. Depends entirely on your tolerance for waste.
@logophobe ...and your tolerance for for squick :)
The octopus in the video are quite small though. Those don't satisfy the minimum size of capture in Portugal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.590513
| 2014-07-24T10:10:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45835",
"authors": [
"Gonçalo Peres",
"Jolenealaska",
"Loretta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56955",
"logophobe",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
43752
|
Is slow cooking in an oven safe with long cooking times
I've been reading about slow cooking in an oven and I have some questions.
We cook meat until it reaches a certain temperature; we can assume this temperature is deemed safe by food experts! However, I'm confused about what makes the food safe! Is it the heat of the meat, or the heat of the oven, or both?
The reason for this question, is on some site (which I can't find now), they suggested (with Lamb), not to slow roast it under 135°C (with no reason why). However, I have a friend who is a chef, and he will slow roast lamb at 100°C.
Let's assume pork must be cooked to 70°C for it to be considered safe. Is it considered as "safe" to cook it at 100°C for a 'long' time (until the pork is at 70°C), compared to cooking it at 200°C for a shorter time (until pork is at 70°C)? Does the length of cooking time, at the lower heat mean bacteria could actually spread?
So, to summarise, if I cook meat (and I assume lamb and pork obey the same rules/laws) at a high temperature am I killing more bugs (due to the higher temperature) than if I cook it at a lower temperature?
In general, the issue is how long the food spends at the middle temperatures, warmer than refrigeration, and not as hot as truely safe cooking temperatures, the so called "danger zone" from 40-140 F, 4-60 C.
While an over simplification, pathogens do not grow well outside of the danger zone because it is so cold that they are inactive, or so hot that they are distressed or killed.
Slow cooking, done properly, is safe because the time spent moving through the danger zone to the safety of temperatures above about 140 F / 60 C is minimized, thus minimizing the opportunity for any pathogens to grow and create toxins; then, at temperatures above the threshold (if held for several minutes), most pathogens are killed. (Do not take this to mean food is "sterilized" as spores can remain, that can become active later.)
Foods are not cooked to a single temperature to be considered safe. Instead, there is a combination of time and temperature at which they are considered safe, assuming no other problems existed. This is mere seconds at 165 F / 74 C, but perhaps half an hour (going by memory, so don't take this as gospel) at 135 F / 57 C.
Still, general audience food safety recommendations suggest temperatures of 160 F / 71 C because the 99.9% kill time at that temperature is only a few seconds--it doesn't require careful monitoring or timing, and so is a simple rule to follow.
275 F / 135 C (I see you edited the question) is definitely a temperature range for slow roasting that is safe when done properly.
135 F / 57 C is possible, but on the borderline, although it would require very precise control not usually available in an oven; this is more the realm of sous-vide cooking techniques. It also requires longer periods held at temperature, and so is not a method for casual cooks.
100 F is not safe. It is well into the temperatures at which food is being incubated so the pathogens have a cozy environment for growth.
Needed to say, not only 100F is unsafe, but it's not cooking: It's the temperature the meet has had throughout its whole life. This would be more drying than cooking :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.590795
| 2014-04-28T12:52:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43752",
"authors": [
"Centra By Centara Avenue Hotel",
"Savanna Wright",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"legated",
"lehasb",
"phillihp",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7586
|
Should my chicken sit in liquid as it roasts, or not?
For the last chicken I roasted, I used this recipe, slightly modified. The biggest modification was that I added liquid to the pan, it was eyeballed but let's say I used about 1/2 to 1 cup total of a vinegar/homemade chicken stock mixture...enough to come about halfway up the halved onions, in a 12" cast iron skillet.
After reading responses to this question about flipping the bird to get crispy skin, I had decided that some liquid in the pan wouldn't be a problem.
Turns out, when I took the bird out to rest and reduced the liquid (now with chicken drippings added), I was treated to the most delicious gravy I've ever had. It was like sweet liquid gold. I think the caramelization of the onions over the 2 hours was the main reason. I definitely want the same result, gravy-wise.
This time, I don't want to flip the chicken but I still want crispy skin, so I'm going to follow the recipe a little more strictly and not add any extra liquid to the pan and just baste with its own juices as they come out. However, I don't want to lose that delicious caramelized onion gravy.
So, my question: Will the onions still caramelize properly if they don't have a good amount of liquid around them to start? Or should I oil my skillet or add a small amount of liquid so there's something in there until the chicken starts to drip?
Also: Any other reasons for or against liquid in the pan that I might be missing?
For extra crispy skin, leave the chicken uncovered a night or two in the fridge before roasting. The dry environment will remove a lot of moisture (especially for water-chilled chickens...ugh) and allow the fat to render off the skin while roasting. For more information: https://medium.com/@mizzao/my-quest-for-the-perfect-roast-chicken-474418ea3051
The secret to really crispy skin has everything to do with rendering the fat that lies directly under it. Once that fat has removed itself from the skin, a little high heat will crisp it up perfectly. If I am creating a roast chicken, I normally remove it from the packaging and allow it to sit uncovered in the fridge for at least overnight, longer if I have the time. Then I start the chicken low to render the fat, you have to cook it at a minimum of 178F (80C) to remove the most fat. Once the fat renders out, which is going to vary depending on the temp you start the chicken at, you crank the temp to the 450 to 500F range and baste regularly.
To maximize the skin that will crisp you want to make sure that your chicken isn't sitting inside the fat while it cooks. I normally use a inset rack to keep the chicken above the fat but you don't have to. The other component to crispy skin is cooking the chicken uncovered.
I also find salting the skin will help too.
@NBenetar Agreed
You can approximate the use of a rack if you don't have one by perching the chicken on vegetables that raise it off of the bottom of the pan. Make sure to leave room between the vegetables to let the fat drain.
You have the right idea for leaving out the liquid to produce a crispier skin. The patting dry step in your recipe will also be critical. A little oil or butter under your vegetables will help keep the onions from sticking to the pan.
Any liquid you add will cause steam, which will tend to soften the skin on your bird.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.591076
| 2010-09-24T14:08:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7586",
"authors": [
"Andrew Mao",
"Martha F.",
"NBenatar",
"None",
"Pete Becker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"sarge_smith",
"sarino",
"user1908696"
],
"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
}
|
9384
|
Is it possible to make a wheat free/gluten free/dairy free apple pie?
Is it possible to make a pie that does not include gluten or dairy? What techniques and ingredients can I use?
welcome. I have edited your question to fit more within the guidelines outlined by our FAQ: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq
You have several options for the crust. It is possible to purchase mixes that will get you started. There are also several recipes available. A good resource for all your gluten-free baking is Gluten-Free Girl and the Chef, and you can find a recipe there. Another great option is former pastry chef Helene at Tartlette. This question has compiled a list of gluten-free baking recipes which may also provide you good jumping off points.
You can make a dairy free crust by replacing butter with lard or vegetable shortening. Margarine is likely not be dairy free. Lard will provide a texture and taste that is better than an all shortening crust, but shortening is easier to find in stores. If the dairy free requirement is a requirement to avoid casein, you will have to do some experimentation on your own to find an appropriate egg replacement, as gluten free crusts appear to require eggs to hold together. Options for egg replacers can be found in this question and this question.
Once you have assembled a crust recipe from these tips, if you have questions about it or are struggling you can ask a follow-on question here about how to improve the crust and the community can provide specific help on a provided recipe.
In general it appears that the gluten free crusts available are actually similar to work with versus a regular pie crust, something that is not always the case in gluten free baking. As usual you want to do everything cold and refrigerate your dough over night. Pie dough of all forms is easiest to roll when you place it between two floured sheets of parchment paper. Remove the top piece of parchment paper, flip the bottom piece with crust on it (hold it all together, because your crust shouldn't be sticking) into the pie plate or onto your pie, and remove the top piece.
Apple pie is sometimes thickened with flour, and obviously you do not want to do this when cooking gluten-free. The absolute best pie thickener is actually not flour, so you are set here. In taste tests the editors of Cooks Illustrated determined that instant tapioca, a gluten-free product, is the best pie thickener. Make sure, however, not to use more than 2 tablespoons or your pie may be gummy. Since apple slices contain pectin, you shouldn't need more than 2 tablespoons for your pie to set up.
Sugar, apples, and the usual apple pie spices (if you choose to spice your pie - with good apples you can actually make an amazing pie with simply sugar, instant tapioca, and apples) should all be gluten free and dairy free, with the usual caveat that in gluten-free cooking and baking you want to make sure that there has been no gluten added to anything by carefully reading labels.
You can often find lard in the 'ethnic' section of supermarkets -- it's sold as 'manteca' for Mexican cooking.
Strange, in every supermarket here, you can find lard (Tenderflake) right next to the shortening. I've never thought of it as a rare or ethnic ingredient.
@Aaronut - the pie crust recipe I got from a family member had to change drastically when she moved away from the Tenderflake lard. I would give a lot to be able to get some Tenderflake and make the original.
+1 for reading the labels. Surpricingly you can find that something contains traces of something not gluten free. Also milk powder can be an ingredient in many things.
Spread apples and jam out on a corn tortilla and then bake in the oven for individual gluten free tartlets. Quick, easy, tasty, and a little odd.
I make an Indian Corn Pudding with a bottom layer of apples that has the same feel as pie for dessert, but without the gluten. http://cookloose.com/index.php?n=Recipes.IndianCornPudding
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.591386
| 2010-11-23T14:32:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9384",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dan Watts",
"Gustavo Azevedo",
"Joe",
"Martin Turjak",
"NDEthos",
"Tim",
"XWormX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"johnny",
"justkt",
"michael",
"ryanjdillon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8828
|
What happens if I use vegetable oil in a cake?
I want to bake a cake out of baking mix bought at a shop. The mix already contains flour, baking soda, vanillin, other minor components. The manual says I need to add butter.
I'd like to use vegetable oil instead of butter - most likely sunflower seed oil. Is that a good idea? Should I expect any problems? Will the result likely be a decent cake or something to just throw away?
The major difference between butter and oil is that butter is only 80% oil, with the rest being milk solids and water (source). This means that using oil you will lose some of the water content that your cake should have, possibly resulting in a dryer cake. On the plus side, cakes made with oil tend to dry out slower than those made with butter.
The other possible different, but one that is unlikely with a mix I'd think, is that it depends on the method of mixing in your fat. If the butter is to be whipped or creamed while softened this creates a different texture than one you could get with oil or melted butter. Whipped butter or especially butter creamed with sugar provides a network of air bubbles that act as a raising agent during cooking, and the result is a pound cake like crumb. If your recipe calls for melted butter, though, this is not a concern - the result is more like a traditional muffin or quick bread crumb.
Finally, a vegetable oil has a fairly neutral taste. Usually when a vegetable oil is called for, this is desirable. Butter on the other hand has a more interesting flavor. Your cake may be a bit bland without it.
I actully tried that - first mixed oil with the baking mix, then added water. The result definitely qualifies as a decent cake. The taste is a bit different, but otherwise it is completely fine.
One big difference is the texture at different temperatures. Butter is a soft solid at room temp while (most) oil is a liquid. So the oil-based cake will be moister but also may feel oily. If you plan to refrigerate and serve cold though, oil can be an advantage because butter is so solid it will make the cake seem tough and dry.
You can certainly substitute butter with some light oil or margarine, not with high flavour oil like olive oil, though!
The main drawback is the lack of buttery taste of the final result, which is something highly desirable in a lot of cakes.
You can also use yoghurt or lard (in some rare cases). Yoghurt will make the cake much softer and change the texture. Lard has a very strong flavour but it is called for in some recipes, like the Italian "Torta Sbrisolona".
Many posts here are saying cakes with oil lack the buttery flavour. On the co tract alot of blogs on cup cakes and cakes will tell you oil is easier to mix, the taste is also preferable. You need to use 3/4 the amount of oil to butter when substituting.
I'm not surprised oil tastes better as it has more fat content. Fat changes the taste texture and odour of food. Generally fat breaks down chemicals in flavour creating a more concentrated flavour and odour.
I would suggest using baking powder for a more robust cake.
Hi Amy, welcome to Seasoned Advice. I don't follow your reasoning here: if you substitute butter with 3/4 the amount of oil, you end up with a similar, or even lower, fat content, because butter is around 80% fat?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.591709
| 2010-11-04T12:14:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8828",
"authors": [
"Heather",
"Itay Moav -Malimovka",
"Quillmondo",
"RafaSashi",
"Tinuviel",
"gyob00",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"jobin",
"sharptooth",
"the humble guy"
],
"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
}
|
7892
|
How do I get rid the yellow layer of oil that forms in my cream of mushroom soup?
When making cream of mushroom, I sauté the chopped up wild mushrooms with unsalted butter until tender and add a little olive oil. After a while, I add the milk, cream, bay leaves and season it to taste. And it tastes great. ;-)
However, there's always this layer of oil that forms which gives the soup a yellowish tinge. I usually skim off that layer of oil with a spoon and all is well.
Is there a way of preventing it from forming in the first place? Am I doing something wrong?
Yes, cream soups are typically roux-based. If you add some flour (roughly an equal amount to the butter) to the fats, whisk and cook the flour for a couple minutes and then slowly whisk in the milk, it will be much less likely to separate. The soup will also be thicker, which I would imagine is a good thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.592103
| 2010-10-06T16:52:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7892",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16525
|
My KitchenAid mixer head will not lock in the down position. How can I rectify this?
It will lock with the head raised. There doesn't appear to be anything obstructing it from sitting flat, but it doesn't want to lock.
Lift the head all the way up. On the top of the stand, just next to the mixer itself you will see a little square hole. Check if that hole is obstructed.
If it looks clear, then check that the set screw on the right side of the stand is not missing (as suggested here)
This is typically caused by the head of the mixer being too high above the bowl.
KitchenAid suggests using a dime to verify the bowl and mixer are the proper separation:
http://producthelp.kitchenaid.com/Countertop_Appliances/Stand_Mixers/Stand_Mixer_Assembly_and_Operation/Lock_lever_on_tilt_head_stand_mixer_does_not_lock%2F%2Fmixer_head_moving
There are two things to consider:
One, the mixer is too high above the bowl. This will result in unmixed ingredients and a lock that will not engage.
Two, the mixer is too low. This will result in increased wear on the mixer blades and the mixer itself as the head and bowl are pushed around during mixing.
When the mixer is lifted a screw should be visible inside the hinge between the base and the mixer head. Turning this screw (with a flat-head screw driver) to the right (clockwise) lowers the head and beater, and to the left (counter-clockwise) raises the beater.
KitchenAid recommends placing a dime in the bowl because it is about 1/16th of an inch thick and will help you gauge the correct height of the mixer head.
Personally, I've found there seems to be some distances where the lock engages and some where it doesn't as reliably, and that these zones don't strictly correlate with the height of the mixer itself. But by trial and error you should find a point where there is acceptable separation between the mixer and bowl, and the lock is able to engage properly.
I was able to correct mine by adjusting the flathead screw that the head rests on. If you (carefully) flip the whole thing upside down, then try to lock the head, you’ll see the little metal “arm” try to push through the hole, which in my case was misaligned. I was able to align it by screwing in that flathead screw a little bit.
This helped me a lot! I just found a loose screw that gets stuck in that hole when the head is down. I think I'm going to have to open the whole housing to fix it. Ugh, but at least I know where the problem is!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.592212
| 2011-07-31T01:36:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16525",
"authors": [
"Jake",
"John D",
"LexRex Mann",
"Libya Williams",
"Patrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61717",
"miphe",
"smudgedoctor"
],
"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
}
|
17319
|
Salads that are made of tomatoes, onion, chilli, coriander, salt and lemon
Recently I've been making salads that are made of tomatoes, onion, chilli, coriander, salt and lemon. Then, I eat them with bread. I have no idea where this recipe is coming from. Do you have any suggestion on making recipes with these ingredients?
How can I improve this recipe, or make variations?
Are you asking for how to improve your salad? Or are you asking what else you could do with those ingredients. We don't recipe requests around here (there are much better tools/resources to do that), but if you give us an idea of what you'd like to do, we can help you out. As it stands, your question risks closure.
As talon8 says, this looks like a recipe request, which is better handled by other sites. HOWEVER, I think what you're really asking is "does this combination of ingredients have a name?" or "how can I improve/expand on this salad?" Either (or both!) of those would be perfectly fine questions.... and not likely to get closed. Could you please edit the question to one of these tracks (so it won't get closed)?
Add bread and you've got some sort of panzanella
So, you're making a pico de gallo salad?
Throw some fresh garlic and fresh lime juice in there. It's delicious and will prevent salmonella poisoning, which is surprisingly common with uncooked salsas.
He's already got lemon juice - does lime do something special in regards to salmonella or it just more acid? Just hadn't heard that before.
@rfusca: I suspect it's more than just acidity, based on this reference. They note that the salsa must contain both fresh garlic AND fresh lime juice. But honestly, they taste so good in pico de gallo that it's hard to argue with.
I would recommend beginning by looking at similar recipes for salads; tabbouleh comes to mind right off the bat, as well as Israeli salad. Look into the making of these, their ingredients, and their application.
In some cases, they might be enjoyed straight, on pita, or with another particularly complementary side. No matter what yours tastes like, pairing your salad with a better transport (than the bread), or a side would be my next step.
Next, try to polish what you're making and why. Try substituting the coriander for cumin, or fennel, or whatever to see what happens. Treat your current recipe like an hypothesis. Experiment.
Tomato is what gives your salad somewhat of a sweet touch. Try replacing tomatoe for another sweet/sour fruit (mango is ideal for example).
Mango and Coriander are awesome together.
Add the onion, coriander and chili's to a skillet of ground beef (or ground turkey) and serve it over tortilla chips and lettuce and you get a Nacho Salad. (or just plain nachos)
Try tossing the salad with cooled Cous-Cous or Quinoa.
That kind of salad is also known as a Kachumber in indian cuisine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.592460
| 2011-08-30T16:52:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17319",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Courtney B Reid",
"Him",
"L Ridge",
"Mark",
"Max",
"Mithun Kumar Janaki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"jeremy radcliff",
"rfusca",
"talon8",
"user7775"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33237
|
Why was our garlic butter made in France, much nicer than garlic butter in England?
We're stumped so we thought we'd come and ask the experts.
Last weekend we were in Paris, and bought what we think was normal unsalted butter (from a marche franprix) and (again as far as we are aware) normal garlic.
We melted the butter on a low heat, cut up 2/3 cloves of garlic, put them in the butter, left it to simmer for 3/4 mins and out came lovely tasting Garlic butter with a strong (but not overpowering) Garlic flavour, almost slightly salty - very similar to Pizza Express Garlic butter if you have ever had that.
We fell in love with the stuff so as soon as we got home bought some garlic and unsalted butter from a UK supermarket. Worked through the same process and it was naff.
There's no strong garlic flavor, the butter looks very yellow and has a strong buttery flavour.
Does anyone know why there would be such a difference? A quick google shows no difference between French & English garlic or butter.
P.s. in Paris we repeated the process 3/4 times so it wasn't a one off fluke
I cannot speak definitively, so I won't write an answer, but is French butter not traditionally made from cultured cream? This would give it a more tangy, complex flavor than butter made from fresh cream.
Garlic can vary a lot in strength of flavor - did you use garlic in Paris in any other way? Could it simply have been stronger garlic?
The greengrocers near where I live (North London) sells many types of garlic, none of which are labelled as "normal", so the French may have sold you a different variety than you bought here.
Also, maybe a silly question but what were you eating the garlic butter on or with - could there also be a difference there?
sorry, had to delete the joke comments because they were flagged as chatty
The UK supermarkets have the opinion that British people like milder garlic, so most of the garlic you find in the UK supermarkets, even organic garlics, are of a very mild variety. Also, they are bred for yield, in softer soils, so they produce bigger bulbs but less strong.
Garlic found in most French and Italian stores is much stronger, as that is what people demand. It is usually hardneck, rather than softneck garlic, and hardnecks tend to be much stronger. French garlic is usually grown in stronger soils, so it produces a stronger flavor.
My solution is to grow my own, 3 bulbs planted usually yields a years' worth of garlic for me, and because I have clay soil it has a strong flavor. It's by far the easiest and most rewarding thing I've ever grown.
If that's not your cup of tea then ask a greengrocer to stock a stronger variety of garlic, or order it from an Isle of Wight supplier. Of course, you could just use about 4 times as much to get more flavor.
The comments taken together are essentially an answer.
Not all butter is the same. As SAJ14SAJ said, French butter is normally made from cultured cream, giving it a different flavor. Additionally, the quality of butter depends on the quality of the cream it's made from. So even different brands in your grocery store at home will be different, some more buttery, some lighter, fresher and creamier. It should be no surprise that you managed to buy something different in Paris.
Not all garlic is the same. This isn't really about French vs British garlic. There are many varieties, some with stronger flavors than others. Different ones are grown in different regions, and even the same one grown in different regions will vary a bit. You may well get slightly different varieties throughout the year even in your regular grocery store. So again, don't be surprised that you got something different in Paris.
If you want to reproduce what you made before, you'll have to experiment. You can try different brands of butter; unfortunately, there's some chance that butter like what you had in Paris will be more expensive and perhaps hard to find. You'll also want to shop around and try more varieties of garlic. You should be able to easily notice differences in flavor from just eating a bit raw. It's hard to give specific advice, though - differences in appearance are pretty subtle, and everyone's stores are different. You may want to try specialty stores or farmer's markets.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.592746
| 2013-04-04T19:30:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33237",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dmitry Osinovskiy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve",
"Urla",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77031",
"mehmetseckin",
"rumtscho",
"togel118",
"wiliamjon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19556
|
The bottom of my black cheap pan has worn off and I can now see the metal below where food would go. Is that pan safe to use anymore?
As part of my "kitchen inventory package" my short stay agency gave me for my cooking, there's a pan. After a couple of mistakes (cough using it to heat sauce without adding oil (as instructed!) then not cleaning the pan up immediately) and much cleaning, I can now see I ended up scratching the 'black' off my pan.
Is the pan still safe to use, or do I need to buy a new one? What could go possibly wrong if I did use it and why?
I'm surprised I couldn't find a dupe of this question
Do you have a picture?
@soegaard Not right now I'm afraid.
Is(Was) it non stick?
@badp You should clarify the type of the pan first, whether it is non-stick, cast iron, etc. Indicating only the colour isn't sufficient to decide the type.
@MissesBrown There's no label on it and if there was one it's worn off. I didn't buy the pan. I honestly have no idea :/
I'm going to assume that this is a non-stick coated aluminum (maybe s/s) pan and specifically Teflon or one of the common knock-offs; those are the only types of pans I've seen that are white under the black coating. If you had well-seasoned cast iron, it would be grayish colour (well, iron).
It's not unsafe in the same sense as eating raw meat is unsafe, but there are some things you should know:
The base metal (under the coating), if it is in fact aluminum, now has a reactive surface. That means you won't be able to cook anything with vinegar, wine, tomatoes, or anything acidic, without further damaging the pan and leaching metal into your food.
Once a non-stick coating gets scratched, if there's any left, it also starts to peel, and once it starts peeling then it's very easy for it to get into your food. According to DuPont, the chemical PTFE is inert as long as it is not heated to extreme temperatures, so you shouldn't get seriously ill if you happen to eat a few flakes of it by accident. Make your own decision.
Your non-stick pan almost certainly isn't going to be non-stick anymore, which means that even though it probably won't harm you, it will be a truly awful cooking surface.
On the basis of #3 alone, I'd suggest that you replace it with a new one, especially since it was cheap to begin with.
Now I have to check if it's actually white or not. Well, it's not; it's... metal grey. I'm sorry
@badp: How heavy is the pan, and does a magnet stick to it? Cast iron is pretty easy to spot; it has a porous surface and is heavier than any other kind of cookware. If it's anything other than cast iron then everything stated above still generally applies.
The pan is fairly heavy, heavier that what I've used otherwise. I don't have a magnet handy and I'd rather not try with my hard drive.
@badp: "Fairly heavy" isn't a very precise measure. Trust me, you'll know if it's cast iron because it will be really, really heavy, and again, have a porous, not smooth, surface. If it's just "kinda sorta" heavy and the exterior is steel or some other smooth metal then you don't have cast iron.
A 12" cast iron pan weighs ~8lbs/3.6kg. Varies a little by manufacturer of course, but that should give an idea.
Point 1 needs clarifying. Aluminium is not just reactive with acids but it is one of the few metals that reacts with alkalis also. When exposed to air, it forms an oxide readily which reacts more readily with alkalis than acids. There are bare aluminium pans and cookware available. Most importantly, this point ends with "leaching metal into your food" and begs the question "and?". Cast iron pans leach iron into food too. It is just a fact. Is there an insinuation that this is unsafe?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.593359
| 2011-12-10T11:14:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19556",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Eric",
"Ian Henderson",
"MissesBrown",
"ano",
"badp",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"soegaard",
"talon8",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104997
|
What is the best substitute for sugar when cooking thick jam?
I like cooking my own food and I often try to make it as healthy as possible. I would like to make my own jam with dark red cherries, but recipes often have loads of sugar. There are lots of different recipes without sugar, but they all have different substitutes and I was wondering which was the best substitute, in order to get a thick jam without using sugar.
What is the best substitute for sugar when cooking thick jam?
Without the sugar, its not really jam, and won't be preserved. So you'll need to make quantities you can use quickly and probably keep them in the fridge
@ChrisH actually, only some very traditional jams (1:1 sugar to fruit and higher) are preserved by the sugar, they are practically a type of candy and shelf stable without canning. For the more modern types of jam with higher fruit ratio, it would be the acidity that determines whether you can preserve them by water bath canning. I don't have a source to look up right now, but I would think that fruits cannable as a compote are cannable as a jam.
@rumtscho OK, canning is a possibility as well as refrigerating
The conservation issue aside: It depends heavily on what fruits you want to use. Fruits that contain a lot of fiber might not need any thickening agent to get a good, spreadable consistency. This includes for example certain variants of apples or pears, but also things like plums if you don't discard the skins. The consistency may be a bit different from traditional jam, though.
However, if you have something that contains a lot of water, such as berries, you only have two options: either add pectin or cook it until it reduces very much. The latter option may come with a loss of nutrients and taste, though, so let's concentrate on the pectin.
Normally, when you make jam, you add sugar that is already mixed with pectin to make the process easier. However, pectin can be bought in powder form, too (at least in Germany, you can find it in any better sorted supermarket). Furthermore, some fruits already contain a lot of natural pectin in their skins: black currants are a prime example [1]. If you like the taste and add enough of it, it might be enough to achieve the texture you want.
As for the amount of pectin needed: it depends heavily on what fruits you want to use. Pectin is activated by acid, so you might need to add some kind of acid to your jam to achieve the right consistency. It also needs to be cooked boiling for a few minutes. It's always a trial and error. Before I can my jam i always make a test by dropping a bit of jam into a bowl and put it in the freezer for a minute or two. If it has the right consistency when it is cold, I can it immediately.
Keep in mind though: The sugar is also a major component when it comes to a classic jam texture, so the texture without sugar will be different.
As for the sweetening without sugar: any sweetener should work fine, as long as you like the taste.
[1] side note: my mom once wanted to make black currant juice and instead it turned into jelly by accident. :D It was yummy, but a mess to get out of the bottles.
Edit:
Regarding @rumtscho's comment: There are indeed several different kinds of pectin (I was only vaguely aware of that). Some need sugar to gel. The one I use is specifically marketed for jam production, so maybe that's something to keep in mind when buying pectin powder. In any case: it's worth a try. Just experiment a bit with it and hopefully you'll find what works for you.
This is a very nice answer which explains a lot. I am afraid it misses one important point though: Pectin is quite sensitive to sugar concentration, it has to be in the right range. There are pectin subtypes which work with lower levels of sugar, but you have to seek out those on puropse. In some countries, the subtypes of pectin are labelled, in others, they aren't :(
@rumtscho: Huh, that is indeed true. I never thought about it. Maybe the pectin i always used, is one that doesn't need as much sugar. It is pectin, that is specifically marketed for jam production, so maybe that's why. I made several sugar free jams for my diabetic, jam-loving granddad and never had any problems. :/ But that is certainly something to be aware of!
Well, if you're trying to minimize sugar overall, really the only substitute is low-sugar pectin. You can use grape sugar, or high fructose corn syrup, or other non-sugarcane-derived sugars, but unless you use low-sugar pectin you have to use some kind of sugar or the jam won't thicken properly.
Healthy and jams are often in opposite sides of the scale, since jams are usually known for their high sugary values.
Fruit already has its own natural sugar, called fructose. You could capitalise on this and either add more fructose or simply remove as much water content as possible by slow evaporation. However fructose is, surprisingly to most people, a very caloric sweetener.
Another option would be stevia, an edulcorant. However I am not sure if the resulting jam would be as thick as I don't know how stevia behaves under high temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.593688
| 2020-01-27T20:55:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104997",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Gretel_f",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115951
|
Oven is at the correct temperature but things are baking consistently slower than recipes suggest
I have a weird issue
I moved into a new house recently and I have some old oven in here I bought a thermometer which is hanged inside and it seems like the temperature is correct however, anything I put inside is not baking in the time it should.
For example I have cookies recipe that requires 160 degrees Celsius [=325f] for 10 min, but they are still not fully baked after 17min at 350f or ~22min on 325 [almost done though]
Same for a simple frozen pizza. Instructions are 400 degrees for 18-21mins, but it is close to be done after 25+ mins. The cheese at the top is still not fully melted after that period.
It may sound weird but the only thing I can think of is the baking sheet.
I have: Nordic Ware Natural Aluminum Commercial Baker's Half Sheet, 2 pack, 2-Pack, Silver
Maybe this is not the right sheet for baking and I should have ones from a different material and a different color [in my home country the sheets are black]
For the cookies I also put them after they were in the freezer. They should be cold while going into the oven, but maybe this is too cold and it contributed to the slow process
UPDATE:
Hey! So I checked and only the lower element is working. Here is the catch - The company is claiming that this is the baking element and the top element is the broiling, so only one of them will work at the time. Does this make sense to you all?
@moscafj they do mention that they bought a thermometer and hung it inside the oven, where it reads the expected temperature.
@fyrepenguin....hmmm....missed that. Calibrate the hanging thermometer?
Dial oven thermometers will fail to show severe fluctuations in temperature, which can mess up cooking time. See User14's answer below.
With the update, your question is now a different question. If you're looking for how to get your wonky-by-design oven to perform well, then maybe start that as a new question? BTW, I take it that your oven has no dual-element-bake-and-broil option? If so, your main problem is that you have a terrible oven.
@FuzzyChef LOL ahh no it doesn't seem like it..i think it is an oven from 2014 which i don't think is that old and should support such basic functionality, but it seem like this is my problem and i need a new oven....am i wrong?
Oron: sorry to say, you're right. You need a new, better oven -- one with a fan, and with a dual heat option. That's pretty basic, at least here in the US.
If you can't afford that ... you got room for a countertop oven? Some of those are pretty good.
I edited the title. This doesn't seem to be much of a problem in practice - recipe times are not important for cooking, they are just a guideline to help you planning, in reality you always cook until done. Planning is slightly more difficult, but still well doable, when you have an oven that overshoots by some roughly predictable factor, and the food gets done anyway.
Lower = bake, upper for broil is standard for ovens. If you have a toaster oven, then both would be on when actually using it in the toast mode.
The colour of the baking sheets does have some effect, but not as great an effect as what you're describing. My guess would be that one of the heating elements is broken (probably the top one since you mention cheese not melting). The bottom element can get the oven to the correct temperature, but if heat is only radiating from the bottom that will affect how things bake.
Gonna support this answer because we had exactly this problem with my in-laws' oven, and it turned out that one of the elements was damaged.
The other problem with one element being damaged is that the normal temp fluctuations of the oven, which are usually around +/- 10-15C, get much worse, like +/- 30C. This makes things cook poorly.
Thx for the suggestions! I will check that out tomorrow when I make the pizza. Hopefully this is the problem. That may be the problem, because I didn't even notice the top ones. Expected some light from above but never seen any
Hey! So I checked and only the lower element is working. Here is the catch - The company is claiming that this is the baking element and the top element is the broiling, so only one of them will work at the time. Does this make sense to you all?
@Oron...yes, many ovens operate this way. This is true on my current gas oven, for example.
Thanks @moscafj! but doesn't that mean that I can't really bake? because seems like this is the root cause of my problems where only one of them is working at the time, so how things are being baked properly like simple pizza? : ) Does it mean I need to replace it with an oven that turns them both on when baking? Are there such ovens?
@Oron No...baking is easily accomplished. I (and likely millions of others) do it often in ovens with only a bottom element. ...even pizza.
@moscafj - any tips? cause when only the bottom part working that seem to cause huge problems which are hard to overcome for cakes for example. Cause you can't open an oven while a cake is in there until you are towards the end
@moscafj's gas oven may convect better, but experimenting with different heights (and as I said in my answer, small baking sheets to allow airflow)
Given your update about elements, there are a few things you can do, though neither will be as good as a better oven.
First, use the smallest baking sheet you can, to allow the hot air to circulate. Some frozen pizzas can cook directly on the shelf.
Second, switch elements to finish cooking. Preheat with the bottom element, cook for most of the time, then turn to the top element for a few minutes. Cookies should probably go fairly low down, but pizza can go quite near the top element as browning is good. Cooking your pizza on a preheated pizza stone will help with this method, but it really needs even preheating before using top heat. Some experimenting will be needed, as it's easy to burn things with top heat. For thicker items that cook for longer you might even want to give it a few short bursts of the top element.
Recipes that cook inside preheated heavy pans (cast iron) should be more successful.
Unfortunately this will never be very good for many baking tasks, as the temperature fluctuations will be too great. Adding thermal mass (that pizza stone again) can help.
Thanks a lot @Chris H. Cookies and caked are my main thing and the reason i brought the pizza is that i didn't have to come with any recipe for people to analyze, since this is a very straight forward task
I reckon cookies will be easier than cakes, but will need a little experimenting. I've heard of add-on fans in the past, but can't find a current source.
I've often set the top rack closest to the top of the oven, and cooked pizzas there, but this is more something I do when I'm using a pre-heated pizza stone or tiles. The idea is that some of the heat from that surface gets more directly reflected to the pizza from that direction, and the heat cooking the pizza from below is contained in the stone or tiles, so there's no need to have it closer to the lower heating element.
@PoloHoleSet not for pizza, but for things that don't want as much browning and are taller, like cake, it's easy to overdo the top if switching between elements
I am a professional pastry chef and your manufacturer is correct. The heat from the top is for broiling. All ovens cook differently and you can either adjust the temperature to accommodate your recipes or get your oven recalibrated but if you have heat from the top and bottom you'd just burn the outside before the inside is cooked.
My guess is that your old oven was a convection oven, and your current oven is not. A convection oven has an integrated fan to spread the heat around evenly. I checked a few of my recipes, and 17 minutes at 350 F is actually a reasonable baking time for cookies in a non-convection oven.
The rule of thumb here is that when converting a recipe from convection to standard, you increase the temperature by 25 F, and leave the time constant. This doesn't cover the whole difference, though. If there were a couple other factors (if you moved from a high altitude location to a low altitude location, or had a different sheet style) that would cover the remaining differences. In the end, every oven is different, and you'll need to take some time to figure out those differences.
Thanks for the response. In my home country [and in the rest of the world as well I think] there is no such distinction between convection vs non-convection oven. Baking mode means both heating elements are working [apparently this is called "conventional heating"] which is why i was surprised with my results. The 17min you are talking about cause the bottom of the cookie\pizza to be almost burned, but the the center of cookie or top of pizza not to be fully baked
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.594081
| 2021-06-05T22:19:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115951",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Oron",
"PoloHoleSet",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81300",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100387
|
Dry measurement and conversion to weight
If a recipe calls for 2 1/2 cups of shredded chicken, is that the same as 20 ounces? I'm always confused when it comes to dry ingredient measurements in recipes. Can I simply just convert each cup to 8 ounces?
If a recipe calls for 2 1/2 cups of shredded chicken, I typically throw the recipe away as it shows incompetence by the author.
In general you can't convert volume measures (like cups) into mass measures (like ounces) without taking into account the specific thing you're measuring, because different substances will have different densities in a cup.
If you search online you can find conversions for different common food items but these vary. The website CookItSimply provides a conversion for cooked chopped chicken as 1 cup to 4.4oz; the website FreeFoodTips gives 5.22oz; TraditionalOven.com gives 4.94oz. Note that these are cooked weights, and chicken changes weight as it's cooked.
However, a recipe that incorporates shredded chicken isn't likely to be very sensitive to the exact quantity so I would take the recipe as just giving an indication of the rough amount of chicken to use: think of the amount that would fit in 2.5 cups and go for roughly that amount.
Conversion from volume to weight or vice-versa is different for all foods, so there is no standard rule. One cup to eight ounces only works for foods with the same density as water (it is a reasonable approximation for most liquids e.g. vinegar, milk, wine).
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/ has a printable chart of dozens of foods and weights of different amounts in ounces.
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
Grace Hsui, pastry chef and author of http://www.everybunnyeats.com, says according to the United States Department of Agriculture Food Composition Database, 1 cup of fried or roasted chicken weighs about 5 ounces. This may vary depending on the size of the chicken pieces and how tightly packed they are in the cup. When I went to that Food Composition Database, I did not find a direct way to find this information. I would use 5 oz as the weight of 1 cup of chicken meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.594877
| 2019-07-26T18:49:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100387",
"authors": [
"Christine K",
"Divi",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22649"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28714
|
Where can I find a recipe for less-dense coconut bread?
