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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
28903
|
Can you put All-Clad LTD2 in the oven?
Just got an All-Clad LTD2 saute pan and I was wandering if it is save to put it in the oven. Thanks
Does your pan have a non-stick coating?
nope, looks like stainless on the inside
Update: sorry, this line is layered steel and anodized aluminum construction.
From the Amazon product description (almost certainly direct from the manufacturer), emphasis added:
LTD2 is safe on all stovetops - except induction and backed by a
lifetime warranty. The “workhorse” of all cookware shapes, All-Clad
fry pans' versatile shape and size make them a frequent choice for
scrambling eggs and bacon on Sunday morning, or preparing a quick
chicken sauté dinner on a weeknight. Our conventional fry pans go in
the oven and under the broiler.
That is one of the primary benefits of the good All-Clad stuff, or similar cookware from other brands.
The only pots you don't want to put in the oven are ones with phenolic (sp?) or other plasticized handles or knobs--although some of these are rated to 400F degrees. I also would not put non-stick pots in an oven above about 450F, or under the broiler.
All steel and aluminum pots are great, partially because they are oven and broiler safe.
Before I switched to all-steel exterior all-clad, I used anodized aluminum (the old, original Calphalon). It also went into the oven and under the broiler without issue. My current all-steel all clad has been going in the oven and under the broiler for many year without an issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.625079
| 2012-12-04T23:32:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28903",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Glitch",
"Janice Belk",
"John S",
"Karl",
"Lois Childers",
"Marlin Bozarth",
"Samuel Henry KentEyo",
"Timothy",
"Z .",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66940"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128166
|
Best way to slice bread to keep it fresh
Suppose I have a round loaf of bread, like the one in this picture. I want to eat it over multiple days, a portion each meal.
What is the best way to cut it into slices to preserve freshness? Parallel slices like in that picture? Cutting it radially like a cake? Or maybe something different?
Why would you cut it all at once, though? Quite apart from preserving freshness, my granny taught me long ago not only not to cut a loaf until meal-time but not even to cut a slice until after buttering it.
The fact that I've never been able to do that as well as could, I ascribe to her greater skill, not to any failing in the method.
@R I never said I want to cut it all at once. I agree with you that the best way is cutting each slice just before eating it. Still, there are different ways to cut it.
We usually eat such (dense rye) loaves over a week or so and start from one end, cutting one slice when needed as in the picture. In the meanwhile, we keep the bread in a linen bag at room temperature and it never gets unbearably dry or moldy.
The best way to keep bread fresh is to freeze it. After my bread is cooled from baking, I slice the whole thing, put it in a bag and freeze it. When I want to eat it, I use the toaster.
Personally, I find the best way to keep it fresh is to cut from the center and push the two halves together. I usually use this technique when eating something like banana bread, as I don’t eat too much fresh baked regular bread. The main downside is that you’re left with two ends of a loaf, which people often dislike, rather than only having one end at a time.
Related to this is the technique of placing the cut end of the loaf down on the cutting board to limit airflow, so it’ll dry out more slowly. The downside there is that bread tends to be less stable when stood on end.
With both techniques, the exterior does end up drying out a bit, but it’s certainly more resistant (and more acceptable) than the interior drying out.
Note that this also opens two surfaces for drying out (though they're pressed against each other so they dry out less), compared to only one when taking away one slice at a time. Personally I tend to just accept that the first slice will be a bit dry, or - if I ate no bread for a few days at a time - don't eat the too-dry slice, keeping it as "lid" to prevent anything further in from drying out.
I've heard that for a German Stollen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stollen) one should/ traditionally does use the cutting technique described in your first paragraph.
@Syndic I’m generally only taking a slice at a time, so unless I accept that every slice I eat is going to be dry, I tend to use this method. I didn’t, at one point, but once someone mentioned it to me I tried it and found that it was better for me. Similar to your method with one slice acting as a “lid”, I’m basically using the other half as the lid. It’s important to have the two sides meet flush in the center, as having a gap defeats the purpose. Definitely teaches you to make more clean & vertical cuts
@fyrepenguin I'll test it out myself on the next loaf I start, if both sides dry out notably less I might switch to it also.
My wife bakes sourdough bread and keeps us supplied remarkably well.
That said we just toss a half loaf in the fridge and cut off what we need/want as desired.
The other half goes in the freezer.
Some might consider refrigerating bread (and freezing...) heresy but the bread is perfectly cromulent after a week in the fridge or freezer then fridge for a week.
YMMV but you may want to find a system that works best for you, via the 'ol trial and error method.
I'm not a professional baker and neither is my wife so take all this with a grain of salt... and maybe a little butter...
Thanks! This is definitely good advice, but in this question I was focusing more on the shape of the cut. Once you slice the loaf in half, how do you make the next cuts? Do you cut parallel to the first halving cut? Perpendicular? Something else?
Well we just slice even straight cuts off the loaf, and when done, back in a sealed plastic bag in the fridge. And that leaves us with two "heels" (or end pieces) which are my favorite part of the loaf. But I would imagine that any way you want to cut it would be fine.
Refrigerating bread is usually not recommended because starch retrogradation happens quicker at fridge temperatures. All else being equal, refrigerated bread goes stale faster, as retrogradation is a significant component of staling. It's not too much of an issue if you plan on re-heating the bread (e.g. toasting), as that can reverse the process. The only benefit of refrigeration is that is slows down mold growth. (Note that retrogradation doesn't really happen at freezer temperatures.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.625264
| 2024-04-20T21:53:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128166",
"authors": [
"Federico Poloni",
"R.M.",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Steve Chambers",
"Syndic",
"Xi'an ні війні",
"aswine",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109308
|
De'Longhi 7 qt stand mixer
I have a De'Longhi 7 qt. stand mixer that I believe is now manufactured by Kenwood in America. I would love to make pasta but the attachment is no longer available. Can I use those made by KitchenAid? Will they fit?
I doubt (but am not sure) that different manufacturers' attachments will be interchangeable. You could maybe look for used or third-party attachments, though.
https://www.kenwoodworld.com/en-us/products/kitchen-machines/chef-and-major-attachments
Unfortunately not. The Delonghi/Kenwood mixers have a different attachment interface than KitchenAid, with a hexagonal shank and a different mechanism for retaining the attachment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.625663
| 2020-06-26T08:56:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109308",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112415
|
What is this symbol that looks like a shrimp tempura on a Philips HD9928 air fryer?
This question is about a Philips HD9228 air fryer.
What is the 3rd symbol (C in the screenshot) on this air fryer? The manual doesn't say anything about it. I'm assuming it's a shrimp tempura, or a chicken lollipop.
Symbols:
A - frozen french fries
B - raw/thawed french fries
C - ???
D - chicken drumstick
E - spring roll
F - muffin
I know you're right for E, but it will always look a LOT like two sticks of butter to me.
As tempura is battered, it would be difficult to make an in air fryer. You would need something covered in a crumb-like coating, like maybe coconut shrimp. (and it'd probably be more curly than the pork chop)
I’m glad SOMEONE asked this question because I’ve always wondered that myself but was just too lazy to ask. Maybe next someone should ask how you’re supposed to cook cupcakes in an air fryer?
@WesSayeed There is a baking pan accessory for the HD9228. I suppose you put the muffin cups in it. Maybe you might need to use the splatter-proof lid too.
According to Philips on Twitter, it's a pork chop.
link to tweet
Straight from the horse's... urr, pig's mout... well, you know what I mean.
The next question I suppose is why you would want to fry a pork chop. But then I'm not sure why you'd want to fry a muffin either.
@AndrewRay I've had fried pork before, it's not at all uncommon, though maybe not in porkchop form. The muffin though - that's just baffling...
I was going to guess steak or pork chop. :-) Good to have the actual instructions available.
@AndrewRay, air fryers don't really fry things, they do sort of a modified baking.
@DarrelHoffman fried is the only way I ever had pork chops as a kid. They're wonderful!
A fried slice of prime rib!.... doesn't that sound just tasty?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.625764
| 2020-11-01T04:14:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112415",
"authors": [
"Avner Shahar-Kashtan",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Joe",
"Joel Coehoorn",
"Mark",
"Mark Ransom",
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"Wes Sayeed",
"computercarguy",
"geff_chang",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44395
|
Is it okay to add extra sugar to a specific brioche recipe?
A recipe calls for the following ingredients: (a version of potato brioche):
250g potato
1/3 cup milk
1 tablespoon olive oil
3 and half cups flour
2 teaspoons instant yeast
1 teaspoon bread improver
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon sugar
1 large egg
But I like a taste of sweetness for my baguettes. Is it okay to add extra sugar, and how many tablespoons would be okay?
First of all, this recipe is not supposed to taste sweet. There is so little sugar, it must be there for tenderness - and even this is strange in a bread with so much glutenless filler (the potato). If it is in the sponge only, maybe it is only there to speed up the sponge rising time.
Adding sugar to a bread recipe is not trivial. Sugar interferes with gluten creation. The maximum sugar you can have in a bread recipe is two tablespoons sugar per cup of flour, which is not very sweet. And then you have to change the recipe: it needs much longer kneading, and more yeast. At very low concentrations, sugar does indeed feed the yeast, but if you use more of it, its osmotic activity interferes with its growth.
The probelm here is that you have all the potato in the recipe. This means you already have very little gluten compared to the mass of dough. And also that it is diluting any sugar, reducing the sweet taste.
You can certainly try adding up to 7 tablespoons of sugar, but you should knead longer (double the knead time for the full 7 tablespoons - I knead standard brioche for about 30 minutes per hand before adding the butter) and will have to live with a bit worse texture. You can also try to use gluten strengthening tricks to compensate - add ascorbic acid (vit. C powder or a crushed pill), start with cold water, or add vital gluten.
Thank you for your answer. I didn't want it to be that sweet but just sweet, so I added two teaspoons of sugars. As you correctly mentioned, it needed longer kneading but it rose very well. Mind you, the breads are really great!
Interesting answer. What does "30 minutes per hand" mean?
@Jolenealaska it means I worded it badly :) I knead the dough per hand, not in the mixer, and it takes 30 minutes for brioche dough (before adding the butter).
OH! HA! Change "per" to "by" and Yankees won't wonder. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.625953
| 2014-05-25T06:28:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44395",
"authors": [
"CRM Software App",
"East Coast Granite and Tile",
"Flawless Digitizing",
"Forza Exotics spam",
"Gigili",
"Hristiyan Mateev",
"Jolenealaska",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78898
|
When making french fries, can I precut them before baking or frying them?
We are going on a skiing trip & are staying in a Condo. Can I precut potatoes &/or sweet potatoes into 1/4-inch matchstick fries before our trip then bake them there?
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/26173/1672
Sweet potatoes should probably be a separate question, as they are very different from potatoes.
Regarding potatoes, not sweet potatoes:
It's actually great to precut potatoes for French fries, it gives you an opportunity to soak them in water, which removes the starch and simple sugars from the outside of the fries and even from just below the surface. In fact, many if not most places that make fresh cut French fries do cut the fries in advance and leave them soaking in the refrigerator until fried to order.
You don't say how long your drive is going to be, but if it is less than six hours, you can just put the cut fries and ice water in a Tupperware container for the trip. Longer than six hours you should probably either replenish the ice during the trip or use a cooler. Of course, depending on the weather, the trunk may work as a fridge - but don't let them freeze!
Your soaking container should either be pretty close to at least half-again the volume of your cut fries, or you should rinse them well first and change the water at least once while the fries are soaking.
From Caroline Russock writing for Serious Eats:
Russets or baking potatoes are the best, whereas waxy potatoes (such as Red Bliss or new potatoes) simply won't do. Soaking is key—this removes the starch, keeps the potatoes from sticking together, and eliminates the sugars that prevent the potatoes from achieving maximum crispness.
America's Test Kitchen (Sorry, paywalled) says pretty much exactly the same thing:
Experts agree (just ask McDonald's or our test cooks) that russet potatoes are the best variety for frying—either in a vat of bubbling oil or on a baking sheet in the oven. Unlike other potato varieties, russets produce fries with light, ethereal centers. But they are not perfect.
Russets can produce excessively thick crusts and somewhat dry interiors. The thick crust is caused by the browning of simple sugars in the russet, and the best way to remove some of the surface sugar is to soak the potatoes in water. The water has an added benefit. Potato starches gelatinize completely during cooking. The water introduced during soaking improves the creaminess and smoothness by working its way between the strands of gelatin starch. The final result is a fry that has a good surface crunch married to a smooth interior.
From the recipe attached the Serious Eats article:
Put the fries in a large bowl of cold water and refrigerate for at least 1 hour or up to 8 hours.
Be sure to dry them well before cooking!
Fresh cut French fries were a big part of the business in my café. It wasn't unusual for us to have French fries soaking for as long as two days, perhaps even three. I never noticed any quality problem from soaking too long, but the French fries were simply not good if we didn't have time to soak them for at least a half an hour.
Cook's Illustrated (also known as America's Test Kitchen) (Sorry, again paywalled) looked at oven fries. For that application, they soaked the cut potatoes in hot water. I suspect that starting at a higher temperature was beneficial for baking. To get the best of both worlds I might do a final soak in hot water. As I mentioned above, I haven't seen over-soaking as a problem.
For an easy, no-splatter oven fries recipe that would produce potatoes with a golden, crisp crust and a richly creamy interior, we followed this procedure: We soaked peeled russet potatoes, cut into wedges, in hot water for 10 minutes to remove starch. To prevent the potatoes from sticking, we poured oil, salt, and pepper on the baking sheet instead of on the potatoes. And to get the combination of creamy interior and crisp crust we wanted, we covered the potatoes with foil to steam them for the first five minutes of cooking for our oven fries recipe and then uncovered them and continued to bake until they were golden and crisp.
That doesn't sound like a good idea. A whole unpeeled potato or sweet potato requires no extra effort or care to keep it fresh and nice, but if you cut either of them up, you now need a container to keep the moisture in and the dirt out. Depending on how long before you cook it, you may even be entering into "food-safety" territory (especially if you ask the folks here). At the very least, the cut surfaces of the regular (non-sweet) potatoes will turn gray on the drive up to your condo.
Pretty sure it's not a food safety issue if they're kept refrigerated (or in an ice chest) and it's only a few days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.626182
| 2017-03-04T20:30:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78898",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
}
|
82134
|
Substitute for Aluminum Foil - Grilling
I have used aluminum foil when I grill salmon because it keeps the oil from running onto the heating element and smoking the fish. Can anyone suggest a substitute for aluminum foil?
The answers here cover grilling to some degree, so I'm not sure that we need a specific question that relates to grilling only.
I'm not sure I'm ready to call this a duplicate. It is specific to a certain use for aluminum foil, one that differs from the typical kitchen uses.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Ted. Can you describe your grill more? That word means very different things to different people.
@Jolenealaska That may be true but with no information from the OP regarding how the foil is being used and why they don't want to use it, all we can do is give generic answers. My hope is that the existing question may have information that will allow them to reconsider why they are avoiding foil.
@Catija : they described how it's being used -- to prevent oil from the salmon from dripping and burning. No, they didn't give why they're looking for a substitute, but they gave information than you're claiming they didn't.
@Jolenealaska : odds are, it's the American usage -- as the oil wouldn't be 'running onto' a heating element in the top of the oven.
Dried palm fronds are traditional Thai. Not sure you have access however.
Some supermarkets and specialty stores carry banana leaves, which do a great job of cooking and steaming food over a fire. Soaked corn husks work for this, too, and this time of year can be had for free at most supermarkets if you ask (they leave out bags for their shoppers to husk their corn into in the produce section.)
A soaked cedar shingle is also popular to use on the grill, especially for salmon. Some supermarkets stock packs of them near the fish counter for this purpose.
Rather than improvising a pan out of foil, you could just use an actual pan. Cast iron is common outdoor cooking, but anything without plastic parts will work.
Still... smoking is part of the point of cooking on a grill. Otherwise, you might as well do it indoors. If you want to keep dripping away from your food, you can use indirect grilling, where the food isn't directly over the hot coals/burner. Or you can use a drip tray with water in it to catch dripping and reduce burning.
You might also consider something like a cedar plank, which doesn't catch the dripping but will route it away from your food. It also provides a flavor of its own, including some smokiness; that's considered a benefit of grilling.
You can now get 'grilling mats' to place down so that food doesn't slip through the grill grates. It would also help with your problem, as it would deflect any oil so it drains off to the side, not directly onto the elements.
Amazon seems to have them in their 'lightning deals' quite frequently. (for months it seems like it's always the same stuff in there, so I'm guessing there's probably one in there right now)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.626915
| 2017-06-01T23:26:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82134",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
}
|
52178
|
What advantages does a brasing pan have over a full Dutch/French oven?
I own a Le Creuset French/Dutch oven, but I'm considering getting a Le Creuset braising pan also.
I understand the oven is great for large/tall braising and stocks, soups, chili and the like. I also understand that the braiser has a wide base and is good for smaller quantities.
What other advantages am I missing?
There are only three advantages that I can think of for a brasier:
The lower sides result in faster evaporation when cooking on the stove top, as it doesn't hold in the steam.
It's typically not as heavy for the same surface area.
You should be able to fit two of them in your oven (on different racks), which is unlikely for a dutch oven.
Personally, I don't have any of that shape pan in cast iron, and the ones that I do have, I don't use for braising; I use them for pilaf-type dishes or casseroles where you want a wide but shallow covered dish. I don't know if a cast iron vessel would work as well for those dishes, as the thermal mass could make it more difficult to cook the middle sufficiently without overcooking the outside, unless isn't something that you can serve immediately after coming out of the oven.
I have this shape (without lid) as a cast iron pan, not enameled. I mainly use it in the oven, not on stovetop.
It's a great pan for gyvetch, moussaka and generally Middle eastern oven dishes. You can brown the meat and sweat the onions in it on stovetop, then add the other ingredients and put it in the oven. All the juices stay in the pan - if you brown in a frying pan and then transfer to a ceramic pan for the oven, you lose some juices even with good deglazing, and it's logistically simpler to continue in the same pan. Also, the stovetop browning preheats the pan, saving time and energy.
When it is in the oven, it has the advantage that the hot air moves freely over the surface of the food, so you get the benefits of convection. The Dutch oven's high walls prevent that. Also, as Joe said, you could theoretically fit two of them in the oven at once.
I also find it great for baking bread, its thermal mass gives it a function similar to a bread stone. When it is used open, it doesn't give you the pseudo-steaming advantage of baking in a closed Dutch oven, but on the other hand, it produces a nicer shape than a Dutch oven.
For stovetop, it can double as a paella pan. It can also be used as a substitute for other pans - especially if unenameled, because it's nice to have something which can withstand scorching temperatures but is larger than a steak pan. It can even double as a wok in a pinch. But these are side benefits. You can probably use a large Dutch oven for the same purposes anyway.
If you don't do much of Balkan or Middle Eastern cooking, it's not so important to have one of those. Especially as a cooking beginner you can find other equipment with higher ROI. If you are looking at those just because you noticed them in the shop, have the money, and want to enjoy your new hobby - I understand you, because I used to be in the same position. My advice: don't start with the gear. Start with a few simple, cheap items, and dive headfirst into cooking. When you find that your success with a recipe is hobbled by missing gear (as opposed to your skill, bad ingredients, etc.) and that you make this food style frequently enough, that's the time to invest in high quality items.
Hello Charles and welcome to Seasoned Advice! As @Stephie notes in her comment, this is probably opinion-based, but I find it to be a relevant question that a newer cook may have. So, as a more experienced cook I am going to answer.
I have several Le Creuset Dutch ovens as well as a LC braiser pan. I always end up using the Dutch oven for braising, even if I am cooking smaller or thinner pices of meat.
The Dutch ovens have higher sides and, when searing, keep more spatter off of the stovetop and I never have any boil-over or leakage in the oven. Also, even though they can hold more, they don't have to.
I find with the LC braiser pan (as well as the LC tagine that I love) that often-times they just will not hold as much as I need to cook.
Anyone can give you pros and cons but each person's experiences are their own. You will need to give it some thought, weigh it out, and then make your decision. Good luck! :)
Thanks Cindy. I hope my attempt at re-phrasing the question is helpful to others and inline with community practices. The high sides of the dutch oven definitely prevent spillage. I wonder though, if the high sides might have a negative effect on cooking smaller portions or using specific techniques.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.627170
| 2015-01-01T17:25:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52178",
"authors": [
"Charles Gilliland",
"Julie Coales",
"Larry Sullivan",
"Lyn Duket",
"Mark Roland",
"Methindu Sasrutha",
"Mike Williams",
"Robert Holt",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31391",
"jranderson110",
"kaylee aaliyah",
"kev Farmer",
"sean meade",
"wooden coasters"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46379
|
Can I substitute unsweetened cocoa powder for unsweetened baker's chocolate?
I'm using a recipe for chocolate crinkle cookies and it calls for 4 squares of unsweetened baker's chocolate. Can I substitute cocoa powder for the baker's chocolate?
Recipe
Yes, that's a very standard substitution. For each square (ounce) of unsweetened chocolate in the recipe, use:
3 tablespoons (20 grams) natural cocoa powder (not Dutch-processed) plus 1 tablespoon (14 grams) unsalted butter, vegetable oil or shortening
Joy of Baking
I'd add that Dutch processed cocoa (if that's what you happen to have) is fine too, just be aware of your acid balance. This is the opposite issue, but it's relevant here: Effect of undutched cocoa on baking
This too: What makes the difference between domed and flat cookies?
If your cocoa happens to be Dutch processed, ask another question about adjusting acid. Even though it usually doesn't matter, in that recipe, it just might.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.627549
| 2014-08-14T01:00:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46379",
"authors": [
"ApooWasHere",
"Daniel Rogers",
"Ed Fox",
"John Osmun Jr.",
"Karen Linza",
"Kim Finn",
"Larissa Halsell",
"Susan Burney Lathan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110754"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110701
|
Alcohol free & sugar free fruit cake
How would you fine people replace the alcohol and sugar in a fruit cake with? I personally don’t like alcohol at all, so I’d like to try a alcohol & sugar free fruit cake as I’m diabetic and a tea totalar.
A fruit cake would not be sugar free strictly speaking, since fruits have sugars, but you can make a fruit cake without adding extra sugar by using lots of very sweet dried fruits like dates, raisins and figs.
A cafe I know has a "famous" vegan no sugar no oil cake which is made of about 50% mixed dried fruits. They use dried dates, raisins and apricots. I would guess that they soak the fruits in hot water for a few hours to get some of the sugar to come out and sweeten the batter.
One of the best cakes I have tried has no added sugar as such - it's sweetened by soaking stoneless dates, then grinding that into a smooth paste to use in the batter. Here's a recipe for that (though I made that recipe vegan using water for soaking and cashew almond yogurt instead of dairy yogurt, so have not tested it as written). If you prefer something like a traditional dried fruits cake, you can always add raisins to that recipe and skip the walnuts.
I never use alcohol for anything, so when I make a fruit cake recipe that is supposed to have alcohol, I just skip it. Alcohol is used for soaking fruits to get better extraction than with plain water. Grinding some of the soaked fruits to a paste, as in the dates cake recipe, gets around the problem of water not extracting enough sugar from the fruit to sweeten the batter.
This all makes sense, @AbrahamRay if you are diabetic any fruit cake may be a no-no whether extra sugar is added or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.627682
| 2020-09-15T01:09:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110701",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73839
|
Can I add lemon zest to a shortbread cookie recipe?
I would like to use a shortbread recipe for making lemon short bread cookies, this recipe only uses sugar and butter and doesn't use any eggs or milk, I was thinking that perhaps I could add lemon extract and use lemon zest do you think it would work?
If the recipe on its own (without alteration) works, your modifications should be safe, mind that an oily extract or coarsely cut zest could have an additional shortening effect.
Be careful with lemon JUICE though, the acidity can change the texture. And avoid putting in other watery ingredients (milk,juices), they will encourage gluten formation and lead to a softer, cakey cookie.
Expect there to be SOME leavening and deformation in the oven if using butter/margarine, since there is still water bound in these fats. So if a perfect "commercially baked" look is desirable, constraining the cookies in molds and/or using different fats might be needed.
Experimentation with different flour grades, and probably with adding pure starches, is a good thing to do once you have made the base recipe work.
I agree with @rackandboneman; I make traditional shortbread (flour, sugar, salt, butter) and have added lemon zest on occasion (finely grated on a microplane, 2-3 teaspoons). I wouldn't recommend extract (or lemon oil).
Zest can also be made by peeling it off with a sharp knife and mincing - just avoid getting any white pith in, and by all means avoid packaged lemon zest unless you can agree with what is on the surprisingly long ingredients list of such products.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.627822
| 2016-09-09T14:51:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73839",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19309
|
Is it ok to microwave veggies without water instead of blanching them in a pot of water?
Whenever I see a recipe which requires me to blanch vegetables for a few minutes, I microwave them instead. It's sometimes faster, I don't have to get a pot dirty, and I don't usually have to dry the vegetables afterwards. The microwave seems to do a very good job of par-cooking any vegetable which is cut up into small, uniform-sized pieces.
However, I've never seen a mainstream cookbook recommend microwaving instead of blanching. Is there a reason for this? Am I losing flavor or texture I would get with blanching? Or is this just one of those bits of propaganda one learns in Chef School, like how garlic presses are evil?
So, is microwaving vegetables to cook them a fine substitute for blanching them, or am I Doing Things Wrong?
My kitchen manager (fine dining restaurant) said that that the only thing a microwave should be used for in a professional kitchen is to heat water.
Microwaving tends to dry out the outside of vegetables, and hurts both texture and flavor. Proper blanching takes about 5 minutes once you have water at a boil, and maintains both the crisp, fresh flavor and full texture. Blanching also tends maintain color better, because the outside of the vegetables heats to the same extent as the inside, and this is doubly true if you use an ice bath to cool vegetables after blanching.
So yes, you are Doing Things Wrong. That said, we all take shortcuts at times, and microwave ovens do work rather well for thawing frozen vegetables. With frozen vegetables you've already lost a lot of the texture, so the microwaving doesn't do much further harm.
Hmmm. I don't find that it dries out the outside of vegetables at all, except maybe that it doesn't add moisture the way a pot of water does. Also, since microwaves penetrate around an inch into the vegetables, for pieces less than 2" thick, the inside heats the same as the outside. I think this calls for a blind taste-test.
BTW, I'm not saying this answer is wrong. I'm just saying that it has the tone of "recieved wisdom" rather than tested knowledge. I do agree with the comment about color though; blanching is better for bright colors, no question.
Well, it's not just received wisdom. The microwave periodically does ungodly things to frozen spinach when I thaw it; I posted a question about it here a while back. I've also seen it dry out broccoli pretty badly as well. Also, the flavor and texture of stuff is never quite the same as thawing it by a steamer or in the toaster oven.
BMG: certainly there's differences. I take your point about leafy greens, which it tends to burn. Peas, carrots, green beans, diced potatoes, beets, etc. work perfectly well, though -- better than blanching if you are avoiding dilution of flavor.