I was looking for a recipe for coconut flour bread. I found several like this Amazing Paleo recipe. However, all of them are rather flat and seem very dense. I found another site that sells coconut flour bread that looks more like what I'd want. It seems they added baking soda and apple cider vinegar to get the volume (the air bubbles) like you would with yeast.
Is there a recipe for coconut flour bread that's more similar to traditional sandwich bread?
It is quite easy to find the ingredients of the bread from the picture you posted. They are:
Purified Water, Organic Coconut Flour, Egg Whites, Psyllium, Organic Apple Cider Vinegar, Baking Soda.
J.A.I.L.'s answer already explains part of what makes bread texture what it is: you need raw proteins which form a flexible 3-d mesh to trap the air when they set during baking. You also need a thickener combined with water which makes the whole thing soft instead of rubbery. In wheat bread, the proteins are called gluten (actually a mixture of two different types of protein, both coming from the wheat), and the thickener is starch (also coming from the wheat). In the bread you posted, the protein is the egg white, and the thickener is the psyllum mucilage. Coconut flour doesn't even come into play; it consists mostly of fat and some fiber, but the fiber is not of the rare thickening kind (as opposed to psyllum fiber). It contains nothing helpful for the bread structure, so they obviously use it as a filler. Of course, it will provide you a pleasant mouthfeel, aroma and lots of calories; it just won't give you a bread-like structure.
Conclusion: Trying to build a bread recipe around any nut flour is totally wrong. You have to search for a recipe which has the right balance of protein source, thickening agent and leavening agent. Once you have found it, you can substitute your favorite nut flour (or some other food item) as a filler. By the way, making such recipes from scratch is very hard, because you need not only the combination of ingredients (in this example, it is easily found), but also the correct ratio, and the correct timing for mixing and baking; these artificially-constructed combinations are nowhere as forgiving as wheat doughs when it comes to leavening. I would suggest looking for existing recipes. Sadly, it would be off-topic to give you one here, even if I had one, but I can give you a tip for your search: stay away from the ones which don't have all three things: leavening agent, protein and thickener.
Probable protein sources are: eggs, vital wheat gluten, possibly extracted soy protein (if you can get a source for its raw form). Probable thickeners are: anything described in this e-book. As for leavening mechanisms, the Wikipedia article should give you enough pointers. If you find a recipe which has one of each, it is likely to end up puffy. I must warn you that alternative thickeners have a mouthfeel which is very different from starch, so most breads made from such recipes will probably be much less soft/cottony than white wheat bread, and some of them might have a slightly rubbery or gooey feel. But the good ones will have a decent approximation of bread texture.
Coconut flour has no gluten and (almost) no starches. Those two are the ones that "catch" the gas bubbles in traditional wheat or rye breads.
If your coconut bread has some alveoli is because the bubbles created by the acid+base reaction (vinegar+soda) need some time to escape from the dough, as it has a thick consistency. They are trapped in the dough as it gets baked before they can escape.
To get a consistency more similar to "normal" bread you can use the tricks gluten free bread bakers use. Search for gluten free bread recipes and you'll find they add ingredients to grab the air bubbles, such as pectin, starches+, agar agar, guar gum, ... among others. That way they can even user yeasts as a leavening agent.
+ Maybe you are using coconut flour because you are avoiding starches. There are many gluten free recipes that don't use them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.595093
| 2012-11-28T05:39:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28714",
"authors": [
"Aja",
"Courtney David",
"David S.",
"Neal",
"Resistance is Futile",
"Royal Baker",
"Sandra Denton",
"benoliver999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67100",
"user62568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55464
|
Can I make baked veal more soft?
I usually cook meat in a steamer or multicooker, and it gets very soft. This time I've decided to experiment and baked a big chunk of veal stuffed with garlic in the oven.
Not that result was dissapointing, but it is definitely far from what I've expected. It tastes more like, well, cold boiled pork. So its very dry.
My question is - can I "save" the situation and convert already baked chunk of meat to something that tastes let it put this way more soft?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42714/67
Depending on how far overcooked it is, then you might be able to resuscitate it by cutting it into smaller pieces and cooking it low and slow in some liquid.
For example, you could use it as the meat in a stew, or slice it thinly and then braise it with some vegetable to make a pot-roast.
This also gives you an opportunity to introduce additional flavor, as it sounds as if that may have been lacking as well.
And I forgot to mention -- when slicing it, you want to cut across the grain, as this will have a major impact on how easy it is to chew. (even if you don't cook it for additional time., but moreso if you cook it further).
When I mess up a roast (I screwed up brisket for years), I would shred it and make some chili with some added ground meat.
Slicing super thin and putting it on a sammy with some mayo or horseradish can mask the toughness as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.595437
| 2015-03-06T22:44:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55464",
"authors": [
"Alexander Gray",
"Emma Louise Macdonald",
"Joe",
"Magda El Sehrawi",
"Richard Murphy",
"Sakeena Begum",
"Siobhan McKeating",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131811",
"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
}
|
103077
|
Is it okay to leave cooked octopus in water till next morning?
I've cooked octopus in a boiling water (well, more like in own juice to be more precise) like I usually do and than I've realized that I'm too tired and going to eat it tomorrow morning. My question is: what would be the better option - to take it out of water or to keep it there?
I don't now what happens with cooked octopus left in a water for about 8-10 hours.
Just to clarify - it's question about keeping it in water and not about room temp. In my experience nothing happens with a hot pot slowly boiling down till morning - however I am actually going to put it to refrigerator after all.
I assume you mean that this will be under refrigeration? Maybe clarify your question.
@moscafj actually, most likely not, it's cold enough to keep it till morning not in refrigerator.
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
I think there are two questions here: (a) should it be kept at room temp (probably not, and thus a duplicate), and (b) is it better to store cooked octopus in the cooking water or not (under refrigeration - this is an interesting question).
@moscafj edited the question to make it clear that it's actually about b, so it's not a dup.
I've realized that the price of mistake is not the high anyways so I've just divided cooked octopus to two parts: one left in water, another one not. This morning I finally have an answer!
It's better to take cooked octopus out of water but it won't be a tragedy if you didn't.
While both meals were tasty, octopus left in water was slightly slimy - it was a very subtle difference however noticeable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.595613
| 2019-10-25T20:59:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103077",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj",
"shabunc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29146
|
Can almond milk be used as a sauce base?
Last night I tried to make a dipping sauce for boiled artichoke for my wife and I using almond milk as a base.
3/4 cups almond milk
garlic clove
the lemon juice from half a lemon
salt and pepper
While the concoction was downright terrible, it got me thinking two things:
1) Does anyone have a sauce recipe, to be used to dip artichoke leaves in, that utilizes almond milk as a base?
Objectives:
> Light almond flavor
> Mild enough in general to still taste the natural flavors of the artichoke 'meat'
- In other words, I'm not looking for a ranch replacement here
> More of a 'melted butter' replacement
2) Is my recipe remotely salvageable (was I close)? Based on the comments, I can see how this is pretty vague: Essentially, I'm asking if almond milk is a good start at all. What I made tasted awful, but the ingredients made sense in my head (and even more so when I subbed the almond milk out with olive oil and added some cracked pepper).
EDIT: No one actually ate the mixture, we ended up doing olive oil, salt and pepper, and garlic which turned out okay :)
It almost looks like you wanted a Hollandaise-type sauce which is what I prefer to dip artichoke leaves into. Hollandaise is made with egg, butter, lemon juice, salt and pepper. There is no milk in the sauce so that wouldn't be good for your almond milk usage. There are many Hollandaise sauce recipes readily available on the internet. I just like eating my oatmeal or cold cereal with almond milk! :-)
Almond milk based sauces are commonly documented in medieval recipes, back then they liked to use breadcrumbs for thickening.
It's very difficult to give you any specific advice on this without really understanding what it is you're trying to achieve. To get to destination B you have to have a starting point A!
What are you trying to achieve here?
Have you said, hey I've got this bottle of Almond Milk I have to use up, perhaps I'll try and make a dipping sauce with it? That's a fun way to do things (I do it a lot) or are you saying, hey I really like the subtle flavour of Almonds, I'd really like to try and make a dipping sauce with that flavour in it?
Almond milk in itself suggests more of a coating sauce than a dipping sauce, along the lines of the foundation sauces I would perhaps experiment with starting with a roux (fat and flour) and creating a sauce with your almond milk ala Bechamel.
Now you've clarified what you're trying to achieve, I think I would definitely try the roux method first. As I said, I think there are two ways to go here, using a roux as a base and creating an almond butter.
You'll have to do a fair bit of experimentation here, but isn't that half the fun of cooking in the first place? I find that with even established printed recipes, I have to cook it a few times before I fully understand what's going on, so expect to make a few runs though tweaking ingredient amounts etc before you're fully satisfied.
Start by making a basic roux based sauce using the almond milk. The basic ratio for this is 1 cup milk to 1 tablespoon butter (or oil or even almond butter) to 1 tablespoon of flour. Again you could experiment with these ingredients - try almond butter or part almond butter with butter. Try normal flour, or part almond flour etc. You may need to tweak the quantities for your own tastes, less roux and more milk for a thinner sauce, more roux, less milk for a thicker sauce.
The beauty of this is you can tweak the ingredients to acheive the desired thickness of the sauce almost from a runny coating sauce to a thicker dipping sauce.
You could try simmering the sauce with other ingredients to tweak the colour/flavour - saffron, cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg, sugar, for a sweeter sauce or peppercorns, bay leaf, pinch of salt and white pepper for a more savoury one.
Don't be afraid to experiment and try out different things till you achieve your objective, cooking is meant to be fun!
I can see how the question could be interpreted as vague. I have edited accordingly. Thanks for the post!
I still don't feel you've made yourself clear. It seems to me you're determined to use Almond Milk and simply want someone to give you a recipe. I don't think that's what this site is for.
Thanks so much for the feedback. This is my first post on this site, and I didn't realize the "what I'm going for" factor is so important. Edited again.
You're quite welcome. It can take a little while to get the hang of this place I admit. Your re-edit has made things clearer as to what you're trying to achieve.
Great!! Thanks for the edits! I'll be referencing this post next time for sure!
You're quite welcome. Just following the instructions for making a basic Bechamel sauce, except you'll be making yours with almond milk! :)
We use almond milk for Bechamel sauce frequently due to a dairy allergy, and while it does have a slight nutty undertone (to be expected), it's mild enough that other strong flavors can easily mask it. Like a dairy Bechamel, an almond Bechamel is very versatile :D
It is a little difficult to answer your question about whether or not almond milk can be used as a dipping sauce base. Sure, it could be used as a base. But what were you looking to make?
If you are looking to make something like a creamy sauce with a non-dairy milk alternative, almond milk is a good replacement for the dairy you would use. However, if you were looking for more of a thin dipping sauce, you may want to consider something more along the lines of a vegetable or meat broth base with your seasoning.
Hope you make out alright with your next almond milk experiment!
Thanks Charx, I added a little more direction to the question to help you guys out! Thanks for the feedback!
Great! Looks like @spiceyokooko has you covered :)
Since you desire to keep the sauce mild and keep the almond flavor you could also think about adding some sort of thickening agent such as xantham gum or guar gum. These would add to the body and mouth feel of the sauce while not adding or muting any of the flavors present in whatever recipe you use. I would start with as little as 0.1% by weight of the xanthan and go up from there to get your desired mouth feel and if you choose guar gum you would likely have to double the concentration as it has different thickening strength.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.595783
| 2012-12-13T14:33:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29146",
"authors": [
"Chalise",
"Erica",
"Farmer Margie",
"Jerry",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mary Jeba Princy",
"Rickitty Rowe",
"Sarah Sonnier",
"Thewitchmaker",
"Trisha Landon",
"Vũ Thị Thanh Lâm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67602",
"jwmann13",
"rackandboneman",
"sacredfaith",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77502
|
What reasons might make day-old pastry the preferred choice in these recipes?
Almond croissants ("croissants aux amandes") are a French pastry sold in every bakery.
Several websites (FR) describe (FR) recipes using croissants that were baked the day before.
Is there something specific to puff pastries that might result in a better taste when using it the day after it has been cooked? Or is it just to salvage leftover food?
Thank you, I'll remove the whole comment thread as obsolete then
It may be a matter of texture, rather than taste.
The recipes you link involve putting a wet paste on top of a previously baked croissant.
Most baked goods change in texture after sitting out for a few days, mostly because they get drier. If you want to turn bread into crumbs or croutons, for example, you slice it and let it dry out before processing it.
By letting the croissants sit for a day or two, their surface will become harder, and they won't get soggy when the almond paste is applied.
It can also be a way for a bakery to use unsold items, so it doesn't go to waste.
@Joe partial answers are answers in their own right! If you have more reasons, you can add them in an answer. And you'll also get upvotes for them.
You will often have recipes that are developed specifically to use up items as they get older and have lost some of their qualities as compared to when they're fresh.
Old bread can be turned into Pan Perdu ("Lost Bread", aka "French Toast"), croutons, or bread crumbs. Although any of these dishes can be made from fresh bread, they often work better with older, dryer bread.
It's very likely that this recipe was devised as a way for the bakery to use unsold croissants. Although they could be used in a bread pudding, that wouldn't be something that a bakery could sell as a sort of grab-and-go type thing.
It's quite possible that bakeries now intentionally make more croissants than they expect to sell in a day, if they can get a sufficient premium for the almond croissants to make up for it.
For home cooks to end up with a similar result, they'd also want to use day-old croissants to get the proper texture. If you tried to spread the paste on a fresh croissant, you'd end up squishing it as they're quite soft. Although day-old croissant aren't as firm as toast would be, it'd be easier to spread something on. And as John Feltz mentioned, you'd also have more problems if the croissant soaked up significant moisture from the paste (making the croissant even more squishy).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.596291
| 2017-01-16T16:28:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77502",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13945
|
How do you minimize cake doming?
Possible Duplicate:
How to make a cake lift equally?
I'm working on a layer cake for a birthday and did a test run today since I really have no experience with baking cakes. I had some severe doming issues - I'm actually not sure if the cake rose at all on the sides from where the batter was when it was initially poured into the (9" round dark nonstick metal) pan.
As this is a layer cake I really need a flat cake - what can I do to eliminate or at least minimize doming?
I'm aware that I can cut the dome off but I'm trying to minimize the amount of shaping that needs to be done.
This was answered well very recently: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13167/how-to-make-a-cake-lift-equally
I would just suggest that the previous question have its title modified as it is not really searchable as-is (which is why I ended up asking it again - because I couldn't find it in a search before asking).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.596508
| 2011-04-11T02:33:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13945",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"JoelC",
"Library Admin",
"Mike Townsend",
"Ryan Elkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29255",
"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
}
|
5163
|
Correct way to join two halves of sponge cake?
When you join two halves of sponge cake (as in this photo) which way round are you supposed to do it? The instructions I've used seem to assume what comes out of your two cake tins are two fairly even, level cakes.
In my case I always get quite domed results.
Am I supposed to
a) squish the top one down on top of the bottom and disguise the poor join with filling
OR
b) turn the bottom one over, for a good join, but a wobbly cake, but sort of works if you firm the bottom one down
OR
c) cheat and slice off the dome of the bottom cake
I'm a fan of B, but I prefer the domed top to the one in the photo you give. Mine turn out more like this. I guess one advantage of trimming the cake is that there are left over bits for the cook to nibble!
I've actually done some cake decorating (non-professional, but I did take a few classes), and I'll go with an option you didn't give:
Only bake one cake and split it in half (reduce the temperature of the oven, longer time, and if necessary, use cooling strips).You'll likely need taller pans for this -- you'll want light colored aluminum, 3" high for most general purposes. (dark pans absorb heat too quickly, so the sides set before it's risen properly). Level the cake (trim the domed-ness of the cake off), and stack the cake upside down, so you have the nice cake-pan edge on the top layer.
If the cake is too far domed, trimed it down some and save the removed bit. Stack the cakes (again, upside down), crumb coat it, and take the removed cake, crumble it up into some icing, and then pipe that as a sort of filler around the bottom of the cake. to make up the gap.
If you're going to be filling the cake with something like a pudding or custard, stack the first layer like your answer C, pipe a ring of icing around the edge to hold it in, fill the custard in, then stack what had originally been the bottom of the cake (again, upsde down). But make sure to make it thick enough in consistency, and thin enough in height -- I had an incident once where it formed a slip-plane, and the cake started ejecting the top layer off of slices.
To level the cake, you have two options -- they make special devices for doing it, which is basically a wire cutter on adjustable legs, that you can pull through the cake at a fixed height. (also works for splitting the cake so you can then fill and stack it), but if you have a good long knife, a fairly steady hand, and a turn-table, you can:
put the cake on the turn table.
holding the knife steady, spin the cake and move the knife slowly in towards the center.
I find that a plastic cutting mat works pretty well to help get in there and take the layers of cake off after you've split them.
If you're going to be stacking cakes very tall, you'll want to use a pound cake recipe, or augment a boxed cake mix -- add in a box of instant pudding to firm up the resultant cake.
Another way to cut that I have used is either thread or dental floss. Circle the cake, then slowly pull through. Makes a nice clean and even cut.
@sdg : as the thread isn't going to leave as clean of a cut, I'd recommend taking a pastry brush and sweeping of any loose crumbs you might get from it, so they don't get in your icing. (the crumb coat can only do so much)
Most cake decoraters I know use option three. I don't know why you would consider paring a cake down into the size and shape you want to be cheating, as that's how all those awesomely accurate occasion cakes are done.
You can also cut down on the doming by using a silicon spatula and pressing the batter up the sides a bit and leaving an indentation in the middle.
This is also what I was thinking (option c), until I read Joe's answer. If Joe's isn't doable (too much extra hardware to buy, etc..), I like your response and additional ideas.
@Chad : you don't have to buy extra pans, or even a piping bag (if you're willing to fold wax paper, and possibly get messy if it goes wrong) If you're going to use two pans, lower the heat by 25F / ~14C degrees, level them both, and probably stack them top-sides together (so the top layer is upside down, but not the bottom layer), and sort of spackle in any gap w/ icing. But I wouldn't skimp on a turn-table (I use a lazy susan I got for maybe $10), as it'll let you turn the cake while holding the spatula still as you smooth the sides.
@chad joe's answer is going to give you much more consistent results. Mine was more the lazy cook that hates baking answer. Basically, use joe's for professional results, only use mine when you are doing a cake on the quick.
I use option b but with two slight differences. To get less domed cakes in the first place I spread the mixture out in the tin and create a slight dip in the mixture before it goes in. I then cool my cakes dome down on the cake rack which seems to make the dome less pronounced.
I have baked a lot of cakes for birthdays, weddings etc. Early on this happened to me a lot.
I always multiply up the recipe to be one inch bigger than the size tin I'm using. I then cut the domes off the cake. Do this for each cake.
The reason why I make slightly more mixture than I would otherwise need is to get a completely flat cake you cut off quite a bit of the cake and it can sometimes end up a bit short - this method ensures the cake is still of sufficient height, especially if you're covering the cake with fondant and want a flat base.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.596640
| 2010-08-14T01:14:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5163",
"authors": [
"2ekoi7",
"Chad",
"David Mcgilbra",
"Joe",
"Liang The",
"Sergio Romero",
"Sidhi Ciang",
"dumbledad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"sarge_smith",
"sdg",
"stackptr"
],
"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
}
|
7588
|
Why do some recipes call for sugar in a brine?
In making a brine for my chicken, I came across a lot of recipes that call for sugar in the brine. I understand the general idea behind brining, but don't understand what benefit the sugar provides.
In this answer, @papin links to a PDF that states the following (emphasis mine):
The law of diffusion states that the salt and sugar will naturally flow from the area of greater concentration (the brine) to lesser concentration (the cells). There is also a greater concentration of water, so to speak, outside of the turkey than inside. Here, too, the water will naturally flow from the area of greater concentration (the brine) to lesser concentration (the cells). When water moves in this fashion, the process is called osmosis. Once inside the cells, the salt and, to a lesser extent, the sugar cause the cell proteins to unravel, or denature. As the individual proteins unravel, they become more likely to interact with one another. This interaction results in the formation of a sticky matrix that captures and holds moisture.
This makes it sound like sugar isn't really an important part of the osmosis process.
Is there a chemical/molecular reason to add the sugar, or is it just to add some flavor to the chicken breast?
The sugar is simply used for flavoring; the fact that it helps brine to a lesser extent is just an added bonus. The sugar also aids in browning via the Maillard reaction, though this can also result in burning in a high heat application.
I suggest brining two boneless skinless chicken breasts -- one in a salt-only brine and the other with the salt & sugar brine suggested by Cook's Illustrated. You should notice a difference in both flavor and appearance.
@roux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction You'll see that sugar has everything to do with the Maillard reaction; the reaction cannot even happen in the absence of sugar. You'll see this and other detailed information in the section titled "Foods and products with Maillard reactions".
According to wikipedia, the Maillard reaction is a chemical reaction between and amino acid and a reducing sugar, using requiring heat. Note that sucrose (table sugar) is not a reducing sugar. So if that is what is in the brine, is has nothing to do with Maillard.
@Mark: The assumption you make in your last sentence is incorrect. Sucrose, along with all of the other polysaccharides still participate in the Maillard reaction, albeit with much less noticeable effect. This is noted in great detail here, here, and here. The latter of which is an actual reference for the very high level Wikipedia article.
Sugar is for seasoning. While the law of diffusion does indeed say that a solute (sugar, salt) will flow down its concentration gradient from and area of high concentration to an area of low concentration there is one fact you seem to negate which is the cell membrane within which the muscle proteins are encased. The cell membrane is impermeable to passive transport by diffusion of salt and sugar. Both these substances must be actively transported into the cell. So in a live organism water (which can easily pass in and out of cell through aquaporin proteins) would leave the cell and eventually crenate (dehydrate). However, since this animal is no longer living the cell membranes have broken down to some degree and the barrier to salt transport is relieved. The salt solution would disrupt cell membrane transport proteins and sort of punch holes in the muscle tissue allowing salt and sugar tot enter. The salt will interfere with the chemical bonding that keeps the muscle proteins shaped the way they need to be to function. This is called denaturing. The unfolded protein can now form bonds with the Cl and Na ions and water will form hydration shells around the proteins thus hydrating the meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.597212
| 2010-09-24T14:21:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7588",
"authors": [
"Jennie Dalgas",
"Mast",
"Soul",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"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
}
|
5884
|
Should I flip a roasting chicken in lieu of having a rotisserie?
I don't have a rotisserie, but would love to impart some of the flavor that seems to come with rotisserie cooking. The rotisserie chickens I've had were significantly juicier and more flavorful than the roasted chickens I've had in the past - plus the skin seems to be much crispier all the way around.
I feel that besides the crispier skin, one of the benefits of using a rotisserie is that the filling (herbs, garlic, etc - but specifically liquids like lemon) will coat the entire inside while the bird rotates, instead of just "sitting still at the bottom" during roasting.
Will flipping the chicken during roasting help with a more even crispy skin?
Will flipping the chicken affect/enhance the flavoring that comes from what I put inside the chicken?
If I should flip it, how often?
I should add that the chicken won't be sitting in liquid, I use a modified version of this recipe, which may make a difference when answering.
I am aware of this question about rotisserie beef, which is about why a rotisserie is better, but does not seem to address how one can get closer to a rotisserie style chicken in the oven. Tim's answer is related, but assumes the chicken is sitting in liquid, and mine will not be.
You can make your own rotisserie with a cheap cordless drill and some other stuff you can nab from a hardware store. Good project if you have an evening free :)
That is a great idea - I love projects. Obviously I won't have enough time to do it for tonight's dinner, but this is something I would love to try and didn't even consider. Thank you for the suggestion!
http://cruftbox.com/blog/archives/001184.html and http://deadpopstar.com/?p=120 are interesting. You'll have to improvise a bit depending on what you have around and what your goals are.
There are two general approaches to making chicken juicy in the oven. The first is to cook a short time at a high temperature. For example, Barbara Kafka's recipe for roast chicken
calls for cooking the chicken at 500 degrees F for less than an hour.
The second option is to cook at a low temperature for a very long time. This recipe calls for cooking for an hour at 250 degrees F, with a high heat sear at the beginning and end of the time. Even more extreme is this recipe, which cooks at 140 degrees F for 4-6 hours. However, low heat will not give the yummy crisp skin.
Neither of these requires flipping the chicken.
However, if you really want the crispiness of the skin, flipping is the way to go. Two recipes from Cooks Illustrated (one and two) both call for high heat and a couple of flips. (As does Barbara Kafka's recipe for cut-up chicken, which I make all the time. Season the chicken, and put in a 500 degree F oven for 10 minutes, flip, 10 more minutes, flip, and 10 or more minutes or until the skin is crispy.)
If you want to go with the classics, Julia Child's recipe for roast chicken from also calls for turning the chicken onto different sides. She also bastes frequently, although the above recipes don't call for it.
Much of the other material I've seen says that the key to getting the skin on birds really crispy is to make sure it's dry. If you look at traditional recipes for Peking Duck, which has incredibly crispy skin, they will hang the uncooked duck in a windy place for several hours to dry out the skin as much as possible. So you may want to leave the chicken in the refrigerator for several hours unwrapped before roasting. That will help the skin dry out nicely.
It sounds a bit like the recipes calling for flipping to crisp the skin are just replacing basting with sitting it down in the juices. Either one should work. I find basting a lot easier.
After reading this, I tried flipping the chicken just to see how it worked, and turning over a hot 8lb bird is not an easy task. After the first flip I resorted to basting it, which worked great once I cranked the heat up to 450. Thanks for the info and the links, learned quite a bit about different variations on a simple roasting method!
When I roast chicken or turkey, I dry the skin as much as I can with paper towels then apply a liberal amount of kosher salt. Roast at a high temperature as quickly as possible (checking internal temp) and you'll get a very juicy result with crisp skin. That said, it isn't as juicy as a supermarket rotisserie, but sometimes they're too wet for me.
There are two other methods (not mentioned in other answers) to roast a chicken evenly without a rotisserie.
Spatchckocked or butterflied chicken
Removing the backbone and laying the poultry with skin up, breaking the sternum (breastbone) pressing with the palm of the hand.
The roast is faster and even. All parts of the poultry will cook to the same level (making the breast more juicy), and more of the skin is exposed.
Vertical roasting holder
You can use one of those devices that allows the chicken to be placed vertically in the oven. It allows the chicken to roast evenly on all sides. You should watch carefully or the breast may overcook and get dry. Also you should open a cavity in the neck to allow the flow of air inside the chicken.
Love butterflying poultry. It's the only way I cook whole birds now.
I'd baste it regularly - that's essentially what rotisserie is doing, continual basting. Have a pizza stone or something similar in the oven to reduce the loss of heat from opening the door.
I wonder if you could put the chicken between two stones to get better heat distribution...
I don't think it'd make a significant difference, but couldn't hurt to try.
I actually do keep my pizza stone in the oven, usually at the bottom. This time, I put it on the top rack, as close to the chicken as possible. I'm not sure if it was that, or the fact that I cooked it at a very high temperature for the last 15 minutes, but I definitely had crispier skin than I've ever gotten via roasting before.
I wonder if you were getting some radiant heat from the stone.
I have done at least one roast chicken recipe where I started the chicken wrong-way and flipped it right-way mid roasting for crispier skin. It definitely makes a difference. The recipe I used, which I don't have access to, changed temperature part way to keep the breast from getting too dry.
For succulent roast chicken you should try a chicken brick, they give amazing results and with one it is virtually impossible to mess up the roast, they are essential IMHO.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.597563
| 2010-08-24T16:24:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5884",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"CMPalmer",
"Martha F.",
"Sobachatina",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64368",
"rusty bacon",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5343
|
Does microwaving destroy nutrients in food?
After answering this article, I did some research on microwaving killing vitamins and nutrients in food.
I very quickly learned that this is a touchy subject, even among nutritionists, and nobody (at least, nobody I saw) seems to have a "this is the science behind it and here is a definite answer" answer. Some articles claim "there is no hard evidence" while others point to studies from Stanford and other respected institutions that back the "yes" answer.
Some quick articles with conflicting information, if you're only going to read one please read the first and last as they seem the most reputable to me:
The Straight Dope: Scientists are not sure yet, but it's likely in some cases
Microwaving can be like boiling, which kills nutrients
Microwaving is the best way of cooking for preserving nutrients
Microwaving hurts broccoli, but is good for potatoes
Harvard: Microwaving may preserve nutrients, like Vitamin C
As an interesting note, the "use less water" idea, which most of us take as common sense when cooking vegetables, may also be under scrutiny. From the Harvard article above:
But this is nutrition, and nothing in
nutrition is simple. Italian
researchers published results in 2008
of an experiment comparing three
cooking methods — boiling, steaming,
and frying — and the effect they had
on the nutritional content of
broccoli, carrots, and zucchini.
Boiling carrots actually increased
their carotenoid content, while
steaming and frying reduced it.
Carotenoids are compounds like lutein,
which may be good for the eyes, and
beta carotene. One possible
explanation is that it takes longer
for vegetables to get tender when
they’re steamed, so the extra cooking
time results in more degradation of
some nutrients and longer exposure to
oxygen and light.
So, my questions are: Is microwaving known to kill nutrients in foods? Is there a way to minimize this effect? Can any nutritionists weigh in here with their experience, and ideally, the science behind their answers? This has been a very confusing research path full of conflicting information, so all answers are appreciated.
I realize that this may end up being a list of "this food is fine in the microwave, but this food loses all its value", but I'm trying to avoid that and look for a general case here. The article KeithB points to says this: "Recent reports reveal that cooking vegetables in a microwave oven leads to a greater loss of soluble phenolic antioxidant compounds than does conventional cooking.
However, this appears to have been at least partly due to the use of more cooking water than is necessary with microwaves." This is the kind of answer I'm looking for, "use less water for maximum retention".
edited to remove [health] and [nutrition] and add [food-science] as per this discussion: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/613/difference-between-health-and-nutrition-tags
Anything that breaks down due to heat is going to break down no matter HOW you cook it. Boiling only "destroys" nutrients by leaching them away into the water, which is the same reason that other people say that steaming/microwaving is better.
Thiamine, for example, is highly water soluble, so boiling is out. But it also breaks down at 100C, so you can't really cook it either. Niacin, on the other hand, leeches into water, but it's not heat-sensitive, so you can cook the hell out of it, as long as you don't get it wet. Folate is so fragile you can't leave your leafy greens in the sun without it breaking down (common with acids).
Basically, almost everything is better uncooked, but a lot of things are impossible to eat if you don't cook them enough to break down the cellulose. So eat a balanced diet, and stop worrying about the microwave.
Comment appreciated, and some good info. I do understand that anything that breaks down due to heat is going to break down no matter how you cook it, but if you read the fourth article in my question, there seems to be research implying that how the microwave heats causes more nutrients to be lost than normal heating methods. FTA: doctors at Stanford University...reported that microwaving frozen breast milk sharply reduced the potency of the natural infection-fighting agents it contained. "The adverse effects...are difficult to explain on the basis of hyperthermia [high heat] alone,"
Edit: I rearranged the links in the question so the most important was on top, now please refer to my first link, not my fourth. Forgot I can't edit comments after a certain time.
@stephenmcdonald: There's nothing magical about microwaves. It's just your basic EMF. Microwaves affect b12, but so does sunlight. It's better for spinach, however, than stovetop cooking. I hesitate to weigh in on breast milk because everyone has an opinion, but there aren't a whole lot of facts. One thing is certain, however, which is that breast milk being high in fats and proteins, will heat unevenly in the microwave. The water content will heat much more rapidly, and that may cause some issues. It's also a very high degree of heating, not slow as with a bottle warmer.
Without answering the question I would like to make a brief digression into physics:
Microwaves work by exciting the rotational modes of water molecules, after which the energy is distributed into all the available kinetic modes (this is called the equipartition theorem and is very well established). That randomized kinetic energy is called "heat".
The microwaves are very low energy, orders of magnitude below ionization and still far below the threshold for almost all chemistry. They can only do their work at all because the rotational modes are very low lying states.
This is very basic physics and it is not in question.
What that means is that they heat food up. For food with low water content they do so fairly evenly through a considerable thickness. For foods with a high water content the heating happens more towards the surfaces, but still penetrates a non-trivial distance.
From a fundamental point of view there is no reason to believe that this will cause more nutrient destruction than any other form of heating.
Good info, love the physics answer, thank you. However it seems like your answer (the part about penetration) actually implies that there is a difference - some of the articles I've read say that because food cooks faster and more thoroughly in a microwave (in the sense that it reaches the inside faster), it may retain nutrients better than other methods that cook from the outside in (see Harvard link). Although that lends to nutrients being spared with the microwave as opposed to lost, at the very least it implies a difference between cooking methods.
Isn't it true that microwaves heat up little spots much hotter then other spots. Thats why you have to leave the food inside the microwave for a while so the heat can spread through the food. The hot spots might destroy more vitamins etc. then just cooking it.
@Barfieldmv: If you've used a lot of microwaves you probably noted that some have a more pronounced nodal behavior then others, but even in the worst case the effect is roughly one of heating half the volume (in cm scale patches). The important question is do the anti-nodes (hot spots) get hotter than they would if cooked by conventional techniques. For high water food the answer is almost certainly "no".
I'm more curious about the molecule level. Water molecules get super hot and have to dissipate the heat around the rest of the food. Sure this heat spreads quickly but it might just damage nutrients. This is a bit like normal radiation is mostly harmless but it might just destroy you're dna. And oxygen Ions are mostly harmless but they can damage you're cells.
I think that the question is phrased poorly. For some foods and some cooking methods, the answer might be yes, to some extent. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't cook anything in a microwave.
Here is an overview article from Australia's national science agency
Safety of Microwave Ovens. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any links to the primary literature.
The majority of reports published on
the nutritive value of foods cooked in
microwave ovens indicate that food
prepared in this manner is at least as
nutritious as comparable food cooked
by conventional methods.
Most of these studies have
concentrated on vitamin retention and
indicate that cooking in minimal water
for a reduced time, as occurs with
microwaving, promotes the retention of
the water-soluble vitamins
particularly of vitamin C and thiamin.
I didn't want to phrase it as a "which foods lose nutrients when microwaved" question because I'm not a huge fan of list questions, but that might be applicable here. If everyone finds my question difficult to answer I'll gladly consider rewording it :)
Also, don't worry, I never said not to cook anything in the microwave - we use our microwave quite a bit in my house as my wife and I both work long hours. :) I'm just curious about what I may be missing if I'm microwaving broccoli vs steaming it (for example). The article you link to also says this: "Recent reports reveal that cooking vegetables in a microwave oven leads to a greater loss of soluble phenolic antioxidant compounds than does conventional cooking." It says that it's due to overuse of water - but since this is how a lot of people use their microwave, it's a concern IMO.
BTW - thank you for the link, I hadn't come across that one myself!
According to a recent article (summarized here), microwave vs stovetop does not affect the nutrient contents of vegetables. Two things affect the nutrient content: intensity of heat and volume of water used in cooking:
"Nutrients tend to be both heat-intolerant and water-soluble," the
article says, which means that any method that requires a) cooking at
a high temperature for a long time, and b) uses a lot of water will
result in the greatest nutrient loss. (So by this measure, boiling
vegetables is likely the worst offender.) It goes without saying then
that cooking at a lower temperature for a shorter amount of time and
with less water would result in the least amount of nutrients lost,
and that's what the microwave accomplishes.
This means that the microwave is actually better at preserving nutrients than boiling the veggies (though steaming is also a significant improvement, and if you boil them inside a soup where you drink the broth, you lose very little as well).
Not part of the answer, but additional info: this isn't too much in the way of new information, but the question asked for sources and this hit my rss feed today, so I figured I'd toss it in.
Just submitting this article on LIVESTRONG.COM for consideration: http://www.livestrong.com/article/371758-the-effects-of-microwaving-on-food/
It states that microwaving has no more adverse affect than traditional cooking methods, and that your body will also denature proteins and nutrients (breakdown) in its digestion process; your body does not simply consume proteins and nutrients as is.
Heating is the culprit to be concerned with, and the length of which food is heated for. The longer, the more denaturing occurs; and because microwaves cook food faster, it has less of an adverse affect. The only negative affect of heating food, according to this article, is that it reduces vitamin content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.598102
| 2010-08-17T14:56:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5343",
"authors": [
"Alex Chamberlain",
"Barfieldmv",
"Big George",
"BunjiquoBianco",
"Chandra Mendis",
"Eric B.",
"Evan",
"Jeff Wu",
"John",
"RobinHood",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tahmina",
"Yamikuronue",
"cadrell0",
"consequence007",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"edi9999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69712",
"javaJammer",
"rickibarnes",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user6120"
],
"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
}
|
27909
|
why use a pressure cooker for collagen to gelatin conversion?
I was watching S13E16 of Good Eats and to cook his chicken for "chicken and dumplings", he places an old hen (instead of a rooster) in the pressure cooker at the maximum temperature & pressure. I've done a bit of searching and it seems pressure cookers are recommended for stocks since it can denature collagen in the connective tissues in tough meats and other pieces to gelatin faster.
This makes sense, except I thought the whole point of slow roasting (and indeed sous-vide) is to use low temperatures over a long period of time for collagen to gelatin conversion.
Why is the low temperature needed in this, and the high temperature needed for the pressure cooker? It seems a bit contradictory. If the higher temp and pressure is better, we should be able to sous-vide in a pressure cooker too.
Sous-vide and slow-roasting (or braising) have different purposes. Slow roasting still gets things pretty hot (generally at least to 100C), and tenderizes tough meat. Sous-vide cooks things barely at the temperature they require to be fully-cooked, which makes it really good for tender meats that you don't want to overcook.
@Jefromi You can cook tough cuts of meat sous vide (I do it all the time) you just have to cook it for a long time, how long depends on what temperature and the result you want, e.g., you might do a pork belly at 70C for 18 hours (making the meat flaky like a braise) or beef short ribs at 55C for 72hrs (the meat medium rare like a steak but tender as the filet mignon).
@Stefano I know you can do it, but I think everything I said is still true. You wouldn't braise a filet mignon, and you're not missing out too much if you braise a pork shoulder.
@Jefromi, I am pretty sure that the basic chemistry of roasting and sous-vide is the same: trying to convert as much collagen to gelatin before the outside of the meat gets too cooked and dry. Of course, with sous-vide being a newer technology, one has create control of the temperature and with the air tight bag and reduce losses of moisture. This question is very focussed on chemistry. Trying to throw out all intuition and traditions.
Again, the point that I'm making here is that both work fine for tough things where you want to convert collagen (though sous-vide takes some effort, and people who don't have a setup will be just fine without it), but one of the main points of sous-vide is cooking things that you don't want to get that hot, like for example a steak that you want to cook to 50C, not 100C. Sous-vide can cook at lower temperatures, and slow-roasting (in a normal oven) and braising can't. They're not the same technique, even though they both can work on tough meat.
@Jefromi, You should see my comment below about the factors that determine the rate of energy transfer via conduction. With a modern oven you can easily set the temperature to 50C, the same as in sous-vide. If you're worried about the meat drying out, you can put the meat in a sous-vid bag THEN put it in the oven at 50C. However, this will take you forever to get the same energy transfer as submerging it in liquid. This is because in an oven the energy transfer rate is poor since air has a low specific heat capacity. Using the fan can help, but this is still not as good as using a liquid.
@Kent the basic chemistry of roasting and sous-vide is the same, but it has nothing to do with collagen. Once you have collagen-rich meat, you have to get the rest of the proteins in it to the "too tough and dry" stage. This is why you usually don't bother slow-roasting or sous-videing collagen-rich meat at all, you just stew it at temperatures high enough to melt the collagen, which necessarily dries out the actin and myosin, which coagulate (=turn dry) at temperatures below the melting point of collagen (see also the comment below my answer).
This was what I meant with my answer: in the pressure cooking, you are doing a more efficient stewing, which is a different chemistry than the one found in sous-vide and roasting. This is why you don't care about "the whole point of slow roasting" in this case - it doesn't matter when you have collagen you want to melt.
@Kent Slow-roasting traditionally and generally means something more in the 200-300F (~100-150C) range. And I guess I've never seen a modern oven, because the lowest minimum temperatures I've seen are in the 170F-200F range, and I probably wouldn't trust an oven to be at all accurate below there. Maybe to you, slow-roasting means <100C, but that's not common.
I think the differences between slow roasting and sous vide could be a basis for a good question in its own right.
What you need for the conversion of collagen is a certain amount of energy. It is a complicated process - the melting point is around 70°C for the type of collagen contained in beef, but the melting does not happen instantly once the meat reaches 70°C. In a pressure cooking, you can apply the same amount of energy in a shorter amount of time. This is not bad, as opposed to slow roasting of collagen-poor meat.
In collagen-poor meat, you have two types of protein, which are soft and wet. Under heat, they curdle, becoming tough and dry. The perfect meat is when the first type has curdled (so the meat is not raw) but the second hasn't, so it still holds juices inside. If you curdle both, your meat gets tough and you can't take it apart with your teeth.
In collagen-rich meat, you curdle both proteins - the collagen itself is tough and you want to melt it, but this happens long after the meat has curdled. But because the muscle fibers are not clinging to each other, but separated by collagen, you still get tasty meat. For that, you melt the collagen into gelatin, and serve the meat warm, so that the dry fibers are separated by the smooth, juicy melted gelatin. Unlike slow-roasted meat, you don't have to tear the juiceless fibers apart, and the gelatin makes up for the missing meat juices which were expelled from the cells during curdling.
So, in slow-roasted meat you don't want to cross the temperature limit for curdling a certain protein, this is why you have to apply heat slowly until the center of the meat has cooked, without the outside getting overcooked. In collagen-rich meat, there is no upper limit at which the meat gets non-tasty, so you can push the energy needed for the collagen-to-gelatin conversion quickly into your meat. The pressure cooker can do this better than the normal boiling process.
Thanks for the great reply. I would love to learn more about these two types of proteins. Collagen in connective tissues is one type. What's the other? It just sprung up in the answer without an explanation. Also, I should clarify with physics what is meant by "pushing the energy". Energy transfer via conduction, which is the case here, is determined by the temperature difference and contact surface area. I guess this is why pressure cooking is good for this purpose: it offers the large contact surface of being submerged in liquid, while the higher temperatures close to slow roasting.
No, the proteins making up the muscle fibers are called actin and myosin. Collagen is also a proteins, but it is a connective tissue, not intended for movement, and has a different structure. I don't know a good web source to learn about them, read Potter's "cooking for geeks" or McGee's "On food and cooking" about details. The first is the easier read, the second is much more complete. And the comparison between roasting and pressure cooking is more difficult, because you have both radiation and conduction in roasting. Also, surface stays the same, but the coefficient of air is different.
This is something I feel confuses a lot of people when talking about sous-vide cooking. I think the best way to think about sous-vide is as "low temperature cooking". In these temperature ranges collagen breakdown can still occur but it takes significantly more time than it would at higher temps in a traditional braise or in the pressure cooker where, depending on your elevation, water can boil at 121C.
The real answer depends on what your goal is. If you want the texture of a traditional braise you could cook something at say 85C for 8-10h and it would be fall apart tender just like in a pot in the oven or the pressure cooker. Now if that was your goal I would say save the time and do it another way. However, if your goal is to augment the texture of a food through SV cooking then cooking for a significantly longer period of time at a lower temperature will give you textures you cannot achieve any other way. So a short rib cooked at the 85C/8-10h will be falling apart like mom's old school pot roast but if you went lower at say 54C/72h it would be as tender as a tenderloin cut but with an intense meaty flavor and beautiful medium rare color.
So for a recipe like Alton Brown's chicken and dumplings he wants to accomplish this conversion as quickly and efficiently as possible and is likely using the collagen rich chicken stock created from the process in the soup so that's why I would turn to the pressure cooker. Plus, he's a TV chef so he's not going to be recommending non-mainstream cooking procedures like sous-vide at that point in time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.599013
| 2012-10-20T19:23:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27909",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"CoatedMoose",
"James Bond",
"Joe Serina Jr.",
"Kent",
"M B",
"Past A",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"rumtscho",
"user1502",
"user68723"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44041
|
Is there a reason to NOT use no-stick spray (Pam) for handling dough?
I've just started branching out into the more interesting and challenging breads. I'm not particularly skilled at handling dough and I don't have great coordination in my hands. To avoid using too much flour to keep dough from sticking, I've taken to using Pam. It doesn't take much at all and it works like a charm. It makes me wonder why it's never recommended in recipes or cooking shows. Is there some reason I'm not seeing? Maybe something about the lecithin? For what it's worth, I've made maybe 10 loaves since starting to use Pam instead of flour, and so far it seems to be working fine.
I'd turn the question around; what is the benefit of not using flour to keep the dough from sticking? If you are concerned that you are using too much; I would recommend playing around with using as little as possible, and spreading it out as much as you can.
Are you asking why cooking spray is not used, concretely, or why oils in generally are not used? Because if the second, your premisse is wrong. Oil is widely used in kneading breads. Reinhart is a strong proponent of using it from a spraying dispenser, which goes into the direction of your industrially prepared spray, provided you can find a spray bottle which is capable of making spray out of oil.
@rumtscho Oil in general (as opposed to Pam in particular) is certainly relevant to my thinking. I don't have one of those oil spray bottles and I've never really considered one, but for this purpose that might make sense for me. Bread Baker's Apprentice is available for the Kindle, that would probably be a good book for me to get.
@Jolenealaska get it bound instead. It is beautifully made, with thoughtful layout, and will lose a lot when read on Kindle.
Also see this answer of mine, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43596/when-should-i-knead-with-oil-and-when-with-flour. I didn't consider Pam vs normal oil there, but it is probably relevant for you. As Saj answered, there probably isn't much reason to not use pam instead of oil, beyond taste and potential gumming problems.
Pam's actually expensive for what you get. It's a little bit of oil with a lot of propellant (artificial and not all that great for you), and a lot of can. A misto actually pays for itself eventually and it's all natural.
When I knead by hand, I usually just put a drop of oil on one palm and spread it around by rubbing my hands together. Another fairly common hand-lubricant is actually just to put water on your hands (this is more commonly for stretch-and-folds than actual kneading, but it works well).
The only potential reasons not to use spray oil to help handle dough are:
There is a small amount of lecithin in most spray oils
The oil may not be of the highest quality, and thus not have the best taste
The propellants may leave an off-taste
You are using it in such tiny quantities, however, that I don't think either of these are a practical concern, except possibly in the face of an extreme soy allergy (if the lecithin is from soy).
I agree that a spritz of Pam is quite helpful. But, to get around any problems potentially caused by lecithin or propellants, consider buying a reusable oil mister. You can get a very fine spray of oil, and that would help you out just as much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.600098
| 2014-05-11T11:09:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44041",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Insulation Kingston",
"Jane Seymour",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorri Warren",
"P Farrelly-Sztyblewsky",
"Rob Grant",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37625
|
Why are some foods preferentially eaten at certain times of day?
At least in North America, eggs are most often eaten (or at least stereotypically eaten) for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch, and a big hearty meal for dinner, accompanied with a sweet dessert.
I understand that this isn't always the custom around the world. However, since it is a phenomenon that is so prevalent, one must wonder if there's a reason behind it, or if it's really just coincidence.
Are there taste advantages to eating particular types of foods in the morning, afternoon and night?
Nutrition questions are outside of our scope, the tag has a very limited use and this question fell outside of it. As an answer appeared which discusses the nutrition side of the question, I edited that part out.
Traditionally energy availability is one of the biggest factors in what we eat, what we store, how we prepare it, and how and when we cook it
Energy for light, cooking, and food preservation used to be very expensive in time and money until the last century or so. It still is for around half the world’s population
When your only clock is the rising and sinking of the sun, routine becomes more prevalent and necessary
Your modern western stereotypical breakfast/lunch/dinner is now more a factor of the working week and the clocking on the "job" requirements, than energy and time availability. Check out some independant self-employed people, and see what strange food clocks they develop :-/
For example: The switch from the main meal being in the evening instead of midday only happened in the west in the last 100 years or less. Post WWII in many cases. Some western cultures still have their main meal at midday though
Also post WWII, post "Ford" era, the midday main meal was enjoyed at home. Farmers went to their house, workers walked home as you could only work where you could walk too due to lack of energy resource (time and money again). Many more people where self-employed and worked from home too. So going home for a big midday meal was not an issue, and having a long midday break was reasonable
Cultures have changed fast in the last century, what will happen next? I am going for 3D printed food machines in your pocket, though hopefully not an iChef as that would only use a limited ingredient menu :-)
rumtscho's answer is right (upvoted it), it's more custom than anything. In parts of Holland, they eat cheese at breakfast, quite a lot of it. Most Brits these days eat cereal grains of some sort, replacing the old, common breakfast of bacon and eggs. From a nutritional point of view, eating protein in the morning isn't a bad thing to do - it keeps you from feeling hungry for up to four hours, and if you suffer from that sluggish, I can't get going feeling when you get up, eating protein (preferably without carbohydrates such as bread) will help with that. The protein doesn't have to be eggs, can be fish, meat or cheese. Some dieticians argue that we eat the wrong way round - we should have our largest meal in the morning, then a good lunch, with a supper or tea which is significantly smaller than the other meals at the end of the day, on the understanding that you'll be active throughout the day, but not particularly active in the evening.
"From a nutritional point of view, eating protein in the morning isn't a bad thing to do": This is the sort of answer I was looking for. I guess it isn't particularly on-topic for the site though. Thanks, +1.
Nutrition is outside of the scope of this site, so I wouldn't discuss that part even if I knew an answer to it.
And no, there are no taste advantages. If eggs were universally tasty in the morning only, nobody would have eggs for dinner, but there are cultures where this preference is actually the other way round. So, these preferences are all a coincidence.
They probably are not a pure coincidence. There could be a socio-economic reason for that. Let me spin a theory: Eggs are eaten for breakfast in cold climates, where the fire was kept going for the whole night, and the housewife could fry them in the morning. In hot climates, fire was made in the evening for cooking, and people fried their eggs then. The theory is completely bogus (I don't even know if there is a cold-hot separation in the egg-for-breakfast vs egg-for-dinner regions), but it is an example of how whimsical the real reason could be.
Still, from a culinary point of view, there is no reason for regional preferences. They just are.
The reasons we eat specific foods at specific times are idiosyncratic cultural issues—which is a fancy way of saying "we don't know." The reasons are lost in the details of history.
While one can make educated speculation on any particular ingredient, in a specific culture or region, many times the specific factors that lead to a specific behavior have buried in the mists of time.
Sometimes, for recent food trends, there is a documented historical event—such as an advertising campaign—that leads to a chance in food habits. A specific example of this would be the wide-spread consumption of fried chicken (specifically Kentucky Fried Chicken brand) in Japan on Christmas. The company has spent a lot of money advertising to extend and preserve a trend that started when some US expatriates couldn't get turkey, and went looking for the next closest thing.
These are interesting and legitimate questions of food anthropology, but asking it in general for every food in every place is too broad. You have to ask, why this food in this place and this time to start to get intelligent answers, if you can find credible historical documents.
See also: Why does Mexican food taste dissonant with balsamic vinegar?
To be fair, I expect the dominant "idiosyncratic" issues are simply that people don't have as much time to cook in the morning and are likely to be out of the house for lunch. It doesn't take a lot of mysterious lost details to keep people from making a roast three sides and a dessert by 7am.
@Jefromi I am sure those reasons would dominate in terms of "why is cold cereal popular for breakfast in the US in the late 20th and early 21st centuries". :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.600437
| 2013-10-15T13:17:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37625",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"LanceLafontaine",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107838
|
What's the best way to cook JD biscuit rollups?
What's the best way to cook these Jimmy Dean's biscuit roll-ups?
The microwave directions aren't bad, but, as often happens with things cooked in the microwave, the biscuit is a little on the mushy side. The [toaster] oven directions (which can only be found on the website) take a long time (>20 minutes) and leave the biscuit a bit on the dry side.
If I had to pick one, I'd stick with the microwave — for a biscuit, I'd rather have mushy than dry — but... is there a better way?
Yes, there is a better way!
The problem is we want attributes of both cooking methods; particularly, we want the biscuit to be moist yet with a crispy crust.
The solution, then, is to combine methods!
I found that two rolls can be prepared quite nicely with the following procedure:
Microwave on high (1100 watt microwave) for 45 seconds, slightly less than the minimum time if using just the microwave.
Finish in a toaster oven on 'toast' mode on a light-to-medium setting. (I used "shade 3" on my Cuisinart Chef and placed them in a foil-lined baking pan. The foil is optional, but saves having to wash the baking pan.)
Remove and let stand for 1 minute (per both directions).
This produced an exterior that was delightfully golden brown and crisp, but did not dry out the biscuit nearly as much as using the toaster oven by itself.
This does require both a toaster oven and a microwave, but IMHO if you have both, the results are worth it.
It should be possible to prepare a single roll using this technique by reducing the time in the microwave. (I'm not sure if I'd go all the way down to 25 seconds, which would be the same 5 seconds less than the minimum time in the directions, or just use the minimum time of 30 seconds. Personally, I think one roll is barely worth eating. If anyone experiments, let me know!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.600984
| 2020-04-23T20:11:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107838",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105666
|
Energy efficiency of microwave and electric kettle for heating water
Has anyone measured the watts used to heat a mug of water in a microwave instead of in electric kettle into cold mug?
I have always considered that an electric kettle wastes energy when heating enough water for a mug of coffee or tea. Enough water must be added to cover heating element and often surplus is left with hot element.Instead I have an old tupperware mug with two finger handle for safe use. The correct amount of water is added. The heating is watched until it boils and then used immediately door opened.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it doesn't seem like a culinary question but rather how electrical appliances work
Partial answer: your microwave probably has an input power rating as well as a thermal output power rating. That should give you a good indication of an upper bound of your microwave efficiency.
According to the folks over at treehugger.com, they did a study to measure which of the stove, the microwave or the kettle was the more efficient in terms of use of electricity to heat a standard mug of water. This doesn't directly answer your question as you are unlikely to boil 350 ml (standard cup is 250 ml) of water in your kettle or on the stove, but it gets the point across.
A summary of their findings is that it took the electric stove 0.11 kWh, the microwave (900 W) 0.07 kWh, and the kettle 0.04 kWh. This indicates that in terms of energy usage the stove is 30.5% efficient, the microwave is 47% and the kettle is 81%.
The clear winner is the kettle!
Ach, I always forget that in the US, with only 110v, a kettle takes half a lifetime to boil. No-one in the EU has had a stove-top kettle in decades. I think they went out of fashion in the 1960's. My answer is based on an electric kettle only, but is voltage-independant. The math works with 220 or 110v.
I had a syove top kettle in tge 80s, in Britain (which was in the EU at the time). I think tgey continue to be popular with people who have ‘always on’ stoves such as Agas and Raeburns.
@Tetsujin Heathen https://www.ikea.com/de/de/p/metallisk-wasserkessel-edelstahl-40360222/
@SZCZERZOKŁY - yup, looks like one for the Aga, gin & Jag community ;)
Out of curiosity, this means that boiling 75cl in a kettle (usually, that is the minimum amount you need in order for not to break the kettle), is even more efficient, right? It can heat up 3 cups for 0.04kWh whereas the rest should be multiplied by 3 for 75cl?
You are going to get a law of diminishing returns as you reduce the water level. You are getting concerned too much with intricacy in the math without considering the non-linear relationship all of this has. That's why my method is simpler, time x input kW [read from the product label] for your particular 'cup size'.
I am surprised at the inefficiency of the microwave - only 47%. But I rarely see kettle users measuring just the right amount of water into the kettle. There is always plenty left in the bottom. I also choose to microwave because my solar panels cannot generate 2.5kw as roof is aligned North/South but most of year can manage1kw. I also found the panels keep a a 680W Neostar water heater with 3.5l of water boiling most of the daylight hours.
@JohnRussell - me too. I guess it is because the microwaves are not directional and don't all end up in the water - most of them dissipate on the metal cage and other contents in there, like the container and turntable.
Have you considered a kettle with an embedded element? I don't think I've seen a 'floating' element kettle in 20 years. Jug kettles [tall & thin] are capable of boiling half a cup of water in about 30 seconds.
You can do the math [approximately] yourself on the equipment you currently have.
Assume a kettle is 2kW a microwave 1kW
As you can't put one cupful in your kettle, you'll have to work with what you can.
Put minimal water in kettle, boil & time it.
Put one cup in the microwave, boil & time it.
If the microwave takes more than twice the time of the kettle, the kettle is more efficient.
This would be more accurate once you know the precise wattage of both devices & far more energy-efficient with a modern jug kettle.
Note the amount of heat energy getting into the water is not necessarily the entire output of the heating device, so timing it & multiplying by the wattage is the only simple & effective way to tell how much energy was used.
Also note that convection is less effective in a microwave, so you will have to stir half-way. Water can boil at the top yet still only be 50° at the bottom of a cup.
Also if you put CUP of water in microwave there might be more CUP than water in there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.601226
| 2020-03-04T09:24:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105666",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"John Russell",
"M.K",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sanchises",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81502"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28352
|
Will vacuum sealing an open bottle of wine make it like it was never opened?
I have a professional vacuum sealer, which removes the air, and seals the bottle, or container.
Will this work with wine, or does the wine degrade once it has been exposed to air, no matter how well the vacuum sealer works?
The only way to get "like it was never opened" is not to open it. But storing an opened wine bottle isn't a new question. There are a whole range of products, which will keep the wine varying lengths of time. From simple hand-vacuum pumps which can hold a day or two, to as-decanted nitrogen or argon replacement systems, which can add a week or two.
See http://www.wineenthusiast.com/serve-preserve/wine-preservation.asp?AfID=CJ for some product examples. The longest holding I've personally played with is something like http://www.wineenthusiast.com/nitrotap-single-bottle-wine-service-preservation-system.asp, which prevents oxygen ever getting into the bottle. However, even the bit of air between pulling the cork and inserting the spigot causes the wine to degrade within a week or two.
If you're looking to set up a bar, the nitrogen replacement systems can be found in multi-spigot configurations. So you can have 4 or 8 bottles "open" at a time.
The problem is the cork. One you pull it, you damage it. If you put a new cork of the correct size and "weight" for your bottle it will seal properly again and the wine will last many years
The small amount of air at the top of the bottle does not seriously affect the wine. A vacuum sealer will not remove that much air anyway (otherwise the cork would just get sucked in)
If you remove a sample of wine you should top it up with either distilled water, or wine from the same batch
Good vintage wineries offer services to open you r wine every 20 years or so, check them, top them up, and re-cork them. If done properly it will keep another 20 years!
Some wineries use carbon dioxide or nitrogen as an air replacement, but in history this was not done, and there are many records of wine lasting many decades
Screw caps cannot be easily replaced, you will need a screw capping machine, and I don't think they make domestic versions of these!
As far as I know, it will still degrade a bit, but not that fast. Always keep in mind that "degrading" means oxidation which will kick in as soon as air gets into the bottle. So even if you remove the air after pouring, there was some air in the bottle, which means a tiny amount is oxidated.
To put that into practice: As long as you don't try to store the bottle for weeks, most people won't notice a difference. But still, the wine will change, depending on how good the bottle is sealed and how long it was left open.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.601654
| 2012-11-11T14:16:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28352",
"authors": [
"CMK",
"Fritz",
"Jasmin Johnson",
"Jeff",
"OSHM",
"WhollyFool",
"Youssef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65384"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44358
|
Powdered Goat Milk in Bread?
A lot of my favorite bread recipes call for powdered milk (cow's milk). Particularly in some of the tangier breads, it would seem that goat's milk might be really tasty. Is there anything I should know before buying powdered goat's milk and using it in bread? It's spendy stuff, so an answer of "it's not worth the money" could be useful, particularly from someone who has actually tried it.
One thing I see from the label is that the powdered goat's milk in my store is full-fat; I've only ever used non-fat dry milk in bread. I doubt that will require any tweaking, but it seems worth putting out there.
Goats milk is pretty wild, generally it is the second wildest milk behind sheep's milk. You are giving your goods a very specific taste that is not going to be widely liked. It can be used as a substitute for milk but in baked goods their is going to be the issue of fat content.
I haven't used goat milk in my baking because I don't like the taste of goats milk. I suspect it would be a good idea for you to taste goats milk first to see if you like it if you haven't already. Other than that, there's no reason to not use it.
As far as fat content goes, I only use full-fat dairy in my bread. No adjustments to the recipe are needed.
I've have now done it, and it's lovely. It gives a very slight tang to the bread, almost like a little nod to sourdough. I definitely like that it's full-fat, it's just richer. I used this: Powdered Goat's Milk which is available in most grocery stores here (at drastically different prices, one store's normal price is three times another store's normal price). Interestingly, I cannot find a local source for full-fat powdered cow's milk, making this item even more attractive.
I just made a loaf of bread with the addition of two unpacked scoops of powdered goat's milk and it is fantastic. Without the addition of the powdered goat's milk, the bread was plain, plain, plain. It was like eating a blank piece of paper, and was also dense. Almost like a bagel, but not as chewy. This new loaf, however, is creamy, flavorful, and it's lighter and springier. I'm glad I had the powdered goat's milk on hand. This pandemic is making me learn all sorts of ways to think outside of the box.
Goat milk is highly prized in baked goods and for those with digestive issues. I've used it often but because it is richer and costlier freezing it is a good option for leftovers. As the previous poster pointed out it is heavy on the fat content.
If concerned about a difference in fat content, you can buy nonfat powdered goat milk! I am allergic to cow dairy but can handle some goat dairy. I use it in bread but use the nonfat to keep the fat ratios the same.
Welcome to SA, Shea! Your comment is interesting, but it doesn't address the asker's question. If you have experience with powdered goat milk in bread, maybe you could share them to more directly address the question?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.602051
| 2014-05-23T22:02:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44358",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe Estes",
"Joette Luiz",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marck",
"Melissa Jarvis",
"Neil Meyer",
"Noobbaker",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"nat",
"willille"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44931
|
How does aging affect Gouda cheese?
I'm particularly interested in how aged Gouda will melt compared to young Gouda, but I'm interested in what happens to its flavor as well.
I live in the US and have never actually tasted aged Gouda. The Gouda I know is young, soft, very smooth, and melts beautifully. It's almost like American "cheese" that way, but unlike American cheese, it actually has some flavor. I'm interested in a more intensely flavored cheese that is still very meltable.
As a bit of comparison, I use cheddar quite a bit. Young cheddar melts beautifully (in macaroni and cheese, for example) but it doesn't have intense flavor. I much prefer the taste of sharp (or aged) cheddar, but it doesn't melt smoothly. Using aged cheddar alone in mac and cheese doesn't work well; it's grainy and often separates even in a bechamel. I'll still happily put it on a burger though.
I'm about to buy some Beemster Aged Gouda that has been aged for 18-24 months and I want to use it to its best advantage. I'm interested too in 5 year aged Gouda, but with shipping it's very expensive. I'd happily read any comments about the value of long aged Gouda as well.
Beemster has several great Goudas. And while I typically love and lean toward aged cheeses, Beemster Graskaas (which is not aged long) has become one of my faves. @Joe nailed it with his comment about cheese from different times of year. This is why Graskaas is only available for a limited a time each year. Only 2000 wheels are produced and when they're gone you just have to wait until next year!
Aged gouda is my favorite cheese!
Beemster Classic Aged is like a firmer, creamy, sweet, slightly sharp, nutty version of regular gouda.
I've never had a 5 year, but 2 year aged gouda (like Beemster xo) is kind of like a creamy parmigiano but not as hard... nutty, caramel/toffee flavors with random crunchy tyrosine bits.
I would expect the 5 year to be comparable in flavor to Parmigiano with more creaminess and a less crumbly texture due to the fact that gouda is made with whole milk while Parmigiano is made with partially skimmed milk.
Truthfully, it rarely lasts long enough for me to use it in anything... it is the perfect cheese to eat by itself or with apple, pear, or almonds. You can basically use them anywhere you would use a sharp cheddar or parmigiano.
It's been almost 30 years since I lived in the Netherlands, but 5 yr old Gouda wasn't a normal thing ... typically the 'old' gouda was more like a year old. It was firm, but you could still slice it easily, like a sharp cheddar.
Nutty is probably the best way to describe it -- the typical way to eat it would be just on its own, with mustard, fruit, or on a slice of bread (possibly buttered bread, or in a sandwich).
It would likely melt, but you generally used the younger cheeses for that; old gouda was for eating on its own. Burying the flavor by putting it into some other dish wasn't typical.
If you're a real fan of gouda, I have no idea how easy it would be these days, but try to find a winter gouda vs. a summer gouda from the same dairy -- you'd be amazed how much grass vs. hay makes on the milk. (I don't think they tend to export cheese from the week when they're switching over between feed ... that has an almost hallowed status)
traditional serving of old/aged Gouda would be on black rye bread. And yes, the really young "grass cheese" isn't generally exported, in part because it just sells the entire production local but also because even the little extra aging during long distance transport changes the taste to where it's no longer the same.
The best way to describe the cheese aging process is to look at something we're all familiar with -- Cow's milk Mozzarella. I am about to describe a hypothetical process. The actual cheeses described here all have special processes for each specific end product. But, one could make close approximations this way.
The curds come together and are balled up under the whey. If we leave them under the whey, we have what is essentially a Bocconcini. -- Those little white balls you see in the antipasto display at the grocery.
To make mozzarella, larger balls are gathered, and hung to air dry. A yellow rind forms. These larger balls are the typical mozzarella - lightly flavoured, stringy and milky.
Hang that mozzarella to dry in a cool dark place - a few weeks to a few months. The strings start to meld together, creating a more solid cheese. Liquid evaporates out, Molds make the cheese slighty more nutty in flavour. This is best approximated by a good Provolone.
Keep hanging that original mozzarella, perhaps under some weight, for six to eighteen months and we end up in the Parmesan Reggiano region. The cheese is almost completely dessicated, hard and extremely flavourful, with a really strong nutty flavour.
Now, the same things happen to Gouda. The soft creamy Goudas are akin to the mozzarella. Slightly firmer, and it's like the Provolone. (Although the Dutch don't seem to have the Italian need to completely rename a product after one minor change.) Let it dry out, and we're entering the Beemster territories.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.602353
| 2014-06-17T01:40:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44931",
"authors": [
"Bongdatructuyen Xoilac",
"Christina Shrewsbury",
"Cindy",
"Dr. Myles Crawford",
"Kathy Wilson",
"Laurence Taylor",
"Randy Gundlach",
"Rummy Monster Apk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting",
"mcantsin",
"rlac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43582
|
Does the calorie count of these pistachio nuts include the shell?
This pack of nuts states 600 calories per 100g.
Does this calorie count include the shell?
Have you worked out a way to eat the shell?
I think the question might be 100g of (nuts and shell) vs 100g of nuts. I would expect more calories in the latter, since we don't eat the shell.
@KateGregory The full USDA nutrition info says "Nutrient values and weights are for edible portion". It has 562 kcal/100g, though, bit of a discrepancy.
Hi Jefromi, This isn't in the jurisdiction of the USDA. Maybe I should have shown the complete image of the nutritional information, but I didn't think it was all relevant so I didn't. However, while I haven't worked out a way to eat the shell that doesn't mean that someone else hasn't either.
In general, in most jurisdictions, the calories would be based on the edible portion (or the commonly eaten portion), so oranges without the peel, nuts without the shell.
In the case of most nut shells, it would be advantageous for an unscrupulous company to instruct its lab to include the shells. Since most of the nutrients, oils and other chemicals a plant needs to propagate are contained in the kernel, there would be less nutrients overall by weight if the lab chose to burn the whole nut instead of just the kernel. But that's just me being cynical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.602761
| 2014-04-18T18:35:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43582",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Brand Summit Promo",
"Cascabel",
"DaveDev",
"Kate Gregory",
"Khai S. Ong",
"Maryam esmailon",
"Tim Wallen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6834
|
How to make a brittler, harder chocolate coating?
I'm not sure whether this is a duplicate of this question partly because that question seems to be dealing with making your own chocolate. Which I'm not doing.
In my case I want to add a thin coating of chocolate to flapjacks or homemade biscuits or similar for a sweeter treat. I melt some cooking chocolate then add it to the biscuit base. Then chill in the fridge.
This works fine. However I may want to remove from the fridge, transport the treat to school or workplace, and if left out of the fridge long enough the chocolate can get pretty squidgy.
Is there any trick that'll result in a chocolate coating which stays brittler and harder at room temperature?
You'll want to temper the melted chocolate. This means holding it at 88° F (31° C) while it cools until it is completely hardened, then finally allowing it to return to room temperature (or lower) afterward.
If you temper the chocolate this way, it will be much harder and last indefinitely at room temperature.
The easiest way to temper chocolate is the "seed method", which means adding a piece of solid (never-melted) chocolate to the fully-melted chocolate after removing it from the heat source and stirring thoroughly until the temperature reaches 88° F / 31° C, and then keeping it at that temperature until you're ready to use it.
(Note that this is for dark chocolate; for temperatures for other types of chocolate and for a more detailed guide to tempering, I suggest you check out the tempering page at Cooking for Engineers.)
The technical explanation for this is that the temperature at which melted chocolate hardens determines its final consistency as a solid. If chocolate hardens at room temperature, it ends up forming a very weak crystalline structure that begins to melt at even the slightest rise in temperature (i.e. in your hand). Allowing it to solidify at the highest possible temperature below the actual melting point ensures that it forms a denser crystalline structure and will not melt at room temperature.
@roux: I'm confused, did I imply somewhere that you don't need to melt the chocolate first?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.602922
| 2010-09-06T16:57:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6834",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109947
|
Undercooked Quiche
Baking a deep Quiche. I blind baked the pastry, and pre-cooked the chopped bacon, then added my fillings to the pastry. Cookbooks all say cook for 40mins at 140Fan. Not a chance. It was too soggy, and took over 100mins at 140! On completion it still looked a lot squishy in the middle, and the under-pastry had a slightly 'soggy bottom'. The next day it had all solidified and scrummy, yet tasted 'slightly' undercooked. My question is - when I initially cooked it should I raise the temperature to say 160Fan?, or should I lengthen the cooking time? or both?
Hi, and welcome to SA! Have a look at the Tour and Help Center, especially the guidance on how to ask a good question when you get a chance. Could you provide us with more detail on the recipe you used, and whether (for example) you deviated from the cookbook instructions at any point?
@moscafj I think OP is British and did use Celsius. It says 140 fan, not 140F.
I also assume we're speaking about Celsius ;) In which kind of vessel (thick, thin...) are you baking your quiche and at which level of the oven? If in that very oven you experienced a soggy bottom, try to put your dish in contact with the oven floor or on a rack at the lowest level. Have you tried to have a less liquid filling? You said you pre-cooked your bacon but was it dry enough?
Quiche is like cake, where if you double the recipe, you're going to have problems: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/27516/67 . If you can increase the pan size so the thickness stays the same, you might be okay.
Some answers - Did I deviate from the receipe? Yes I did. I take a receipe, cook the item, then adapt and fine tune it to my requirements. Type of vessel? A deep, 9.5in, fluted, loose bottom, metal quiche pan which was stood on a metal tray. The amount of liquid is exactly the required amount to fill the dish. The pre-cooked diced bacon [with onions] was dried on kitchen roll before adding it to the pan. I like the suggestion from David P about putting the quiche at the bottom of the oven, and it makes me think about the metal tray now, and whether it was taking some of the heat away. Hmmmm
If I understand correctly, you tried to cook your quiche at 140°F, ie 60°C? That's way too low and would explain why it never cooked properly. Even if that was a typo and you cooked it at 140°C the temperature would be too low.
There isn't unfortunately a unique perfect way to cook a quiche, but generally the recipes will advise you about 45-50 min at 180°C or 30-40 min between 200 and 220°C. Then it's up to you to find the best method according to your oven, the thickness of your crust and the ingredients you add to your quiche. If you add watery elements to your quiche like vegetables, you will need to cook it longer because the water they contain will wet the crust and make it longer to cook.
A good way to improve the cooking is to "poke" (how do you say in English?) your crust with a fork before adding the ingredients, that will allow the excess humidity to escape (it's clearer in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMaOd5f6H4Q).
To absorb this extra humidity when you use watery elements in your quiche, you can add some almond powder at the bottom to absorb it (it won't alter the taste unless you really add a lot - I tried a lot once with a spinach quiche and it's actually pretty good!).
But the best way to avoid this issue when cooking quiches and pies is simply to use a transparent recipient, like this you can easily control how cooked the bottom is!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.603128
| 2020-07-30T16:35:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109947",
"authors": [
"David P",
"Joe",
"LSchoon",
"Nick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85912",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113529
|
How do you make buns hollow inside for filling?
Chinese and Korean filled buns are my family's favorite. I've succeeded in making soft breads but never know how to make the buns hollow to inject a cream inside. I know that some recipes simply put the filling inside before baking them but I wanted to know if there is a way to make it hollow inside?
Are you talking about the kind of buns that get steamed?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.603438
| 2021-01-01T19:31:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113529",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32420
|
What changes can I make to a bread recipe to prevent it collapsing when rising overnight in fridge?
I'm trying to rise bread overnight in the fridge and sometime it collapses.
What changes could I try in the recipe to try to stop this from happening? I think I need to retard the yeast action (I'm using fast-acting) but I'm not sure if I should add or remove salt, sugar, or use less yeast. Do I need to add another agent to control this process?
I want to make good loaves overnight and bake them in the morning. If I could I'd leave them in the oven overnight and use the built-in timer, but I suspect that's not going to work at all (aside from it definitely over-proving it'd be the same as putting it into a cold oven then switching it on).
Update: The Recipe...
650g strong white bread flour
10g salt
5g sugar
15g soft butter
7g sachet easy bake yeast
400ml warm water; 1 part boiling 2 parts cold
In summary, it calls for baking it at 230c (no mention of fan ovens), and claims that it's suitable for overnight rising. It's a single rise method.
The problem is that you cannot ensure that your finally formed loaf will proof the right amount overnight. If your goal is a hot baked loaf in the morning, I suggest par-baking loaves, freezing them, and finish baking as desired.
What recipe are you using?
what is the boiling water used for? Normally, the colder the water, the better your dough. Warm water leads to quicker rise, but boiling water will kill the yeast.
The boiling water is mixed with the cold water to make warm water in a way that produces consistent results between bakes without the need to measure temperature.
SAJ14SAJ's answer explains the theory very well, and can be used for the general case.
In your specific case, I strongly suspect that your problem is too much yeast. First, the time frame you mention should work well with a normal amount of yeast no matter how much sugar you have, even at warmer temperatures than in the fridge. Second, many recipes floating around specify terribly high amounts of yeast. This tends to have two reasons.
more yeast creates a quicker fermentation. While the results are not as tasty as from a slow one, home cooks prefer quick recipes for logistic reasons.
many cooks are not aware of the fact that there is an optimal amount of yeast, and tend to think that more is always better (mostly because they erroneously assume that this will give them a fluffier bread, but some older cooks are also not aware that today's yeast is consistently good quality. Because the yeast you could purchase some decades ago could have difficulty rising, they tended to use more yeast than necessary so that they would get some leavening even with a bad batch).