@FuzzyChef ...doing things wrong? Hardly...see these folks, for example: http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/quickest-easiest-way-to-cook-vegetables. ...not sure this answer should be marked as correct. I wouldn't call it "blanching", but you can use your microwave to cook veggies well.
I wonder when that fine dining kitchen manager got his education and whether he has kept up with newer knowledge. I guess 'a long time ago' and 'no'.
Much depends on how you cook your vegetables in the microwave. I like to add butternut squash to pad out Chicken Maykupi (my own completely inconsistent curry recipe, using whatever comes to hand, and whichever spices I fancy on the day) and reduced the amount of chicken needed. If I add it raw, it's never cooked enough, if I add it cooked it falls apart. So I dice about half a squash into 3/4 inch cubes, put it in a bowl with a splash of water (2 tbsp-ish), cover with film and microwave for 4 minutes (850W). It works a treat every time, and takes less time than boiling a pan of water to achieve the same result.
My rules of thumb for microwave cooking of veg are: always cover with film (or loose-fitting lid) cook for half the time, give it a good shake, then finish off. Always cook for less time than you think, then give it another 30-60 seconds if necessary. Don't get obsessed with always using full power. 50% power for 50% longer can give a better result with heftier veg (e.g carrots). Use little water so that it gets absorbed rather than rinsing vitamins etc away.
I recommend looking at studies conducted in a scientific manner, instead of relying on anecdotal evidence. The link below covers a pretty good effort by graduate students, concludes microwaving is good. However, if you are having fun doing the blanching, then do it. Being happy and sharing your cooking with appreciative guests is a great way to spend a evening. (My college buddies from 30 years still recall my cooking and they drinking beer, just watching me.
When I go their houses, they tell their kids and I end up cooking. So blanch if you want to, microwave if you are short of time, the good will taste the same.
Microwave Blanching Superior In Vegetable-Preservation Process
Microwaving vegetables is completely safe and actually enhances the flavor - providing you dont overcook the product. I am a food technologist and have tested the products
I use the microwave for all my vegetables and have done for 50 years.
Using a saucepan and boiling water washes the goodness out of the vegetable and then you throw the water away and the goodness with it. Cooking in a microwave is as healthy as it is possible to achieve - other than eating the product raw.
I have achieved excellent results using a microwave with no more than a spoonful of water. The only thing you need to watch is mixing the size of the vegetables and the cooking times. If you are microwaving then ensure that the size of the items are about equal. I would not mix beans with say a potato or other larger items.
The mix Cauliflower and Broccoli are perfect. Pumpkin and potatoes the same.
Years passed since the question was asked, but finally mainstream chefs do recommend microwaving food. David Chang in particular - he even came up with a cookware line for microwave.
In this interview, he says
I’d suggest cooking vegetables in your microwave. You’ll be amazed at how perfectly and fast they cook, all while staying crisp and delicious.
Personally what I do is, like David Chang suggests, actually steaming the vegetables in the microwave.
Use a container with a lid (either with a small vent or leave a tiny opening to avoid creating excess pressure inside the container)
most of the time I add no water, most vegetables have plenty of water in them already.
It does go faster than blanching since you don't have to boil any water, and there's no loss of nutrients since I add no water for it to leach to - but there's also no seasoning up to this point.
there's no noticeable loss of texture or flavor compared to blanching, and nothing to drain after it's done
it's still the same amount of containers to clean: 1 :)
The main difference between microwaving and blanching is you can add salt to the water.
Proper blanching takes 1-5 mins depending on what your blanching and how soft you want it.
There is no issues using a microwave you still have a container to clean.
Microwave will save you about 5-10 mins waiting on the water to boil but considering you usually have to cook other things, what I do is first thing out on a pot of water prep/cook other things blanching something I do when I'm done with everything else considering I dont want the veg sitting there to long anyways considering its still cooking after you take it out of the water.
Personally I don't like microwaving veg cause I have never found one to cook the food evenly, compared to blanching.
Microwaves do not heat food, they activate the water molecules in the vegetable and cause it to boil. This is why melting things like chocolate take a long time to heat and meat doesn't roast.
I guess this is marginally an answer to the question - you're saying that it's bad because it boils water in the vegetables? It also sounds like this is a bit of a misunderstanding, though. Sure, it's true that microwaves work best on water, but it heats up that water, it doesn't immediately boil. If the food contains plenty of water (as vegetables do), that heat transfers quickly to the rest, so heating up the water is basically the same thing as heating the food.
There is also another reason for not microwave your veggie as in here. (Look for hobodave's answer)
You never know that the veggie can catch fire in the microwave as some veggies have high concentrations of metals such as magnesium, iron, and zinc, which might catch fire inside the microwave.
Hope it help you.
The discussion there seemed to establish that it takes more than just high mineral content for this to happen, and I think we'd know by now if things like broccoli had any chance of starting fires.
This sounds like an urban myth to me.
Generating Fireballs with a cut grape in a microwave oven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb6WCkC0K1I
Wrong?? Not really for it's a shortcut and an easier way of doing things, however think about this the next time if you're planning to blanch or cook your vegetables in the microwave- do you know that the microwave works by radiating heat around the food and as you said it cooks from inside out, and once again radiation- thus this leads to an unhealthy life style.Besides that, if you manage to blanch the vegetables the right way you will enjoy them much more better as they still contain the vitamins and the minerals in them. Oh ya!! Another thing to remember is over cooking of vegetables is rather much more simpler to achieve by cooking in the microwave.
Sorry I have to -1 this: microwaves do not work by radiating heat around the food, nor are they proven to lead to an unhealthy life style. The suggestion that blanching keeps the vitamins and minerals where microwaving doesn't is also suspect. This answer is more suited to a question on Skeptics.SE
Just how does a microwave oven remove vitamins and the minerals? In the lab your basic test for this shows they are removed over time in hot water by the osmosis process, hmm that's sounds like blanching? You must have got the two confused :-)
Since a microwave is just a high frequency radio wave, it cooks by a process called dielectric heating, which basically results in certain molecules vibrating and therefore generating heat. The radio wave is absorbed by the first thing it hits that it is "in tune" with it, e.g. water, oil. It therefore can only heat the outer layer of the food it is cooking. The inside can only be heated by thermal conduction. Try cooking a lump of frozen beans or minced meat to check this process out :-)
Boiling a pot of water can be very hazardous, just check the government accidents register! Nothing is simpler than placing a container with a loose fitting lid of fresh or frozen vegetables into a microwave oven. They should be first washed and cut into even pieces. Cook for a few minutes, and then wait a minute or two before opening and serving :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.628020
| 2011-12-02T04:04:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19309",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brian F",
"Cascabel",
"Darren Winters",
"Flori Vlad",
"FuzzyChef",
"Helen McGuire",
"JoeFish",
"John",
"Jones xTwo",
"Margaret Dyck",
"Sabina",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"lanpa",
"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
}
|
113037
|
How long should I cook a 1 lb pork sirloin roast?
I was given a 1 lb pork sirloin roast, but no instructions about cooking it! I want to roast it in the oven, but the charts say 20 minutes per lb. That doesn't sound right to me. What do I do? TIA
Recipe recommendations are off topic on this site. Everyone has a favourite way of cooking a roast. In general you will get the best result from using a meat thermometer and cooking to a set temperature rather than cooking by time.
I don't know if I'd count this as a recipe request, we answer questions about how long to cook things all the time
I think this answer in particular might help you out! https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/49756/17272
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.628967
| 2020-12-07T16:04:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113037",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116719
|
Donvier ice cream maker - inserting the bucket
Recently I bought a Donvier 1 pint ice cream maker on Ebay. When I figured out how to put the rim on the chill recepticle it didn't seem that hard. When the ice cream didn't freeze I did some research. The instructions didn't tell you enough and I still have a few questions. I hope my experience will help others.
Although I got the rim on the bucket when I took it out of the box, I couldn't get it to fit down when the bucket was frozen. One person suggested putting it on before you put it in the freezer. Will this hurt the rim?
Hello Nancy, and welcome to our site. You may be accustomed to discussion forums on the Internet; our format is somewhat different. We only accept one question per "thread" and that question has to be quite focused and objectively answerable. So for example, asking about "pointers" or "tips" doesn't work well with our system. I had to edit your text to leave only one question. Of the three that I removed, the first and last cannot be answered on our site. The one about the length of chilling is possibly a duplicate to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52189, you can possibly...
... ask it separately, then your text would have to make it clear why it is not the same as the old question and why it needs separate answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.629056
| 2021-08-06T23:17:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116719",
"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
}
|
29862
|
How do you determine whether a coconut is young or not by knocking on it?
I've seen some people knock on a coconut to determine if it is young or not. Sometimes they knock with their knuckles, or with a machete. How do they do that?
A young coconut has lesser meat, but softer and almost-translucent. The coconut water also tastes better.
Edit: Take note that the key word here is KNOCK. I generally don't see them shaking the coconut.
I guess that knocking is an alternative test for liquid (a hollow-sounding coconut has less liquid inside), and if this is the case, it will work in the same way as shaking, explained in TFD's answer.
Shake it gently and listen for and feel the slosh. As coconuts age the liquid level decline to zero
An unripe coconut is nearly full and can hardly slosh. A good slosh sound is a generally ripe coconut (about 150 to 300 ml's of liquid). As the liquid get less and less the flesh get softer and tastier to eat raw
There are many different types of coconuts, this may not apply to them all?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.629187
| 2013-01-08T03:09:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29862",
"authors": [
"Casperrw",
"ColonD",
"Jerry Palmer",
"Jimmy hetherington",
"Wis",
"davidm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69565",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29736
|
French-press coffee has a powdery taste
I recently ordered a French press (Bodum Kenya) and a ceramic conical burr grinder. I've tried this with two different decaf blends from Vermont Coffee Company, one which I ground at the store four days prior and one which I purchased in bean form and ground immediately before brewing.
With both cups, I experienced a weird, astringent powdery taste (arguably closer to a sensation) on the end of my tongue. I made an extra cup from the pre-ground and used hotter water (200 degrees instead of 190) and it seemed to help slightly, but it didn't fix the problem.
My methodology was as follows: heat the water, then while it's going fill my press with hot water (to heat it up, to minimize heat loss and prevent cracking) before I grind the beans. Then when the water boiled I temped the water until it hit 200 degrees even, dumped the priming water from the press, and then filled it with three scoops of coffee and roughly twelve ounces of water (my press's beaker is unmarked.)
Finally, I waited nearly four minutes before pouring.
Any idea what's going wrong here? I'm not getting much aroma or body, either. The grinder I'm using is made by Hario, and is a hand-crank conical burr grinder which received excellent reviews.
Update: As an experiment, I tried grinding a fine batch for the purposes of testing it in my bland (but unoffensive) Senseo. I learned two things: one, my brand new burr grinder has a skewed burr which screws up the consistency of the grind, and two, most of the offtastes I detected are still present. I'm drawing two conclusions:
I'm using WAY more coffee for the french press than I am for the pod-brewer
My grind probably isn't helping matters
I do not like this roast at all anyway.
I'm returning the grinder and I will order something else. In the meantime, I've ordered a bag of whole-bean Lavazza I know I like, so that if this problem reoccurs I'll be diagnosing the issue against a blend I have specific and extensive knowledge of.
Update 2: I've substantially increased the size of my grind, and made three sequential cups with smaller and smaller grinds. At the current spot I produce a decently-aromatic 12 ounces with just under two scoops of beans, and it's completely without either the sour or powdery characters it previously suffered. It still tastes weak, though, despite a faint velvety richness which I think is indicative of what this coffee should taste like.
Increasing the amount of coffee brings back the sourness, but not the powdery taste. Interestingly, in this case the spent grounds smell quite nasty - the sour taste dialed up to 11. I'm going to finish the bag of beans and replace the grinder and see where it takes me - and once the equipment issue is resolved I'll be back to report and accept an answer.
Two things: 1.) Are you allowing the coffee to bloom? Seeing as how you're getting weak brews, it seems you might not be getting good contact with the water and beans. 2.) Drink your hot water plain before trying to brew coffee. Also, run a no-coffee press through your french press and drink that. Water can have a big effect (My first apartment's water was treated with sulfur, which ruined my ability to make coffee without filtered water). Just two things that popped into my head while reading the post and its answers.
You didn't mention the size of your grind. You definitely want a course to medium grind. A fine/espresso grind will leave a lot of sediment and produce a bitter cup of coffee from over extraction.
Two things you can do to minimize sediment:
After letting it brew, before plunging, use a couple of spoons to scoop out as much of the coffee grounds as you can. This video shows a demonstration of this.
Decant the coffee. Pour the coffee from the press into another jug and let it settle a moment before pouring into your cups.
Another tip: Place a saucer over the top of the press for the four minutes to minimise heat loss.
It's a pretty coarse grind. My device doesn't have numbered settings - it has an internal bolt which, if disassembled, can be tightened or loosened - but I did mini-grinds a couple beans at a time until I had something comparable to what's going on in this other post: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4996/ideal-coffee-grind-for-a-french-press
I think the decanting suggestion's a pretty good one. I wonder if part of my problem might be stirring the coffee midway through the steep, because - separate from this dusty taste - there definitely ARE bits coming through.
I apologize, but I disagree with scooping out the grinds. French Press makes the best coffee, but people over-complicate it, sending newbies into a dash for their nearest Staryucks.
I never stir my french press mid-steep. You can't see it, but imagine there is a large volume of silty sediment that's settling during the steeping process. You will almost always see less silt by 1. grinding courser, 2. leaving it be while steeping, 3. steeping long enough, and 4. not drinking the dregs.
Scooping out the grounds is going to kick up at LEAST as many grounds as stirring it.
sudowned - Give it a try, at least. If it don't work for you, then it don't work for you and you've confirmed your assumption. On the other hand...
French press coffee is going to inevitably have more of the grounds, that make it through the filter, than some other methods of coffee making. Some people dislike this about the method--I don't personally have a problem with it, and think French Press is one of the best simple ways of making coffee.
To minimize the amount of sediment in your cup:
Use a high quality grinder, which will give a more a more even grind, with less dust which will get through the filter. You have said you are already using a burr grinder which usually offers a high quality grind.
French Press uses a more coarse grind than other types of brewing; make sure you are grinding at the appropriate size.
Let the coffee sit for a few second after you press it for the remaining sediment to settle; then, don't pour out the last bits of coffee, which is where the most sediment will remain.
This article at I Need Coffee is a step by step guide on French press coffee, with a good picture of the grind size, including a nickel for scale.
They also suggest a device called a "Coffee Catcher" (which evidently is now out of production, but may still be available) to help minimize the sedimient. I cannot speak to the efficacy of the device.
I'm actually pretty OK with sediment - turkish is a nummy treat from time to time, so I like to think that it's something I tolerate well. Curiously, I also got this off-taste from some Lavazza Dek (pre-ground) which I brewed in my ghetto Senseo with the refillable hopper. I'm all but certain that what I'm detecting isn't actually a substance but a quality of the coffee.
French press coffee is a science experiment every morning.
Consistency is hard, but possible.
A. Learn your batch of beans: Every batch is different, even batches of the same bean and roast.
B1. Have a baseline grind. For French press, the baseline should be coarse. Grind some beans at your baseline grind and make some coffee. How's it taste? Too "chewy" or "powdery" or "silt-y", the grind needs to be more coarse. Too watery, less coarse. You have to learn the grind for every batch, even batches of the same beans and roast. Every one will be different, but not dramatically so.
B2. Caveat: Too much coffee can contribute. The quantity of beans per batch is something you have to determine for yourself (to taste). I find that darker roasts requires less beans (25-30 grams beans for 750 grams water) than medium roasts (30-35 grams beans for 750 grams water).
C. Grinder. You don't need a burr grinder, but you do need a grinder. A $20 Krups will do just fine. You DO need technique, however: "For this batch of beans, I need this grind." It will be different for every batch, even batches of the same roast. Use a baseline (i.e. that looks about right) and make some coffee at that baseline. Then adjust coarseness and quantity up or down. If it's hard to press the press, the coffee it far too finely ground. (On second thought, I guess a burr grinder with settings could help with consistency. I just eyeball it now that I've sold my great, but ultimately superfluous http://www.baratza.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?search=action&category=RGRD.
D. Temperature. 200 F might be too high for the beans you are using. I find 195-197 F for French press works well for most beans. I doubt the temperature has anything do with what you're experiencing, but temperature is 90% of making great coffee: getting the right temp. for the bean, holding it at temp for brew, getting it to the cup without losing too much heat, etc. Do you put boiling water in your coffee cup to preheat it? Is it a covered cup? If not, you'll lose as much as 20 F going from press to cup. More if you add cream and sugar, which are 33-41 F and room temp., respectively. Temperature is everything in coffee. You have to put a lot of effort into getting it right from the time the water hits the beans to the time it hits your tongue. It's a finely-tuned game of getting the temperature right.
E. Rest. If you preheat your covered cup, then you can let your coffee rest for a minute or two before you drink it. This allows the sediment (which isn't filtered as well in a French Press) to settle to the bottom of the cup.
In short, it's the sediment that gives French Press a powdery/chewy/taste. Limit it by learning how to grind each batch of beans and (if possible) letting your coffee rest a minute or so before drinking.
This is an awesome answer because it's so expansive, even though it re-treads grounds (ha!) we covered in the other answers + comments. Allow me to step through one at a time:
A: Working on it! I've determined part of the problem is that even with an appropriate grind in a drip machine, I don't like this coffee (it's too floral and acidic.)
B1: Working on this. Will be easier when I have a grinder that works better (mine has a crooked burr).
B2: Yeah, this. I was putting four of the Bodom measuring spoons in for 12 ounces of water. This is twice my ratio for drip.
Temperature-wise, it's my assumption that I need the temperature to be 200F if I want the temperature to be above 195F when I close the press. Heat dissipates during the pour, and is consumed to some extent by the glass itself unless I boil extra water to keep the press warm with (I use hot tap water instead, maybe this should change.) The grounds are room temperature, which means about 50 degrees in my house. I'll try cooling the water down to the target temperarture range and see if it helps, though.
I've started making it like Alton Brown does: in a Thermos. I filter it through a fine sieve after it's finished brewing (which I sometimes forget for 8-15 minutes and end up with uber-caffeinated coffee). I started this after I bought a Thermapen digital thermometer. I couldn't figure out where the temperature was going when using my French Press. It would go from 197 F to 160 F in less than 5 minutes. It was everything combined: the carafe, the plunger, spoon, sugar, coffee, cream, etc. They're like temperature thieves.
Definitely. I live in Vermont and I homebrew beer, where temps are very important - I have a nylon "cozy" for keeping my boiler at temp during mash, and even with ten gallons of liquid maintaining a temp in the 160ish range (depending on recipe) is a risky business. I assumed that with a much smaller thermal mass it'd be even trickier, and I think I was right. Interestingly, now that I've opened up the grind a bit more, I'm getting passable but weak cups; I tried adding more coffee to compensate and I'm back to sour, though without the powderiness.
I think my problem is the uneven grind, which is ensuring I overextract from the little chunks before the flavor can come out. I'm going to see if Williams-Sonoma has any hand-grinders in stock on Monday and buy one I can inspect in the store. Out of curiosity, when you brew for ten minutes, how does it affect flavor? Any off-tastes or is it just a recipe for jitteriness?
The Bean
Firstly an important note, always purchase freshly roasted whole coffee beans and do your own grinding. There are roughly 800 volatile molecular components found in coffee and much of it evaporates within several days of resting and/or minutes after grinding.
The Grind
In coffee grinding parlance, "boulders" is used to describe chunks and "fines" is used to describe microfine particles. When you introduce water (in any extraction method), the "fines" give up their flavor quickly, adding bitterness when overextracted, and the boulders hardly give up anything at all, leaving a thin and sour underextracted flavor. The goal for grinding coffee is consistency of the grind, everything should be relatively the same size so it extracts evenly.
This is where the Hario Skerten makes a horrible grinder for any brew, the wobble in the burrs results in an extremely inconsistent grind and rather random brewing results. There are kits available for mounting a bottom bracket to fix the wobble, or you can simply get a higher quality burr grinder that has both an upper and lower bearing.
Here's a video describing the Hario Skerton and Kyocera in detail.
If you haven't adjusted the grind size already, you should be producing a consistent grind the size of breadcrumbs for French Press brewing.
The Resulting Brew
A chalky/powdery result comes from the fines making their way through the metal screen on the press. Ideally, your goal should be zero fines for your French Press brew. A coffee hack you can do to get around this is to shake your freshly ground coarse coffee in a small metal sieve so the fines fall through. Do this over something white to easily determine the amount of fines your grinder is producing. I have also seen natural static as a useful by-product of grinding that prevents fines from exiting the grinder.
For French Press extraction, make sure you dispense all of the beverage from the brewer when your brewing is complete. Leaving the grinds sitting in the coffee results in overbrewing for the next cup.
Cheers!
Don't press too hard. There is a very poor seal between plunger and glass. It is just mesh pressed against glass by a spring. If you generate enough pressure below the screen, it just pushes the screen away from the glass and unfiltered grounds "squirt around the skirt". Use only one finger to push the plunger and push slow enough that you can whistle La Marseillaise twice during the squish.
People talk about "the grind" as if it is a single quantity. In fact, "the grind" is a spectrum of particle sizes. The better the grinder, the more uniform the size and the better the brew (see @rwyland's answer). Uniform grind depends on the alignment of the burrs. This is measured in thousandths of an inch. The slightest tilt or wobble will produce fines and therefor bitterness and chewy silt. An out-of-the-box burr grinder can do a bad grind if it was not manufactured to high enough standards. I disassembled mine and measured the run-out with a micrometer. I had to return it twice to get one that ran true.
A "Krups" mill is not a grinder. It is a bean pulverizer. It produces the full spectrum of particle sizes from dust to chunks. You can't complain about your chewy coffee if you are using one of these. I can understand if you don't want to spend the big bucks on a quality grinder. Buy small quantities and get the shop to do the grinding.
The grind size depends on the temperature and moisture content of the beans at the time of the grind. Commercial grinders know this. Cold beans "shatter" and produce smaller particles. It's OK to freeze coffee beans (What? Sacrilege !!!) as long as they are allowed to thaw in an filled, air-tight container so they don't condense water out of the air.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.629356
| 2013-01-04T23:34:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29736",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Brandie Flowers",
"Dave",
"Evan",
"Melissa Nelson",
"Michael Haase",
"Michael Scott",
"Pacific NorthWest",
"Thomas",
"bart",
"beefoak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69305",
"stslavik",
"sudowned",
"user23599",
"user69223"
],
"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
}
|
128597
|
What aspects define how present the garlic taste in an aglio e olio pasta becomes?
In Italy I ate aglio, olio e peperoncino spaghetti which had a strong tasting sauce that I really liked.
When I make it at home, it becomes slightly bland unfortunately (e.g. using this recipe excluding the parsley). While the spicy taste of the pepper does come through nicely, the taste of the garlic seems to disappear, or at least is not as present as I would like it to be.
The taste I am looking for resembles the garlic punchiness in aioli (I think, I find it hard to describe).
What I've tried so far to improve it (without success):
Fry the garlic a little longer before adding the pasta
Smash the garlic instead of cutting it in thin slices
Add a bit more salt at the end
Not sure if it matters: I'm using a garlic very similar to this one and this olive oil specifically.
How can I make the garlic more present in an aglio e olio pasta?
How would you describe the garlic flavour you're after? Would you say it's punchy and strong like aioli or more mellow and softer like roasted garlic?
I think somehting more towards the punchy taste of aioli.
You may simply need more garlic, but if you're after punchy garlic, cooking it less might be better.
Combining these two ideas, you might want to fry the amount of garlic called for in the recipe (perhaps sliced) then add the same amount again (crushed) when you add the spaghetti or even slightly later.
This lightly simmered or steamed garlic will mellow far less than that fried until golden, which is still worth including as a background, and because it's more tolerant of being too generous.
It may be that the recipe writer had more potent garlic than you, or bigger cloves, or perhaps you just have a taste for extra garlic. The other thing is that with 2 hot chillies in there, everything else may be overpowered.
This is the correct answer. Garlic is one of the few ingredients that is more prominent the less it is cooked. You can get a stronger flavour in certain preparations (e.g. a vinaigrette) giving it more time to blend/"diffuse", but if heat is involved, the lesser the better. Try to make pasta aglio e olio by adding raw garlic straight from a garlic press after you remove the pan from the stove :)
I spent years before I learned this… I would add many bulbs worth of garlic to a pot of slow cooked sauce, and there was never any obvious garlic flavor. Adding garlic late in the cooking is key. (And how it’s cut)
Tried this, put 2 cloves sliced at the beginning (as per recipe) and added a small clove just after I transferred the pasta to the oil, worked really well, thanks!
The flavor of garlic is extremely sensitive to how it’s been prepared, particularly how much heat has been applied and whether it’s been stored long-term after being crushed/sliced/minced or not.
This is because a lot of the compounds responsible for the stronger and sharper flavor of fresh garlic are either highly volatile (and thus heating them causes them to evaporate) or decompose readily into other compounds when heated.
What this means is that for a strong, sharp garlic flavor like you would get from aiolli (or from just biting into a clove of garlic), heat (and to a lesser extent time) is your enemy. In your case, try using as much garlic roasted as the recipe calls for, but then add in some fresh crushed garlic when you add in the pasta, and I suspect you will get a flavor much closer to what you’re aiming for.
Additionally, any green parts inside a clove (really the beginnings of a new shoot) tend to be more bitter and less sharp. This isn’t especially noticeable in most dishes, but it can still have an impact in things like aioli or pasta aglio e olio where garlic is one of the biggest parts of the flavor profile. You can offset this by either discarding any green bits you find when slicing/mincing the cloves, or by using younger cloves.
The molecule in garlic that is responsible for the trademark flavor and aroma is allicin. It is formed when cell walls in the garlic are breached, causing the alliin within to come into contact with the alliinase enzymes. This is why garlic that has been processed less has a less pronounced flavor, i.e. crushing it vs chopping it vs using the cloves whole.
Allicin is also highly unstable and will break down fairly quickly after formation, which is why store-bought minced garlic is always so toned down in flavor compared to a freshly minced garlic clove. This process also speeds up during cooking, so the hotter/longer you cook the garlic, the less flavorful it becomes.
From these two bits of knowledge, the way to maximize the impact of garlic in your food is to do the following:
Always use whole garlic cloves, never pre-minced. Farm or garden fresh would obviously be best.
Pulverize the garlic as much as possible, ideally with a mortar and pestle to get a homogenous paste. (If slicing, the thinner the slices, the better.)
Use the garlic as quickly as possible. Minimize the amount of time between processing and eating.
Cook the garlic on as low heat as possible for as little time as possible.
And, of course, there's always the obvious solution of just adding more garlic.
While your explanation is correct, traditional aglio e olio would not call for garlic in paste form. Garlic pulverized into a paste is generally a rare occurrence in traditional Italian pasta dished.