As a result, I have seen recipes which have as much as 10% fresh yeast, which actually produces inferior bread.
A classic percentage is 2% fresh yeast, with some enriched breads going up to 4%. Doughs above that range give you gradually worse taste and texture in exchange for shorter proofing times. As you are retarding overnight, this should be OK for you - try 2% for lean dough, 2.5% or 3% for enriched. If you are using dry yeast, convert by a factor of 1/3 (use 3 times less dry yeast).
Note: my post speaks in baker's percentages, where 3% means 3 g of yeast per 100 g flour.
It doesn't seem like he is using too much yeast according to the recipe he posted. 7/650 = 1.07%
Actually he isn't using fresh yeast so I guess his ratio is 3.21%.
Interesting to consider it in these terms. It may well be that the recipe is safe rather than good; it's printed on the box for the yeast...
The fermentation of yeast raised dough is a complex interaction of:
Temperature - yeast are nearly dormant at 40 F, and die at about 120 F; in between, they get more active as the temperature rises
Initial amount of yeast - Yeast is alive, and will grow exponentially, if given the chance to. However, the initial quantity of yeast in the dough can be used to get this process started more quickly, or to delay the onset of very rapid activity
Sugar - The presence of small amounts (up to 10%) of readily available sugar in the dough, within limits, will encourage the yeast to grow more quickly--however, high concentrations of sugar actually inhibit yeast growth
Salt - Higher concentrations of salt also inhibit yeast growth
This paper from MIT discusses in detail several of these factors. The different types of yeasts do have different activity curves, with active dry producing the fast growth in CO2.
Your best bet to adjust the recipe if it is over-proofing is:
Lower the proofing temperature, if you can— check your refrigerator and make sure it is performing well. Get the dough to proofing temperature quickly. You may want to cut batch into two proofing containers in order for it too cool more quickly if you have a lot of dough.
Lower the initial quantity of yeast, cutting it by as much as 50% or 75%
Very slightly raise the salt level--above 2% salt levels inhibit yeast growth, but also affect the flavor of the bread
Would pre-chilling the container have a good effect? How far should I go with this? I don't really want to increase salt. The general consensus seems to be less yeast. What might happen if I used cold water instead of warm?
I think the general consensus is correct--less yeast. Prechilling the container won't hurt, but it probably won't make that much difference.
There's an article on the BakingMad Website that suggests less water cures collapsed loaves (for bread maker machines, I know it's not quite the same). Do you think less water might help?
How about not softening yeast first, rather, adding it into flour? Ought to slow things down
My inclination would be to reduce the yeast (by at least half), eliminate the sugar and use cold water. If the dough is under proofed in the morning with these amendments, let it proof for an hour before putting it in the fridge at night. The recipe as it stands is designed for a fast rise loaf.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.603526
| 2013-03-04T22:58:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32420",
"authors": [
"Antony Hutchison",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99740",
"rumtscho",
"user292342"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32581
|
Laotion (Thai/Viet) Style Sticky Rice, after making sticky rice do you knead the rice in something specific?
I have been trying to replicate some sticky rice that I ate during my childhood. I know you have to rinse the glutinous rice several times and let it soak for a good period of time. I then used my rice cooker instead of my bamboo steamer and it did a pretty good job.
(I am using calrose rice)
After removing from the rice cooker the rice is extremely sticky, I remember watching my friend's dad prepare this every morning and he would knead the rice in a substance on the counter top. I believe that it was rice flour. Any ideas on if this is what should be used to knead the rice in? I am not talking about sushi rice. I will make that some other time.
I have read all the posts on sticky rice on Seasoned Advice but have came up with nothing regarding this. (Also, searched the web)
Can you describe the end product? I think there's more than one thing made of sticky rice in Laotian/Thai/Viet cuisine.
The end product is literally "lao/thai/viet" sticky rice. I intend on eating this with my hands.
have you tried getting hold of your friends dad? Jasmine rice is a good place to start, no wash and the less water the stickier. (To a point obviously. 1.4:1 water:rice being the limit)
Are you asking about mochi? I'm not too familiar with the differences from Japanese mochi, but I do remember eating a lot of mochi with chả and fish sauce from vietnamese bakeries.
No not mochi, that looks very interesting though, would like to try that and ferdies yes, i have tried contacting him but that was decades ago and i have no idea where he lives now.
@ferdiesfoodlab Sticky rice here is referring to glutinous rice, which is definitely not jasmine rice.
I surveyed many recipes available by googling "Loation sticky rice", "Thai sticky rice" and "Viet sticky rice".
None of them mentioned kneading anything in after 30 or 40 recipes, although many mention fluffing, folding, or stirring the rice after cooking or steaming to manage the texture.
Several did mention that it is appropriate for eating with one's hands. The key may be the variety of rice that is used. Short grained glutinous rice will have the sticky texture desired.
After further research looks like calrose is medium grain, but on top of that it sounds like using a rice cooker version a bamboo steamer makes it difficult to get the consistency that I was looking for. Still not sure about what was being kneaded into the rice. Marking as answer.
Thai people we separate sticky rice on a big round tray after steam it to cool down and get rid of steam heat which will make rice is over cook and become too sticky.
If you want to cook from rice cooker soak sticky rice over night and in the morning wash it with water 2-3 times then add water about the same level of sticky rice if you add water too much it will too sticky.
Enjoy your meal !
This is a Q&A site, not an advertising platform - you can certainly link to your site on your profile page, or even in an answer if it has some pertinent information on it, but otherwise we'd prefer you focus on answering the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.603994
| 2013-03-10T19:47:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32581",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gooby",
"MakotoE",
"Rosalie Knorr",
"User Smith",
"ferdiesfoodlab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91342",
"jalbee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42277
|
Can I add cocoa to chocolate to approximate a higher % of cacao?
I have a recipe that I'd like to make that calls for 3oz of 72% cacao chocolate. I have plenty of 60% cacao chocolate, and I have Hershey's cocoa powder. The recipe is just for brownies, so absolute precision and supreme quality isn't required, but I would like to get the right level of "chocolatyness". 3oz = 85g. Going from 72% cocao to 60% cacao would leave me with a deficit of just over 10g of cacao. If cocoa is basically 100% cacao (is it?), then it would seem that just adding 10g of cocoa would be close enough to "right".
Since I'm dealing with chocolate, not anthrax, I'm disinclined to worry about the 10g (or whatever) surplus total chocolate weight. Would the semi-substitution work?
Sure, you can add cocoa - but think of it as adding it to the brownies, not to the chocolate. And the thing to worry about isn't extra weight, but rather whether you're adding enough dry cocoa to upset the dry/water balance in the recipe. With only 10g and something flexible like brownies, it should be fine, but you'd have to be more careful with larger amounts or more sensitive baked goods like cookies.
The meaning you imply for percentage of cacao is not quite accurate: it is the combined cocoa butter and cocoa solids in the chocolate, not just the percentage of flavorful solids. So the chocolate intensity of different brands labelled with the same percentage can vary.
Cocoa powder varies in the amount of cocoa butter remaining, from about 4% in supermarket brands to over 20% in some premium or specialty brands, but either way, they are 100% cocao.
Cocoa powder is also not conched, so it is much rougher in mouth feel than a true chocolate, and so not a perfect substitute for chocolate or part of chocolate. The cacao will also be selected from different cacao sources, and have a different flavor.
All said, once baked in a recipe, no one is going to know the difference between 60 and 70% chocolate. This is not something worth worrying about. Just bake with what you have.
If you are inclined to proceed anyway, you would use 2.24 ounces of chocolate, and 0.76 ounces of cocoa, for 3 total ounces with a cocao percentage of 70.1%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.604373
| 2014-02-23T23:03:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42277",
"authors": [
"Ken Mercer",
"Renbar",
"Sean",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98709"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29196
|
Slow cooked lamb
I have accidentely put a whole leg of lamb in slow cooker and turned to warm. It took 6 hours until I noticed.
Is it safe to eat if I either cook on high or put in preheated oven?
Please see our food-safety FAQ/wiki.
Stick a thermometer in it. If the temperature is over 140 F, the answer is "probably." However, there is no way to give you a definitive answer, because we cannot know the RATE at which the temperature rose. If it was below 140 F for more than about 3-4 hours cumulative in its entire history, it should absolutely be discarded. If there is anyone in your family at risk (pregnant, elderly, immune problems, and so on), it should definitely be discarded.
Sadly, there is a reason "When in doubt, throw it out" is second in food aphorisms only to "If you have time to lean, you have time to clean."
Take the safe road. Its only lamb and money--both can be replaced.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.604566
| 2012-12-16T16:09:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29196",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joan Herrera",
"John King",
"Mari-Ann",
"Nancy",
"Santana Afton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67798",
"thinksinbinary",
"user3932000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32676
|
How do Crispbread manufacturers use so few ingredients?
I'm curious if anyone is familiar with how the major Swedish crispbread manufacturers like Ryvita, Wasa, Finn Crisp, etc., manage to produce those crackers with ingredients lists as short as "rye flour, salt" – with, perhaps, water and in the less traditional varieties, yeast, thrown in – whereas every crispbread recipe I've seen involves an additional combination of yeast, butter, honey, etc.
I hope this isn't veering into recipe request territory – my apologies if so.
For reference:
Wasa Whole Grain Crispbread
Ryvita Whole Grain Rye Crispbread
I think it quite unlikely that Finn Crisp is Swedish :-)
Point taken :) ...
All crisp-bread recipes use water (or at least some ingredient with a high water content), but the bread is baked and then hung from the ceiling to dry further until the water content is very much reduced.
The real mystery is how structure is introduced without leavening. Wikipedia has good information on this point,
[...] bubbles are introduced into the
dough mechanically. Traditionally, this was done by mixing snow or
powdered ice into the dough, which then evaporated during baking.
Today, the dough, which must contain a large amount of water, is
cooled and mixed until bubbly.
Another method is to knead the dough
under pressure in an extruder. The sudden drop in pressure then causes
water to evaporate, creating bubbles in the dough.
Presumably knäckebröd was only made during the winter months before its production became industrialised. For the modern home cook, the difficulty of introducing structure still remains, so it is unsurprising that you didn't find many recipes with very basic ingredients.
Some recipes for home cooks introduce structure in the form of seeds and whole grains. Others, as you noted use yeast.
Some Swedish crisp breads such as tunnbröd, have no leavening, no gas incorporated into the dough and are wafer thin. These can be made at home with a very short ingredient list, no specialised equipment and during any season :-)
At least some of the major Swedish manufacturers do use yeast. My favorite, Leksands knäcke, for instance uses,
swedish wholegrain rye flour, fresh water from our own spring, yeast
and a pinch of salt.
So if you are considering baking your own knäcke, you don't necessarily have to avoid recipes using yeast.
probably could not have hoped for a better answer. Thanks!
A sourdough would incorporate air without having to purposefully add yeast. I soak my grain overnight, put it in a blender, and then let it sit another day before spreading it out and baking. This does seem to result in a stretchier cracker...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.604689
| 2013-03-14T17:32:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32676",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Eric Majerus",
"NArgento",
"Painguin",
"Ravoltra",
"Ray",
"dubhousing",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75534"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82235
|
Mesh size for straining yogurt?
Usually, I strain small batches of yogurt through a cheesecloth, but cleaning the cloth afterward is cumbersome. I'm thinking to buy an industrial stainless strainer (40cm / 16" diameter, 10cm / 4" tall) with a mesh, akin to a flour sieve.
What's the best mesh size that would work for full-fat yogurt? The factory has all the sizes from 12.5mm to 0.003mm (3µm).
Come across 200µm but unsure what others hole sizes may work. There is no correlation data between cheese cloth thread count and mesh size anywhere.
Have you seen this piece and the Bouillon strainer mentioned in it? There is no information on mesh size unfortunately.
I am part of the Instant Pot (pressure cooker) community and we make a LOT of yogurt. I don't strain mine, but others swear by this strainer. I think it's plastic, though, so this won't help if you're trying to avoid it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0091XNL0I/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_dp_T1_CS3DzbDN0MKPP
The comments by michael and jolenealaska on the answer to this similar question, suggest, if no pressure is applied, that a standard mesh strainer can be used.
Unfortunately I don't know what measurement the holes are but this implies that an extra fine mesh is not necessary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.604923
| 2017-06-07T12:39:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82235",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
83474
|
What am I doing wrong soft boiling my eggs?
I've been trying to cook a good soft boiled egg for a long time now, and I don't think I've ever gotten it right. I've tried a bunch of different methods, but this is the one that I've seen thrown around the most, and this is the one I try when I want a soft boiled egg but it still doesn't work for me:
Place the egg in room-temp water
Bring the water to a soft boil
Take it off the heat
Let it sit for 6 minutes
Take the egg out and place in ice water
But it never quite works. The yoke always settles to one side of the egg so, one part of the yoke is totally done, and the other is still bright, shiny yellow, but no part of it is still running.
What am I doing wrong?
Odd. Do you have the same problem with hard boiled?
Hi D.W., nice first question. I must say though that we encourage the "single question" rule, which you have probably seen on other sites on the network too. I edited out the peeling part, and would normally have encouraged you to post it separately, but it happens to be a duplicate of a popular question of ours, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/865. And in case you say "but this is about hard boiled eggs", it turns out to not matter, as another question confirms: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78408/
Turns out egg cookery is quite fickle. For more precise help, you may want to specify the result you are looking for. See, egg whites and yolks cook to different consistencies with even very small changes of temperature. So, could you describe the consistency that you are looking for? Also, how do you typically eat it? Spooning it out of the shell...or do you prefer to crack/peel/remove the shell? Finally, what size eggs?
@Paparazzi, I don't particularly like hard boiled eggs, so I try to avoid them getting to that point if at all possible
@rumtscho, thank you for the link, one problem might be that I'm using eggs from a farm that I volunteer at, so they are ultra-fresh. Might need to leave some out for a while and save those for boiling
@moscafj, the ideal consistency I'd like is that of a ramen shop: firm white, with maybe slightly undercooked white around the yoke, and shiny, caramel-consistency yolk all the way through.
@D.W. a "ramen" egg is not usually what people think about when considering "soft boiled", so good to know. For a ramen egg, heat a pan of water to just below the boil...ideally 90 C (194F), so better if you have a thermometer...or best, an immersion circulator. Once at temp, place large eggs in for 8 minutes. I usually go right from refrigerator. Peel eggs. Slice in half. Alternate approach...slightly runnier...place eggs in boiling water for exactly 5 minutes and 10 seconds (reference: David Chang). This is closer to what I would consider a traditional soft boiled egg.
For the 5 minutes 10 second boiling water approach, is that with an egg out of the fridge, or room temp? And I'm guessing that's calibrated for standard "Large" eggs from the grocery store, not slightly smaller fresher eggs?
@D.W. out of fridge and standard "large"....but again, egg cookery is fickle. Your results may vary. You have to dial in to your liking.
Just slice with a table knife and scoop with a spoon.
If the yolk is settling to one side (typically the wide, bottom end) try placing the carton on its side in the fridge the day before you use them. This will move the yolk back towards the centre.
Also, ensure your eggs are cold before and start them in boiling water. This will allow the whites to set much quicker than the yolks, preventing the yolks from migrating while they cook. Cook in a covered saucepan with about 1/2 inch of water for about 6 1/2 minutes. As you have been doing, immediately cool in an ice bath or under cold running water.
Finally, depending on your location, equipment, and how set you want your eggs, you may have to adjust your cooking time. Try taking the eggs out 30 seconds apart and see what provides the best time for the results you want (a digital timer will help here), then stick with that in the future.
Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen has a pretty foolproof method.
The trick is exactly controlling the cooking time and temperature. When you have a large pot of water, if you add in eggs, the temperature of the water drops, and has to heat back up to boiling. This is a highly variable process, depending on volume of water, heat of the burner, heat capacity of the pot, number of eggs, etc.
What they've arrived at, instead, is to just use about 1/2 inch of water in the pan. You heat it up to boiling, and when the eggs are added, there's so little water in the pan that it gets heated back up to boiling very rapidly. This makes the temperature and time cooked very, very consistent which allows for consistent results, even when varying between 2 to 6 eggs.
They are actually steaming the eggs, essentially.
While their site is behind a paywall, many others have shared the method on other sites -
Bring 1/2 inch water to boil in medium saucepan over medium-high heat. Using tongs, gently place eggs in boiling water (eggs will not be submerged). Cover saucepan and cook eggs for 6 1/2 minutes.
The Bitten Word: Foolproof Soft Boiled Eggs
NOTE: Cook's Illustrated recommends a shorter steaming time, if I recall correctly, but that yields a very, very runny egg and whites. I think this site increased the time for more solid whites, and soft or runny yolks. You'll need to tweak it a bit between 5 to 6.5 minutes to find how you like it. The nice part is, once you do, you can easily replicate it!
I've tried this, and it works well. I also use it to make hard boiled eggs, for about 13 minutes.
@JoshuaEngel - I like my whites well-set, but my yolks liquid. It was hard for me to get it there, consistently, until I started using this method.
Use a skillet with a lid. Bring unsalted water to a boil. Lower heat to a simmer. Add 3 - 4 drops of white vinegar. Crack the egg in its own small cup. Lower the egg into the water. (Repeat if want more) immediately put a cover on the skillet, turn off the heat. Let it sit exactly 4 minutes. Scoop out with a straining spoon. Serve! (don't put them in ice water!)
Never-fail soft boiled breakfast eggs. Cover the eggs (any number) with cold water. Bring to boil, lid on. When the water boils turn off the heat and leave the eggs to sit for 2 minutes. I usually make the toast while the eggs are sitting. Then use a teaspoon to put the eggs into the egg-cups.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.605080
| 2017-08-03T16:11:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83474",
"authors": [
"D. W.",
"Joshua Engel",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60690",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"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
}
|
102351
|
Which types of chilli work for homemade chilli oil?
I have seen a restaurant that has chili pepper in the olive oil bottle, it gave the oil a delicious chilli taste. I am planning to do the same at home.
I wonder how to choose the chilli I will be using. What difference do the different types (jalapeno, red chilli, etc.) have on the finished product?
I am aware of the safety issues as discussed in this post, they are not part of the question.
Sorry, but we don't answer duplicate questions. The other question already explains that the practice is not safe, and repeating the same thing doesn't help you or us. Since you asked two different things, I edited the duplicate part out. We also don't answer "best" questions, so I changed it to ask how to choose the chilli.
You can use any type of chili depending on how spicy you want the oil to be.
You could use ghost peppers to burn the insides of your mouth, or perhaps use Jalapeno for a more milder heat.
You can use the Scolville Scale to decide which pepper to use. At the end of the day it comes down to your personal preference.
I used to make my own chilli oil (for cooking with) from home grown chillies. Made with fresh chillies it can go mouldy within a few days even in the fridge (though sometimes it lasts longer) so the first factor is use thoroughly dried chillies.
I grow my own, and used to mainly grow Apache. This is a moderately hot, thin-fleshed variety, and it's ideal - the thin flesh dries well while the heat is sufficient for most things without too much risk of being overpowering. Drying is best done outside because the capsaicin fumes are a bit much indoors. I use a dehydrator on a sunny day.
I do encourage you to read up on the botulism risk. My personal assessment after some reading of the scientific literature was that combining pH adjustment, refrigeration, and only using the oil when it's getting cooked, the risks are negligible. Guidance in some countries says otherwise, and that's reasonable because no step in the process is foolproof. I have given up not so much because of the risk, as because I don't have much fridge space. Now I make chilli flakes instead, and add them to the oil at the start of cooking. The effect is very similar. If you want preserved chillies for pizza, pickling then works very nicely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.605584
| 2019-09-17T02:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102351",
"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
}
|
128925
|
Is expired sushi rice still good
I found sushi rice from 2018, hermetically packed and it looks fine.
Is this still safe to eat and can I expect major structural or taste changes?
Hi, I'm afraid we don't answer "what can I use this for" questions, except in very limited circumstances. "Typical", "traditional" is not one of those - even if it seems to be a good, working restriction, it turns out not to be.
@rumtscho OK, fair enough, thanks for keeping the "allowed" part
By ‘sushi rice’, do you mean dry uncooked rice of a variety typically used for sushi, or pre-cooked rice used for sushi? The difference here is really important (as is whether or not it’s been seasoned if it’s pre-cooked).
@AustinHemmelgarn the former, yes. It is uncooked rice, vacuum sealed, labelled as "sushi rice". We do not have pre-cooked rice in France (at least in regular shops, but I've never seen any)
Some people believe that "aged rice" is best for Risotto, and Acquerello Carnaroli Rice is aged for seven years.
Dried foods, such as rice, which include "sushi rice", do not expire as other non-dried foods do.
Let's consider a practical real-life example from which we can infer from and have that inferred info applied directly to your case here: When you think about it, these dried foods are ideal for giving to food banks and charity drives because of their long shelf-life. They simply do not spoil in a short period of time as other non-dried foods may. That's why they're ideal for said purposes! Thus, if its good enough for that, it's probably good enough for us too.
Also, now, depending on your locale, sometimes, products are forced to have expiry dates or bb (best before) dates because of government regulation. Theories about why this exist may abound, but, the long-short of it is that you may not need to worry or fret about dried foods that are held past a best before date.
As a precaution, you may check for signs of spoilage via moisture, fungal growth, and infestation/vermin/rodent damage, as sometimes the storage method was poor or failed (say in the case of flooding) of one's storage area. But, generally speaking, if there is no foul smell, and everything is dry and clean, you should be perfect to make sushi.
Some foods tend to lose potency especially when they are high-flavor or herby or tend to spoil (or go rancid in the case of fats), over long periods of storage. But, rice should be fine, generally speaking.
I hope this helps.
Was that misspelling of ‘glutinous rice’ deliberate? :-)
And not particularly glutenous.
Sushi rice is not sticky rice or glutinous rice - that is a misnomer. Both sticky rice and glutinous rice are a different type of rice that has starch content - very low amylose content and high amounts of amylopectin (the glutinous textural component when cooked) that becomes translucent when cooked and is very 'sticky'. The short-grained Japanese version is the type made into mochi and is also called sweet rice. Sushi rice is just short-grained 'normal' rice. It could just be called short-grained or medium-grained rice. Calrose is a variety of medium-grained rice developed in California.
Fowl = things like chickens; foul = yeuch.
To be fair @AndrewMorton if your dried rice smells like chicken you also should probably not be eating it.
Some of the nutritional value degrades over time. For beans, most of the vitamins will have degraded after 5 years, this isn't an issue with rice however as Rice has no vitamins/minerals.
@Questor Yup! :) Its just rice and its already dried or aged somewhat--especially for certain types like basmati.
LOL thank you everyone. Typical stack-exchange criticality but at least there's some light humor in the mix.
"Best by" dates are used for quality, not safety. Cook it and give it a try. The favor and/or texture may be impacted, but you will need to decide if that matters to you. As long as it is dry and bug free...this is not a safety issue.
Doesn't seem like there are high risks, besides it possibly not tasting the best (i.e. don't use it for your mom-in-law's dinner visit)
HealthLine Does Rice Go Bad?
Below are the shelf lives of each type of rice (1, 2):
White rice: up to 2 years
Brown rice: 3–6 months from the date of manufacture
Shelf-stable foods usually have an expiration date — often called best-by or use-by date. Still, they may be safely consumed after that date if there are no signs of deterioration on the product’s package (1).
Determining whether dry rice has gone bad is relatively easy.
Just check the package for spoilage signs, including holes, bugs, dampness, or water, which may lead to mold growth.
When it comes to brown rice specifically, you may also look for discolorations, a rancid or funny smell, or an oily texture.
The difference here is the Brown Rice still has the bran which is/part-of the "baby plant", and contains fats that decay. White rice has the bran removed by being "polished".
I would be very wary.
I have been thinking, as the other answers here suggested, there is nothing in the rice that could go off, there are no fats - it is almost pure carbohydrate. However, I tried rice of similar age just this winter, and it was bad. Before cooking, it seemed more or less fine, maybe slight off-smell but that could be from outside or whatever, I thought. But the cooking emphasized it into smell similar to rancid oil (e.g., in old biscuits). Simply, it smelled terrible.
I would say for rice with best before date long gone, it must be 100 % perfect or throw it out. And please, do have a backup if you are going to try it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.605816
| 2024-08-03T09:15:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128925",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morton",
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Eric Deloak",
"Justinw",
"Kingsley",
"Paul Tanenbaum",
"Prashanth C",
"Questor",
"WoJ",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92007",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114589
|
How to make a good tasting pepper cream sauce without using premade fabricated stuff
When I buy a premade pepper cream sauce at the grocery store it tastes good enough. It is peppery, creamy and salty. But when I try to make this myself I can't get it to taste at least neutral salty or peppery. Either the taste is really weak or too strong.
I use this recipe:
Put dairy butter in pan (low heat)
Put some flour in it (give it a stir)
Put some water from the pan with vegetables in it
Add grinded pepper (all seasons)
Add peppercorns
Add salt
Now I could experiment, but I've done so a lot. The nice peppery creamy taste comes in very late when I make it myself. When I buy it premade it always tastes salty and creamy immediately and then the peppery kicks in. How do they do this? How can I make the taste better; what am I missing?
This is just a different recipe rather than a response to your question, but I would usually fry shallots in butter, add pepper, deglaze with brandy, then add stock and reduce, and add cream and reduce. Stock, brandy and shallots will all add flavour compared to your recipe, and cream will add richness compared to just thickening with flour.
Thanks for this question, the answers explain why my white-sauce is never peppery enough, despite the truck-load of black pepper I grind in (and yes, I like the specks & spots).
I haven't made peppercorn sauce for many years, but from recollection, how you combine the pepper and the fat is the key. Many sauces use cream, but it's not completely necessary. The pepper flavour is staying in the peppercorns, which is why it doesn't come on early.
I suspect you need to cook the pepper in the butter before making the roux. This will extract the flavour into the sauce better, as piperine (the most important component of the flavour) isn't really soluble in water.
Some recipes use alcohol, which also dissolves piperine, e.g. this one (in French) makes a reduction using cognac and adds the butter later.
I've started making it again recently, and tend to slightly crack the peppercorns and add them to hot fat (butter or olive oil; I normally soften some finely-chopped onions so it's in the pan already). Then I add alcohol - brandy is traditional but whisky is good here - and simmer as lightly as possible for a few minutes to reduce, before adding cream, If you want it thicker, you can add just a little flour before adding the alcohol, but then simmering to make a reduction from the alcohol is harder.
White pepper is also quite common; I can't instantly find a recipe but some use ground white pepper in a cream-based sauce, with whole black or green peppercorns. If you're using ground white pepper, buy it fresh; it doesn't keep its flavour very well.
As for the saltiness, are you adding as much as the commercial sauce? Commercial sauces often use shocking amounts of salt, but you might not need as much once the pepper flavour is dealt with.
I'll try this ASAP and I'll be back with my results
PSA that white pepper can produce an undesired flavor in a subset of the population (myself included) and may be problematic if cooking for a group of people with unknown palettes. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10713/how-can-i-use-white-pepper-without-having-the-odor-dominate-the-food-flavour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.606524
| 2021-03-04T12:17:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114589",
"authors": [
"Kingsley",
"Onyz",
"botenvouwer",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91696"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30892
|
Freezing Bouchon Bakery Macarons. Whole cookie or just the halves?
I'm making the macarons from the Bouchon Bakery cookbook and it recommends freezing them for 24 hours before letting them come back to room temperature for eating. The only part I'm not clear on is if I am meant to freeze the whole assembled cookie w/filling or just the cooked halves. If anyone knows what is supposed to be frozen and why I would really appreciate that help..
Are you sure it says to freeze them?
The text on p.62:
"Once a macaron is finished, its flavor is good, but it will get better. This is why we freeze the macarons (it also makes them chewier and more fun to eat). ....
It sounds like they're freezing the completed macaroon, filling and all.
I don't know about the Bouchon recipe, but my wife just attended a macaroon making class at Mille Feuille last weekend.
They recommended refrigerating the whole macaroon overnight (and up to a week), not freezing. The idea is the moisture from the filling migrates to the cookies. This causes the cookie to be moist on the inside, but still have a firm and somewhat crisp outside.
I'm getting ready to make my first batch, but I'm interested in these responses. I currently purchase mine from a reputable local bakery, and when they restock, they bring out plastic trays of macarons that are frozen and wrapped in plastic. They are delicious, crisp outside, soft, inside, when they thaw. Hope that helps someone; I'm going to freeze mine with filling.
I agree with Steve's interpretation of the text he provided. Sounds like the entire thing is being frozen. I can't comment on the reasoning of the author since I've never frozen my macarons whole. But the idea that it makes them chewier sounds like hokum (you don't have to use 'aged' egg whites either).
If you have spare shells you can freeze them in an airtight container for storage. Using a vacuum container may be even better still since you minimise the excess moisture the shells can soak up.
Once assembled, refrigerating in an air tight container should be enough. The shells will absorb some of the moisture from the filling and maybe the flavours too. 1 day is usually enough. You can also salvage overcooked shells this way. If they are too crisp, leave them in the fridge to absorb more moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.606907
| 2013-02-14T01:41:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30892",
"authors": [
"Allan",
"Beverly Whitmire ",
"JayCo741",
"Karrie",
"Larry Hilmes",
"Madelynn Crain Helm",
"Megasaur",
"PickledPiglet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73402",
"s.."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28499
|
My chutney will not freeze, help!
Weeks ago I made a chutney of local ground cherries with onions and raisins. It came out very syrupy but I figured it will still be good in small doses with meats.
I was recently on vacation when hurricane sandy hit our east coast home -luckily nothing major occurred to our home-, and we were without power for several days. Anyway, I got back yesterday and noticed today that my chutney is not totally frozen.
I'm wondering
If chutney can spoil in the freezer if not totally frozen, and also what would cause the chutney to not completely freeze?
What are the signs of a spoiled half frozen chutney?
Any thoughts are welcome, thank you :)
I'm glad nothing too bad happened to your home, and I hope neither happened anything bad to the people arround you (you dind't mention it, but I guess nothing bad happened).
I understand your feelings, but may I suggest removing the phrase related to the hurricane? It is not relevant to the facts you are asking, and, without it, the question would be more clear.
It can be added as a comment to the question, to explain the circunstances.
It's doubtful that you'll get any spoilage in your freezer. Not much grows at -20°C, with or without liquid.
Your chutney is likely not freezing because of its high sugar content: Freezing Point Depression. That's perfectly normal behavior.
Also, is the whole point of chutneys that they are so high in acid and sugar that they preserve very well? Not even sure why you'd freeze it in the first place if you'd sealed the chutney in sterilised containers.
I make large batches of chutney that I then store in a cryovac bag and keep them in my refrigerator. They last forever. Really, I think I have one that is at least a year old. Other than that, wayfaring stranger is correct about the freezing. It also applies to chocolate sauce and caramel sauce.
We talk about freezing but, really, the benefits come from the low temperature, not from the change from liquid to solid. When you put things in the freezer, it doesn't matter whether they become solid or not: it just matters that they get cold.
Chutneys can be very high in oil and/or be very salty - both factors can lower the point when a mixture freezes to a hard solid significantly.
At least as far as the chutneys we eat in England are concerned, I'd consider the sugar content long before the salt or oil content. And, actually, I can't think of any food that's so salty that it won't freeze. Even a saturated solution of salt in water will freeze at the temperatures obtained by a good domestic freezer.
If your chutney is refusing to freeze hard at -20C, then the sugar content alone is likely create a high enough osmotic pressure environment to deter/dehydrate most bacteria. The main remaining risk is fungi/mold if you keep it at room temperature of in the fridge. This is pretty much the same as honey.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.607132
| 2012-11-18T23:25:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28499",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Gwater17",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jim",
"Karen Black",
"Kyle Cotton",
"Leanne",
"Markus Kampl",
"Stefano",
"V. Ichishta ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29172
|
How is UHT milk heated to a high temperature for only 1–2 seconds?
I've read that UHT milk is pasteurized by heating the milk to a high temperature (e.g. 135 degrees Celsius / 275 °F) for an extremely short period — around 1–2 seconds.
But this glosses over the question of how quickly the milk cools down — surely the milk doesn't cool down instantly, so it must spend a bit of time at 134, then 133 (271 °F) and so on until it gets down to the temperature of the fridge.
So: how quickly is the milk cooled down, and how do they do it?
135°C implies it's under pressure (at least 46psi) if prevented from boiling.
And then, when the pressure is released, some water will vaporize almost instantly. This will create a powerful cooling effect. It is essentially how refrigerators or air conditioners work, with water itself as the refrigerant. The product description I found (in the answer below) implies the use of this effect, with vacuum to magnify its efficacy.
@SAJ14SAJ why does it vaporize after the pressure is released. I thought changing pressure would just change the milk's temperature, but not it's state.
@J.A.I.L. Water normally evaporates at sea level pressure at 100 C. The only way to heat a water-based liquid above 100 C is increase the pressure and thus the boiling point. When the pressure is removed, if the temperature is above the now-current boiling point, it will evaporate quite quickly until equilibrium is regained at the now-current boiling point. Since this phase transformation requires energy, it lowers the temperature of the remaining liquid. This is how refrigerators work, except they use a low-pressure low boiling point liquid, instead of water.
@J.A.I.L. The law you cited is for a single phase, gas. The state transformation from liquid to gas will first absorb energy, lowering the temperature. This is how pressure cookers work. As more water evaporates, the pressure increases, and so does the boiling point, until equilibrium is reached (for example, if the heat is turned off, or there is a pressure valve), or a catastrophe (exploding vessel) occurs.
@SAJ14SAJ: An explosion is just a faster route to equilibrium!
@JoshCaswell Sure, ja, you betcha. But the clean up is much rougher.
@SAJ14SAJ I had always assumed the law was for fluids. It's good to notice, 25 years after I learnt it, that it's for gasses. Thank you.
According to this product page from Machine Point:
MachinePoint Food Technologies manufactures injection direct heating
systems where high pressure steam is injected into pre-heated liquid
by a steam injector leading to a rapid rise in temperature between 80
and 145 ºC for 0,5 seconds. Following the product is flash-cooled in a
vacuum to remove water equivalent to amount of condensed steam used,
until we reach the 80ºC. Then temperature keep been reduced by a heat
exchanger.
Physics is fun.
I suspect the various methods are proprietary, depending on what is being pasteurized, but for economy of scale, they are all going to involve a continuous process similar to the one described, where the product enters a heating phase, then very quickly moves into a cooling phase in the machine.
In these continuous types of processes, of course the product will move continuously through all temperatures, but it will do so very quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.607416
| 2012-12-14T21:56:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29172",
"authors": [
"J.A.I.L.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Simon B Mellor",
"Vandana Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67675",
"jscs",
"mannykary",
"meshy",
"user3721",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129144
|
Why is there so much salt in cheese?
I want to reduce my salt intake for health reasons, especially from processed products such as cheese. I am aware is the crucial role that salt plays in the preservation of meat, it is not there just for flavour. Cheesemaking however does not rely on salt in the same way, and at least the simple young cheeses can be made perfectly well without any salt, even if their taste is not as good as with salt added.
Why does commercial cheese contain so much salt? It is purely a question of taste preferences, or does it play a functional role in commercial cheese production?
Hey everybody, I just had to delete some comments. A reminder: 1) we don't discuss health beliefs here, not in answers and not in comments. So please don't take a position on whether salt consumption is good or bad. 2) don't answer in comments - if you mean to list reasons for the salt content in cheese, please do so in an answer. Even if your information is incomplete, or you're uncertain that it's correct.
@rumtscho "if your information is incomplete, or you're uncertain that it's correct" -- what I'm used to is that's when you comment, and don't answer. Still can be useful, but well, your choice.
For those who are interested in the health factor, we have a sister site Medical Sciences, like Are all salts equally bad for you?
@DanMašek I know that intuitively, it seems like a good idea, so people start doing it. In reality, it has several negative side effects on the network's mechanisms, so it's undesirable and we moderators are supposed to go after every such comment. (I admit we don't get them all). For the network policy, see https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6533 (it's a historical artefact that it's on the RPG meta).
"we don't discuss health beliefs here, not in answers and not in comments." - then why would we permit assertions about health beliefs in questions?
@KarlKnechtel the OP comes with their own health beliefs, and we can answer the question according to these beliefs, no matter whether we agree with them or not. It's similar to how the Christianity site has questions asking 'according to Greek orthodoxy, how does one do X properly' or similar - exactly because beliefs differ and it's useful to know the perspective from which the OP is coming.
@DanMašek: please see a) the help on (not) commenting and b) the definition of what constitutes an answer (even if the definition is given in a different context). In short: half-answers are ok, answers in comments, even half-answers are not. Neither is new policy.
Since there was some controversy around the way in which the OP's health beliefs were stated, I changed them into more neutral wording, highlighting more of their subjectivity. They are still left in there, as a background motivation to the question.
Salt plays several important roles in cheese making. Certainly flavor enhancement is chief among them, but it also works as a preservative (cheese making is a preservation process, after all). It also draws moisture from the curd and facilitates textural development. Finally, salt helps slow and regulate the fermentation process so that proper flavors develop.
There are many types of cheese, of course, and yes, some varieties can be made without salt. However, salt is a critical ingredient in the vast majority of cheeses.
Salt in cheesemaking serves five major purposes:
Preservation (same as for salted meat products).
Control of water content in the curd (high salt will draw water out of the curd).
Regulation of fermentation (almost every thing used for fermentation of cheese is salt sensitive, so high salt means less fermentation).