@moscafj True, but if OP is having issues getting the garlic flavor to come through (perhaps they simply can't find very good quality garlic where they are from), then using fresh garlic paste instead of - or in addition to - sliced garlic is a potential workaround.
sliced garlic would be a much more common approach in this traditional dish.
@moscafj I'm not disagreeing. Like I said, garlic paste is merely a potential solution if OP simply wants more garlic flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.630561
| 2024-06-19T21:45:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128597",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"Joe",
"Saaru Lindestøkke",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46427
|
What is the temperature range for food not to burn your mouth?
I'm trying to get a temperature range for knowing when food is too hot to eat. Most of what I am finding is temperature ranges for food to kill bacteria instead.
For example, if I'm serving a hot drink or a soup/stew which was recently simmering or boiling, what temperature should I let it cool to before serving?
It's not a fixed temperature ... it has to do with the specific heat as well (oil holds more heat than water at a given temperature), and how much contact it makes. (this is why liquids in general are a problem). See http://wiki.chemprime.chemeddl.org/index.php/The_Thermodynamics_of_Pizza
Ricardo, I've edited in an example that makes the question a little more easily answerable - I think liquids are really the primary time we're concerned with burning our mouths. If there are other categories of foods you were interested in, please feel free to edit further!
I made myself some spicy chicken and macaroni soup, and put it in a bowl while it was still boiling. I put a thermometer in it as it cooled and I started to eat. I figured the soup was a good thing to test as I could take big bites that included liquid and solids that required chewing. I took a bite every minute or so and noted the temperature, and I repeated with boiling soup after it had reached "too cool to enjoy". At temperatures over 190F (87.8C) I couldn't put it in my mouth without giving it time to cool on the spoon and "blowing on it". At 180F (82.2C) I was still "blowing on it", but
@Joe oil holds much less heat than water, 1.67 vs 4.18 kJ/kg*K (but water losses it faster due to evaporation)
Joe might have it backwards, but has an important point.
You also need to consider the contents. I've had dumpling soup before where the broth was fine but the dumpling stuffing was hot enough to burn the roof of my mouth (made worse because it was something of a paste and thus maintained contact).
I made myself some spicy chicken and macaroni soup, and put it in a bowl while it was still boiling. I put a thermometer in it as it cooled and I started to eat. I figured the soup was a good thing to test as I could take big bites that included liquid and solids that required chewing.
I took a bite every minute or so and noted the temperature, and I repeated with boiling soup after it had reached "too cool to enjoy".
At temperatures over 190F (87.8C) I couldn't put it in my mouth without giving it time to cool on the spoon and "blowing on it".
At 180F (82.2C) I was still "blowing on it", but not in an unpleasant way for the first bites of soup. I would consider that to be the optimum serving temperature for this kind of soup (see quote concerning Chinese noodle soup below).
At 170F (76.7C) I could put the bite straight into my mouth without pausing or "blowing on it" but it was still a bit hot, if I were eating without paying attention to the temperature, I would have "blown on it"
At 160F (71.1C) I can and did eat comfortably. It was just pleasantly hot.
At 150F (65.5C) it was still pleasantly hot.
At 145F (62.7C) It was still quite warm, pleasant for soup.
At 140F (60C) it was still fine, but not hot at all.
At 135F (57.2C) it was still OK, but definitely getting on the cool side for soup.
At 130F (54.4C) I was glad to be almost done.
At 125F (51.7C) I was thinking seriously about the microwave.
At 120F (48.9C) It was too cool to enjoy this particular soup.
Obviously, different foods are going to have different optimal temperatures. I wouldn't want steak to have ever hit over 130F (45.4C).
Also, consider that I have been cooking for 35 years. I am accustomed to sticking a spoon into something boiling on the stove in order to taste it.
Consider too that there is (at least there is for me) something fun and vaguely comforting about soup that's still a bit too hot to eat. Some of us blow on it, noodles are often slurped for that reason:
Slurping is de rigueur among the Chinese, for practical reasons. “It’s a way of introducing cool air into your mouth to cool off the noodles and the broth if it’s a noodle soup. … Chinese food is generally served hot, often served piping hot.” -Chow.com
So, I don't think there is really such a thing as too hot to serve soup to "consenting adults".
Other types of food are cooled or rested before serving for other reasons. Meat should always be rested to allow the fibers to relax so that the juices stay in the meat instead of running all over the plate. Cheesy things like pizza are easier to cut and serve after they have cooled a bit. Some things are just (subjectively) better after cooling (I prefer fried chicken barely warm, for instance).
So, that's my $.02 on the subject, the answer of "best temperature" is largely subjective.
This seems great! I know the best temperature is subjective, but it seems reasonably objective that over 180F is going to be problematic for people managing to actually eat it immediately.
Amazing. Nicely done. It's people like you who make the internet great.
See https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/23985/how-hot-can-a-beverage-get-without-burning-the-tongue (I think losing sensitivity from a repetitively burned mouth is normal).
@StephaneBersier Excellent contribution. I'd love to see that fleshed out into an answer.
This most definitely is a food safety question. I work for a school district, and we have had several instances of small children burning themselves on the soup. We needed to write the proper serving temperature into our HACCP recipe to ensure that this would not happen again.
We did some testing ourselves and found that the 145-155 °F (62-68 °C) temperature range was optimal for best quality and safe transport on a lunch tray.
Thanks for the well-considered answers- apart from the comments above, please consider the following which I have observed in forty years of restaurant ownership:
Older people definitely require hotter food.
The temperature that a meal leaves the kitchen is way different from that of the last morsel eaten. A hot heavy plate is a great help here.
Certain foods which have a large surface area and small mass (like grilled calamari) cool very quickly.
In sous vide cooking, items like trout or rare meats which are cooked at about 52 deg C (125 deg F) are too cold to serve. They will need searing or a blast of higher temperature to elevate them to the optimal eating temperature.
If the first few mouthfuls are pleasantly warm, the eater will seldom be unhappy with the cooler remnants.
Happy cooking
Chef Nic
Welcome to the site! This is a nice post but there's just one problem -- it doesn't actually answer the question at the top of the page, which is about food being too hot, not too cold. Because we're a Q&A site, rather than a discussion forum, we are looking for answers to the specific question, so your answer might get down-voted. Please take a look at the [tour] for more information about how the site works. One thing you could do is post a new question about how to ensure that food is hot enough by the time it reaches the table, and then repost this as an answer to that question. [cont.]
That might feel like you're talking to yourself but a lot of our questions are found via search engines and an answer like yours would surely help lots of people who found it that way. In any case, I hope you stick around -- after forty years, you must have a whole lot of knowledge that others could benefit from. Welcome, again!
@Nicolas I found this very helpful, thankyou.
I worked under a chef in Seattle for about six months. He tended to recommend serving at about 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
The soup I ate tonight was too hot until it cooled down to 140 degrees. At 145 degrees I had to blow on it first.
I wonder if the difference between our experience has to do with our respective ages? I'd love to know how old you are. I'm 47.
You can order starbucks lattes at specific temperatures. I find that 140 is about the hottest I can handle without having to wait, but I also have a sensitive mouth.
Well in the past year or so, I heat soup to 170F. Two reasons, one this temperature is about the temperature, once plated, that the soup is edible immediately, never burn your mouth again. I hate to wait. Second, per the USDA, at 170F, virtually all pathogens are goners. Third, this temperature will destroy less nutrients then heating to boiling, a bonus. Knowing this, I would think that restaurants that are concerned with table turnover should bring soup out at this temperature, this would allow people to eat quite hot soup, without waiting, and decrease the time they are at the table. Just a thought.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.631092
| 2014-08-15T17:01:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46427",
"authors": [
"Angela Hornbeck",
"Cami Humphreys",
"Cascabel",
"David Bullock",
"David Richerby",
"Destiny Price",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Imani Blango",
"JAB",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judy Reed",
"Kayci Veh",
"Melanie Green",
"Michael Hughes",
"PICyourBrain",
"Stephane Bersier",
"Steve Withey",
"Tammy Hollis",
"Tracy Halevi",
"Trudie Carlesso",
"brenda medina",
"frank ditzler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72964",
"rackandboneman",
"sophia culbertson"
],
"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
}
|
66681
|
Homemade Beet Pasta loses color when cooked
I love making homemade pasta, and I've been making the beet pasta for a while (I use this recipe here http://natalieparamore.com/homemade-beet-pasta/).
When I make the pasta, it gets a beautiful dark red color, like the pictures from the recipe; however, when I cook it, it loses most of it's color, and turns into a pink pasta, instead of the dark red.
Is there a way to avoid this, or reduce the loss of color? Something I can add to the recipe, a different way to make it, or something I can do before cooking the pasta?
Thanks
Are you cooking for too long? Fresh pasta needs only a couple of minutes in the boiling water. I mean literally a couple. Most pasta I have made fresh (spaghetti sizes) is ready in less than 2 minutes in boiling water. Thicker pastas may need 3 minutes.
If I cook right after I make it, it's "less worse", since it takes less time to cook, and it looses less color. If I leave it overnight to dry off, to consume the next day, it takes a while longer to cook, and it gets the pink coloring.
For spinach pasta, the effect is not as bad, but for beet, it loses a lot of it's color
Well generally fresh pasta isn't meant to be dried overnight. Beet juice is water soluble, spinach leaf not so much.
Just checking if anyone knows a different way to make it, or maybe even a type of food coloring, that could be used. Or a technique to store it. I found that, if I froze it, and the cooked it, it loses less color.
I've only made green (spinach) pasta. From a related question, tomato paste was recommended for red color. I don't know if it'd be more stable (and if you could mix some in w/ the beets).
Oh if you just want color, then you have choices. A lot of people include coloring just as much for shift in flavor as the actual color presented.
What choices do I have? Didn't understand what you meant by that. Tks
You could use commercial food coloring. I wouldn't tell, and it wouldn't take much. I use this brand for baking, I'm sure it would be fine in pasta:
I tried making a natural pink cake using beets. The color always baked out. Online I found out that a more acidic batter could help. So, maybe some acid in your cooking water could help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.631917
| 2016-02-20T19:35:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66681",
"authors": [
"Art Drake",
"Elaine Young",
"Escoce",
"Gwen Rusch",
"Joe",
"Juliette Exupery",
"Michael Malloy",
"Pascal",
"Sheryl McLaughlin",
"Trisha L",
"fiona nicolson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34840",
"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
}
|
55748
|
Yolks flat and breaking
We have had our own chickens for over 20 years and feed them on crushed grain and laying pellets and they eat greens in the fields. The fresh eggs have always been plump in the centre when cracked. Lately the yolks are flat and even if carefully broken into the pan they tend to rupture and leak as the egg is frying. Just like old eggs. what could be the explanation?
How old are the chickens?
All ages. They gwt broody, have babies and the cycle goes on.
I ask because the age of the chickens can apparently effect yolk integrity. If they are new layers or old chickens, the yolk can become weak as you describe. Could it be you just have a mix at the moment of quite young and quite old without many in their 'prime'?
This can also be a sign of illness in the birds.
Some sort of stress? Drought in your area? Perhaps the greens in the fields are not so green this year?
The ones that are presently laying range from 6months to 14 months. The fields are all green, the birds are anything but stressed being spoilt little pets.
Please add a photo of the "wrong" egg, there might be more causes. Also, do you feet them meat? E.g. earthworms or leftovers from cleaning meat?
Age, pure and simple. I used to be a free range egg producer and our chickens were retired to homes happy to have them as pets and occasional layers by the time they were two years of age.
Eggs become larger as they age but as they get beyond two, most hens lay a lot less and quite frequently the eggs can show their age on the inside as well as outside.
Like humans, hens have only so many eggs they are born with and once those have all been released everything starts to slow right down until it stops completely.
There is no way that this is attributed to the age of the egg…only. We currently have birds that are all 2 years and under. Our eggs are sold immediately. They don’t sit for more than 3 days, and we get flat egg yolks. We are in some severe heat, there’s no greens other than what we give them, and the birds are molting. We had a lot of flat yolks. We just cooled off, and the birds feathers are back. I have noticed the yolks are coming back also. We have had older birds before, and this drought is the first time I’ve ever seen a flat yolk in over a decade of birds.
This fits what others wrote - environmental impact and physical stress (molting) are reflected in the birds’ eggs.
The information below came from eggfarmers.org.nz WARNING, This link is a PDF file. (nz stands for New Zealand, but there is some good insight available on this .pdf).
Yolk quality:
Yolk quality is determined by the colour, texture, firmness and smell of the yolk (Jacob et al.,
2000).
Yolk colour:
Although yolk colour is a key factor in any consumer survey relating to egg
quality (Jacob et al., 2000), consumer preferences for yolk colour are highly subjective and vary
widely from country to country. In general, New Zealand consumers prefer a yolk colour
between 11 and 13 on the Roche (now DSM) Yolk Colour Fan (Sutherland, personal
communication).
The primary determinant of yolk colour is the xanthophyll (plant pigment) content of the diet
consumed. It is possible to manipulate the yolk colour of eggs by the addition of natural or
synthetic xanthophylls to layer hen feeds. This ability to readily manipulate egg yolk colour can
be an advantage in meeting market demands.
However, the ease with which yolk colour can be manipulated can lead to unwanted colour changes. For example, the inclusion of higher than recommended levels or incorrect ratios of pigments can lead to orange-red yolks (Coutts and Wilson, 1990). Similarly, diphenyl-para-phenylenediamine (DPPD), an antioxidant, has been reported to cause excessive deposition of pigments in the egg yolk (Coutts and Wilson, 1990).
The inclusion of more than 5 % cottonseed meal in a layer diet will result in olive or salmon coloured yolks (Beyer, 2005), while the inclusion of certain weeds or weed seeds may results in green yolks (Beyer, 2005; Coutts and Wilson, 1990). Similarly, inadvertent omission of xanthophylls from the diet will lead to pale yolks. Both inadequate mixing of the diet as as well as excessive mixing of the diet will also result in a heterogeneous feed, and subsequent variation in the amount of xanthophylls consumed by each hen in the flock, This will result in egg yolk colour not being uniform throughout the flock.
Pale yolks can result from any factor which alters or prevents the absorption of pigments from the diet or the deposition of these pigments in the yolk. These factors could include;
worms (Coutts and Wilson, 1990)
any factor which inhibits liver function, subsequent lipids metabolism and deposition
of pigment in the yolk. For example, mycotoxicosis caused by aflatoxin B1 (Zaghini
et al., 2005).
coccidiosis, although this is rare in adult hens.
Mottled yolks: (with many pale spots and blotches which vary in colour size and shape), occur when the contents of the albumen and yolk mix as a result of degeneration and increase
permeability of the vitelline membrane (Jacob et al., 2000). Factors affecting mottling were
reviewed in detail by Cunningham and Sanford (1974).Dietary factors which may cause mottled
yolks include;
The presence of nicarbazin (an anticoccidal agent) in the feed has shown by
numerous authors to cause mottling (Jones et al., 1990; Cunningham and Sanford,
1974)
Worming drugs such as phenothiazine (Coutts and Wilson, 1990), dibutyltin
dialaurate (Jacob et al., 2000; Coutts and Wilson, 1990; Berry et al., 1968, cited
by Cunningham and Sanford, 1974) and Piperazine (Jacob et al., 2000; Coutts and
Wilson, 1990). However, Berry et al. (1968, cited by Cunningham and Sanford,
1974) did not observe yolk defects when Piperazine was fed at the manufacturer’s
recommendations. Similarly, they only observed defects when dibutyltin
dialaurate was fed at the recommended level but over a much longer period.
Gossypol from cotton seed meal (Jacob et al., 2000; Berry et al., 1968, cited by
Cunningham and Sanford, 1974)
Certain antioxidants such as gallic acid (from grapes, tea and oak bark) and tannic
acid (Coutts and Wilson, 1990), or tannins from grains such as sorghum (Jacob et
al., 2000)
Calcium deficient diets (Jacob et al., 2000; McCready et al., 1972, cited by
Cunningham and Sanford, 1974)
Storage time and temperature has also been shown to affect the degree of egg yolk mottling
(Jacob et al., 2000; Coutts and Wilson, 1990). Jones (2006) stated that as the internal temperature of the egg increases above 7 degrees Celsius, the protein structures of the thick albumen and vitelline membrane breakdown faster. As the membrane degenerates during storage, water enters the yolk causing mottling and after prolonged storage, albumen proteins also enter the yolk increasing the severity of mottling (Jacob et al., 2000). In order to reduce the rate of breakdown of the vitelline membrane, eggs should be collected regularly, reducing the time they are exposed to higher environmental temperatures and contaminants, and stored at temperatures of 7 - 13 degrees Celsius and humidity of 50 - 60 %.
In their review, Cunningham and Sanford (1974) also identified hen age, oil coating of eggs and
movement of eggs as possible factors affecting mottling of eggs.
Yolk firmness:
The yolk of a freshly laid egg is round and firm (Jacob et al., 2000). However,
as the egg ages and the vitelline membrane degenerates, water from the albumen moves into the
yolk and gives the yolk a flattened shape.
Yolk texture: Rubbery yolks may be caused by severe chilling or freezing of intact eggs, the
consumption of crude cottonseed oil or the seeds of some weeds (Jacob et al., 2000)
The only one of these topics that even relates to the OP's issue is the very last paragraph! Perhaps you should make sure the answer applies to the question.
I don't see any part which applies to the OP's question. The only thing the last paragraph says is that yolks get soft when they are old, but the OP's complaint is that freshly laid eggs have yolks as soft as those of an old egg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.632167
| 2015-03-16T09:52:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55748",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Graham Williamson",
"Kitara Mason",
"Lesley Holman",
"Martha Cedillo",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Pam Albarado",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dorabradley63yahoocouk",
"exa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"johann pretorius",
"rumtscho",
"user34249"
],
"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
}
|
81082
|
Vanilla extract cups vs spoon
My daughter got confused and added 2 cups of vanilla instead of 2 spoons in a cake recipe.
We were done mixing the ingredients, but we want to salvage the cake. What can we do?
Woah! Around here that's like $25 of vanilla! You'll have to make a lot of cake! I'd make 30 batches of cupcakes and make my daughter sell them to pay me back.
I'm sorry but how was this even possible? Most vanilla containers aren't that big... they're generally 2-4 oz... you'd need 4-8 bottles of them to make two cups. Yes, I know there are larger sizes but... how did this even happen?
Yes, that mistake makes me think - are we talking about vanilla extract here? Did she maybe put in 2 cups of vanilla syrup, or vanilla yogurt, or some other vanilla flavored product that is typically used in large quantities?
Which would change the complexion of the question completely...
I've definitely bought 16oz bottles of vanilla, and I could totally see an eager kid just measuring two cups out of one of those, as silly as it sounds to us. And even if it was syrup instead of extract, it's still something like 48x (assuming teaspoons) the desired amount, so the same general advice probably applies.
re @Jefromi's comment: Well, something similar happened to me as a kid: Instead of one little splash liquid sweetener I put a whole tablespoon into the food. I've never eaten a salad dressing this sweet before.
Where did you get 2 cups of vanilla?! Bin it, there's no hope.
@Jefromi I was more thinking of a case where the recipe means 2 tsp of vanilla extract, and the baker using 2 cups of slightly aromatized syrup.
I don't think you can salvage that cake. That's just way too much vanilla, and you can't take it out.
You could take out enough to have two (tea?)spoons of vanilla, though, and use that in a new cake. For example, if the total volume is now 6 cups, and 2 cups of it is vanilla, you'd need 6 teaspoons of it to get 2 teaspoons of vanilla. You could then make the cake over again, and use that instead of the vanilla you'd have added. (Yeah, you'll get a little extra of the rest, but it's a small amount, it should be fine.)
To try to save the rest... all I can think of is freezing it to try to preserve it, so you can use portions of it to replace vanilla similarly in future cakes. With that much vanilla, I don't know if it'll actually freeze solid - it's mostly alcohol. So I might try putting it in an ice cube tray, in case it does freeze solid (so you put the cubes in a bag and still get individual portions) and then if it stays soft, you can always put it in a single container to scoop out of. Vanilla is pretty volatile, though, so use an airtight bag/container and don't expect it to last forever.
If it's vanilla syrup, the same generally applies: you have way too much, and you can't separate it. If you go the freezing route to try to save it, syrup also doesn't freeze very solid, thanks to the sugar, so same potential issue there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.632805
| 2017-04-19T22:18:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81082",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ching Chong",
"GdD",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
}
|
96937
|
Does chocolate ice cream tend to have more salt than strawberry or vanilla?
To the question Why does chocolate ice cream melt faster than others? I wrote an answer that suggests that it's not because of chocolate ice cream's dark color, but instead because of a lower melting point of chocolate ice cream due to more salt.
Salt depresses the melting point which is why it is put on roads and sidewalks in the winter in some cold parts of the world, and why salt is added to the ice water bath when making ice cream.
I'm wondering if there could be some truth to this theory, so I'd like to ask chocolate ice cream tend to have more salt than strawberry or vanilla?
See also: Why don't most ice cream recipes include salt in the base?
This seems like the OP could trivially find information via google, and also like a generalization is very hard to make.
@Mr.Boy anybody can find one recipe or another, but only someone versed in the art of making ice cream will be familiar with the typical range of amounts of salts in each of several different flavors. That kind of experience is way beyond what google can do for us.
@uhoh in many countries, such as UK, it is a legal requirement to show exactly much salt is in food. As one example, https://www.haagen-dazs.co.uk/products/duo-dark-chocolate-salted-caramel-crunch
@Mr.Boy if you can check several flavors for several companies that way, you can begin to formulate an answer with some level of certainty. If you can do all of that with google somehow, kudos!
So as I said, you can answer this yourself. Google the leading ice cream makers. Collate the results. Or just ask someone else to do it for you...
@Mr.Boy posting a question in Stack Exchange is better because it leads to the posting of answers for all future readers to see. "Why don't you google it" comments are unproductive in Stack Exchange, they miss the whole point of the site. Go to the main SE meta's FAQ and click How should we deal with Google questions? and check out all of the answers there.
Not at the supermarket I'd buy mine from. I've checked a couple of chocolate and a couple of vanilla ice creams (one cheap and one mid range of each). They all have about 0.1% salt, and most of this will come from the cow's milk (that contains some naturally occurring salt). Only one has salt on the ingredients list. It's a chocolate one but has no more salt in the nutrition information than any of the others - probably because there's less milk in that one.
This is in the UK, and you may not be, so I suggest you check the brands available to you. I wouldn't be at all surprised if American ice cream, for example, was more likely to have added salt
Thanks for the info! That's a good idea. Things like cheese and ice cream are not very popular whereI live and the ingredients are usually written in logogram, but next time I'm out I'll see if I can find something.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.633326
| 2019-03-16T10:13:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96937",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Mr. Boy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94634",
"uhoh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86698
|
Why do some rolling pins only have one handle?
I've been looking into getting a new rolling pin as I've been making more and more homemade pasta. One rolling pin that I came across has only one handle. At around the 5:15 mark of this video, you'll see that the knob of the handle is laying flat against the work surface. I'm sure there is a reason for this technique, but it's not immediately obvious to me. Would appreciate your insight!
For yor bonus question: I am almost certain that this boils down (oun intended) to a) personal preference and b) cultural tradition. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Hi, I am afraid we don't do poll questions here, so I had to remove the bonus question, sorry. But the main one is interesting, thank you for posting it.
As Megha says above, this kind of rolling pin is rolled by pressing on the pin itself, as you can see in the video. I have two such rolling pins in different sizes. The knob is not used when rolling out dough.
The single knob is there for picking up the pin, both by itself, and for transporting rolled pasta, pizza, and tart crust dough. In the video, you can see Sra Simili rolling up the dough around the pin, and using the pin to move it. If the dough has been stretched large enough to be the length of the pin, then you use the knob handle so that you can still pick it up.
The knob is also a useful handle when you use the pin to chase children out of the kitchen.
The description says that rolling pin is overlarge, I think that is the answer. A longer rolling pin would simply not be comfortable to brace with one hand at either end, and it would be more difficult to bring pressure to bear (in the case of stiff or stubborn doughs).
To use it, I would assume one's hands would rest on the pin itself and roll it under one's palms - similar to the handle-less rolling pins, those with flat edges (simple cylinder) or those with simple tapered edges. It lets the person exert their strength nearly directly on the dough, since their hands are closer to their center of balance. It's also an older, simpler style of rolling pin - historically much easier to find a stick or dowel to roll with, while making a rolling pin such that the handles rotate independently takes more skill (and thus is easier to break). So it may simply be a heritage style of rolling pin.
Why would this be useful? When rolling, the edges of the pin make a difference - they can cut into the dough if the edges are too long for the pin, since the pressure cutting off effectively leaves the edge of the cylinder an almost-sharp edge. A longer rolling pin like this would be able to work on larger sheets of dough, which would help in bulk applications or perhaps in some specific recipes where a very large dough sheet is needed for whatever reason and joined edges would be fragile. Exerting more direct pressure would also probably be useful when making larger sheets, the larger amount of dough would likely start off being harder to work with, thicker and more resilient from sheer volume.
A better question might be why have the knob-handle at all, though I'd guess it's still useful if carrying the rolling pin by one end, or grabbing it out of storage, or something. Or even just visually identifying it as a rolling pin so it isn't mistaken for scrap wood, a dowel, or something left-over from, say, construction rather than a legit kitchen tool.
Thanks for the response! The more I look into this particular pin, the more I begin to think that the knob is simply a marker. One end of the pin is thinner than the other, so maybe the knob is there for a point of reference?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.633577
| 2017-12-26T03:57:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86698",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"What have you tried",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63618",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102864
|
Is there a wine traditionally served with beef carpaccio?
Is there a wine traditionally served with beef carpaccio?
Like, they would typically serve flammkuchen with federweisser.
Dear answerers, I would like to remind everybody that food pairing suggestions are off topic on the site. I will not unilaterally close the question, since we do allow food history questions - this means though that you will have to stick to that interpretation. So please only believable explanations on whether a specific wine has been known to historically be paired with carpaccio. We moderators will have to remove answers which simply suggest wines that might go well with carpaccio, without the evidence that they were the preferred pairing.
Beef carpaccio is a fairly recent creation. It originated in Harry's Bar in Venice in the 1950's. The dish is said to be base on the Piemontese dish called carne cruda all'Albese. The Veneto and Piemonte are two different regions in northern Italy. Different wines are produced in each region. Given that the carpaccio is based on the Piemontese original, that is a sensible place to start.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.633993
| 2019-10-14T14:51:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102864",
"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
}
|
89688
|
Low tech strategies for keeping food warm
I need to cook food from the middle ages and bring it to school for a project. How can I keep the food warm without using innovative appliances?
Hello, Sofia! Do you have a specific recipe in mind already?
How much time between the preparation and consumption? What kind of food? What kind of equipment will you have access to?