Regulation of pH (higher salt helps buffer against changes in pH). This feeds in to both the point above about regulation of fermentation and also affects the chemistry of any aging process the cheese undergoes.
Flavor enhancement.
It’s important to note that salt is not always added during the cheesemaking process, it also comes from the milk itself (whole milk actually has a relatively high salt content to begin with, and some cheesemaking techniques tend to concentrate the salt content), and in some cases from some of the processes involved in making the cheese (some types of fermentation or aging naturally produce some amount of salt as a byproduct).
It’s also important to note that salt content varies widely by variety of cheese, and even within varieties. For example, xynomizithra (known simply as ‘mizithra’ outside of Greece) has an extremely high salt content even compared to other cheeses (easily as high as 500mg in a 30g serving), while mascarpone often has a particularly low salt content (as low as 10mg per 30g serving). Most cheeses are somewhere in the 100-200mg per 30g range though, which is a sizable percentage of the suggested daily values for a healthy adult.
Nice answer except for the chemistry. (1) Salt, NaCl does not and can not act as a pH buffer. An effective aqueous pH buffer system must include a salt made from a strong acid and weak base or weak acid and strong base. NaCl combines a strong acid and base, hence no buffering. If salt regulates pH it is through regulation of fermentation and the acids that fermentation produces, not buffering. (2) NaCl is not a byproduct of fermentation. Total mass of salt in a wheel of cheese does not increase or decrease with aging. Salt concentration can rise by loss of water, not by fermentation.
I'm writing up a couple of side points, additionally to the main ones which have been discussed in Austin Hemmelgarn's answer.
Natural salt content
Some of the salt is already there. Cows are mammals, and their body fluids contain a certain amount of salt. When you take 400 ml of milk, and make 100 g of cheese out of them (a typical proportion for a semihard cheese), you end up with 0.5 g of salt per 100 g of cheese. This is pretty much the minimum amount of salt which you're always going to have in there.
Almost all cheese also has salt added, but not all. I've actually had cheese made without extra salt, one of the larger supermarket brand organic Edamer used to be 0.5 per 100 g, but they've changed it by now to be more in the 0.7 to 1.0 range. The taste was somewhat unaccustomed, but I liked it well enough.
It may be all about taste, after all
As the other answer described, the salt has a lot of functions related to fermentation conditions, preservation and texture. It turns out that it's not the NaCl alone that can fulfill these functions, and there are, every now and again, people who attempt to make low-sodium cheese with alternative salts, such as potassium chloride. The cheese then hits all these desired points - but it also has a highly unusual taste, which most people dislike at first bite. So, strictly speaking, taste is the limiting factor which makes us use sodium chloride in cheese, specifically. The twist is that you still can't use less salt if you're OK with a less salty taste.
Young cheeses are irrelevant to the discussion
This is actually contained in the other answer if you read between the lines. Your statement that "at least the simple young cheeses can be made perfectly well without any salt" is misleading in this context, because young cheeses are different from mature cheeses in every way that's relevant to salting. They undergo a different fermentation (if any), they retain much more water, and they are highly perishable. So, they can be made without salt - but other cheeses need it.
"Cows are mammals" ...and not all cheeses are made from cow's milk.
@FeRD But all milk comes from mammals. Anything else is just an imitation, and so are products made from it.
Well, yes, of course. You can't milk an almond! But goat milk & cheese is quite common, among others.
In cheese, salt has purposes beyond just taste. By preventing unwanted microbial development, which affects the texture and time of the cheese, it aids in control of the fermenting process. It also helps with moisture retention, which effects shelf life and consistency of the cheese. Although certain cheeses might be created without salt, commercial cheese usually has more levels for these practical uses as well as for improving taste and increasing shelf life.I hope you got the answer!
Some salt is already naturally in the cow's milk. Salt is a preserving agent, otherwise the cheese would go bad.
It is also used as a flavour enhancer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.607735
| 2024-09-03T07:38:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129144",
"authors": [
"Andrew T.",
"Dan Mašek",
"FeRD",
"Karl Knechtel",
"MTA",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80042",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119508
|
Can I bake cake in an air fryer?
My oven does not work at the moment, but I have an air fryer.
Is it possible to bake a cake in the air fryer?
You can, absolutely. But it will be tricky.
The unique aspect of an air fryer is its high airflow, which dries out the surface of foods quite quickly. (In a residential kitchen, only a deep fryer comes close to matching that, hence "air fryer".) That's great for crispiness, but for baked goods, you have to consider how much "crispiness" you actually want.
If I had to cook a cake in the air fryer, I would find a recipe which was intended to be relatively flat and quick-cooking. If I just wanted to make a "baked" dessert in it, I'd make brownies instead. (Air fryers are great at brownies, because they're flat, quick-cooking, and benefit from a crispy top.)
Yes, you can bake a cake in an air fryer. In fact, an air fryer is an oven, the name is more of a marketing term.
It may bake slightly differently than in a typical large oven, watch out for it. If in doubt, try a lower temperature, and check diligently for doneness. It might not become perfect cake, but it should be enjoyable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.608332
| 2022-01-14T10:56:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119508",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121189
|
Olive oil gave bitter taste to a curry, is this expected?
I cooked chicken with olive oil. I observed that it gives a bitter taste to the curry.
Using soybean oil or sunflower seed oil gives a taste which I like more.
Is this effect expected?
Why do people do anything? Because they like it? Because when they first did it, it was the only source locally for oil? Because they've learned not to burn it?
I've tried to cover ll the bases in my answer, but it might be worth saying what sort of olive oil you used - round here if it just says "olive oil" it's probably refined, or refined with some unrefined oil added back in (which is mentioned on the label for one I sometimes buy)
Hi, your original question was completely opinion-based. People use ingredients for different reasons, and just because you dislike a flavor, it doesn't mean that everyone else dislikes it too. I changed the question, so now at least some of your assumptions can be addressed by answerers.
Some oils work better in some dishes than others. It sounds like you wanted a neutral oil. I certainly wouldn't use olive oil in curries, but that's mainly because sunflower or rapeseed (canola) oil is cheaper and the olive oil would be wasted.
Olive oil has its own distinctive flavour, which works well in some foods, but not in others. This flavour is described as bitter, though not usually bitter enough to be a bad thing in many dishes - after all, extra virgin olive oil can be used alone for dipping bread, though it's common to dip in balsamic vinegar as well, which provides sweetness to offset the bitterness.
However the tastiest olive oils aren't very good for frying - they're unrefined and burn too easily. Bitterness can be a result of burning, and with olive oil particularly it seems to come out at the first hint of smoking. So you may have cooked too hot, especially if you used an unrefined oil Refined olive oils work well for cooking chicken. I used to do it a lot, either by pouring some into a pan and adding the chicken, or by brushing large pieces of chicken with oil, and sprinkling herbs and black pepper on the surface. Now I don't cook chicken but do the same with veg, tofu, etc. Again a little sweetness (from well-cooked onions for example) mutes any bitter flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.608446
| 2022-07-30T04:58:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121189",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"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
}
|
129239
|
How can I best store tomatos?
I buy tomatoes, and I keep them open inside the fridge.
If I don't eat them within a certain deadline, say, a week, tomatoes grow fungus.
How can I keep tomatoes fresh for longer?
tomatoes outside the fridge might grow fungus if they're so ripe they start leaking fluid... in the fridge might be a sign that you need to empty it and give it a good disinfecting
What is your indoor climate like? As in, temperature & humidity. A week seems awfully quick for potatoes
The original was two questions in one, which would have been closable. Since one of them is a duplicate (see Sneftel's link), I removed that part and only left the question about tomatoes. Also, I reworded it to be about optimal storage, because there is no reason to believe that they will last more than a week under optimal storage.
I can only cast one close vote, but https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93324/how-can-i-save-tomatoes-for-at-least-20-days is a duplicate for the other half if someone else wants to do it.
@Sneftel thank you for finding that one! It's indeed a duplicate, I closed it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.608647
| 2024-09-19T22:19:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129239",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43637
|
interval cooking vs regular cooking meat
I've heard that some restaurants use a method of cooking steaks (or other meats) called "interval cooking", where rather than cooking the meat to just below the final temperature and letting it rest to the final temperature, you cook at say 2 minutes on, then rest for 2 minutes, then 2 minutes on again, then rest for 2 minutes and so on, until you reach the final temperature.
Apparently this promotes more even cooking, as the meat has a chance to reach internal equilibrium during the cooking process as opposed to just at the end. Has anybody tried this approach and will interval cooking actually promote a notable difference assuming the meat is rested for the same amount of time at the end using a regular cooking method?
I suspect that in addition to any quality benefits interval cooking will let a restaurant get food to the customer faster. If you have a steak that's 2 minutes away from being done as opposed to 6 you get it out that much faster.
Absolutely, I'm only interested in quality benefits though.
This would be essentially the same as cooking at a lower temperature.
It would also require considerable labor and handling, which is the single scarcest resource in a restaurant kitchen.
Modern restaurants, except in areas where the regulatory environment is hostile, can use sous-vide cooking methods to achieve much the same goal: pre-cooking a steak to its final temperature, where it is held, and then only seared for service, with far less labor and fuss, and better, more consistent results.
In googling "interval cooking", this question itself was the number one hit, and nothing else was relevant. While I won't go so far as to say no restaurant would do this, it certainly does not have significant traction.
This on/off method sounds like what I'd do if I had no equipment but a super hot grill, and really wanted to make something come out right. I can't imagine any restaurant that cares so much about quality and could afford to pay someone to sit there micromanaging would do that instead of buying more equipment.
While sous-vide is definitely ideal, not every restaurant can afford/ has the space for/ is certified to cook sous-vide.
Also you haven't really answered the question : (
I have answered the question quite precisely: it is essentially just cooking at a lower temperature. As far as sous-vide, I was just showing there are reasonable alternatives, and hinted that some regulatory jurisdictions are not as friendly. However, the labor is the real killer. The bottom line is that this is not a good idea, and no quality restaurant would do it, as Jefromi also hinted. If you have a hidden question behind this question, please do ask it (assuming it is on topic for the site).
Somehow I skipped the first sentence in your answer. That makes sense now that I think about it.
@leon Low-temperature sous-vide isn't the only option. You could start things with another method (convection oven? lower temperature griddle?) before moving to the high heat grill for finishing and getting the crust. Or if you truly are limited to the single very hot grill, just flip more often like Joe said. Entirely removing it from the heat would work, but it's just so much less efficient than the other options.
I haven't tried that specific method, but in some ways, what you propose is similar to flipping meat often while cooking vs. only flipping it once. Serious Eats did a tet of flipping burgers, in which they found benefits to flipping thick burgers every 15 seconds:
reduced overcooked outer portion (by roughtly half)
reduced cooking time (by about 25%)
... but he found an even better process by cooking in the oven at low temperature (200-225°F / ~95-105°C), then finishing it in a skillet to give it the charred exterior.
** That article also links to a NY Times article titled "Harold McGee on Flipping Steaks, Resting Meat and Char From Electric Grills" which might have more useful info, but I've read too many articles from them this month.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.608776
| 2014-04-22T10:42:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43637",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gary",
"GdD",
"Nachman K",
"Peter Niessing",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"alex-e-leon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"pchittum",
"rhopper"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92781
|
Private Cooking Lessons
I am struggling to find affordable, group cooking lessons where you're not going to learn to make ONE specific dinner dish. Seems that private lessons may be the only way.
Anyone else do this? I'm looking at cost comparisons for where I live.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. We aren't a discussion forum; we're focused on having questions and answers. That said, I don't see what question you're asking that could have a single good answer. Please check out our Help pages for more info.
Welcome! I think it'd be fine to ask about what this sort of class might be called and how to search for it. The world's too big for us to really be able to provide specific recommendations, unfortunately. Could you edit your question and clarify exactly what you're looking for?
How do you expect an answer if we don't even know where you live. Group cooking lesson learn one a night and will pretty much always be cheaper than a private lesson. You are not going to learn it all in one lesson
With the change I suggested, we don't need to know where you live. We just need to know exactly what you're looking for - you mention both group and private.
Provision is highly variable. The major city nearest me has a comprehensive adult education programme which includes cookery courses over several sessions and single topic lessons. But where I live there's nothing provided by the local authority. When they do exist, these courses can be quite affordable.
I have also come across a restaurant that doubled as a cookery school, but it closed last year. They tended to run one-off sessions but overall covered quite a range of foods, and there were sessions most weeks for a while.
There's quite a range of cookery schools in the UK, but these are often aimed more at people who want to be chefs than at enthusiasts. Some however (often based around a restaurant or hotel) run weekend residential courses on particular topics (for example the River Cottage). For a price of course, and not a small one. You can even combine this with a holiday to a region famed for its food, such as Tuscany, and learn to cook the local specialities.
At perhaps the more accessible end of the market, I know of a major organic farm that currently runs single sessions but I'm sure has run courses in the past.
Depends on the level of interaction you are looking for, or if you just want to see the techniques, hear an explanation, and get the recipes.
Online or TV would be the way to go if you don't need the personal interaction.
An online subscription to America's Test Kitchen would give you access to their entire archive of recipe PDFs, and many season's of video archives for their shows, where you can watch them explain and demonstrate specific recipes, and they tend to follow a huge cross-section of types of dishes, desserts, appetizers and ethnic styles.
Otherwise, there are cable TV networks specifically tailored for this, along with companion web sites, and certainly there are YouTube channels that would fit the bill, as well.
This is absolutely the best option for affordability and availability. The main downside is a lack of equipment to practice with before deciding whether to invest in kitchen tools (chef knife, various pots and pans, appliances, etc.), but at least starting with online tutorials is a great idea.
@Erica - Very true. At least, for the America's Test Kitchen, they also have comprehensive equipment reviews and recommendations, in terms of performance, quality, and price. In the magazines they do the reviews in the same magazine volume to match with recipes that feature the use of certain types of equipment, and I think, online, they'll often mention/link to the reviews.
The other downside is that there's no one to correct you when you're making a mistake or help when you have problems. And there's a subscription service for online cooking videos that I think are more step-by-step (someone mentioned it on here years ago), as some folks will gloss over something critically important (because it's tacit knowledge) in videos if they're not specifically prepared for beginners.
Found it ... https://rouxbe.com/ . Also, ChefSteps.com, but that one seems more recipe-focused than skills focused. But you might be able to ping Michael at Herbavoracious about that one)
@Joe - The America's Test Kitchen demonstrates, pretty thoroughly, all of their techniques for their video presentations. I'll definitely check out the links you offered. Thanks!
tl;dr : find people who cook, learn from them.
...
In some countries, there is the tradition of 'cooking clubs'. Basically, a group of people (usually friends) get together and cook a meal. The less experienced people get a chance to learn from the more experienced, and you can pass along regional specialties.
They're often more social things than just educational, and from what I've read about them, they're often unisex (all females or all males). They take a few different forms -- getting together once a month at someone's house, or some larger kitchen space that someone has access to. If it's people's houses, it might rotate who hosts. There's usually some plan ahead of time on what to make, and shopping chores are either divvied up, or one person does the shopping and everyone chips in to cover the costs.
Note that this is different from 'dinner clubs' where a meal is planned, but people do the bulk of work at their own homes and then bring them to the host's house to finish cooking it.
Because they're social constructs, you typically either have to either get invited into one, or start one yourself.
...
But there's also family ... if you have get together for big meals (either at Thanksgiving, Easter, Christmas, whatever other religious holidays, birthdays, grandparent's anniversary, stuff like that, offer to help out. When I was a kid, the big holidays were at my great grandmother's house about two hours away, so my mom (the oldest of her generation) would go up a day or two before and help start preparing the food with some of her cousins who lived nearby.
As I got older (around 10 or 12, as we didn't move back to the area 'til just before I turned 11, and she died when I was 15), I got assigned tasks, too. (setting the table, wrapping prosciutto around chunks of melon or other assembly, stirring sauces, etc.)
As we didn't have any females in my generation 'til I was 13 or so, my great grandmother decided that she was going to teach my brothers and I to cook ... so when we'd get together at other times, we helped out. My mom's uncle had a vacation home near the ocean, so we'd go there for a week, and my great grandmother would have us help her.
These days, as my cousin's birthday and mine are both near Labor Day, my mom and step father (about 30 mins from me) go and visit my aunt, uncle and cousins (about 5 hrs away) for the long weekend. We drive down on Friday, hit a huge farmer's market (another hour plus away) on Saturday, then spend the weekend cooking, eating, hanging out, etc. until late Monday morning.
...
So, how does this help you?
Well, you can ask your friends if they're interested in starting a cooking club. If someone's already in one and it's not too crowded already, they might invite you to join.
If you still have relatives (who cook) within an hour or so of where you live, you might talk about getting together for dinner once a month or so ... you offer to bring food and to help cook it. Although, it's better if you can make a day of it, so you can go shopping together ... they can show you how to select produce, and deal with any substitutions if something can't be found.
If you don't have relatives that fit the bill, maybe one of your friend's relatives could work. (either ask your friends who might be interested in cooking, or maybe if you're close enough to their family, ask directly)
And if none of those work, look for volunteer opportunities .... church dinners (if it's cooked communally and not pot-luck), soup kitchens, stuff like that.
If you really strike out, you might even look to see if there's a Sikh temple nearby. They have a tradition of communal cooking and meals and from what (little) I know of the religion, I suspect that they would let you help.
It's possible that 4H, recreation centers, or local schools might have cooking classes for kids. If they do, and you find that you have enough friends who are interested in learning to cook, you might approach them (or the home ec. teacher at the school) about teaching a class for adults. Or approach any senior centers in your area about an activity for the seniors -- passing down their knowledge to others.
In addition to the other excellent recommendations on this question, I wanted to suggest some additional affordable options for new cooks in the United States (the OP profile doesn't include a location). Particularly, these are options for training in an equipped kitchen.
Community Colleges: local community colleges often have a hospitality school, and the option to just take single courses instead of enrolling as a full-time student. Some even have full "adult education" programs that may include more intriguing cuisines in evening classes. Best, community college tuition is subsidized, and can cost as little as $50 per course depending on your location and local government support. If you are looking to learn "the basics" this is probably your best option.
Sur le Table, Williams-Sonoma, and other Cookware Retailers: if you live in a large city, many high-end cookware retailers have demonstration kitchens where they have a schedule of one-night or one-day cooking classes. These are a little more expensive than community college ($60 to $120 here in Portland), but may be easier on your schedule and often cover exotic or trendy cuisines.
Some Community Centers, if you have one near you, offer occasional cooking classes taught by local residents. The defintion of "community center" is broad; this can be a neighborhood Recreation Center, a County Fairgrounds, a public library, or even a Hacker Space (I used to teach cooking lessons at Noisebridge in SF). This is probably your cheapest option, ranging from free to cost-of-materials, although often they are not hands-on.
If you are lucky enough to live somewhere there's an ethnic hall of some kind (e.g. Swedish Community Hall, La Raza Center, Phillipino Heritage Center, etc.) they may have cooking lessons in their ethnic cuisine. This can be a terrific, and very inexpensive, way to learn unusual dishes, but has the same limitation of probably not being hands-on.
Hmmm .... #4 .... now I have to go looking in my area for those. And I wish #1 had more options around here. They just built a culinary building at the community college not too far from me, but the courses are to supply the local hotels and casinos not so much for home chefs. But something where you're taking a series of courses (4+ weeks) is typically going to come out cheaper than a bunch of single classes.
I'm lucky enough that PCC has "extension" classes that are just 1-3 lessons, in the evenings or on weekends.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.609235
| 2018-10-09T20:56:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92781",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40057
|
Non-Quick Cooking Couscous - Is that a real thing anywhere?
To me a big part of the fun of cooking meals traditional elsewhere is to do it "right". So I'd like to try to approximate using a couscousier as I play with my new North African ingredients. Almost all of the couscous I've been able to find (even on Amazon) is either labeled "quick cooking", or there are instructions on the box that say basically to add water, bring it to a boil, cover and let it sit for five minutes. I've found some couscous that doesn't offer any instructions, leaving it a mystery, but nothing that clearly says, "This is the real stuff, it takes time to cook." There is even couscous in the bulk aisle of my local grocery that has no instructions. I thought, "AHA! This must be the stuff". I called the company to be sure, but alas, same quick-cooking stuff.
I look at this recipe though Traditional North African Couscous and it seems pretty clear that this recipe does not refer to a product that can be made adequate by treating it like Stove-Top Stuffing. What gives? Is there such a thing as non-quick cooking couscous? If so, can you tell me how to get a hold of some?
Wikipedia implies that there is a difference between fast cooking cous-cous sold in western markets and the traditional product:
The couscous that is sold in most Western supermarkets has been
pre-steamed and dried, the package directions usually instruct to add
1.5 measures of boiling water or stock and butter to each measure of couscous and to cover tightly for 5 minutes. The couscous swells and
within a few minutes it is ready to fluff with a fork and serve.
Pre-steamed couscous takes less time to prepare than regular couscous,
most dried pasta, or dried grains (such as rice).
According to Fine Cooking, you can get moister and more fluffy result with the traditional steaming method, even with quick cooking cous cous.
If you want the traditional product, you could go back to basics and make your own, as described by this NY Times article and video.
The Fine Cooking article is very helpful.
Also, if you aren't going to do any of the more complicated, traditional moves: at least combine your boiling water and couscous in a wide, shallow dish and cover with plastic wrap, the fluff after the water is absorbed. Doing it in a shallow layer allows it to come out lighter because their isn't as much stacked up weight to compress the grains.
Couscous is synonymous with dry, sandy crumbs in my family. Very interested to try out a more traditional technique. I find instant box preparations to be pretty useless.
I bought a bag of couscous from a middle-eastern market in Dallas and it is the non-instant type. I have no idea how to cook it but I made an Indian sweet with it, eyeballing the amount of liquid as I cooked (it took almost 2 cups of liquid for a cup of couscous). It is tedious and I am still looking for the appropriate amount of liquid to couscous ratio but I just wanted to know that yes, there is a non-instant type of couscous. It is tedious only to the extent of finding out the right amount of liquid to use but it cooks quite easily. May be not as quickly as the instant variety but I found it to be more delicious than the quick-cooking type.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.610094
| 2013-12-07T22:53:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40057",
"authors": [
"Cynthia Gillis",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Natkin",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43537
|
Preheat the Dutch oven (and the oven itself) for No-Knead Bread?
I'm trying the America's Test Kitchen tweak of No-Knead Bread. The video segment on the website conflicts with the attached written recipe (sorry, paywalled). The video clearly says to preheat the oven and the Dutch oven before slipping the dough into the hot Dutch oven and baking it. The written recipe says to allow the second rise to happen in the Dutch oven and to place both in a cold oven, then turn the oven on to 425F (218C). Other places on the website say that the written information is kept up-to-date and supersedes any video segment, but oddly, it doesn't address the conflict in this recipe. I'll call ATK in the morning for clarification, but does anyone here have any experience that could shed some light on the subject? As a rule, should the Dutch oven for No-Knead Bread be preheated? Does it make sense to start baking the bread in a cold oven?
I did not get an answer from America's Test Kitchen beyond that the written recipe supersedes the video, so I proceeded with the experiment. I made two identical doughs following ATK's recipe for Almost No-Knead Bread with Olives, Rosemary, and Parmesan. Knowing that I would bake them two hours apart, I even started the doughs two hours apart, so the two doughs were truly identical in every way possible. They were both allowed 18 hours for the first rise and 2 hours for the second.
For the first loaf I followed the written instructions for baking. I did not preheat the oven or the Dutch oven. When I put the loaf in, I turned the oven to 425F (219C). One half hour later I removed the lid and continued to bake until the dough registered 210F (99C), which took about another 35 minutes.
For the second loaf, I followed the instructions in the video. I preheated the oven and the Dutch oven to 500F (260C), put the ball of dough in the Dutch oven, returned it to the oven and immediately reduced the oven temperature to 425F (218C). It baked covered for one half hour, then baked uncovered until it registered 210F (99C), which took about another 25 minutes.
RESULTS
The loaf on the right was made per the instructions in the video, it used a pre-heated oven and Dutch oven. That loaf is superior in every way. As you can see in the second picture, it rose higher and the crumb is lighter. The first loaf is dense. The crust on the second loaf is perfectly crunchy. The crust on the first loaf is just hard. And, on the first loaf, the bottom burned before the bread was done.
I didn't think starting the bread in a cold Dutch oven made any sense, this experiment clinches it for me. If you're going to bake bread in a Dutch oven, I recommend that you pre-heat it.
If I understand the process correctly, the covered portion is to create oven spring. So if you are starting with less accumulated heat, it stands to reason that you need to bake it longer covered to achieve similar oven spring.
@event_jr that does seem to make sense, but that isn't what the recipe said. The written recipe specifically says to remove the lid one half-hour after placing it in the cold oven, same as the video, which calls for a pre-heated oven and Dutch oven.
Guys: As someone who works at Cook's Illustrated should know, one experiment does not make a data set. I was the one who updated our No-Knead recipe, and I can tell you with certainty that the cold Dutch oven/cold start method works just as well as the hot one. I do it all the time. As does Chad Robertson, so it would appear.
Here's the deal: oven spring can happen fast or it can happen slow. It is crust formation that needs high heat, not spring. So long as the cover is on during the "spring" stage (trapping steam to prevent crust hardening), it works either way. The cold start method is "better" only because it is easier/more convenient. I'm not sure what went wrong in the experiment illustrated, but I can tell you that my loaves come out beautifully every time I use it.
Hope this helps,
Andrew Janjigian
Wow! It's great that you took the time to respond! I hope you stick around. I didn't find it terribly inconvenient to pre-heat the Dutch oven and it did work better for me, so I'll continue to do it that way. It's good to know that the convenience factor was the reason for the change. Thanks for your response!
I always preheat the oven and Dutch oven for my no-knead bread, but I recently saw this video where Chad Robertson of Tartine skipped preheating the Dutch oven.
Chad Robertson Masterclass
So, it is definitely possible to skip preheating the Dutch oven. Unfortunately, I don't have more experience or evidence around this topic and don't know the effect of skipping the preheat on the oven. I'm interested to hear what you discover.
Well, your video is right on point, he certainly did not preheat that Dutch oven
I don't know anything about baking bread but maybe take into account how cold the dutch oven is if you don't pre heat the oven. The temp of your cast iron will be very different if you take into account room temp of your kitchen. Say, Miami verses coastal Northern California.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.610396
| 2014-04-16T02:49:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43537",
"authors": [
"Apple Vega",
"Bill Peet",
"Chris Kmotorka",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kellie Roullier",
"Kerrie Baish",
"Krista Provenzano",
"Larry Hylton",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"TJ Seattle",
"Zemits spam",
"event_jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"nnn",
"skarin gamer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28511
|
Differences between gel and gelatine
Are they physically different? If so, what is the difference, between a gel and gelatine, or it's proccesses gelation and gelling (gelatinization. gelatinisation)?
P.S: The tags [tag:gelatin] and [tag:gelling-agents] have no wiki information, so I couldn't get anything from them.
I got this doubt when first reading about starch gelatinization (or is it gelation?) in bread. And got it again when writing this answer.
if it's an issue of definition, it sounds like a good question for the English Language and Usage site on SE! http://english.stackexchange.com
@KristinaLopez I'm meaning the physical differences. Knowing it would help me choosing the right term. Thank you for pointing it; I'll edit the question to clarity it.
Are you wondering about gelling, as in turning to gooey consistency, or jelling, as in solidifying?
@MargeGunderson: Are you meaning two different terms? Jelly is fruit juice in/with gelatin. Are gel and gelatin the same thing with different consistency? If so, why is it due to?
@J.A.I.L.:I would interpret gel and gelatin as the same consistency, but I've often seen people refer to something "gelling" when they actually mean "jelling" (usually when referring to sports teams, but increasingly in other contexts). The dessert Jell-O® is named for its hardened, jelled state. From this it sounds like you do mean the gel, as in viscous and goopy?
Sorry to @J.A.I.L. and anyone else if I made this more complicated than necessary; I just see people confuse these terms so I was trying to clarify. J.A.I.L. knows what (s)he is asking. :^D
A gel is any liquid (usually) or gaseous medium suspended in a solid three-dimensional mesh which entraps the medium so that it does not flow.
By way of (somewhat flawed analogy) think of a giant role of bubble wrap. Its mostly air. But the plastic keeps the air from flowing at a large scale.
Gels can range from very soft to very hard. New modern aero-gels have fascinating properties.
Gelatin is a protein formed when collagen (a connective protein in animals) is heated under moist conditions. Gelatin forms cross-linked networks exceedingly well, and therefore is a wonderful gelling agent.
The name has also taken to mean the gel created from gelatin and a water-based liquid like stock or sugary flavored water. You may have guessed by now that gels in general take their name from gelatin.
So the specific answer to the first part of your question is: gels are the general category, and gelatin (in the second sense) is a specific kind of gel.
I have never heard the term gellification. The only verb I am familiar with is to gel. The process is gelatinization or (more familiar to me), just gelling.
In those links in Wikipedia for gel, gelatin, collagen, and areogel you will find out much more.
Thank you for your answer.I changed the title of the question to remove the gellification.
I've also seen gelatinisation used to refer to the denaturation of collagen. I've no idea if this is correct usage.
@SAJ14SAJ after searching some more, I've found the propper English name for the proccess I meant is gelation.
Now that you mention it, I think I have heard that.... but I am a computer scientist, not a chemist so I stand corrected :-)
Gelatinization means the starch grains swelling, releasing the starch molecules, which then cross link to thicken the liquid. The gel forms, trapping water between chains of starch. It is a heating process. Gelation is a cooling process as the gel sets.
Gelatine (and alternatives like agar, carrageenan ... ) is not a starch and still makes gels...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.610873
| 2012-11-19T08:47:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28511",
"authors": [
"Chirlo",
"Chris Steinbach",
"DJA",
"FatalSleep",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jrab",
"Justthefacts Smith",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Laurynas",
"MargeGunderson",
"Nikki",
"Ronnie",
"Royi",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shawn Struble",
"Stephen Lockwood",
"Thomas H. Ptáček",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66040",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87525
|
What are professional methods for preventing pantry moths?
For about a month I have been fighting with a pantry moth infestation and that got me thinking... Professional businesses (bakeries, restaurants, factories that produce milkbars or cornflakes) take in much more food than I ever will. Therefore the probability of them buying an infested product (like pantry moth-infested flour) is much higher than in case of my home kitchen. And the costs of production halting or throwing away infested food is much higher than in my case.
What precautions are taken by professional businesses to minimize the risk of pantry moth infestation? Can some of them be implemented in home kitchen?
Honestly, the top reason is going through stock quickly.
My apprenticeship bakery took delivery 1X week for most grains. Milled daily.
The second strategy was tightly sealed plastic tubs.
Third, deal with infestation in early stages. isolate and destroy.
It was an organic bakery so, yes, occasional uninvited nibblers.
I'm not sure if this is used commercially, but I would think it possible that a bakery which goes through flour a bit more slowly or worked on a delay, wanting to keep a reserve of flour on hand, might store the extra in fridges or freezers. I know people who do this at home since while flour doesn't easily go bad it may degrade in quality, which the lower temperatures help prevent (and they do help kill pests), so a commercial establishment might do the same.
No. Not done in commercial operations. Freezers full of items needing freezing.
I don’t know what professional kitchen use, but I solved my pantry infestation problems by storing all my grains in mason jars. Even if some of the grain I bring in the house is infested, the mason jar contains the infestation preventing it from spreading to other grains. My friend stores her grains in her wine fridge the temperature is cold enough to keep most pests dormant.
While OT, certainly true: Truly air and water tight containers are one of the best ways to weather pest problems.
I don't really know what professional cooks use, but I can tell the rules my mom goes by:
Keep all your grains in airtight glass containers.
Don't buy more than you can consume in a month.
If you don't finish using your flour/grains within three months, throw it out and buy a new one.
Add tons of dried bay leaves, i.e. cover the bottom of glass jars and stick some at the very top. Pantry moth hates the scent of bay leaves.
In Asia, they add red hot chili (or whatever it is) peppers (dried) to rice to prevent infestation.
Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.611261
| 2018-02-04T19:18:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87525",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"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
}
|
85625
|
Is this Kabocha squash bad?
I just cut open Kabocha that I picked up yesterday at the farmers market and noticed some strange spots. Is this ok to cook?
No this not ok to cook because it looks like that it is rotten.
I'd agree ... there's some sort of decay going on there if the uncooked flesh isn't uniform in color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.611498
| 2017-11-14T01:42:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85625",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
}
|
89989
|
Can I use a pint/ 500ml whipped cream canister for small volumes?
When using a small volume of contents, is it better to fill a larger (pint/ 500ml sized) whipped cream dispenser only partially or to fill a smaller (half or quarter pint/ 125ml or 250ml) whipped cream dispenser fully?
Specifically, will the cream be filled with enough tiny air bubbles if I do not fill it to maximum volume?
Secondarily, is it cost effective to use small batches of content in regards to the whipped cream nitrous oxide chargers?
Edit:
Thanks, commenters who discuss cost effectiveness! Now I know, nitrous oxide chargers are one-time use. :)
Cost effective compared to... what? There's no getting around that using the same charger for a small volume vs. a larger volume will mean a higher cost-per-volume. Did you have another alternative in mind?
@logophobe, yes that is what I was wondering around cost-effectiveness. From your comment/ my reading, I see that they are one-time-use only chargers and fairly standard in size, but I was not sure.
Yes - the commercially available versions are only suitable for a single use and come in only a standard size or two. Most of the handheld whippers use a standard 8-gram charger, and discharging it involves piercing a metal seal that the charger is manufactured with so that it cannot be readily reused. The issue of cost-effectiveness is difficult to answer here because it's subjective; I have no idea what threshold you consider "effective" or acceptable for any given use.
You can (to some extent) fill it under the max line and still get good results.
The standard 500 ml whip has an internal volume of 750 ml actually. If you fill it up to the max-line, you’ll have 250 ml left for the gas in the cannister.
Ideal Gas Law states that, pressure changes inversely proportional to the volume of the container.
So... say that you’ve filled up to 250 ml, you’ll extend the volume of the gas twice; thus the pressure will drop twice.
Henry's law on the other hand, states that amount of dissolved gas is proportional to its pressure.
So, the amount of NO2 you'll get dissolved will be also halved.
50% less gas should be your lower-limit I would say. You'll probably have less volume also on your whipped cream as well. If that's something ok with you...
But this approach will signifacantly lower your yield too. As the leftovers in the cannister will be constant, not proportional to your starting amount.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.611672
| 2018-05-25T18:05:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89989",
"authors": [
"Spruce Traold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67324",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90338
|
Can chicken skeleton be made edible?
I like to preserve as much as possible from my cooking and trash as little as possible.
With that in mind:
can chicken skeleton be made edible?
or is there a way for the bone marrow to be extracted and cooked?
Or does it exist a reason for why it is a bad idea to consume chicken skeleton?
Why not make stock?
And when you strain the stock, collect all the little bits of meat that float off the carcass, to put in a soup or curry (following @moscafj's comment)
I save my chicken carcasses (and also beef/pork bones) in the freezer and when I have a couple, I put them into a slow cooker for like 2 days. Makes a very satisfying broth.
Hi Svintoo, I appreciate you trying to make a summary of the information you got. The site as a whole wants this kind of information to be easily findable, but it uses a different way to achieve the same goal, by only allowing informative answers to be posted and removing all fluff responses. This is why our question pages are much more structured than forum threads, and your own top post is reserved for the question only, nothing else. So I will roll back your edit, to preserve that structure. I think the readers will profit even more from reading the full answers.
Are people sure eatable is not a word? It's certainly not commonly used, but seems to appear in a number of dictionaries as valid. I was going to make the same edit myself until I discovered this.
@MichaelMior google says eatable is a word, therefore eatable's a word.
rumtscho: thank you for the explanation. MichaelMior tox123: "edible" was the word I was looking for, but I was unsure of the spelling and my spelling attempt was corrected to "eatible".
@tox123 Not sure if this was intended to be sarcasm, but I didn't make the claim "Google says eatable is a word." I made the claim that I found the word in several dictionaries (this includes Merriam-Webster, Oxford Living, and Cambridge). I did find those using Google, but that doesn't make the statement less true.
Chicken bones have a tendency to 'splinter' when 'mashed' (as in chewed upon), which is why you never give chicken bones to a dog. This applies equally to humans, if we gnaw on a chicken bone it is more like to create a harmful splinter that may find itself lodged in any number of places in your digestive system.
That said, as has been commented above, extracting the flavorful marrow and those 'last little bits' from the carcass can be achieved by making stock. If you are wanting to reduce the waste, I would then recommend drying and grinding the remaining bones to provide calcium into your compost.
[Edit] Interesting comments from @JohnEye & @Molot prompted a bit of research.
Here is an article from WebMD that supports my original statement.
Is Eating Chicken Bones Bad For Our Health
Other articles suggest that some people do this, but I would still conclude that it is not safe to do so, though apparently it can be done.
My friend's mother can cook chicken in the oven in such a way that some of the bones are actually perfectly edible and even somewhat tasty. They also don't splinter. That probably does not apply to all the bones though. I think the key is long cooking time.
@JohnEye baked or fried bones can be OK. Boiled ones pretty much never are.
If baking a whole chicken in an oven can produce eatable bones then I'm very interested to hear more.
@JohnEye do you know of a recipe you can link to. I'd be interested in seeing that.
@Svintoo I'm sorry, this was years ago and I'm no longer in touch with the friend. His mother was my teacher back in high school, so if I meet her on a class reunion, I'll ask her. It could take years though, I'm afraid.
The discussion from the second link was very much off topic. We draw the line between safety questions (if you land in hospital, the cause can potentially be traced to the exact portion of food which caused it) and possible long-term health effects. So I removed that part and the related comments.
The statement "This applies equally to humans" is unsupported -- human teeth are much different from dog teeth. Do you have any studies supporting this? Also, you have not answered the question of whether it is possible to make chicken bones non-splintering for consumption. Of course it is possible, through various cooking methods, so your answer is misleading.
@J.Win. 1-It is entirely the nature of the bones to splinter not the teeth which gnaws on them. 2-The article linked to documents actual cases of a Dr. dealing with exactly this issue. 3-While others later have provide anecdotal stories of having done so, which I clearly acknowledged in the final statement, I directly and unequivocally stated that "it can be done" but based on the information available it is not safe (nor desirable) to do so.
An anecdote posted on the internet is not a study regarding safety. One could find a hundred anecdotes regarding people choking on meat chunks, but it doesn't lead to a conclusion that it is unsafe for humans to eat steak. An adult human is equipped with the intelligence and the flat grinding teeth to mash a piece of steak -- or small bone -- until it is safe to swallow; a dog is not capable of this. Humans also have the technology to render bones safe and edible by cooking, either by softening (eg in canned mackerel) or by making them brittle (eg in deep frying).
There's nothing about chicken bones that makes them any more inclined to splinter than, say, pork or beef bones. In fact the tendency to splinter is a product of the method of cooking. Ask any veterinarian about natural bone chew toys for dogs - the roasted bones are the most dangerous because of the splintering tendency, but raw bones from a butcher can be safe, as can chicken or fish bones softened via high pressure cooking. What makes chicken bones (and larger fish bones) dangerous to humans is mostly their size and shape - no splinters are required to perforate soft tissues
Pressure cookers will quickly soften most chicken bones. We make stock with our chicken carcasses in a pressure cooker, and the resulting bones can be crushed with fingers, no splintering.
By the time the carcass has been through the pressure cooker, if the bones are 'safe' to eat, is there actually any flavor (or nutrition) left in them? IMHO the bones I pull from the pressure cooker after making broth are 'not appetizing'
Some do have flavor and texture, but some are more a sandy pile of calcium (which is still edible, just not as much fun). We definitely depend on the broth for nutrition more than the bones. It's more of a novelty, and we can only eat a few before we lose interest.
@CosCallis To get an idea of what you find appetizing or not, do you find fish bones such as found in some types of canned salmon or mackerel appetizing?
Absolutely!
My wife makes her own dog food out of 1 Lb of rice, 1 Lb of carrots, and the trimmings of 1 whole chicken. After she breaks down the chicken for the meat that the family will eat during the week, all the trimmings, including the bones, are put into a pot and boiled so we get the marrow and gelatin from the bones as well. I'd describe it as making stock except that the liquid is not separated for reasons I'll get back to. Once the 'chicken stew' has cooked, she finds all the bones and puts them into a high-end blender to render into a thick paste we call a 'bone shake'. She puts the rendered bone into the the stew / stock along with the rice and carrots to finish cooking. Once that is done she adds vitamins and other supplements to the batch before dishing out portions for freezing and then we have dog food for several weeks.
We have used everything from the chicken, including the skeleton. We joke that the dog eats better than we do and have had multiple vets give their approval.
Now, for those who ask what this has to do with human food, my response is even though we use this process to feed the dog, there is nothing special about it and would be perfectly safe for humans. The bones are completely rendered in the sense of cook time and safety. Cooking them in the stock makes them safe from a bacteria perspective and using the blender essentially grinds them into particles so small as to eliminate any issues with splintering. In fact, my wife started to make (dog) cookies by adding sugar, flour, salt, etc. I mention this to illustrate the multitude of uses for the bones so there is no reason why the bone shake couldn't be incorporated into other recipes for people.
Hello Kelly, I am afraid that pet food is off topic on the site. So the question has to be interpreted as "edible by humans". Do you wish to edit your answer to say that your preparation is also good as human food? If not, we would have to remove it as not addressing the question. I realize that this feels unfair, since you registered to provide a well written answer with an interesting point, and did not know our scope. But we have learned to not compromize on our own quality guidelines, even when we sympatize with the poster.
sorry, but I just had to chuckle when I got to the unexpected sentence "then we have dog food for several weeks." :-D
Torigara (鶏がらスープ) is a common Japanese recipe most commonly associated with the making of ramen. The recipe usually calls for a whole chicken carcass or chicken bones and using a very long cooking time (eg. 5 to 10 hours) in order to reduce everything to a rich broth that can be made into a ramen.
Some recipes call for discarding the bone while I am aware of some ramen shops actually pounding the soup and keeping the crushed bones (which renders down to powder) as part of the soup.
The recipe is common in ramen shops all around the world and is safe to consume.
PS, I think the addition of rice-vinegar in some recipes would help breaking down the calcium in the bones faster.
We recently made a chicken bone stock by cooking a carcass in water with a few tablespoons of vinegar. When it was done, the bones had demineralized enough that they could be chewed thoroughly without any difficulty nor observable splintering.
Using a pressure cooker and a vitamix blender you can turn the leftover bones into a paste.
Tom, welcome! Please don’t post follow-up questions in the answer section - we’re a Q/A site, not a discussion forum. In your special case, asking a professional nutritionist may be a better choice, especially as the scope of acceptable nutrition questions here is rather limited - but more so because the health of your daughter depends on the answer. If you want to learn more about how the site works, I recommend the [tour] and our [help]. Again: welcome!
I cooked my whole turkey carcass for several days and poured all the bones and juice from boiling it, a little bit at a time: liquified it in my osterizer to get all the marrow and nutritional value but strained it to get rid of all the pulp at the bottom and have been drinking it. It’s delicious! I’ve heard it’s good for arthritis. It made over a quart to drink!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.611937
| 2018-06-14T09:04:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90338",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Chris H",
"Cos Callis",
"GHP",
"J. Win.",
"JohnEye",
"Michael",
"Michael Mior",
"Mołot",
"Stephie",
"Svintoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"moscafj",
"mskfisher",
"rumtscho",
"tox123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28786
|
Panda Express style Chow Mein
I find myself addicted to Chow Mein served at Panda Express, and have tried cooking it several times, failing each time.
I have followed these recipes:
http://www.mademan.com/mm/how-do-you-make-panda-express-chow-mein.html
http://www.chinesefood-eye.com/recipe_100232_panda-express-chow-mein.aspx
The secret seems to be sugar+chicken broth.
However each time I make it I can never get the noodles quite right. They turn out mushy, and half of them stick to the pan.
I've tried vermicelli, Annie Chung's chow mein, and egg noodles.
How do I get nice, firm, golden chow mein noodles?
Ie had very similar problems until I used fresh noodles. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any recommendations for dried noodles though.
If your noodles are mushy, then you're overcooking them. Vermicelli take barely a minute or two to cook in already-boiling water. Egg noodles take a little longer, but either way, trying the noodles as they start to loosen up is the best way to ensure the right texture.
Remember, you are going to be cooking them again when you stir fry them, so they should be a little underdone when they come out of the broth. Rinsing in cold water will arrest the cooking process and also wash off the starch that can make the noodles stick to the wok when frying.
this time they turned out much better and edible, but still a little bit stuck to the pan. I think I may have overcooked the noodles still a bit, as they had began splitting from the middle when i picked them up.
I will keep experimenting :]
Sounds like it. If you can, let the noodles dry after rinsing and they will fry 'better'.
I recommend putting some baking soda into the water while cooking the pasta. This makes the noodles more Asian in style.
And it makes them firmer
I agree with the first answer. If they're going mushy or sticky then they're over-cooked and/or are not being washed after cooking.
Cooking noodles and spaghetti isn't just a question of dropping them into boiling water and timing them, you have to understand or know when they're 'al dente' or 'just' done. Any less is under-cooked, any more is over-cooked, there's not much margin for error.
It also depends on how big your pan is, when you drop them in the water, how quickly you bring it back to the boil etc. You can't just rely on packet timing instructions, you have to know and understand yourself when they're just 'done' and stop the cooking immediately by straining and refreshing under running cold water and then tossing in oil ready for stir frying.
I'd suggest you practice your noodle cooking technique and experiment with various levels of 'doneness' and see which ones work out the best.
Also, make sure the noodles are cold and tossed in oil and not warm when you add them to the wok for stir frying.
I agree. Make sure your noodles are not over cooked. I usually wash them out with cold water after boiling and make sure all are separated properly. I am vegetarian so, I use sliced cut white onion, long cut peppers , celery, mushrooms and broccoli. stir fry all veggies with olive oil and once cooked half way, add Soya sauce and chili sauce per taste. mix and add noodles. stir fry all together until all veggies cooked. you can add chicken or egg as needed. Enjoy delicious noodle.
I read a recipe for east Indian style noodles (chow mein). She used ramen noodles and after boiling the noodles just enough to separate them (about 2-3 minutes), she strained and rinsed with cold water to stop the cooking process. This has helped keep my noodles firm throughout the stir-fry process. Hope this helps.
I agree with the others about cooking quickly, rinsing in cold water and stirring through oil.
Another consideration is your heat source. Most homes do not have even a quarter the heat of a commercial wok furnace. Chinese Cantonese people call this heat ‘wok hei’ and it can’t be replicated at home. This is how Chinese restaurants can cook it so quickly, so it doesn’t get soggy.
I worked in my parents’ Chinese restaurant for years!
Try using fresh Japanese soba noodles. They can be found in most Asian markets in the refrigerated areas.
Soba noodles and chow mein noodles are totally different. I don't think OP wants soba.
And soba are even more difficult to keep from overcooking or getting sticky....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.612819
| 2012-12-01T04:28:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28786",
"authors": [
"Dowbright",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Escoce",
"ItsDanny",
"Jason Lobo",
"Jordyn",
"LastMike036",
"Vigrond",
"Yonit Gefen",
"colejkeene",
"hideo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71859",
"m231",
"nine9ths",
"rackandboneman",
"user71859"
],
"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
}
|
17411
|
Caffettiera (Moka Pot) is not making coffee properly
I have fairly large Italian Caffettiera used for making coffee. I think it makes about 8 cups. The thing is it sits on my lit gas stove for at least 15 minutes and nothing comes out.
Any ideas?
PS. Yes, I put water in it ;)
If you put water in and you're heating water. Water will turn to steam. The pressure has to come out somewhere, where is the steam escaping? The bottom part of it should be contained other than the part that comes up the center...
When I first glanced at the title of this question, I thought it said, "Cafeteria is not making coffee properly." My initial response was going to be, "Go to a different cafeteria!"
You may have a broken or loose gasket. Separate the two main parts of the caffettiera and check underneath the top part. There should be a large rubber gasket. Over time this gasket gets harder and develops cracks: these cracks let steam and cofee out and prevent the necessary working pressure to build up. If this is your problem, you will notice that the caffettiera hisses and sputters but no coffee comes up.
You should describe what kind of noises your caffettiera is making. On an other tack, are you sure the fire is big/hot enough? If the caffettiera is really large (like, a 16 cups one) and the burner is too small it may be that the pot never gets hot enough to boil.
Lastly, it may be that the caffettiera is so clogged up that water/coffee cannot go through. This would be unusual, and I assume that you have already checked that.
Does steam come out the pressure release on the side? If so, perhaps you've ground your coffee too fine or packed too much of it in. Other than the gasket, as in Walter's answer, that's the only thing I can think of.
Are you puting the water in the bottom part close to the stove? Have you cleaned all parts incl the Coffee Basket, the Gasket, Mesh and Funnel? You can clean the (inverted) funnel going into the upper chamber (where the coffee should percolate into) with a pipe cleaner.
Put water in the bottom part, coffee in the holder. Twist it together to firm hand tightness and put on the stove.
After this, if you are still having problems getting coffee into the upper chamber, I'd advise going into a store and reading the instructions that come with a new one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.613520
| 2011-09-02T09:48:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17411",
"authors": [
"Deej",
"ESultanik",
"Mike",
"Nan",
"Nij",
"Richard",
"Sri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65371",
"talon8",
"yarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44413
|
How do smaller but good restaurants keep/reheat roasted meat, particularly Prime Rib?
Even if Prime Rib is a popular menu item, a smaller place may not get orders fast enough to sell the beef at the requested doneness while it is still at the appropriate temperature. So how is it handled? It's such a spendy item, you wouldn't want plates returned. Heaven forbid a large portion of roast become overcooked by keeping it warm. Is there a standard?
I've no idea about a standard, but a 90-seat restaurant where I used to work served a veal chop intended for 2-3 people by cooking it sous vide to 130F, then finishing on the grill to medium. We could thereby get a piece of meat that would have to grill or roast for at least 45 minutes to the table in around 15, and the sealed chops could be kept in their bags for 2-3 days.
Treating a whole prime rib roast this way might be a bit difficult, but perhaps you could use smaller slices, sous vide to very rare, and finish quickly in a hot oven (or get all French Laundry and use a freaking blowtorch on the edges). Or perhaps the other way around - roast, slice, seal, and keep hovering just outside the danger zone until needed, at which time you bring up to temp. A bit questionable if an inspector catches you, and a bit tough to deal with carryover, but some enterprising chef might have tried it.
I would venture a guess though that this is why you don't see too many smaller places serving prime rib. I typically see this featured as a nightly special or only in larger steakhouses, and it often seems to be gone by the time I get there.
Sous vide is very common even in non-high-end commercial kitchens for this reason.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.613774
| 2014-05-26T04:25:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44413",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Kyriacos Antoniades",
"MomentumEigenstate",
"Spammer",
"Susan Phelps",
"Turkeyphant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71956"
],
"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
}
|
39686
|
Add Cocoa Butter to Chocolate Chips to Temper?
Thanks to a well meaning neighbor, I am now the less than proud owner of 8lbs of Nestle Chocolate Chips. Not only do I not really love making cookies, Nestle Chocolate Chips came in dead last in a recent Cook's Illustrated taste test of chocolate chips.
I've never tempered chocolate, but that's something I'd like to get into.
I could swear that I read somewhere that real but "bad" chocolate can be improved and tempered after adding 10% cocoa butter. Is that true? For the life of me I can't find the source for that info.
If it is true, would more cocoa butter be better? I know that couverture chocolate can contain up to 40% cocoa butter.
I understand that no amount of cocoa butter will turn Nestle chips into Callebaut, but I would like to practice the process of tempering with the cheap chocolate that I already own before I spend real money on fine chocolate. I can get a good price on organic, food grade cocoa butter.
Ingredient list of Nestle Semi-Sweet Morsels: Semi-sweet chocolate (sugar, chocolate, cocoa butter, milkfat, soy lecithin, natural flavors)
The nutritional information says that the total fat is 4 grams in a 14 gram serving. That makes the chips 29% fat. If I'm not missing anything, that means that they are at least 15% cocoa butter, probably more. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Keep in mind that if you mess up tempering of 'fine chocolate', you can always heat it back up and do it again.
All you are doing is trying to make one of the three types of chocolate crystals the dominant one, and form the crystal lattice.
This article chocolate alchemy describes it. In practice, having a fast digital hand thermometer is really helpful since you can actually see the changes at the critical temperatures.
As far as the Nestle stuff goes, try practicing with them as they are. I'm afraid I can't advise to throw good cocoa butter into it. You may be able to get chocolate ice cream mileage from your 8lbs. Otherwise, just go ahead temper your favourite chocolate. Worst case, a badly tempered good chocolate still tastes great.
What we know from the Federal Standards of Identity for Cacao Products is that there is at least 35% cocoa mass (which can include cocoa butter), and no more than 12% milk fat (by weight) in a product labeled semi-sweet chocolate, which includes the Nestle morsels. We also know from the Nestle label listing sugar first that it is the most plentiful ingredient by weight.
It is a reasonable guess, although not certain, that the milkfat percentage is in fact 12%, as it is more economical than cocoa butter, and that is the maximum permitted. Similarly, the cocoa mass is probably no more than the required amount.
If one makes that inference, the formula of the chocolate is 50 sugar, 35 cocoa mass, 12 milk fat with 3% left over for emulsifiers, flavorings, and uncertainty.
(Note that even without making any assumptions on the cocoa mass, with 12% milkfat, there is only 88% left to be divided between cocoa mass and sugar, and there is more sugar, so it cannot be less than 44%.)
My guess is that the percentage of milkfat is low enough that the chips will temper. They will probably temper now.
The question is would you want to:
By adding even more cocoa butter to a chip which has little chocolate flavor to start with (being mostly sugar and fat), you are going to further dilute the flavor.
They may or may not be conched to the standards that chocolate intended for eating out of hand or covertuer is, and are not all that high quality a chocolate to begin with, so you are not going to get outstanding results
Because of the residual milk fat, you will never be certain your tempering has been done correctly
I would suggest this is not worth doing.
However,you can use them as is in any recipe that requires chips, or melting down semi-sweet chocolate, including puddings, cakes, ganaches and so on.
That would be a better use than trying to turn them into a coverteure which they are not and will never be.
I'm not trying to turn them into fine chocolate. I'd like to try my hand at tempering before I spend money on fine chocolate for tempering. You say that I can probably temper the chips without adding the cocoa butter. If that's the case, will the chocolate behave similarly to a quality level of chocolate I'm likely to buy for an application that requires tempering? Keep in mind that I have 8 pounds of "chocolate" that I really don't want. If I can use it as practice material, that's putting it to good use.
Even if you did practice, how would you know if your results were tainted by the milkfat?
I don't know, I didn't know that was an issue. Whaddya mean?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.613955
| 2013-11-24T11:27:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39686",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42527
|
How to best hold wild rice
I'm making mushroom soup recipe and I'm looking forward to serving it at dinner tomorrow. I have powdered the shitakes, sliced the mushrooms and the wild rice is in the oven now. In order to serve the best possible soup, where should I stop preparation tonight? If I were comfortable with all of the ingredients, I would prepare the soup up to the addition of cream. Unfortunately, I know nothing of wild rice, and how best to hold it. Will it be OK overnight in the fridge? Even better, can I leave the soup (up to the cream addition) on the porch overnight? It's expected to dip 10 degrees F below freezing and stay there until morning.
EDIT: My best guess is to add the rice to the soup now, store overnight on the porch, and add the cornstarch slurry, cream and the rest just prior to service. Would the wild rice hold up to that?
Wild rice, if left in the soup, will absorb water until it is bloated and mushy. You should therefore refrigerate it separately, and add it as you are finishing the soup.
Foxes, deer, raccoons and so on aside, assuming the temperature outside is at 40 F / 4 C or lower steadily, you can use it as a giant fridge/freezer. Of course, if the temperate goes as low as you have indicated, your soup base is likely to freeze, which may be inconvenient.
I took your advice and bagged up the wild rice and kept it separate from the soup overnight (on the porch). The lions, tigers and bears kept out of it and I just finished putting the soup together. Holy crap that's good. It may be the best soup I've ever made. Thanks for the help.
I am glad it worked out for you
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.614419
| 2014-03-05T07:45:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42527",
"authors": [
"Glass Pool Fencing spam",
"HER'S Style",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judith Madla",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99350",
"rakeen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21876
|
What is the benefit of using a Mezzaluna Knife over a traditional knife
These seem popular in many modern knife sets, and I have seen them used (somewhat clumsily) in Europe.
I have briefly tried some before, but couldn't see the benefit of it. But then again no one seemed to know how to use it correctly
Does anyone actually use these to good effect? If so, what is actually gained over a normal knife?
Which type (single or double blade) and size does this apply to?
Examples:
@ElendilTheTall You changed the point of my question?
Sorry, the question was unclear - the original title was simply 'Mezzaluna Knife' - but user editing is what this site's all about: you seem to have rectified things admirably.
@ElendilTheTall All fine, just got myself confused!
Just seen one about 400 mm long, used for cutting pizza's. Awesome, if not scary!
Yeah - at least if you have both hands on the handles you can't shear through your fingers :)
Hmmm, personally I find "Is it worth it..." change to the title not that great. It sounds subjective and doesn't really reflect the essence of the question. From what I can see, you are trying to find out what they are used for and how to optimally use them. So perhaps this would be a better title: "What is the purpose of a Mezzaluna knife and how does one use it optimally?" I'll go ahead and suggest the change but I guess it's up to you(or a Mod) to decide if it's a better title.
I agree with @Jay the question would be a great question as what is the purpose and how does one use it effectively. But as it stands It really does not fit well with SE.
@Chad, i think the body of the question is fine(especially after the edit). I think initially it was worded a little confusingly but I understand what is being asked now. Nevertheless the title isn't so great right now. Perhaps: "What is the benefit of using a Mezzaluna Knife over a traditional knife?"
Advantages
no hand needed to hold the food, therefore safer for children or those lacking knife skills
quicker for those lacking knife skills
no need for gloves when cutting foods that can irritate the skin, like chillies.
Disadvantages
Awkward and dangerous to wash in between the blades for the double-blade version.
Difficult to store safely
A unitasker really only suited for chopping herbs and spices. The most common items chopped in many cuisines, onion and garlic, would require rough chopping first with a traditional knife, making it hardly worth it.
Inhibits the development of valuable knife skills.
Thanks. The point about chillies is interesting. Like the "Inhibits the development of valuable knife skills." :-)
In the Netherlands, this type of knife is used to cut through cheese in shops.
buy a giant one and use it for pizza :)
I bought my first mezzaluna because I have advanced arthritis and can no longer use a chef's knife properly. It's an absolute lifesaver being able to push down with the strength of both hands instead of relying on a weakened arm with a wrist that doesn't bend attached to a clawed hand that cannot grip a knife the right way.
My "go-to" knife is a fairly large mezzaluna (for me at least, it's an 8" single blade and my hands are child-small) and I do use it to chop everything from meats to vegetables. About the only things I can't do with it are fillet fish and break down chicken. I also have a smaller double-blade for herbs and garlic.
Obviously, many of the tasks I use it for are better suited to a chef's knife but as that is not an option anymore, my mezzaluna is incredibly versatile and without it I don't think I could accomplish much in the kitchen. I recommend mezzalunas to anyone who finds a chef's knife painful or can no longer grip one properly. There's a bit of a learning curve but you get used to it quickly.
These are most useful for things like large bunches of leafy herbs (they are often sold as herb choppers) or a pile of nuts to be chopped. You can also find very large ones used for cutting pizza.
However, if you have a decent, large, sharp, chef's knife and know how to use it, you can do just as good a job without one: it depends how many gadgets you like lying around the kitchen.
Is there a significant speed advantage (assuming you know how to use both devices correctly)?
I would say no - any possible advantage is outweighed by the fact that you have an extra utensil to wash up afterwards. :)
I'd agree here. I had a mezzaluna which I gave away because I wasn't using it. Pretty much the only thing I used it for was to chop hazelnuts (the bowl kept them in place) and it wasn't worth the drawer space just for that.
I have excellent knife skills, but I do use my mezzaluna - but only to chop peanuts and pistachios. Mine has a bowl, which keeps the pieces of nuts from flying all over.
I almost gave my mezzaluna knife away...
but decided to give it a try and now I LOVE - LOVE - LOVE this knife!!!
I have a single handle, single blade mezzaluna with a square chopping board that is rounded out (bowled)to fit the knife.
I chop everything from garlic and herbs to fruit and veggies. The board and knife keep everything from falling or flying all over.
When mixing several different fruits,veggies and/or herbs into a single dish (usually 2-6 servings), you can chop most or all of them at once! Cut a small amount of your ingredients, move over or to one of the corners, get more or your next item, chop and slide it over, and so on. When board is nearly full or you have all your ingredients cut, put board over your pan, scrape all ingredients in (if more are needed, repeat)...
then your ready to start cooking!!! SIMPLE and FAST!!!
Not only does this save a ton of time and clean-up, I almost always choose this over my food processor or nut chopper because I love the 'organic' feel to chopping up all that stuff by hand!
Granted, this is more "utilitarian"; chopping quickly and easily. For cutting more precise or 'pretty' pieces of fruit or veggies, I'd choose a different knife. But once you get the hang of the rocking motion, and find just how much time you will save, I think you will really like using it!
*just make sure to also get the "bowl" type cutting board and as good a quality knife as you can afford.
I have one, a single-bladed and I use it to cut pizza. It's 22 cm (8.5") from the middle of the one handle to the middle of the second handle in a straight line, and 27 cm (10.5") if you follow the curve of the blade.
It's a very easy way to cut a pizza, but unless you eat pizza often, it's not worth the cost in my opinion (I got mine for free), although I have no idea how expensive they are. I must admit that I prefer it over a pizza cutter myself. The reason for that is that you can put more pressure on it. One clean cut and you're through. It's also possible that I've only worked with lousy pizza cutters, that wiggled if you put a bit of pressure on them or that weren't very sharp.
And of course, if you want to cut pizza with it, you should stick with a single-bladed one ;-)
+1 Thanks. I just use me regular knife to cut pizza, not sure what the big deal is with pizza? The wheel thing is for cutting pizza while it is sitting on stone. A dual blade mezzaluna would be interesting on pizza :-)
Well, I actually like to cut my pizza with a scissor, but a lot of people find that unorthodox. So I agree with ElendilTheTall that the mezzaluna knife isn't very needed by you.
Wow. People actually still use those wheel things for pizza? They never worked great for me and took forever to get the pie sliced. Try a cleaver. It works perfect and fast. FYI: most pizza places use a cleaver.
Have a happy foodie day!
If you also happen to hate prep while cooking at home like me, a mezzaluna knife is just the perfect tool for slicing and mincing. Though a chef’s knife is an allrounder, the prep takes me forever. In fact it takes out the joy out of cooking, turning it into a real time suck.
I have a small kitchen and a restricted storage space too. The mezzaluna knife I own has handles that fold in and out. The retractable handles overlay over the blade for secure and compact storage, which is a huge plus point as I have a small kitchen.
I prefer mezzaluna knives over other knives as they are lightweight, comfortable to grip and dishwasher safe too!
Also, I love brownies and this knife has been great for cutting blocks of chocolate for a batch of brownies.
I use it to cut my home made after dinner mint chocolate slab into bite size squares. It sits better in hot water and gives a nice, sharp clean cut to the chocolate...mmmm...yum
It's the best tool to chop rosemary. I also use it to cut pizza as it works so much better than the stainless steel wheel on most pizza cutters. You get better leverage with the two handles
I have a single handle Mez. knife I could never figure out how to use until I began to eat chopped salads. Using the knife in a somewhat shallow hardwood bowl is perfect for chopping salad fixings.
If u make a lot of chimichuri .and want to do it right,this is the proper tool. parsley needs to be chopped very fine and inlarge amounts so in order to do without your arm falling off a mezzaluna is needed.
I hardly think you need a special knife just to chop a lot of parsley. I can do that with my chef's knife.
@Aaronut : You can, but it's actually the dished bowl that's more important than the knife, as it helps to keep things in one place. It's also useful when mixing lots of different things together (the garlic & herbs at the same time, vs. individually and mixing together afterwards). Of course, for small batches, it's faster for me to do it with a normal knife than remembering where I stashed the mezzluna that I don't use very often.
@Joe: I take it by "dished bowl" that you're talking about the special recessed cutting boards that are sometimes sold with the knife as part of a set? Those are certainly useful. I'd still say it's a little ridiculous to say that you "need" it in order to chop herbs "without your arm falling off" - and parsley is actually one of the easiest herbs to mince with a regular knife.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.614643
| 2012-03-01T06:50:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21876",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Chad",
"CobaltHex",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"PizzaQueen",
"Rick G",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie",
"TFD",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97131",
"montieferg"
],
"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
}
|
107289
|
Is it necessary to follow the suggested order in this challah recipe?
Came across a Challah recipe which called for adding ingredients in the following order: water, yeast, flour, eggs, sugar, salt and oil/butter. They highlighted the order is important. Why is this important? Or is this a myth? I've actually seen most recipes call to add the sugar and water first to "bloom" the yeast.
Hi, I'm afraid that the title as you first formulated it is too broad, books can be (and have been) written on this matter. So I edited it to be only about the speicifc recipe you are talking about.
The order of operations/ingredients in many recipes is critically important, especially those where chemistry is involved and/or gluten development. Some ingredients, such as baking powder, will activate as soon as they get wet, so you may not want to wet them too early. Yeast development is affected by sugar and salt (in different ways). Gluten development is affected by fat and mixing (in different ways). So, for example, if you premix other ingredients before you add flour you can limit how much the gluten is developed in the dough, which is desirable for some breads and cakes. And most important in challah is to "take" the challah (remove a small piece and burn it before baking the rest into a loaf).
Must you, no, absolutely not. But if you do not, you may very well not get the same results as the author. Now, it is possible you will even like your results better, or you may not even notice the difference, but they may be different.
Some recipes, the ingredient order is something that is just the way one person learned it, passed it own, and the order may have taken a life of its own. This can even be the case when the author highlights how important it is. In others though, the author or others have carefully experimented and determined the order from exact results they want. In the case of something like a bread, order that say the yeast is added and if you bloom it first can have a very real effect on the results. Blooming it to activate it can cause a burst of rise right from the start and cause it to react early with the sugars, while adding it dry and later can cause it to rise more slowly and start feeding on the starch from the beginning. In many cases this may seem subtle, but those two scenarios will cause a difference in lightness/density, bubble sizes, and texture. Many other variances such as was the flour more hydrated before fermentation started or not until after start throwing other variables into the equation. Two reasons why many recipes can exist for the same item are that often the same results can be gotten in different ways, but also slight variations can have different results.
So, I would answer that order sometimes is a myth, and in other cases has very real results and in some cases you may not notice the difference but others might.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.615420
| 2020-04-04T18:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107289",
"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
}
|
102275
|
Should pans be washed before adding more poultry?
In a bakery kitchen should the pans used to hold the raw chicken be washed before placing more raw chicken in those same pans? Especially if there are hours between usage.
IMO, in a professional/commercial kitchen you should never re-use and always use clean equipment.
The risk of contamination is great(er) in case of chicken, so is the risk of having an inspector coming in and seeing dirty equipment lying around.
The key information is "hours between usage". Placing raw chicken in a container, then putting more in a half an hour later, is no cause for concern if it's cooked after that.
In terms of food safety, once a piece of equipment touches a piece of food, the equipment is that piece of food until it's been properly cleaned. If you put a piece of raw chicken in a pan, then take it out and wait several hours, that pan is still chicken that's been unrefrigerated longer than it should've been.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.615667
| 2019-09-11T20:18:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102275",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102465
|
How much salt do potatoes absorb when being boiled?
My mashed potatoes are always bland. I’ve googled recipes and a lot of them say to put a teaspoon or so of salt in the water to boil them. I’m a bit worried about using so much salt.
What I’d like to know is how much of that salt actually goes into the food, and how much is left in the water?
Thanks.
This prezi answers your question pretty well - just a quick google search.https://prezi.com/wbq6vmlfoha0/potato-osmosis/
From the linked question on pasta absorption, When cooking pasta in salted water how much of the salt is absorbed?, which basically says "the more salt you put in, the more will be absorbed".
However, one thing I've always thought to be true is that if you don't put enough in when cooking, you seem to have to add a whole lot more afterwards to lift the flavour to desired levels than you would have if you'd added it whilst cooking.
So the overall cooked vs table-added levels may in fact be lower if you add it early.
As it's cropped up in another answer - if you boil them with no salt whatsoever, the smell & flavour are really quite different & no amount of salt added after mashing can properly rescue them.
I can smell when someone's forgotten to salt boiling potatoes. My partner at one time wanted to believe it was because I can smell salt… erm, no. I don't think anyone can smell salt, but the potatoes smell completely different.
Late edit: The accepted answer on Ways to learn to season food correctly? would appear to agree with the statement that salting early is different to salting late - but I'd love to see some really solid evidence as to actually how that affects something as simple as boiled potatoes. All I have right now is 30 years of just knowing it makes a difference.
Agree with you completely. And it's just as important, if not more so, when making potato salad. I've never been able to get either properly seasoned if salt is not added to the cooking water. And I know I use less salt when cooking than adding at the table.
How much of the salt from the cooking liquid gets into the potatoes? Not much.
But more importantly, if you're worried about salt content, it's better to just cook the potatoes in unsalted water, and salt the mashed potatoes to your liking when you mash them. There's nothing magical about the salt absorbed during boiling... it'll taste as salty, and be as salty, as salt mixed in during mashing.
I really have to disagree. I can smell when potatoes are boiling without salt & the end result is really rather revolting. No amount of salt added after mashing will get them anywhere near what they'd have tasted like if cooked with at least a little salt in the first place. [I have no idea how that works, but it's repeatable]
That really sounds like a placebo effect, and conflicts with my experience. If you're certain of your experience, it could make an interesting science experiment.
It can't be a placebo effect if I suddenly can smell from the living room that I didn't salt the taters in the kitchen. I didn't forget then remember. I can smell the difference.
@Tetsujin Could potentially still be a placebo effect, albeit a subconscious one. You could try doing a proper blind test- have a family member prepare potatoes without salt/with salt without you knowing, and you would write down your answer from the other room. Repeat the test a few times and see what the rate of success is. Science!
I don't know why people are insisting that being able to smell the difference in 2 foods could be any kind of "placebo effect". A placebo is being given one thing & being convinced it works "because it should". Being able to smell that taters have not been salted is no kind of psychological effect, otherwise i would periodically get false positives. I don't. Let me re-iterate. I cannot "smell salt" - as far as I'm aware, no-one can. I can smell the difference between boiling potatoes that have been salted [yum] vs ones that haven't [oddly plasticy & just 'wrong']
@Tetsujin, ditto for pasta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.615780
| 2019-09-23T14:30:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102465",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"J Crosby",
"NothingToSeeHere",
"Onyz",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93503
|
How to reduce the sour taste in gravy?
When the gravy becomes sour due to adding too much tomatoes, lemon juice or yougurt etc. What are the ways to get rid of its sourness(Pulupu)?
The primary balancing factor for sourness is sweetness - so gradually adding sugar (plain sugar, rock sugar, honey, palm sugar...) and tasting should yield good results here. "Whereever you add tamarind, you can add jaggery", one well known indian chef tends to say in his videos.
The combination of strong sourness (vinegar!) and strong sweetness (plenty of sugar!) is not uncommon in chinese (sweet-sour) and italian (agrodolce) cuisines. Also, western tomato sauces almost always have sugar added unless exceptionally good and sweet tomatoes are used.
As strange as it sounds, giving the sourness a bit more depth with vinegar (for anything with indian or thai spices in it, yellow rice wine vinegar is great; avoid distilled or white wine vinegar!) while also sweetening the dish can help here also. You got a sour dish, make it a great sour dish.
Also, make sure your salt, fat (butter, ghee, coconut oil, oil), and bitterness (spices) are balanced.
Is there an alternative to sweetening?
Does this work with stevia?
Add baking soda, about a teaspoon per kilogram of liquid. Let it dissolve before tasting.
This is ... advice to be followed with caution. Baking soda thrown into a hot sour liquid could cause a rather intense reaction (read: cause things to boil over violently), and also make things taste rather soapy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.616128
| 2018-11-02T11:50:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93503",
"authors": [
"Boris Valderrama",
"Prashant Sharma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84876",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121918
|
What is the difference in using strained or non-strained almond milk for pancakes?
My main aim is to make a cream out of almond milk, which I could fold into a vegan pancake batter.
I typically work with two types of almond milk. One type is "watery" and is made of grinding almonds with water and filtering the liquid and a second type is "creamy" and is made of mixing almond paste (almond butter) with water.
How do those liquids differ when using them for making pancakes?
Hi, I am afraid your question is unanswerable as stated. Distinctions aren't true or untrue, they are useful or not useful - in regard to a purpose. "How does A differ from B" - there are tons of correct (and usually uninteresting) answers for that for any A and B. If you explain your purpose of comparing the two types of milk, we can reopen the question and tell you how they differ in regard to that purpose (as long as it is a culinary one, since that is our site scope). There is an "edit" link under your post to expand on what you are comparing the milks for.
Tahini is sesame paste, not almond paste. And there are way more than two types: flavored (vanilla) vs plain, sweetened vs not, just almonds and water (what you say is watery) vs stabilized with gums, etc.
@Joe in Hebrew it's not uncommon to say טחינת שקדים as in "almond tahini" but yeah I think חמאת שקדים (almond butter) is more common.
@rumtscho does the question fit now? Please further help me out here...
Hi Markus, thank you for editing. I changed a few more formulations, to make it answerable and not impossibly generic, and reopened the question.
@Joe I can echo what Markus is saying - I am also accustomed to languages in which "tahini" is an umbrella term, like "puree", and one has to specify the nut from which the tahini is made. Although sesame is indeed rather common, so it can be left out sometimes, especially in informal situations - but you won't see just "tahini" on the supermarket shelf the way you see just "milk" for cow milk. It may be that the usage has changed when the word entered English, but I wouldn't be too surprised about people transferring their native usage to English, given that the cognate exists.
You can just make pancakes with self-raising flour & water. They come out a bit more like roti, but they work. i'd rather have one of those than one with 'fake' milk.
The main difference is the amount of solids and fats. What you prefer should be up to your taste (personally I like creamy versions of milk alternatives). However, you should note, that the amount of solids and fats will either lead to a different dough result or some thought on how to balance this with the other ingredients for a consistent result.
Imagine it in the extreme way: You've got a finished pancake dough and now you're stirring in almond butter. It may taste really good, but it will thicken your dough and make it somewhat fattier. Therefore the pancake will have a tendency to be thicker, more filling and drier than in the case of not adding the almond butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.616289
| 2022-10-10T09:05:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121918",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"markus",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123388
|
Preventing mug from breaking when making mug cake
I am making mug cake in a pot using steaming method and I will use normal tea cup.