If you make something like a stew, and only need to keep it hot for a few hours you can pack it hot into a well-insulated container. These days we'd use a vacuum flask but blankets and straw have been used in the past. The difficult bit might actually be making a seal. But I don't know what materials or recipes you've got
Eh, the most common medieval method - ubiquitous access to open fire, be it bonfire, wood-fired stove or a fireplace - is rather incompatible with modern school.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2782/67
A couple options spring to mind.
One way is, as ChrisH mentions, simple insulation, using layers of straw and blankets would be the most portable options. I also recall that during that time items could be kept warm by burying them, or using an earthen oven to trap heat and keep something warm for hours, but these will tend not to be portable :)
To seal a pot containing said food, you can make a simple dough and use it to seal a lid on to a pot - this will keep moisture trapped, keeping the food from drying out, as well as keeping some more heat in (from steam, instead of letting it out). Sealed pots were not really common in medieval times, metal pots would not be common or portable enough to use like this, but the basic principle was used, they would have food sealed in crusts. In this case, the crust would be broken into and the contents just spooned out, since many of the crusts, especially for larger dishes, were thick and tough, and might even be scorched on the outside from long or repeated cooking, not very tasty. They were not intended to be eaten as part of the dish, they might be used for breadcrumbs in a later dish or given away, as the crust would need to be sturdy, thick, able to seal the contents from air, and able to withstand the reheating process, and so the crust wouldn't need, or want, to be tender or flavorful or even part of the dish in its own right.
Another thing you might try, in addition to insulation, would be to store and add heat either while traveling or afterwards - something like a hot water bottle, though at that level of technology it would more likely be hot rocks, which would work to keep the food warm. Depending on the insulation, method of travel, and dish involved they could even let the dish continue cooking while it traveled - something like stew or beans would be better for this, or really any dishes with extended cooking times. If you have enough rocks (enough thermal mass) in a very well-insulated container, they could stay hot for hours, likely enough to warm the food once you're ready to set up. You could try adding water to them once the food's set up over them, this would let the heat transfer quickly through steam or boiling water. Transporting hot rocks, etc, with the food container will keep everything hot longer, transporting them separately will mean the food won't keep cooking while in transit, for more delicate dishes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.634115
| 2018-05-08T16:33:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89688",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"SF.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113684
|
Is this siphon based recipe for mousse au chocolat trying to whip the cream?
The following recipe came with my new N2O siphon:
dissolve 75g of chocolate in 275g of cream
cool to 5 degree Celsius
strain through sieve into siphon to make sure no undissolved pieces of chocolate get into siphon
pressurize siphon
shake 8-10 times
When I eat the mousse au chocolat immediately after letting it out of the siphon, it doesn't quite have the texture I expect from mousse au chocolat (my reference is a traditional recipe with eggs, whipped cream and chocolate), but it's still fluffy and nice. When I let it rest in in the fridge however, which usually gives mousse au chocolat a firmer texture without being less fluffy, it kind of deflates and reverts to it's pre-siphon state of liquid chocolate-cream mix. It actually keeps it's fluffiness worse than a vegan variant I also did with 250g of coconut milk and 100g of chocolate (which has enough fat that it becomes solid in the fridge and keeps it's fluffiness).
Is that supposed to happen like that? Isn't a whipped cream siphon supposed to, you know, whip the cream?
This is an expected outcome. Foams made with a siphon are not especially stable over time.
If you are making a siphon recipe without stabilizers, you should prepare it in time for serving, not plan to store it.
Thanks. I was just surprised the recipe that came with the device didn't set, but it makes perfect sense that it doesn't. I like my mousse au chocolat with more chocolate anyway, and given enough chocolat it will set when cooled. Just need to find the right temperature to work with and probably get used to making a cup of hot chocolate with the rest of the mix that stays in the siphon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.634390
| 2021-01-10T14:38:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113684",
"authors": [
"Nobody",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78281
|
De-hulling pumpkin seeds for research
I want to conduct research on the inner part of the pumpkin seeds. I find it difficult to remove the shells one by one by hand. What is the best method for dehulling pumpkin seeds (for research purposes)?
Welcome! Does it matter if the pumpkin seed retains it shape, or will slightly bashed up do?
Comment on EDIT: I understand that the initial subject heading was a tad convoluted, however the OP did state RESEARCH not STUDY, this could change the meaning of the question as initially put.
I agree that study can be different than research and what is Halo?
@Paparazzi I assume typo of "hello"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.634548
| 2017-02-10T06:43:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78281",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43682
|
How is it that brioche rises so high?
I just made this brioche and I'm very pleased with it.
I'm puzzled though. Where did all of this lift come from? The dough shaped in the pan for the final proof was tiny.
The recipe calls for a sponge made with 1/4 tsp yeast, 1 TBS sugar, 1 egg, 1/2 cup flour and 2 TBS of water. That can ferment for up to a day, but I only allowed a couple of hours. It was pretty unremarkable.
Then I sprinkled over the sponge just over 1 cup of flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1 1/4 tsp yeast and 1/2 tsp salt. That sat for an hour, then I kneaded it (for no longer than normal bread), adding 1/4 lb butter and 2 cold eggs. That rose until doubled, then I punched it down and left it in the refrigerator overnight. The next day I formed the loaf in a normal loaf pan.
This is where I got nervous.
I didn't think there was any way that this tiny mass of dough was even going to rise to the top of the pan. It looked like a Twinkie!
A 2 hour proof did see the dough rise just to the top of the pan. 35 minutes at 350F caused it to get just massive (relative to normal bread).
How? The eggs aren't whipped, it doesn't call for a tremendous amount of sugar and it takes just over 1/2 the amount of yeast that would be found in typical sandwich bread. How did such a tiny amount of dough turn into such a big loaf?
Do you do a lot of baking? If so, you might have extra natural yeast in the air in your kitchen that is helping things along. Or perhaps the Oven Spring gods decided this was the right bread to hit.
@JenniferS I have been doing a lot of baking lately, all kinds of bread. I'm excited about it 'cause I keep getting better :) I've got a kind of complex loaf resting right now. I'll do a little dance for the Oven Spring gods!
http://www.weekendbakery.com/posts/bread-baking-tips-making-the-most-of-your-oven/
This post suggests to me that the dough was moister on the outside as it was baking, which probably allowed the bread to spring more than a regular bread dough. I am guessing that this is a function of the eggs and butter that are in brioche dough. In reading about butter in Ruhlman's Twenty, some of this may be the butter coating the flour, and preventing the stronger gluten strands that might have kept the spring from happening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.634635
| 2014-04-24T22:19:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43682",
"authors": [
"Asarizadi Savanash",
"Jennifer S",
"Jolenealaska",
"Reverse Engineered",
"Spammer",
"delvetwelve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060"
],
"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
}
|
28730
|
Basil Pesto and Cream Cheese dip
I made a dip with basil pesto covering cream cheese with grated parmesan cheese over it all.
Can I keep the dip (tightly covered) for 4 days without the pesto interacting with the cheese?
The pesto was purchased in a jar. It was not opened until yesterday when the dip was made. I only worry about the chemical reaction between the two and rancidity (sp). There was enough left over to use again.
Thanks.
As long as the whole dip is/was kept in the safe temperature range (under 40 °F / 5 °C), I don't think you will have a food safety issue. Remember, time out of refrigeration (well, technically in the danger zone of 40~140 °F / 5~60 °C) is cumulative. How was the dip served the first time? If the cream cheese (a "potentially hazardous" food, much more so than parmesan or pesto) sat out at room temperature in the danger zone for 2 or more cumulative hours (4 at the outside) you should discard it.
Other than the food safety issue, there may be some minor interaction among the ingredients, but that will be more a palatability issue, not a safety issue. The flavor might even improve.
Errrm, OP's question was about the flavor interactions. If you could expand on that point in your answer, that'd be great.
@derobert I tried to see your interpretation in the OP question, but I just cannot. Still, I have little to say about the change in flavors other than: if it is safe, just try it. Nothing lost if it isn't still tasty, and if it is, well, enjoy.
The OP says: "I only worry about the chemical reaction between the two and rancidity (sp)." I also take this is mean she's worried about the pesto affecting the flavor of the cream cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.634856
| 2012-11-28T19:37:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28730",
"authors": [
"Amen",
"Jane Wilder",
"Jonathan Christensen",
"Margaret King",
"Per Erik Gransøe",
"RAN",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Theodor_D.",
"derobert",
"henry Onsa Jnr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66535"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29070
|
sourdough bread making-without bakers yeast
I have the book by Jessie Hawkins, The Vintage Remedies Guide to Bread, in which
she describes the benefits of the ancient method of sourdough bread making.
The bread described in the book needs to rise from 12 to 36 hours, which makes it has a low glycemic index, low gluten, and being much more nutritious, etc. I have tried several loaves, and they come out good tasting, but way too dense and the crust is very hard. I suspect it has something to do with the starter, but I'm not sure.
I try to make sure the starter is active before I mix the dough. Some loaves rise quickly and are ready to bake after 12 hours, but more often they take 36 hours. The top crusts sometimes separates from the loaf.
I use:
Filtered water
No sweetener
1 tbsp of olive oil (13.5 gr)
1 tsp salt (6 gr)
four cups of (bread) flour (500 gr)
⅔ cup of starter.
Any suggestions as to what I am doing wrong?
what amount of time and at what temperature are you baking the bread? what type of loaf pan (if any) are you using?
You may want to post a picture—sourdough is denser than most breads. And very much denser than the sandwich bread you buy in the store. And the crust is supposed to be hard (put the cooled loaf it in a plastic bag for an hour or few if you want to soften it).
Yes, some more information would be helpful. When was the starter last fed? Was it good and active before using--doubled in size since the last feeding? What shape: sandwich loaf in a pan, baguette on a stone? How was the dough mixed and kneaded? How long was it kneaded for? How long was the first bulk rise? How long after shaping? What temperature?
I wonder how a bread can have low gluten just for being a sourdough.
@Martha: Have you made bread with yeast instead of a starter before? Have you tried to make bread with yeast following the same procedure (except the time which would be less).
Without seeing the loaves or knowing your exact procedures, it's hard to guess. My money would be on too dry a dough. Could also be inactive starter, too long a bake, not a hot enough bake, not enough rise time/temperature. So I'll just talk about how I make sourdough in the hopes it'll help. These are techniques I've learned from various books (most notably Reinhart's The Bread Baker's Apprentice) and experiences.
If I did it right, you can click any of the thumbnails for full size images.
First order of business, of course, is having a nice, active starter. I build my final starter from the barm the day before. Depending on my schedule, I either leave it at room temp all night or feed it earlier in the day and pop it in the fridge. It then comes out to warm up a few hours before I bake. It should show strong signs of life. This starter was made with nothing but flour and water--no grapes, no commercial yeast, no juice.
Then comes mixing and kneading. I like to mix the starter with the water first, allowing the starter to break up and dissolve a bit. This ensures good mixing with the final dough. Then I add the flour and salt, mix to a coarse ball...
...and switch to the dough hook for 5 minutes or so. The dough should be stickier than you think it should be. Turn it out onto a floured surface for 4-5 minutes of final kneading by hand to adjust the flour. It should be smooth and supple, still be a bit tacky, and pass the windowpane test. When you stretch it to form a boule, the outside should be smooth and not tear.
Let it rise 3-4 hours at room temp or slightly warmer (a closed oven with a bowl of hot water works well). Then shape and proof for another 3-4 hours.
I start with a very hot oven. 500-550F for artisan loaves. If using a stone, get it in there 45-60 minutes before baking, that way the stone and oven get a good heat soak. Then when the loaves go in, you want to create steam to allow the bread to rise before the crust hardens. A steam pan is a good idea, and I also spray down the walls of the oven with a squirt bottle. Be careful of squirting the light bulb--it will shatter. Don't ask me how I know. After a few squirts, turn the heat down to your final baking temp. I usually go with 450F.
Don't forget to slash them, too. That helps them expand and prevents blowouts. I had some issues getting these guys onto the stone (not my finest hour), but they were still outstanding. You can see the crumb is open and light, but still gelatinized and chewy. Perfect, in my book.
It could be that your dough is too tight, meaning it is too dry. For awhile I made the mistake of adding too much flour and it resulted in bread that was too dense. Try adding another 50ml or more of water and see if it improves your results. Don't worry if it gets a bit gooey, that's ok, just knead with oil instead of flour.
It is another possibility that your dough is over-worked, do you machine knead or hand-knead, and how long?
EDIT:
There is a relationship between the amount of gluten in flour to the amount of water that is needed to make a dough with the right consistency. The more gluten, the more water is needed. Whole wheat flour has less gluten than white flour, and you can get bread (aka strong in some places) flour that has extra gluten added. The wheat flour would need significantly less water than the strong bread flour. The amount of gluten in flours differs from region to region, brand to brand, and therefore the amount of water in a recipe is approximate, and you must vary the quantity in order to get the right consistency.
The way to go about this is to hold some of the flour in reserve and knead it into the dough. You want to add as much flour and you need to achieve the consistency you are looking for, and no more. Once you have the consistency you want don't add any more flour, even if it is sticky, as that will make your bread too dry. IF you don't like working a sticky dough use oil and not flour to prevent sticking. Personally I like to work a sticky dough without oil, I let it adhere to the counter and pull it with my fingers, but YMMV.
Don't be afraid to add water to the dough if you've added too much flour, it may be a bit messy but it is better than dry bread. It's best to do that by hand as a dough hook will just start sliding around.
You have advised an OP who posted in traditional US units to add 50 ml of water.... I don't know about the OP but I have no intuition how much 50 ml is. (Quick check of super secret google conversion searching...) 50 ml = appx 3.3 tbl, or a bit less than a quarter cup.