I want to know what precautions I must take so that the cup doesn't break after baking
The only precaution you can take is to have the temperature change happen as slow as possible. This includes:
don't use cold mugs, start them from room temperature
put the mugs in the steamer before you have turned it on
let the mugs cool down slowly
This doesn't mean that you will never have mugs break on you. It can still happen, but it will be a rare occurrence. Just make sure you are only using cups which you can afford to lose, not the most expensive china.
Also: Mugs and cups have handles, which get shaped separately and attached during the production process. The attachment point is then a place with high risk for breaking. So ideally, you would use something without a handle, if you have it. Good choices would be ramekins, or maybe Japanese tea cups, if you find ones that are large enough.
Thermal stress is fairly unlikely to break porcelain you've used to bake something.
Porcelain doesn't automatically break at high temperature (remember, it was "baked" at much higher temperatures than your oven can reach), but may break if part of it is heated to a high temperature while a different part is kept at a lower temperature. Normally you'd need direct, high-flux heat (such as over a burner, or immediately under a broiler element) to cause that.
And if you are steaming the mug, it is absolutely impossible to build up the requisite temperature differential. The stress here is much less than the stress caused by adding boiling water to a room-temperature mug. You'll be fine. Unless you drop the mug.
Yes, don't forget that steaming heats the whole thing quite evenly to a maximum of 100°C (barring pressure cookers of course). Making a hot drink by pouring in boiling water heats it to nearly 100°C , much less evenly, with far more thermal stress on the handle joint; boiling water in a mug in the microwave can get the main bit right to 100°C with the handle cold. No one worries about that
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.616552
| 2023-02-14T06:03:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123388",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124507
|
Are cells living by the time you eat them?
Are cells living by the time you eat them? I'm guessing for very cooked foods they're quite dead, but perhaps (some or all of) the cells constituting certain other food sources are alive by the time they reach the mouth?
What would you consider “living”? Cells don’t have beating hearts.
I would bet there are living things in sushi. But perhaps you don't want to get a microscope and have a look.
@Sneftel while this question may be difficult for a philosopher, the word has a very clear meaning for everyday, practical purposes. As long as it actively maintains homeostasis, it's living.
@rumtscho Thank you for your intriguing definition of life. Can you take that further --- What is homeostasis? Is it (from Wikipedia) ``the state of steady internal, physical, chemical, and social conditions maintained by living systems''? If so, then we would be explaining life by referring to a concept which refers to life --- not very helpful. Do you know of a good explanation of homeostasis that does not depend on the notion of life?
@NoahJ yes, that's what I mean. No, I don't think that there is a notion of homeostasis that doesn't depend on the definition of life. As I said, if you try to define life formally, there is no good definition. But luckily, that's a problem for philosophers. The concept is perfectly usable and clear in everyday situations, such as being able to determine whether a cell is dead or alive.
If you eat fresh vegetables and/or fruits, then the cells certainly can be alive. Every time you eat a fresh (i.e. not cooked) salad or similar you are eating living things.
Almost all plant parts will survive quite a period out of the soil and retain "freshness", which indicates that they are alive - so much so that you can take a cut stem or even a leaf, place it in water and have it generate a whole new plant. This is known as vegetative propagation.
Amazing!
Okay, cooking kills plant cells --- how much cooking (to the extent that this can be answered generally)?
Does freezing them kill them (or an appreciable sum of them)?
Does bacterial or fungal spoilage kill them (or an appreciable sum of them)?
Does time alone kill them (supposing that, somehow, spoilage due to bacteria and fungi were to be prevented and that things like moisture, temperature, and light conditions were kept ideal for the given plant matter)?
Are the cells of raw meat alive?
Please let me know if these should be asked elsewhere.
@NoahJ the answers there are "it depends" Freezing in a freezer generally does - but plenty of plants survive freezing temps too (think snow in many countries...). Time, yes, if deprived of water and nutrients, otherwise maybe - hydroponics works for growing plants.. Spoilage will kill them over time - the bacteria/fungi are eating the cells for nutrients. Raw meat cells - for a while they are alive, but once they use up their energy source (ATP) and oxygen, they will die - any meat you get from a butcher/supermarket is well and truly dead.
@bob1 nitpick: I tried to think of edible plant parts that go through a freezing cycle and couldn't think of any. We eat a lot of non-perennials, or plant parts that are protected from freezing (e.g. onion bulbs in the soil), or botanical fruit that isn't there in winter (e.g. aubergines). Perennial plants tend to survive winter with only hardy parts being out unprotected. As soon as the cytosol freezes and punctures the cell walls, it's over.
... not to mention all the microorganisms that are alive in any raw food you eat.
@rumtscho -I quite agree, other than some specialist things like spruce buds, I don't think there are any. I was thinking kale and possibly some of the other brassicas might be possibles, but these are mostly harvested before the snows set in. However there are plenty of plants that we can freeze then cook and eat, so I think that makes this a valid point.
@FuzzyChef I was discounting those as they aren't the bulk of the food source, but good point otherwise.
@bob1 yes, talking about frozen vegetables is quite valid in the context of the question. I just don't think that there are any vegetables which will survive after freezing, independently of the fact that whole plants can survive a harsh winter. So I would put frozen-then-thawed vegetables in the "no longer alive" category.
@rumtscho absolutely. Kale is hardy down to -23 C/10 F, so it could survive freezing potentially, though not in the context of leaves removed from the plant I suspect.
@rumtscho ordinarily not, not from standard cutting cloning, however depending on how it's been frozen, you can sometimes do tissue cloning. It depends on the veg itself, and the method of freezing. Some seed germs require freezing to be viable in the spring. I realize that's a germ, but it still kinda counts I think.
@Escoce I'm with you on that one. Seeds may be dormant, but I sure count them as alive.
Regarding sushi, some sushi is served fresh as in, killed right in front of you. That tissue is certain still viable.
Regarding things like beef, that's usually aged several days before it's even butchered, and then often aged some more. That's not usually still viable tissue.
Obviously veg that has been served fresh is still living tissue, since depending on what you have you could clone or culture a new plant from the tissue samples.
Then there are live cultures (that have not been pasteurized); Pickles, Kimchi, Sour Kraut, Yogurt, Sour Cream, Cultured Buttermilk. Yes you are consuming live lacto bacillus or similar bacteria in that case.
I forgot to mention wine, beer, kambucha, and kefir
Oh yes, good thinking! I forgot about all fermented stuff. This is probably the prime example, because many people specifically consume it for the live cultures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.616862
| 2023-06-19T21:25:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124507",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"FuzzyChef",
"Noah J",
"Sneftel",
"Steve Chambers",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112854
|
Are non-brisket cuts suitable for corned beef?
I was about to make corned beef brisket again, but I just realized that perhaps brisket is traditionally used only because it used to be the cheapest cut available.
Eye of round for instance is currently half the price of brisket, but it has far less fat and that might significantly change the resulting product.
I'd hate to waste it experimenting, so how should I expect the result to compare with brisket if other cuts are used instead?
You can corn any type of meat
I successfully sous vided two 2kg inside rounds:
One I cooked for 36 hours at 160°F, and the other for 10 hours at 180°F.
Slow cooking lost 28% of the weight, while fast cooking lost 36% and made the meat much denser and dryer.
(This demonstrates that it's temperature that forces out the juices, not cooking time.)
Because the fat content was much less, even the slow cooked version was much more solid and dryer in texture than with brisket.
They were still flaky and delicious though, but definitely needed to be served with mustard, mashed potatoes, or other lubricant.
When cold, it was easy to slice them very thinly for sandwiches without their falling apart.
I'll definitely do this again (slow method only), perhaps with some other cut.
I used to buy bottom round corn beef.(20 years or so ago). Liked it better but I don't see it for sale anymore.
I'm having a harder time finding bottom round in general. It was my go-to cut for London Broil. I don't know if it's getting diverted for other processing (as 'stir fry strips' didn't used to be a thing), or what's happening. I even asked the guy stocking the cases Wegman's a couple of years ago, and they said they only had top round. (although I had also asked about higher fat ground turkey, and got a similar answer, but they now have it)
Corning of beef refers not specifically to a cut of beef but to the process of brining beef in a specific pickling spice. Pastrami is also brined beef, but omits the pickling spice altogether. Corned beef is also typically cooked in some sort of liquid, while pastrami is typically a roasted meat.
Typically before Texans brought the delights of briskets in-vogue brisket was a cheap-cut. This was more to with the fact that there really is no easy way to cook it. Even with a modern slow-cooker it still takes me two days to prepare it. A lot of the desireability of cuts was to do with the amount of effort that was required to prepare it, not always the quality of the end product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.617345
| 2020-11-27T01:52:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112854",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Neil Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"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
}
|
87726
|
How should I roast bay nuts?
Bay Nuts are the fruit of the California Bay Laurel. Few people have seen (or heard) of them, because the trees don't produce enough for commercial harvests. However, I was gifted with a jar of them by a friend with a fruiting bay tree.
The way one is supposed to eat the nuts is to roast them and eat the seeds, which taste vaguely like chocolate or coffee and vaguely not. However, that's where agreement ends; roasting times and temperatures are given as:
350F for 45 to 90 minutes
450F for 45 minutes
450F for 20 minutes
Various other temperatures and times, from 375 to 475 and from 20 minutes to 90 minutes, depending.
So my question is: approximately how long, and at what temperature, should I be roasting the nuts? Does anyone have direct experience with Bay Nuts, or an authority which looks more definitive than the many blogs which lack rigorous testing of roasting conditions?
Well thank you very much.
The "...taste vaguely like chocolate or coffee and vaguely not..." is so tantalizing that I now just have to find bay nuts myself. Which, apparently, comes quite close to finding a unicorn...
'fraid so. I mean, I lived in California for 23 years and never saw them before.
Now I'm curious too! Since you have a jar of them, can you test each of these temp and times with a portion and add your opinion to the mix? ;)
It's obvious why these nuts are not mass-produced: the environmental variables are just too disparate:
you need to harvest them at the correct time
peel them correctly
wash them correctly
dry them correctly
roast them for the right time and the right T°
So that's why you're seeing a large number of methodologies on how to roast them: it d e p e n d s so we will not be able to tell you how to handle your nuts exactly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and you need to fall back to the empirical method.
As you've only got a jar of them, it doesn't make sense to put them in an oven as the quantity is too small. That's the major difference between home cooking (small batch) and professional cooking (large batch) and in this case, you should use the non-professional method of dry-frying them instead:
Take a pan large enough to contain all of the nuts
Put the pan on medium heat and dry-fry one single nut
Put the pan on medium-high and dry-fry one single nut
Repeat with multiple heats and times until you've got the one single perfectly roasted nut
Now pour the jar in the pan ensuring the nuts are not stacked on top of one another and are all touching the base of the pan just like the one single nut did and repeat the process for the single perfect nut for all of the nuts you've got left in your jar.
P.S. And if you're still not totally nuts about how to handle these nuts, you might actually be able to enjoy your nuts! ;-)
P.P.S. Anyone else reading this who has an entire crate of these: yes you can use the empirical method for your particular oven, for your particular settings for your individual taste too... :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.617581
| 2018-02-13T03:38:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87726",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"beausmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
}
|
32033
|
how can i make 1 1/2 cup of all purpose flour to 1 1/2 cup of self'rising flour?
I am making a coffee cake it requires *self-rising flou*r but I only have all purpose flour. I do know how to make ap flour to self-rising yet i dnt the measurments for 1/2 a cup ?
This article has a pretty typical ratio:
1 c. flour : 1 1/2 tsp baking powder : 1/4 tsp salt
so for 1 1/2 cup, you would want:
1.2 c. flour, 2 1/4 tsp baking powder : 3/8 tsp salt
Alternatively, you could make a fairly large batch, whisk it together well, then measure normally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.617843
| 2013-02-18T22:00:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32033",
"authors": [
"Jimmy ",
"Judy Meek",
"Lorettalib",
"Marcia Sanders",
"Poutnik",
"heavens wind",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73682"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32621
|
Turkey frying oil temperature issues
Thanksgiving and Christmas of last year I tried my hand at frying a turkey.
Everything was fine but I could never seem to get the peanut oil up to 350℉ (175℃).
I followed Alton Brown's Recipe but just couldn't reach 350℉. The best i did was 275℉ to 300℉ (135℃ to 150℃) which meant I left the turkey in a little longer and burned it a little too much.
Any advice?
Were you using a propane burner like the recipe says? How powerful is it?
Keep trying, do whatever needed to get the right temperature. A fried turkey is amazingly delicious, and well worth the hassle! You won't regret it!
If you are saying you cannot get the oil hot enough during pre-heating:
You may need a bigger burner than the one you are using. Most resources I've seen suggest over 100k BTU
There may be something physically wrong with your setup (i.e., the vessel should be closer to the flame)
The ambient temperature at the time of cooking was simply too cold for the burner to keep up (see problem 1).
If you are using a purpose-built commercial turkey fryer, I suggest consulting the book or contacting the company. If you built the rig yourself, I suggest more fire! (and lots of safety precautions)
Now... if you are talking about a temperature drop after you dunk the bird, realize that is totally normal.
Alton Brown suggests a preheat temperature of 250 degrees. He suggests raising the temp to 350 after the bird is in the bath but adds the following advice:
"Closely monitor the oil temperature: it's will start to climb above 350 as moisture cooks out of the turkey; reduce the gas flow accordingly..." (Ref ep. 163 transcript in his book Good Eats 2, page 413)
You may need to use a smaller turkey to achieve the internal temperature you want without burning the outside. I'd look for something in the ballpark of 10 pounds. If you are cooking for a crowd, it's best to go with multiple birds instead of going bigger.
Be mindful of carry-over cooking:
Even after it’s been removed from a heat source, food continues to cook. Its internal temperature can rise anywhere from 5 to 20 degrees. The larger the food, the more carryover or residual cooking you’ll have.
http://www.cookingclarified.com/2011/01/carryover-cooking/
Does the hose on your turkey fryer have a safety valve? If so, this valve may be malfunctioning. The safety valve on my turkey fryer is battery powered and is set up to turn off the gas after 10 minutes unless you press the button to start the timer again. I have been frying a turkey for Thanksgiving for about 6 years and never had this problem with temperature. Until this year. The oil took much longer to get to 350 degrees and when the turkey went in it never got back up to that temperature. It turned out that the valve, although open, wasn't letting enough gas in.
I learned this the hard way by replacing it after Thanksgiving.
You also want to get the oil to 350 degrees before you add the turkey. I am puzzled by why the Alton Brown recipe suggests adding the turkey before it reaches the critical temperature; that advice is contrary to my own experience and any recipe that I have read
AB says to preheat to 250, drop the bird, and then raise the heat to 350. I do not know why. (Ref ep. 163 transcript in his book Good Eats 2, page 413)
@PrestonFitzgerald I don't know if this is his reason, but I expect lower oil temperature reduces the odds of splatters or fires if someone does something wrong.
I’ve been doing this for years. I suggest getting the temp up to 375 before lowering the bird in, as the oil temp will drop significantly immediately afterward.
If it is too cold out, find a way to build an impromptu shelter to retain some of the heat and block the wind.
The „Build a shelter“ part can be seen as an answer to the asker’s problem.
You are actually on the right track.
Put the bird in at 250 and the oil will get hotter but never reach 350.
Alton got this one wrong.
Start timing when the turkey starts vigorously frying and roiling bubbles.
3-3.5 minutes per pound and take it out and temp it. It may be up to 165 white/ 200 dark but will still be moist and tender.
You will even be happier if you inject the breast with broth or stock but not a whole lot of fancy spices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.617946
| 2013-03-12T05:01:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32621",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jordaninsac",
"Laschet Jain",
"Martin Berger",
"Nella Joensalo",
"Preston",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stephie",
"ben",
"bevacqua",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75353",
"w. ally"
],
"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
}
|
28838
|
Is the rapid ice bath chill post-sous vide actually necessary when putting the meat/fish in the freezer?
In the past, I would frequently cook (in the oven) 6+ lbs (3+ kg) of salmon fillets (usually took ~25 min) to an internal temp of 145-150 F (62.5-65 C), take them out, let them set on the counter for an hour or two, and then throw them in vacuum-sealed bags and into the freezer.
Then, when I wanted to eat one, I'd take it out and throw it in the microwave. Understandably not the tastiest thing, but it worked well enough. I've never tried it with meat, only fish. As far asI know this never made me sick.
Now, all of the sous vide literature emphasizes a rapid chill in an ice water bath if you want to freeze something. Is this really necessary? For a very thick steak (say 2 in (5 cm)) it could take 3+ hours to fully chill down to 41 F (5 C) in the middle, so if that's still safe to eat, why must you chill thinner cuts? I'd expect anything 1in or less to chill within 3 hours in the freezer. Obviously, you can extrapolate this out and say that, e.g., a 0.125 inch (0.3 cm) cut wouldn't need to be chilled in an ice bath, so the blanket suggestion is only necessary above a certain thickness.
If anyone has found graphs of time/temperature when freezing meat from a cooked temperature, that would be helpful. If that doesn't exist, what's a best guess for the thickness at which pre-freezer ice baths become important for safety?
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety
Yes, fast chilling is critical because it minimizes the production of new bacteria and potentially deadly toxins from the spores of anaerobic pathogens such as C. botulinum and C. perfringens. The spores are not killed by the low temperatures usual in sous vide, and the oxygen-free environment of the bag brings them back to activity. But they require time and temperature to become active and dangerous, so fast chilling -- either refrigeration or freezing -- and limiting the refrigeration time (to about 5 days at around 5°C/40°F, longer for lower temperatures) are absolutely critical to deter them.
The question starts with a situation that is different: cooking in an oven, which is not an anaerobic environment and thus does not trigger the same activation of the spores' lifecycles as cooking in a vacuum does.
FDA regulations state, when cooling, max 2h between 21-57C (70-135F) and no more than 6h total between 5-57C (41-135F). You are allowed to cook at below 57C.
+1 for the answer about sous vide in the first paragraph. I would +1 again if I could for your second paragraph because I don't really get what he's asking.
and if your super worried about the bacteria you can do a quick blanch of the fish before cooking.
Also, safety aside, cooling in an ice/water bath can be done very rapidly and therefore the freezing in the freezer will create much smaller ice crystals and therefore create a better texture in your reheated product (but that may not be a concern of yours if your reheating salmon in the nuker).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.618325
| 2012-12-03T05:49:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28838",
"authors": [
"A.M.Steve",
"Benny Lewis",
"Brendan",
"Cadrac",
"Carey Gregory",
"Howard T. Dimmock",
"Kathy Smith",
"Saisun Corleone",
"Stefan",
"abraham manalad",
"arieljannai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34606
|
Funnel-like device for putting non-liquids into a whipped cream dispenser?
I use an iSi whipped cream dispenser to make things besides whipped cream, such as microwaved chocolate cake, or coffee foam to top desserts. Pouring cream or sugar into the small opening at the top is easy. Pouring things like cake batter or coffee in gel form is not as easy. I tried using a funnel, but it just got clogged and made a mess. The best technique I've found so far is to fold some parchment paper in half to create a channel, and have a helper hold it while I pour the mixture onto it.
Does anyone have a better technique for this?
For coffee in gel form, have you considered making the gel in the dispenser (i.e. pouring in the liquid before it sets)?
I haven't made many of these gels, but for the coffee, the recipe calls for allowing it to set, and then applying an immersion blender to it until it is "barely pourable". In that case, I cannot let it set in the dispenser.
Are you sure that the problem with using a funnel isn't just the size of your specific funnel(s)?
There are plenty of wide-mouthed funnels out there that you should probably try, if you haven't already, such as this Cuisinox:
Or this Norpro:
Either of those look like they'd fit into my own iSi pretty easily, but if you're sure that none of them will work for you, then I think the next best thing would be a piping bag with no tip or coupler. If you don't have one then you can always use the "snip a corner off a ziploc bag" workaround.
I think the main problem I had was finding funnels with the measurements that were both (a) suitable and (b) given in the product description. I'll order one of these soon. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.618603
| 2013-06-09T21:23:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34606",
"authors": [
"Besttee",
"Bridgette Bowers Williams",
"Eric Nelson",
"Mariyselita",
"Peter Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80692",
"julia 32131",
"urlass"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28142
|
best way to preserve ricotta?
I buy ricotta in large quantities (1kg) and I'm always throwing it out when it gets yellowish on the top border, and I'm pretty sure that yellow stuff is toxic.
Since I always eat ricotta with lots of seasonings (most of which are also used to preserve meat in more humid places), I'm wondering if it would do any good storing it already seasoned.
Usually I use za'atar and olive oil. But I'm open to pretty much anything if tasty and will help preserve it longer.
I'm already doing the basics: airtight container, store at back of the refrigerator, do not leave it out more than necessary.
To be clear, it's developing a yellow layer on top while frozen? Are you constantly thawing it in order to get some out, then refreezing?
Why don't you just buy smaller amounts of ricotta? Also, do you really have evidence whatsoever that the "yellow stuff is toxic"?
@nico i'm basing my theory that most fungus and bacteria dejects are toxic :) and i'm not taking risks. also, it smells bad
@Jefromi as I say, buying in the 1kg is cheaper at Costco than 400g at the other places, so even trhowing out half, i'm still financially better than buying smaller packs! and if i don't have to throw half away that time, i'm twice as better :) ...but yes, throwing away food saddens me. Also i'm not freezing. where i came from that word means what you call refrigerator... let me fix the question
@gcb I'm not the one who asked about the quantities, but thanks for the clarification about the freezing. (I edited the price stuff out because it seemed obvious to me why one buys large quantities, and specifics of stores and local prices aren't relevant to most people, but apparently I should've left a hint in.)
@gcb: yeah, but fresh cheese turning yellow to me sounds like rancidification (e.g. by oxydation), not necessarily bacteria. Anyway I would not eat it either, was just curious if you knew for sure that it was toxic.
@nico remember ricotta is not technically cheese. when cheese is being made, there's separation by decantation/centrifugation(?) of the fat and the whey. the fat on the bottom goes to became cheese, the whey on the top goes to become ricotta. So there's not much fat in ricotta to rancid, i think.
@gcb: actually ricotta has 10-30% fat!
Seasoning does not preserve food. Some foodstuffs normally used for seasoning, like salt and vinegar, can help to preserve food, but the concentration you need will make your ricotta unpalatable.
Salting can preserve food, when combined with dehydration. Bacteria need a humid environment to live in. Salt is hygroscopic, it both helps dry out the food you are preserving (usually meat) and directly dehydrates any bacteria which come in contact with it, killing them. Even then, you want to use charcuterie salt (a mix of NaCl and NaNO2) to prevent botulism, as pure table salt (NaCl) doesn't kill Clostridum Botulinum.
Trying to get ricotta preserved that way is counterproductive. Not only will it be way too salty to taste well. You will also have to dry it out to the point where neither mould nor bacteria can grow on it. Hard cheeses are durable exactly for these reasons, but dried-out ricotta is not tasty. In fact, I am not sure that "the yellow stuff" you see is "toxic", it could just be dried-out. Still, I wouldn't be willing to risk eating it, even if the taste was acceptable.
You could try preserving your ricotta by adding acid. To have it hold a long time in the fridge, it has to be as acidic as a typical pickle recipe. I only mention this because you say that you spice it heavily. But frankly, I can't imagine anybody wanting to eat ricotta that sour.
The option I would choose is freezing. You already mention "the freezer", but if you are really freezing it, then it sounds like you are thawing and refreezing the whole container. Alternatively, maybe it was a slip of the keyboard and you meant to say that you are holding it in the back of the fridge. Whatever you meant, I would suggest freezing it in portions, for example using silicone muffin moulds. Once you have frozen your ricotta (you can add spices it first, if you prefer), remove it from the moulds and place it in a freezing bag. Only thaw the amount you will need for a single meal. This should work well enough, in the worst case you'll have a layer of freezer burn to remove.
You might consider editing this answer to what the OP can actually use with their ricotta. (though, as always, your info. is very interesting!)
@KristinaLopez I think the point is that there's nothing that will reasonably work and still have something that tastes at all like ricotta.
'Dried out' ricotta is actually very tasty. http://www.thekitchn.com/the-cheese-that-cant-stand-alo-80577
excellent answers all around... this one even read my mind on the freezer/fridge part :) ok, I will quit being dumb and use smaller containers as soon as i open it as I wasn't doing that extremely basic thing!
Since freezing is an option, (though texture will likely be affected), you can try freezing the ricotta in smaller containers so that you only thaw the ricotta you need and the rest can stay frozen (though most sources say to use the frozen ricotta with 1-2 months.) The source of information on freezing is the North Dakota State University Food Freezing Basics website:
NDSU food Freezing Basics
This is certainly what I'd recommend, but the question also asks if seasoning helps. (rumtscho's answer addresses this too, and also essentially contains your suggestions.)
@Jefromi, the OP's question is "best way to preserve ricotta". My answer succinctly addresses that one basic question. I will edit to add link to my source, though.
The title isn't the only question. It's just a summary.
@jefromi, pls. feel free to provide the OP with a better answer. :-)
This link http://www.stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18188 seams to imply that you can just remove the yellow parts.
Also make sure to drain off the whey.
I also think that saving in multiple vacuum packs or if you do not have a food saver, use zip lock bags would be better than one large container that you open multiple times, especially if you need to unfreeze the whole packet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.618793
| 2012-10-31T23:36:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28142",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Cascabel",
"Drinkwater",
"Faith lozano",
"Ginger",
"J. Brian Kelley",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lauraducky",
"Nyx Lamadrid",
"Queen Nyla",
"Stefano",
"gcb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"jim",
"nico",
"pata"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28141
|
Converting stand mixing time to hand mixing
For each minute of using a stand mixer on high, approximately how long (or how much effort, quantified) should a mixture be mixed (whisked/beaten) by hand to achieve similar results?
Baking recipes are frequently encountered which only supply instructions requiring use of an electric stand mixer. Sometimes these recipes indicate that mixing by hand is possible - and indeed, that used to be the main way mixing was performed.
This question inquires as to mixing/beating batters, specifically; such as cake or gluten-free batters - not kneading.
I wouldn't go by minutes when mixing by hand. The advantage of mixing by hand is exactly the fact that you can stop when your mix has reached the desired consistency, as opposed to hoping that the time will be just enough. Then there is the matter of different things you mix (egg whites are almost as quick as in the mixer, creaming butter with sugar can take hours in the worst case), technique and tools used (I have seen some fancy design whisks which only got a fraction of the air needed into the mix) and the fact that mixing by hand is more similar to medium than high speed setting.
I guess I assumed, by the tags that this is for a cake mix so my answer is specific to beating instructions for a cake mix. I will edit my answer.
Thank you for the input, rumtscho - you're right about minutes being an inferior indicator, especially if we have to frequently pause for rest! But this question would be especially informative for those who don't know what the desired consistency is, such as in attempting new recipes. I've edited the question so that it's more specific, to batters - Kristina, your assumption's valid; I am inquiring about cake batters as well as gluten-free batters.
I remember when cake mixes included the number of strokes needed to mix the batter by hand. The Betty Crocker FAQ website (a U.S. baking mix company) suggests 150 strokes per each minute of electric mixer time recommended. Note: that is not 150 strokes per minute! So if the directions call for 2 minutes of mixing, that translates to 300 strokes.
Betty Crocker FAQ Site
EDIT
The stroke count in this answer is specifically for use with a cake mix. As KatieK pointed out, mixing time and strokes are really dependent on the ingredients and desired consistency for that particular recipe and step in the recipe.
Thanks! I like how that's in strokes, instead of minutes (which is far more difficult to standardize although it was the first thing that came to my mind). Would this conversion be interchangeable with other batters, such as that of when making gluten-free bread? I imagine the conversion is actually just the number of strokes the machine makes per minute, so I think it should be? Unless speed is an issue as well.
@bakingwithadæmon, I'll consult my old copy of "The Joy of Cooking" which I believe includes hand mixing instructions for bread dough. I'll post that later tonight.
@bakingwithadæmon, my trusty Joy of Cooking cookbook didn't disappoint - for bread batter you basically stir until the batter is smooth and should be a little sticky. Kneading bread is a very good thing to do by hand and there are plenty of websites and videos to teach the art of kneading. One more goody: glutenfreegirl's no-knead gluten free bread with step-by-step instructions - no mixer needed! Best of luck! Thanks for picking my answer! http://glutenfreegirl.com/gluten-free-crusty-boule/
Oh no i lost count! :)
@AllanChow,lol! Leave out a few chocolate chips or pretzels. Like for 150 strokes, eat one chip for every 50 strokes.
There is no direct translation between work times for hand- versus mechanical- mixing.
There's a huge range to the time estimate provided by any recipe; most of the time, the recipe author is really only saying how long it took them to perform that step. This is true for creaming and mixing time, oil heating time, or steak-grilling time - all of which are hugely dependent on a variety local conditions (butter temperature, stovetop heat output or weather).
The best thing to do is match the results of your cooking steps with the expected steps in the recipe. For example "creamed" butter is a specific mixture of fluffy butter and sugar - so keep on mixing until it's done. (This may take a really really long time - I read an old-fashioned ice cream recipe which required hours of mixing.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.619410
| 2012-10-31T23:36:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28141",
"authors": [
"DavidKA",
"Jane",
"Kathie Giese",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Laurie Viets",
"Maurice Colford",
"Neil2468",
"Yurelle",
"bakingwithadæmon",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64768",
"james",
"rumtscho",
"sara drummond"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96082
|
Where can I find a pie pan with heavily slanted sides?
I'm trying to duplicate a Portuguese Sweet Bread that appears to be baked in a pan that's 2" deep, with slanted sides such that the inside diameter goes from 6 1/2" at the bottom to 7 3/4" at the top.
The bread looks something like this:
Portuguese Sweetbread
Anyone know where I can find a pan like this?
As the bread didn't mushroom out at the top, the dish is likely taller than the sides of the bread. If the bottom is only 6.5" across, I'd likely be looking for something 4" or higher on the sides ... which is getting into just stoneware serving bowl type things, not pie pans (at least in the US, that's usually reserved for things with really low sides)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.620031
| 2019-02-01T18:03:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96082",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
}
|
37256
|
Masa Harina and a pasta roller?
I've got most of a 5 pound bag of masa harina left from a semi-successful foray into the world of tamales. Recently I've really enjoyed my pasta roller. It got me thinking. Is there some way I could roll out something fun made with masa harina? Obviously, that's not a traditional way to handle masa harina, but it could give me something fun to play with. I'm thinking maybe a riff on "Mexican Lasagna". My initial thinking is masa harina and warm mater in the same ratio as to make tortillas, give that a good whir in the food processor, and then add about the same amount of basic pasta ingredients (egg, flour,oil, salt) except use bread flour to give the combo some gluten. I could use the exercise, I would expect that combo to require a lot of kneading and a good rest between kneading periods. I'm not married to that combo or ratio and I'm open to suggestions. I'm not expecting to go as thin as pasta, but think I'd like to go as thin as my dough will let me. Once I have something rolled, I'd happily experiment with boiling, frying, steaming, baking or any good suggestions you might have. I'm not trying to make pasta or tortillas, but something entirely different using techniques and ingredients from both traditions.
So, do you think it could work? What pitfalls would you anticipate? Is there anything you would add or do differently? Finally, assuming I have a dough that I can stretch (I wouldn't risk it otherwise) do you see any way this could damage my pasta roller?
I have mede pasta years ago with regular corn flour (not cornstarch, but just a non-nixtamalized version of maseca or very finely ground cornmeal if you wish) and I don't remember much in terms of the recipe, but I remember that it worked well in the roller and that the result was awesome. And I don't see a reason why you couldn't do the same with masa harina to add a little bit of the delicious nixtamal flavor (like they did here) =)
I tried to google a corn pasta recipe to link to (as I couldn't remember mine) ... and one of the first hits was - guess what - with masa harina. Here is the video, where it seems like they also use a pasta roller with no problems, but they were trying to make something gluten free, but there are a lot of other cornmeal pasta recipes online that use regular flour mixed in.
Just some thoughts on masa flour: in my experience when you making a firmer dough it often tends to come out a bit more crumbly ... but I had good success (if I wanted a bitt more compact workable dough) by mixing it 1:1 to all-purpose flour. The nixtamal flavor is strong enough that you still taste it well even if you use more wheat flour. Sometimes I also add a couple of drops of oil so that it isn't so sticky (you can also use other fats ... like the masa for tamales often calls for lard).
I could have sworn I Googled it when I first had the thought a couple of weeks ago. The concepts I found looking at your links now are not much removed from my idea, except mixing the masa with water doesn't seem to be necessary. I like the idea of using lard instead of olive oil. Hmmm...this sounds good, maybe with a creamy roasted chile sauce sprinkled with queso fresco. Thanks! I think I'll give it a try soon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.620128
| 2013-10-01T05:54:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37256",
"authors": [
"Brooke",
"Jane Clavin",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kaye Soriano",
"M--",
"Mary",
"Patrick",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"Terrah Moshier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87576"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25492
|
What's this "pucker" style hole on my cheese grater for?
Ok, this picture has two sort of weird looking holes, but the one I'm asking about is on the left side of the picture - the metal sort-of puckers up, like it's been punched through from the back side.
I've tried this kind of grater to zest things before, with no success, and it clearly mauls cheeses... I can't figure out what it's for!
It is designed for the likes of hard cheeses, nutmeg, or zesting lemon and orange skin. As you mentioned, a lot of what you want to grate or zest gets stuck between the puckers and it clogs easily.
I would really recommend getting a micro plane as it gives the same fine result without becoming clogged.
Right; that's what I thought! I usually use a micro plane to do such things, but decided to try this thing because that's what I thought it was for.
Or just pass through with a knife and you'll get all of the grated zest ;)
Old trick that works great is to cover that side with cling-film plastic before you zest. When you rub the lemon/lime over it the plastic gets pushed down around the metal bits and rests in the valleys where the zest hides on you. When you are done zesting you pull the plastic off and can easily slide the zest off the plastic without any hassles. No, you don't get any plastic in your zest. Been doing it for years. I prefer microplanes over the box grater any day but if its all you got...
@ChefFlambe The plastic wrap did capture the vast majority of the zest, but some zest still got stuck in the zesting holes. Also, I'm not convinced that I didn't get any tiny pieces of plastic in my zest. As for the zest stuck in the holes, I found using a toothpick along with blowing hard thru the holes got almost all of it out.
I use it for hard cheeses such as Parmesan and Romano. It grates it quite fine for things like pasta.
Personally, I've always preferred the ~1mm shredding side of a grater for topping pasta with hard cheeses: it's faster, easier to get more cheese, and I prefer the more varied flavor (i.e. parts of the tongue are tasting sauce without cheese, parts a combination, and parts just the cheese, as opposed to the greater homogeneity of a finer shred). That said, although I'm not really a sauce maker myself, I think the fine shred may be important in sauce recipes, to make a suspension of the cheese in the sauce easier, and avoid ending up with lumps of cheese.
That is what is traditionally used in Italy for Parmigiano.
This side is ideal for zesting and fine grating of hard items (ginger is my regular task for this) and can be used much more cleanly and easily with the addition of cling wrap.
To use, you pull cling wrap around that side, then grate; you will be able to collect the result much more cleanly and completely by just peeling away the cling wrap. A micro-plane grater is good, but this method will work in a pinch.
Does the cling wrap not tear in the process? Trying to picture this in my mind.
I see this idea everywhere, but I still can't understand how the plastic doesn't tear under the pressure of hard foods like ginger.
I use the star side of the grater to grate sweet potatoes to make a sweet potato pudding. However, it must be the star side with the larger holes, 7 across the top and bottom and 15 along both sides. I'm 64 yeas old, and its an old recipe from my father.
AS others have said its for grating hard things very finely, but not just cheese! personally I use mine most for grating nutmeg.
Well I don't really know what that thing is called but I'm pretty sure it cuts the cheese way better then the other side
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.620405
| 2012-08-06T00:59:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25492",
"authors": [
"Carl Marples",
"Chef Flambe",
"Ivette",
"Karl Kasper",
"Lisa Colomb",
"LostWookie",
"Luciano",
"Mark",
"Preston",
"Seasoned Advice",
"Shotgun Ninja",
"Tara",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"jef Grace",
"lol",
"nico",
"pacoverflow",
"user58382",
"user58410"
],
"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
}
|
57572
|
Problem making homemade bounty bars
I tried making homemade bounty bars twice but there is a problem I can't seem to get the solution to this problem right. What I do is as follows:
I first mix a can of sweetened condensed milk with some coconut powder until a thick batter is formed. Then I put it in a mold and in the freezer (or in the fridge for a longer time). Cut into small bars, and finally covered with melted chocolate (tempered).
The problem is, as I try to coat the coconut bars with chocolate, they lose their shape and some of the coconuts pours in the chocolate and everything gets messy. I don't know how it must be done so that I can easily cover them with chocolate so that they keep their shape perfectly.
How exactly are you coating them? Could you describe the process in detail, please?
Are they still frozen when you coat them?
I guess they are @RossRidge, since I try to do the process AFAP!
I dip the bars into melted chocolates and roll, using a fork @Stephie
From your comment:
I dip the bars into melted chocolates and roll, using a fork.
If you want to coat something in chocolate, you typically need much more chocolate than you expect. The height of the chocolate should be high enough to submerge the praline or bar without rolling, otherwise you start to loose material - as you noticed. Simply dip, lift out (let excess chocolate drip off) and place on a rack or on parchment to harden. Do not put the bars in the refrigerator while the chocolate is still soft.
Another approach would be to emulate the industrial process of pouring the chocolate over the bars (on racks, parchment under the racks), but the same rule of preparing more chocolate than absolutely neccessary applies. Catch the drips and re-use, if possible.
Are you satisfied with the filling, or could you tweak it a bit to make it more stable? This might also be a way to make handling the bars easier. And if nothing helps, coat twice - once to somehow cover the bars and to contain all coconut crumbs (like a crumb coating in cake decorating), once to get a nice, even cover.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.620787
| 2015-05-17T17:12:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57572",
"authors": [
"Bojan Starcevic",
"Gigili",
"Jordan Smith",
"Kevin Bones",
"Ross Ridge",
"Stephie",
"ella nasir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122931
|
Small holes in wok
There are a bunch of small holes in my wok. Any idea how it formed or where it came from? Do i need to replace my wok or reseason it?
Welcome to SA! Can you tell us what the "holes" feel like, to the touch?
@FuzzyChef they feel like rough holes. When I look close they are literally small holes in the wok. I have been boiling water with baking soda to get rid of stubborn food stuck on the wok, maybe thats why? Im not sure.
What material is your wok made of? Here an answer about dealing with pitting on stainless steel, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57818/ (spoiler: there is nothing you can or should do) but since you mention seasoning, I suppose you don't have SS.
The image is too low quality to be able to see any detail. It looks a bit like the kind of damage you get on teflon/coated aluminium if you use aggressive chemical cleaners. We do need to know what it's made of to guess any further.
Boiling soda water is not a good way to clean a wok. However, there's no reason for it to cause pitting in the metal.
@rumtscho it is black carbon I believe. Sorry I didnt mention that
@Tetsujin i cannot get a good shot on my phone but they are small rough holes of various shapes and sizes, mostly roundish
My guess is that it could be caused from 2 things. Possibly salt pits from wet salt that sticks to a stainless or carbon steel surface for a length of time w/out disturbing it (such as throwing salt in a pot of boiling water without stirring it to dissolve it or sprinkling salt into your oiled wok, but it didn't get stirred in above the food line). I have also tried to revive cast iron & carbon steel pans that have rusted. I can usually get them re-seasoned again but if the rust was really bad, there can be some rust pitting that remains.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.620997
| 2023-01-05T03:05:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122931",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Jenny Kee",
"Rachel Kim",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96372",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67094
|
Why are my macarons cracking on top?
I've tried to make macarons eight times in a row and I failed. I used this recipe (text version is in the description below the video).
They all cracked on top and the surface collapsed as you see in the picture. I did some research and watched youtube videos to find out what I am doing wrong. As I figured the following factor could be the reason behind ugly macaroons:
I read somewhere that the time you let the batch sit and dry before putting i the oven is an important factor. I let it rest for 45 minutes to one hour instead of 20-30 minutes, but the result was the same, if not worse.
The other factor is beating egg whites to stiff peaks. There, I think this is where my problem come from. So I beat the egg whites with a pinch of salt to medium peak stage, then add in the sugar in 3 batches while mixing with hand mixer. After watching several videos I know what stiff peaks look like, or at least I think so. But trying the recipe keeping that point in mind it still had the same result:
What else is important in making macarons that avoid them crack? What am I missing?
The weird thing is, my first batch was a success without precise measurements and so on! Here is the picture:
Macarons are a really finicky lot.
Whatever you do always note everything. So that you can do iterative tests. Check the temperature of your oven with a thermometer and time precisely the cooking time (To the 5s). A less than one minute difference can make or break a batch.
You had too much air in your batter. This isn't a result of beating to much, but rather insufficient macaronage after folding in the sugar and almonds. The excess air expands in the oven and creates a hollow shell that then collapses.
The macaronage is really the trickiest thing about macarons - it is very hard to convey in recipes exactly what the texture of the batter should be after the process. It just takes practice and experience. It is hard to get out of the sponge-making mindset of gently folding ('must retain air, must not overdevelop gluten!'), but you must in fact beat the air out of the batter like nobody's business. Knowing when to stop so you don't end up with batter puddles is the key.
For what it's worth, I have tried many macaron recipes over the years, all with varying degrees of fussiness regarding age of the egg whites, texture of the almonds, stiffness of the peaks and so on, but the best recipe I have ever used is the one that does away with most of that nonsense - you can find it here.
Thank you for your excellent answer! I tried the recipe in your question, there were no cracks, but a little issue that bothers me this time is the macarons have no feet! Do you happen to know the solution to this problem as well?
No feet means either the oven was too cool or you didn't rest the macarons once they were piped. I believe that recipe says you don't need to rest them, but I find you get feet more reliably if you do.
Mine used to fail, but now they always turn out well.
The climate doesn't matter. But you have to keep them away from water.
I use following measurements:
35 g almond meal
50 g icing sugar
30 g egg white
30 g sugar
Beat the egg whites with the sugar until stiff on low speed, and have patience, as beating on high doesn't stabilize them. Next, fold the other ingredients until the batter flows, the same consistency as the ice cream in McDonalds.
Pipe the macarons, then tap them to let the air out. And then, to make a nice skin, use a hair dryer. Set it on hot and blow at the top of the piped out macarons. Try to blow as much as possible without getting them out of shape. For me, it takes 5 minutes for the shells to dry. The surface becomes like silk cloth, not sticky. It resembles smooth marshmallow skin.
If you don't get that skin, you will get cracks.
I bake mine at 135 degrees for 23 minutes, but that varies with oven.
Hello Serene, thank you for sharing that interesting trick! I will be certain to try it, it sounds very promising. You may have noticed that somebody gave you a downvote, I suspect this was because the grammar was making your post hard to read. I edited it for you - if I changed your meaning, feel free to edit again. And if your method works, people will come to give you upvotes and the original poster will probably give you an accepted mark.
I suspect high humidity or overbeating.
If they are not getting dull and dry, they are not ready to go in the oven. If you touch it and it wiggles around a bit, leave it to dry longer.
It sounds like humidity shouldn't be a problem, as you have already tried letting them dry out longer, but if it is, here are some ideas.
Allow the macarons to dry for longer.
Heat up the oven to dry out to the room or use a hair dryer to dry the macarons.
Or turn on the heater or air conditioner to dry out the room.
The top of the macarons should be very dry to the touch prior to baking.
Add 2tsp corn starch or potato starch to the batter if it is humid in your area. This will add some extra tackiness to your batter and should dry out your macarons.
Another issue could be the temperature is too high when baking in humidity.
Lower oven temperature when higher humidity levels.
In dry weather, I bake for 11 minutes at 350.
In medium humidity, I bake for 12 minutes at 325.
In wet weather, I bake for 13 minutes as 305 degrees.
99.9% of the time, cracks are because you did not dry the macaroons out long enough. The 0.01% is that you overmixed or undermixed the batter.
Thank you for your answer. The first batch was successful as you see in the picture, so I suspect humidity is not a factor here because it was all the same for other batches. As I mentioned in the question, I am not aware of a way to make sure I did not over or under mixed the batter, but I think the batter consistency was good for the ones in the cracked picture, but I don't know for sure. I believe there must be another reason, but I will try what you said once to make sure I am right about it.
Ok. What dates did you make the 1st and 2nd batches? If the weather changed, that could be a factor.
Do not underestimate the humidity factor, more generally do not underestimate anything regarding macarons. Just cooking a batch before (dish washing, previous macarons in the oven, cooking prep, etc) might have changed the humidity by 5-10% and made the needed drying time longer.
However I never add any problem with overbeating, I am clueless regarding this one.
Definitely. That's my main suspicion. Overbeating is highly unlikely, but I thought I'd mention it in case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.621186
| 2016-03-04T23:16:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67094",
"authors": [
"Andy McDonald",
"Becky Betts",
"Corsara",
"Dave Weston",
"Deborah Turner",
"Ed Shropshire",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gigili",
"Ken Hamilton",
"Marin Duff",
"Nathan Burks",
"No idea for A good name",
"Peggy Schott",
"Realt Cela",
"Sharnt",
"Stefany Hill",
"Sue Allen",
"Veve Goodrum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"rumtscho",
"travis skolly"
],
"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
}
|
123906
|
What should I do to keep the color bright when I use natural pigments such as blue spirulina to make baked products？
I am trying to make some bakery products with natural coloring, but I found that the color is very bright at the beginning, but after baking, this blue color becomes dull, do I need to add something else to keep it What about the original blue?
You cannot keep it. This is just how the chemicals in spirulina work. It isn't suitable for coloring baked goods.
Spirulina coloring has been tested to be heat stable to about 45 C. Between 45 and 70, it starts to degrade, and above that, it goes away very fast. Also, the optimal pH is very mildly acidic, between 5.5 and 6. Baked goods need to reach a temperature of over 95 C, and the batter is frequently mildly alkalic, due to baking powder or egg whites. So, the conditions in a baked good are directly incompatible with keeping spirulina bright blue. It doesn't matter what you add.
For reference, see Physicochemical degradation of phycocyanin and means to improve its stability: A short review.
Thanks very much. seems i have to try other blue colors instead.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.621867
| 2023-04-13T04:42:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123906",
"authors": [
"Win",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103889"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124153
|
Looking for technical information for direct/reverse spherification with alcohol
I am trying to create alcohol spheres ranging in ABV from 10% to 40%. Reverse spherification seems like the ideal option because I want the spheres to have that pop feeling and have the liquid come out. Being able to store them is pretty essential too. The ideal sphere diameter is 4 mm to 6 mm. Although I have read that reverse primarily makes larger spheres. My questions are:
What is the smallest sphere you can make with reverse? (Any pictures would be helpful)
How do you make the smallest spheres possible with reverse?
If I have to use direct to get smaller spheres, how long will the interior of the spheres stay liquid?
If I store direct spheres and they do gel, will the spheres still have the same alcohol content when they solidify?
Any help is appreciated.
I'm not a huge fan of the process, and have only done it a couple of times, but I've read plenty about it. As I understand it, I think higher than 20% ABV will interfere with the gelling process. You will have to experiment. I've seen as small as a millimeter or two with reverse...a bit larger with direct. For direct you need the outer layer to be thick enough to hold the shape. For small spheres you will want a pipette. I would store in the alcohol that you are making them from. The final result is going to vary a lot depending on the alcohol you are using. If the product has a lot of volatiles, expect those to dissipate rather quickly. In my experience, spherification is a flavor and aroma thief. I don't have any references for you but the internet is full of them, as I am sure you know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.621982
| 2023-05-10T20:40:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124153",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107816
|
Help! Too much salt in my sourdough dough!
Help! I added three times the amount of salt needed for my sourdough bread recipe (1/4 c. versus 1 T.)
Can I save it?
What stage are you at? Do you currently have actual dough with too much salt?
Yes, i added the salt after the autolyse. There was a lot of liquid in the bowl after 30 minutes which i drained.
Hey, you're under no obligation to answer this, but I'm intensely curious as to how the mismeasurement happened.
Fair question, embarrassed to say but I googled 20 gram conversion to cup measurement and it said 1/4 cup. I was on autopilot, not thinking that this might have been a correct measurement for water, which is a much different density to salt.
The short answer is no, unfortunately you cannot save this bread. Once the salt is mixed in you cannot remove it, and that much salt is likely to kill all the yeast in that dough, or at least slow it way down.
Diluting the salt by mixing it in with 3 times more bread is possible in theory, but realistically there's a lot of potential to be throwing away a lot of good ingredients. You could also use 1/4 of it mixed in with 3/4 fresh ingredients, but for my money you may was well start out anew as you aren't saving enough ingredients to make the extra trouble worthwhile. Mixing autolysed salty dough in with other dough so it completely combines and distributes the salt is problematic unless you mix it with the recipe's water, and then you're adding the salt before the yeast, which creates a hostile environment to put your sourdough starter in.
Thank you for your informative reply. I decided to go through the normal steps and see what I'd end up with. I did leave the bread out an extra hour after the bread pulling every 30 minutes, but you're right, it didn't raise like it should, but it turned out ok. There were still plenty of air pockets present, which surprised me. Salty, yes, but add a little apricot jam and it balanced out the saltiness. Would also work for croutons. I'd say I've got lemonade. Happy baking!
This depends on when you recognize the problem. If your recognition is immediate then:
4 TBS in 1/4 cup. You basically have enough salt for a 4X recipe. So, you have to increase everything else by 3 to have the correct proportion of salt in your recipe. Good point @The Photon (below)...or reduce by 3/4 and replace with salt-free ingredients.
If you are well-into the fermentation stage, the excess salt could certainly be problematic for yeast and bacterial growth.
Ok, thank you. I don't have enough starter ready for that.
@KNels, you could throw away 3/4 of what you have made so far, then make it up with the other ingredients aside from salt, then proceed with the rest of the recipe.
thank you for your reply, would i need to add starter too?
in addition to the starter in the initiial batch.
He could also just double it. That would mean that the loaf would have double salt, which would be not ideal but would at least still rise.
I wonder to what extent that much salt has affected the starter. If not at all, then add flour, water, and time. If it's killed the starter, start again from scratch, possibly adding some of this batch to avoid waste. The reality is likely to be somewhere in between
Thank you for your informative reply. I decided to go through the normal steps and see what I'd end up with. I did leave the bread out an extra hour after the bread pulling every 30 minutes, but you're right, it didn't raise like it should, but it turned out ok. There were still plenty of air pockets present, which surprised me. Salty, yes, but add a little apricot jam and it balanced out the saltiness. Would also work for croutons. I'd say I've got lemonade. Happy baking!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.622142
| 2020-04-22T21:28:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107816",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jolenealaska",
"K Nels",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83743"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90087
|
Accidentally beat sugar and butter together
I was doing a pound cake and instead of gradually adding the sugar to the butter, I mixed both together. I continued with the recipe because I was too afraid of telling my mom. Will my cake come out good? Or it does not affect anything?
It shouldn't make any difference.
Here are some recipes that don't mention adding the sugar bit by bit:
Vanilla Pound Cake
Traditional Pound Cake
Pound Cake
If you beat the butter and sugar to a fluffy consistency everything should be all right.
(As far as I know) The worst that could happen is that your pound cake will be slightly denser than usual.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.622410
| 2018-05-31T09:57:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90087",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99107
|
Home made biriyani masala paste
What is the permitted preservative for biriyani paste? How much quantity of what should I add? My masala has ginger, garlic paste, onions, tomatoes, green chillies, spice powders, mint and coriander leaves, lemon juice, salt, gingely (sesame) oil, and ghee. I need it to have a shelf life of one week outside the refrigerator!
Am preparing this curry paste and packing in plastic airtight containers and freezing. After freezing I courier to whoever needs it. Hence for transportation purposes, I need a shelf life of one week.
'permitted' might be something that's different by country. Also, are you going to be water canning this, or pressure canning, or some other preservation technique? Will this be stored in a cold cellar or closer to 'room temperature' (which also varies by country)
I edited in what you said in an answer about transporting the paste and a few other little things. If I changed anything from what you meant to say, you can always edit it back. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.622488
| 2019-05-22T13:04:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99107",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"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
}
|
12535
|
How can I efficiently render 100 lbs of suet into tallow in a home kitchen?
As I mentioned in another question, I'm about to undergo a 100 lb suet-to-tallow rendering process. The problem is, as much as I love tallow, I've never rendered suet myself before and I have a million questions (though I'll try to keep it to a few key points). After a lot of research, here is what I've come up with:
Trim, chop, and partially freeze suet
Run it through a food processor
Render with or without water
Strain and cool
It seems there are 3 rendering options for the typical home kitchen:
Oven at 250°F
Stovetop on low/very low (I have an electric range/hobs)
Crockpot on low setting
And then there's a difference between rendering the fat by itself, or rendering it in water. A few convincing articles imply that rendering it in water creates more "pure" tallow.
I figure since I have so much to render, I'll try all three methods above simultaneously. I have: two crockpots; an enameled cast iron dutch oven and a few large stock pots for the stovetop; and a lot of casserole dishes for my two-rack oven. Even doing them all at the same time like this, I imagine it's still going to take a few (many?) rounds to render it all. I'd like to minimize that time if possible since I don't have room to store the suet for long, but producing quality tallow is equally important as I'll be giving some away.
My questions:
Are there any methods for doing this in a typical home kitchen that I'm missing? The grill, perhaps, or is that too dangerous? I also have an electric wok.
How can I do this as efficiently and quickly as possible? For example, can I stack casserole dishes in the oven or do I need to keep air flow maximized and just do what fits on the two racks at a time? How hot can I have the oven and stovetop without risking quality loss?
Should I render with water or without it? Will it really make it more pure if I use water, and if not what will?
About how much tallow can I expect to get from 100 lbs of suet? I have a rough estimate of 20 gallons in my head but that's based on numbers I found from a Google search.
Just wanted to pop in and say, still working on processing all this suet (I'm not even at the rendering stage yet, save for a test batch or two). I will post what I found to be most effective as an answer in a week or so when I'm done rendering everything, but let me just say that trimming suet, and then cutting into 1" cubes (for my food processor), with just a typical chef's knife...well, it's taking forever, let's just leave it at that.
After a bout with the flu and a sick puppy as well, I've finally rendered everything once (I plan to double or triple render some of it to lessen the beef smell). I have many pictures to sort and post and will post my findings very soon!
It depends on what you need the tallow for and whether you want it to taste significantly of beef or not, water rendering will give a cleaner tallow.
With 100lbs of tallow, your main limiting factor is driving off all the water. Tallow is about 75% fat, 22% water and 3% protein so you basically need to boil off 22 pints of water. What heat sources do you have that's going to most efficiently boil off 22 pints of water?
Here's what I would recommend: chop about 1 - 2 lbs of the tallow into 1/2 inch sized pieces to start off with and start them rendering in a pan on the biggest burner you have set as high as possible. Place a thermometer in there and monitor when it reaches 250F, making sure to keep the bottom of the pot scrupulously clean of stuck on bits (if there are stuck on bits, transfer to another pot so that the bottom stays clean).
When it reaches 250F, add in another batch of tallow pieces too cool down the pot and wait until it gets back up to temp again. Repeat until all the tallow is rendered.
This process can be parallelized with multiple pots and thermometers if so desired. The more heat you can apply, the faster this will go.
I think the original post's method is pretty good. Rough chop, semi-freeze, food processor re-chop into pretty fine bits. Then 1 cup of water for every 3 lbs of suet.
I've done this in a turkey fryer - and propane - outdoors. 25 lb batches are perfect. you DO HAVE TO stir with a long flat-blade wooden 'spoon' every 15 minutes or so, once it starts to rapidly boil. And getting the propane output low enough not to ruin it is also a challenge. But it works.
25 lbs of suet yields about 18 lbs of tallow. Water-free tallow. You aren't doing rendering until the strained product is absolutely clear and not cloudy with watery bits.
The watery bits, should you not finish the rendering go quite bad and intensely nasty smelling, in short order. A few days or a week! At room temperature. Bugs like to grow in that watery medium. Dead-bodies nasty. So make sure your tallow is totally water (cloudy) free. Totally. Can't stress too much.
I would recommend doing it outside if you are concerned at all about the smell of the beef getting into your linens etc. I do mine outside on a gas wok burner using a pot that we also use for turkey frying. I would recommend doing it in batches. Water rendering is a good way to get a more pure end product but watch for boil over.
How can I do this as efficiently and
quickly as possible?
Water will transfer the heat most efficiently.
Should I render with water or without
it?
I don't know about purity, but water ought to make your life easier. You will have better temperature control, more even heat distribution, faster rendering, and you'll be freed from the risk of burning your suet.
About how much tallow can I expect to
get from 100 lbs of suet?
I've heard 80% as a rough figure. Out of 100lb of suet, you should be able to get 80lb of tallow.
Water will slow down rendering since it stops the mixture from going over 212F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.622604
| 2011-02-24T06:42:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12535",
"authors": [
"Elizabeth",
"Patrick J Abare II",
"Shalmanese",
"Space Devin",
"Sylvia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/517",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user3525476"
],
"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
}
|
107586
|
Replicating the thin, soft crust of Portuguese Sweet Bread
When I try to replicate Portuguese Sweet Bread (Massa Sovada) from places like Fall River, Massachusetts, the crust on my bread comes out thick and hard, whereas the bakery versions have a thin, soft crust that you can almost peel off, and there are noticeable wrinkle lines.
Here's the bakery version:
And here's mine, with the thick, hard crust:
I've looked at several recipes and most are very similar. Here's the one I'm using:
1/4 cup warm water
1/2 cup whole milk
1/4 cup butter, room temp
2 eggs
2 teaspoons grated lemon peel
3/4 cup sugar
1/2 teaspoon salt
3 1/2 cups flour
1 package (2 1/4 teaspoons) instant or active dry yeast
Egg glaze: 1 egg yolk beaten with 1 tablespoon milk
Things I've tried:
Changing the flour: I've tried bread flour and all purpose.
Changing the cooking temperature: I've tried 330F (fan-assisted) as well as a combination of temperatures: 11 min. at 320F, 30 min. at 285F, 65 min. at 250F.
Egg glaze: with and without.
Steam after baking: I tried covering the loaf with a bowl until it cooled.
But nothing changed the crust much at all.
The wrinkles on top look like maybe it was put into a plastic bag right out of the oven, and the steam caused the wrinkles. But my test with covering the loaf with a bowl didn't change the hard crust at all.
There's a similar post with suggestions such as using a Pullman (covered) loaf pan but it seems unlikely to me that the bakery is doing that because of the shape of the bread and the type of pan I know they use (which can be seen here). I have wondered if covering it with foil for part of the time might help, but I'd be surprised if the bakery is doing that. The post also has suggestions to use steam (which seems like it'll have the opposite effect) and to user lower temperatures, which I followed exactly using the three temperatures I mentioned above. For those reasons, I don't believe the post answers my question:
How bakeries do a soft crust breads and making the same at home will result in a crisp crust?
Thanks for any other ideas!
Does this answer your question? How bakeries do a soft crust breads and making the same at home will result in a crisp crust?
Do you know the name of the bread in Portuguese? I am 90% sure I know what bread you mean, but I want to be 100% sure.
@Sneftel: Thanks - I actually used that post to come up with the three temperatures I used in one of my tests but it didn't help. I've updated my post to discuss the other suggestions in that post as well.
@RodrigodeAzevedo: It's also called Massa Sovada ("kneaded dough"). I usually hear the locals refer to it as just "massa".
I'm the OP. After a lot of experimentation and reading, I've found that the solution is to use steam. A lot of articles talk about how steam is necessary for a hard crust so that made me think it was the opposite of what I needed.
I learned that steam does several things, including keeping the top surface soft for longer so the bread can expand further, preventing the crust from burning, and helping the starches become a gel that turns into a brittle and glossy shell. But in almost all cases, recipes call for steam to be used only during the first portion of the bake, and then removed to allow a hard crust to be formed in the latter part after the bread has finished expanding.
I did several experiments where I added steam for a little bit longer each time, finally just using steam for the entire bake. That's when I finally got the ultra-soft, wrinkly crust like in Portuguese Sweet Bread. After going back to read the article mentioned above, I realized that its suggestion of adding a tray of boiling water to the bottom of the oven at the beginning of baking was what I needed, but to also keep the water in the oven for the entire bake.
Keep that skin surface moist, bakers often spray some water on the bread as it cooks, this makes it tender flaky and soft.
Hard crust is for lack of a better word, dry/burnt
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.623102
| 2020-04-14T22:19:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107586",
"authors": [
"Rodrigo de Azevedo",
"Russell Gilbert",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16180
|
Calcium chloride as substitute for sodium chloride
My husband is on a low sodium diet. I have been thinking that Calcium chloride might work for making pickles, smoked fish, etc, because the sodium is the bad actor, not the chloride. Who knows about this?
This is an interesting idea. I have heard of using some potassium chloride to make reduced sodium pickles, but never calcium chloride. So I did some googling:
Here is a PDF from OragonState that says you can use potassium chloride it for quick pickles, but not brined pickles. I'm assuming calcium chloride can technically do the same, but I don't know what the conversion ratio from table salt is. They say:
Reduced-sodium salts (such as potassium chloride) may be used in quick
pickle recipes. However, the pickles may have a slightly different
taste. Don't use reduced-sodium salt in brined pickles or sauerkraut -
these products need a specific amount of sodium to control bacterial
growth and to give a firm texture.
Also, I found several recipes for "no salt pickles" that are just brined with pickling spices with no salt at all.
As for smoking fish: it should work but I would be VERY CAREFUL. Calcium chloride is extremely hygroscopic. It is used as an industrial desiccant. You may end up with petrified fish.
The wikipedia article of CaCl2 lists it as generally regarded as safe by the FDA and mentions the exact use you are going for. However, it may taste significantly saltier than sodium chloride by mass so you'll want to be careful about amounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride#Food
you can go to the commercially available low sodium salt. Using calcium chloride alone in substitution of sodium chloride is a bad idea.
Maybe you are right, but could you please give an explanation why you consider it a bad idea? This being food safety related, we would also appreciate links to reputable sources.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.623479
| 2011-07-15T19:42:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16180",
"authors": [
"Boon",
"Cate",
"Mike G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48057",
"mikequentel",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123136
|
Why does making a pasta require more yolks than whites?
I have looked up numerous pasta recipes and all of them suggest adding a certain number of whole eggs and a certain number of additional egg yolks. I am just curious why we need only yolks? How would the pasta be different if I added a total number of whole eggs instead? Is it a matter of colour, or texture, or both? And more importantly how
Hi, and welcome! Nice first question. We are a bit specific about what questions we take, and the one about pasta fits quite well. The last paragraph about generically deciding on extra yolks was not only a different question, it would have needed a full book to answer. We not only don't take more than one question per post, but also don't take questions whose answer would be so voluminous. You would need to know the role of both the egg white and the egg yolk in the exact recipe which you are working with, and whether they are already well balanced or not, before you can start deciding.
It’s about what properties you’re looking for in the pasta. Serious Eats had a primer on fresh pasta a couple of years ago, and they discussed some of the differences:
https://www.seriouseats.com/best-easy-all-purpose-fresh-pasta-dough-recipe-instructions
Egg Whites, Egg Yolks, Water: Identifying the Best Source of Hydration
With my flour selected, it was time to test different sources of moisture. My first step was to make three doughs, keeping the hydration level as consistent as possible across the board. I used three equal measurements of all-purpose flour as my baseline; one batch got water, one batch got egg whites, and the third got egg yolks.** I added just as much as I needed to make the dough come together. This is what I wound up with; you can probably tell which is which.
** I stuck with large eggs for all my tests, and even weighed them to make sure that I was adding consistent amounts of water, protein, and fat to each dough.
(image)
The water-only pasta (right) was a total bust—the noodles were bland, mushy, and...well...watery. And the egg white pasta (center) wasn't much better: Whites are almost 90% water, so, while the noodles weren't quite as bad as the water-based version, which literally fell apart and stuck to each other in a big, gluey mass, they definitely weren't winners. The yolks, on the other hand, made a beautiful, golden dough (left). Yolks contain about 48% water, 17% protein, and around 33% fat. More yolks will deliver more color, more egg flavor, and silkier noodles.
Unfortunately, that high fat content complicates things a little bit. Though it's not exactly scientifically accurate, you can think of that fat as making the gluten proteins all slippery, preventing them from building a strong network—when I tested this using different amounts of olive oil, I found that, sure enough, more oil made for softer, mushier, less elastic noodles. And, to complicate matters even further, I had a really hard time getting the flour and yolks to come together. It was a dry, tough dough that was difficult to mix and knead—not exactly beginner-friendly.
Difficulty aside, an all-yolk pasta may make great noodles, but it's not sufficiently elastic to use for stuffed pastas, which require a dough that can be rolled more thinly and is, quite simply, bendier. I needed to strike a better balance.
At this point, I knew there was no point in adding water—if I wanted additional moisture, egg whites were definitely a better bet. It seemed clear that my dough was going to require a combination of whole eggs and additional yolks. I ultimately settled on three yolks for every egg white.
What's that? You like softer, mushier noodles? Good for you. Add a teaspoon of oil to my basic recipe. Want a richer, eggier flavor and a more golden hue? Throw in an extra yolk and add a little more flour. This is your dough.
It is not actually required. I have never seen an egg pasta recipe which uses extra yolks, and Ruhlmann, a cook who wrote a book with prototypical recipe ratios, also uses whole eggs only. So you can certainly make (good) pasta without the extra yolks, and using extra yolks is just one possible variation. You simply have happened to come across recipes written that way.
If you use more yolks, you can expect a stronger eggy taste and a slightly gooier texture than with whole eggs. Possibly also a color difference, if you have dark yolks and use a lot of them, but you can't rely on that. If you need colored pasta, you should simply color it.
Funny, one of my favorite chefs on Youtube makes all his pasta with WAY more yolks than whole eggs. His ravioli dough calls for 2 whole eggs plus SIX yolks. They are darn good though and I've never had a problem rolling it out or shaping it.
@PeterMoore I never said that you cannot make pasta with (extra) yolks, or that pasta with extra yolks isn't good. The claim was the opposite: that you can make good pasta without extra yolks.
I know I just thought it was curious that you've never seen a recipe with extra yolks. It seems like most of the recipes I see use them. No idea why it's more popular in some circles than others.
@PeterMoore ah, I see now, thanks for clarifying! Indeed, I have no idea why there is such a difference between recipes.
@rumtscho possibly older/historical recipes had to use more yolks as there was imbalance between available whites and yolks - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113540/what-did-european-american-historical-cooks-do-with-the-egg-whites
downvoted for implying egg pasta recipes with extra yolks are uncommon, which would be easy to verify it's actually quite common with tons of counterexamples. OP was not making claims, they were asking why extra yolks make a difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.623682
| 2023-01-26T15:14:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123136",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Alexei Levenkov",
"Peter Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81668",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129215
|
Why does Gorgonzola Dolce have such prominent little tubes compared to other blues?
Some background: I quite enjoy getting Gorgonzola Dolce (which, based on my understanding on the distinction in nomenclature, I suspect should be called Gorgonzola Cremificato because it's so often just so melty) from my local Wegmans because it's consistently melty and creamy and salty in a way I just adore. But I notice something interesting about that cheese in particular I don't with other blues (which I also eat all the time, as I am a big blue cheese fan)- the presence of long blue tubes/veins that look kind of wormy, taste a bit salty and a bit bluey, and have a texture somewhere between tyrosine crystals and Camembert rind (apologies for the presumably poor descriptive terminology- I do know more than the average person about cheese, but I'm no expert in this realm). I think they're delicious and break up my delightfully melty Gorgonzola Dolce wonderfully, so this isn't a negative question at all but mere curiosity:
I have no doubt that these are either the paths along which the cheese was pierced or something very similar, but given that other blues have similar piercing procedures, why are they so darn prominent in this particular cheese? Is it just that they're more noticeable given the texture of the cheese (in the sense that their texture/shape would blend in more in harder blues), or is there some other reason they're all pokey and wormy and noticeable in Gorgonzola Dolce in particular? Are they somehow deliberately produced during the production of the cheese? If so, how?
I could swear the tubes don't appear in other blues, but maybe they just blend in with the texture of other blue so well it's almost impossible to observe them separate from the main body of the cheese. If anyone has any information whatsoever, I'd be very interested to learn more.
Also, apologies if this question is kind of hard to understand or get through in any way- it's quite late where I am right now and my sentences always get much longer and more tortuous when I'm tired. It's just that I've wondered this on occasion several times across the past few years (since I entered college and started going to that Wegmans) and wanted to get this question out before I inevitably forgot again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.624245
| 2024-09-15T03:58:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129215",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77202
|
Vegan patty binders
I am looking to understand the nature of how binders work.
I made patties the other day. A potato, two carrots, a can of black beans, a bit of bread crumbs. It blended to a decent grainy slush and fried up nicely.
Then I tried a sweet potato, broccoli, and chick peas. The mixture felt right, but it did not hold together when I tried to cook it up, either in a pan or baking it. (Although, my vegan daughter said the taste was great, so I was on to something)
Is there a process vegan cooks use to (a) choose the right mix of ingredients that need no special binder or (b) is there a decent universal binder that works within reason when the other ingredients are chosen right?
Although black beans and chickpeas are similar and related, chickpeas seem dry in comparison to most beans, and less sticky. Perhaps you might find inspiration in a falafel recipe (though they only just hold together in many cases).
The "process" is mostly trial and error, at least for me. There are some universal binders, like flax in water, that are good to use.
I use beans as a thickener (cook them 'til really soft, and then mash them), but I've never tried with chickpeas. I can't recall if I've ever had a really, really mushy chickpea.
In case of vegan kitchen, you would need to use ingredients with high levels starch or binding proteins, such as gluten. One important thing to remember about starch is that it is removed (into the water) in the process of cooking. So, if you pre-cook your potatoes before adding them into patties, they will provide less starch than raw potatoes. The same goes for beans, chickpeas and any other starchy food.
Adding gluten, either in more or less pure form or in form of wheat flour, helps too but requires some 'development time' for its chemistry to work.
Also, the amount of water in your patty influences its consistency. The more water you have, the more starch/flour you would need.
Ya. It was the breadcrumbs.
For the specific case of chick peas, I can say that raw, soaked, ground (food processed) chickpeas need no binder, while pre-cooked (canned) ones do need a binder (from my falafel-making experiments.) I also found that "wetter than most recipes leaned" worked better for me in falafel. So that might fix the recipe that didn't work but tasted good.
If you are not dealing with a gluten-free vegan (far too many of whom seem to be trendy, rather than Celiac - I have much sympathy for Celiac, and little for trendy) plain old wheat flour is a good generic binder. Ground flaxseed (mentioned by Carmi in comments) is another, though it has more impact on flavor; it can be a good impact.
You could go a couple of routes here but what I recommend is to use potato mash as binder. Not salted, without any milk or butter substitute, spiced if you wish. This works perfectly both for baking and frying. The beauty is you can keep al your other "vegan ball" ingredients chunky and just use as much mash as you need to bind.
Potatoes are also used in deserts (look up Irish dougnuts) so can be used in your sweets too. Just add cocoa powder and sugar!
Best part is potatoes are gluten-free.
PS. steamed then grated potatoes add extra texture, though a bigger hassle to prepare.
Hope this helps :)
Legume flours (eg chickpea flour - inexpensively available at asian grocers, soybean flour, lentil flour ...) are strong protein based binders; at least chickpea flour (made into a batter with water) is strong enough to yield a usable pancake on its own (as is done in indian cuisine). Mind that these will need various degrees of cooking to be palatable (not long for chickpea flour, but it really does not taste good un-set or raw). Also, make sure that they are well hydrated but not overhydrated (similar to a flour-based batter).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.624485
| 2017-01-06T17:47:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77202",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"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
}
|
12187
|
What is seeping out of my key lime pie?
For Valentine's Day this year I attempted to make my wife a Key Lime Pie. I followed Emeril's recipe, with one small modification: I replaced the granulated sugar in the crust with a 1:1 ratio of light brown sugar. The key lime juice was freshly squeezed, not packaged.
In case the link ever goes away, the ingredients are:
Base: graham cracker crumbs, light brown sugar (original called for white), 1/2 stick butter melted
Filling: condensed milk, key lime juice, whole eggs
Topping: sour cream, powdered sugar, lime zest
The pie was delicious and held together great. I'm a good cook, but a very inexperienced baker, so overall I was very happy with how my first attempt turned out.
However, after about 3 hours in the fridge this viscous liquid started seeping into the pie pan (see picture below). My assumption is that this is lime juice and/or sugar somehow escaping, but I don't really understand how or why that would be happening. My other thought is that it might have to do with the molasses from the brown sugar in the crust, although that seems less likely to me (I've made plenty of pies with similar crusts that didn't have this problem).
As described in the recipe, I baked the crust by itself, put the filling in, baked it for 15 minutes together, and then put it in the fridge for 2 hours before cutting.
So, my questions:
What is seeping out of my pie after about 3 hours of refrigeration?
How can I prevent this in the future?
@Aaron, @Michael, @Joe, @anonymous: with the 4 suggestions (xanthan, pectin, starch, eggs) I feel like I should try all 4 side by side. Does anyone see any issue with turning a recipe like this into key lime "cupcakes" so I can easily make multiple batches without having to make whole pies? I don't see any reason this recipe wouldn't work with smaller portions, but as I said, I'm still getting my feet wet with baking. Thanks all!
(FYI, you can only notify one person at a time, so none of the other people on that list will see your comment.) There's really not much difference between a pie and a tart, except for the crust and possibly the baking time. Go for it.
Sweet, sounds like I have a plan for the weekend (or possibly next week if the weekend gets crazy). Will report back with results. And thanks for the notification pointer - did not know that!
What you have there is simply water seeping out of the gel and bringing some dissolved stuff with it. This is known technically as syneresis. What will help is to add something stabilize the gel. Xanthan gum is probably the easiest thing to use. You can find it at health food stores or Whole Foods because gluten-free bakers use it a lot. Start with 1/8 teaspoon pureed into your filling. Sprinkle it over the filling liquid before mixing, and put it through a sieve before baking to catch any clumps.
I actually got xanthan gum as a holiday gift this year, and have been looking for a way to learn how to use it - my wife will be excited that I have to try the same exact recipe again, with the xanthan gum added, so I can do a fair comparison :) Thanks for the suggestion!
I like your families idea of holiday gifts!
Some pectin crystals could probably help too; pectin does well in the sweet/acidic environment but there's not much of it in citrus juice (as opposed to the peel/zest).
Besides Xanthan, that Micheal mentioned ... some custard pie fillings will call for use of some sort of a starch (eg, corn starch), which will help prevent the 'weeping' problem, and might be something you already have in your pantry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.624787
| 2011-02-15T16:15:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12187",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cool_Omar",
"Michael Natkin",
"cassie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"oakad",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user25118"
],
"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.