I grew up with the good old US measurements but I've long since moved metric for baking, it's a habit. 1/4 cup is good enough, thanks for pointing that out. It's amazing how little water it takes to make dry dough the right moisture. It may take 1/4 cup, or it may take a cup more depending on the gluten content of the flour.
Yeah, for the last month or two, I have been doing very easy simple, easy home baked bread and pizza dough, and a few tbl can make all the difference it seems. My KitchenAid and I are developing a whole new level of friendship.
Side note for newer bakers: it's always easier to add flour to a slack dough than add water to a dry dough. I always reserve some flour and make the dough wetter than I think it should be, then adjust during final kneading.
Andrew Whitley's excellent book "Bread Matters" says the mantra is "wetter is better".
I'd generally agree, more moisture means better rising, more expansion in the oven as the water vaporizes, and a crunchier crust. There's exceptions to that, like bagels, where you want a denser dough.
How do we know the hydration of the OP's bread? There is no clue of how much filtered water is used, nor of the starter's hydration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.635051
| 2012-12-10T18:16:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29070",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Gabriel Staples",
"GdD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"JoeFish",
"Mike Fowler",
"Mo Satcher",
"Rhann",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Slowbutsure",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"mannym",
"slim",
"user4922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89501
|
Do percentages on ingredient lists of cookies refer to pre- or post-baking weight?
Using Fox's Dark Chocolate Chunkie Cookies' ingredients as an example, per https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=273949462,
Dark Chocolate Chunks (28%)
refers to the weight before the baking, or is it the weight after the baking?
It's probably within the tolerance to which these things are measured (in this case, maybe less so for soemthing subject to more evaporation). It's an interesting question, but why does it matter to you?
In a packaged product I am pretty sure the weight of the components needs to add up to the weight of the package. I guess it could vary by jurisdiction.
I'm sure @paparazzo is right, but when the weight of only one ingredient is expressed as a percentage we still can't know
The percentage does not have to be on there, unless it is claiming to be in a certain category, like 'low fat' or 'extra rich.'
@ChrisH, The reason I asked is that I have been trying to copycat commercial cookies. Those that you find on blogs are out of the correct proportions. For most of them, anyway.
It doesn't make any sense to have a percentage on only one ingredient, and rare to have percentages of ingredients on ingredient list at all. My own guess would be the percentage marks something about the ingredient itself... if it were a higher percentage, I'd think it might be % cocoa (as some dark chocolates are marketed), but that % is exceedingly low for a dark chocolate. Then again, it does list sugar before cocoa mass, or cocoa butter, so shrug?
@Megha, The percentage is for the dark chocolate as a whole. It is as MarsJarsGuitars noted, an advertising boast about the the quantity. If it were cocoa or cocoa mass, 'chocolate' could not be used.
This is on the list of ingredients, so it is the pre-cooked formula weight, to demonstrate to the buyer just how much chocolate chunks to expect. Post cooking, the chocolate has changed, as have the other ingredients.
The ingredients also list:
Raising Agents: Ammonium Bicarbonate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Disodium Diphosphate,
These are NOT present in this form in the baked product. They have chemically reacted. The ingredient list is what is used to MAKE the product, not what is left after. That is for the nutritional information.
So, unless this is a US/UK thing, the FDA labeling requirements are clear on the difference between ingredient list and Nutritional information. This is basically (before/ after)
FDA labeling guidelines
This is not unlike ground beef that is customarily sold in the US as 10% fat (very lean) to 20-25% fat (high fat) This is a pre-cooked percentage.
The maker would be hard pressed to do post-baking analysis on the finished biscwit for actual chocolate percentage. Analysis is done for fat, sugar, etc... based on calorimetry and other chemical analysis methods, but cannot determine chocolate percentage after cooking.
Hmmm... ground beef is sold uncooked. So the fat content is "as packaged."
Professional baking formulas are given as percentages. Uncooked percentages.
@MaxW Uncooked, as packaged.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars, You are right. It is based on pre-cooked. The reason I asked is because on a certain government website, the phrase "allowance made for any water lost during processing" got me stumped. I was not sure whether it meant to include or exclude water weight. But now I know it means to exclude for baked goods.
@BackyardChef Right. Water does not have to be listed in ingredients if it is driven off in processing. This is a marketing claim...'Hey, look, we've got LOTS of chocolate in here !!!'
My point was that the food analysis of the product is done "as packaged." So raw hamburger is analyzed raw, but cookies would be analyzed after baking. The analysis is typically done on a stated portion size and the number of portions adds up to the weight "as packaged."
@MaxW, I have come to realize that is not the case for cookies too. According to the food labeling guidelines of all countries, weights are taken at the mixing stage. Analysis is done in the lab for nutrition.
@MaxW : actually, the fat percentage is even more messed up. It's the amount of pure fat that was mixed in. But the 'meat' portion also had fat running through it, with the exact amount varying based on the cut, breed, and how it was raised / finished. So 80/20 is at least 20% fat, but might be 22% or higher.
Also worth mentioning that 'water' listed in any baked good is going to be a much different percentage baked vs. unbaked.
Cookies don't lose much moisture in cooking so the difference between 28% uncooked weight and 28% cooked weight is very small. I suggest you make a batch based on the uncooked weight, weigh the tray of cookies just before baking and just after, and decide whether the proportions are right. If not, use the weights to adjust or just think that was too much/too little. The effect of chocolate chips on the bulk texture will be much smaller than the effect of the rest of the recipe, so it really will be only about the desired proportion of chocolate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.635666
| 2018-04-30T12:55:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89501",
"authors": [
"Backyard Chef",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"MaxW",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79390
|
Can I eat an eclair which has been at room temperature for almost 2 hours
I have recently bought an eclair and I'm not sure if I should eat it as it has been sat on the side for a good hour and a half/two hours. Please HELP!!
Only if it is hovering.
EAT IT NOW!IT'LL BE ABSOLUTELY DELICIOUS! No worries about food safety at this point, but time is of the essence!
Paranoid about food poisoning though as I know how dangerous cream can be!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.636186
| 2017-03-24T11:51:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79390",
"authors": [
"E. Cook",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55527"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84976
|
Can I bake Nutella?
I'm wanting to use Nutella in my cookies. However, I'm not sure if it's okay to bake Nutella under these conditions:
Undiluted – I wouldn't mix the Nutella with any other ingredients
Not exposed – the Nutella would be baked inside the cookie, in a pocket in the dough
190° Celsius (375° Fahrenheit)
10 minutes in the oven
So, will this work out? If not, what would I need to change to make it okay to bake Nutella?
I have no experience with cookies, but I DID bake Nutella as a filling in bread-dough, and a friend of mine made nutella-cupcakes.
In neither case was there any issue, and both versions extend the 10-minute-mark. Just let the cookies cool down some before biting into them. Hot Nutella is... well, HOT!
Ok, it sounds like you have some experience.
Thanks! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.636256
| 2017-10-13T05:21:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84976",
"authors": [
"Luke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62173"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18107
|
What does adding butter to toffee do?
Some recipes for toffee call for butter, some don't. I'd like to know please what adding butter does, and if I do add butter, will I still be able to make the stickjaw type toffee?
Thanks in advance.
I love this site, but there are some days I gotta avoid the candy tag #hungry. Eager for an answer to this question!
Butter largely acts to prevent the crystallization of sugar in toffee. This leaves the toffee smooth and breakable.
Fats in candy serve a similar purpose. Fatty ingredients such as
butter help interfere with crystallization—again, by getting in the
way of the sucrose molecules that are trying to lock together into
crystals. Toffee owes its smooth texture and easy breakability to an
absence of sugar crystals, thanks to a large amount of butter in the
mix.
There's more about the role of ingredients in candies here.
You should still be able to make stickjaw (or, if not authentic stickjaw, at least a more sticky) toffee. The consistency of toffee has more to do with the temperature you bring the toffee to while cooking. Here's a chart detailing the various stages of candy temperatures. For a sticky toffee you'd most likely want to bring your toffee to the soft-crack stage.
Here is a recipe for authentic, old-fashioned, stickjaw toffee but without butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.636354
| 2011-09-30T07:51:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18107",
"authors": [
"2scooter",
"Alex Haynes",
"Daiz",
"Kamran Ahmed",
"Katey HW",
"dan pollack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54294
|
How to store cut fruits & vegetables for days?
Is it possible to store fruits and vegetables (like apples, beetroot, pomegranate, etc.) for days, after they're cut?
Here are some things I've read, but I don't know which works best and if at all they do:
Soaking them in a solution of 1 tablespoon lemon and 1 cup water.
freezing them in air-tight containers.
I've read that air-flow is important for storing fruits and vegetables for long periods. I don't know if this applies to cut fruits and veggies too.
Considering that freezing cut fruits and vegetables is the right thing to do, how do I serve frozen fruits and vegetables? I mean, they need to be brought closer to room temperature before they can be eaten, and it'd easily take 2 hours, and the nutrient value could already be deteriorating.
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Nutrition is off topic on the site, mainly because there is no consensus in the world about what is a "nutrient" or what is "healthy". So I had to remove that part your question. In general, it is not forbidden to talk about specific nutrients, but it is always up to the asker to define which substance he or she is interested in, and the question should be about the presence or absence of the substance in food (this one would qualify) and not about the results of the nutrient on the body.
When you say "how do you serve..." it makes it sound like you're hoping to be able to consume them without actually cooking them after you freeze them. My general belief is that the process of freezing will make it so that, once un-frozen, you won't want to eat them as is but will need to add them to a recipe to disguise the cell-wall deterioration that's happened when you froze them.
Sorry, what I didn't add to that comment was, "Could you please explain your end goal for consumption of the fruits/vegetables?"
@Catija Sorry, I thought adding that would make the question sound off-topic. It's for my dog. He gets 1/4–1/2 of fruit/vegetable per day. I need to store the cut ones for next 3–4 days. Hence the question. And based on the answers, it's clear that frozen fruits/veggies don't taste very good raw. So, instead of feeding as-is, I'll use them as toppings on his oatmeal, etc. (Thanks for your time!)
Oh, For your dog? Actually, my friend used to give his dog frozen veggies all the time... meaning he bought frozen packaged mixed veggies and just thawed them out and mixed them in with kibble. I think it was the combo of carrots, broccoli and cauliflower but it was over a decade ago, so don't quote me on it.
I'm not sure how possible it is to give good and definitive advice on how to store fruits and vegetables generally. The best ways to store food will often depend on the specific kind of food and the purpose you intend for it. So take the following advice as more of hint, as it may be very bad advice for a specific fruit or vegetable.
Generally speaking most kinds of vegetable store well in the fridge or on the shelf for few days uncut. How well they keep on the fridge or shelf after you cut them it depends a lot on the actual vegetable. For example, bell peppers seem to do OK in a bag in the fridge when cut, an onion is fine if you cover the cut side in plastic wrap, while a cut potato will dry out. You can freeze pretty much any vegetable, just check the frozen goods section of your grocery store, and safely store them frozen for years. While you probably wouldn't want to use them as a substitute for uncooked fresh vegetables (eg. in a leafy salad), they can usually be cooked just like you would as if they were fresh. You may not even need to defrost them first, often you can just substitute frozen vegetables directly.
Fruits for the most part a different matter. How best to store them, especially when cut, depends a lot on the particular fruit. Generally speaking after being cut most fruit needs to be used soon after or becomes useless for most purposes. You can freeze fruit and this will keep them from spoiling, but most fruit doesn't hold up well in the freezer. For a lot of purposes, what you get when you defrost fruit isn't a good a substitute for fresh fruit. While most vegetables will have something at least resembling their original shape and texture after being frozen, many fruits end up like mush. Frozen fruits are mainly only useful for things like filings and jam.
When freezing things, fruit or vegetables, always use an air-tight container. In the freezer air flow is your enemy. Foods exposed to the air will soon become freezer burnt. You'll want to prepare the fruits and vegetables, removing skins, seeds and other inedible or undesirable parts, as doing so after freezing will be harder. You'll also want to label them with their name and when you froze them. Since you can keep them for years, you can end up with a collection of mystery foods in your freezer if they're not labelled.
Two other possible alternative for longer term storage of fruits and vegetables are dehydration and canning. What you can do with the food after preserving them these ways is generally more limited than freezing. Dehydration often lets you eat the dried food as-is, while canning lets you preserve food in a already cooked form. You can also pickle many vegetables (and some fruits) but this essentially turns them into a different kind of food.
Are there some vegetables (or fruits) that don't freeze at home as well as the ones from the store as they aren't able to be IQF'd?
The primary advantage of IQF (individual quick freezing) is that it prevents the frozen food from freezing in clumps, so I don't think it'll make much difference in terms of texture or flavour. If you want your own frozen food not to clump you can try freezing them "individually" on a baking pan and then move them to a sealed container. My mom does this with bacon and it should work with most vegetables. Probably not worth doing with fruits though, unless you're going to eat them frozen like Jemmeh's suggestion.
Both methods work. If I had to pick one, I'd pick frozen vegetables. If you can afford to go to the store every day and only eat things that are in season, buying fresh will get you more nutrients. But things frozen when they are perfectly ripe retain most of their nutrients so you're really not losing much for the convenience. Time is the enemy of nutrients, so if you can buy local also means it's not sitting in a truck for 5 days, so the closer you can get stuff to your home, the better. Freezing is like really slowing down time.
Lemon is mostly used to stop fruits/veg from turning brown, so especially for apples, bananas, and avacado. It will extend the life of food by up to a few days. The downside is the lemon can overpower the actual food, but you can store it in your fridge and the fruit/veg will keep most of the same texture/flavor, which is important for some dishes. This will only slightly extend the shelf life of your food and as far as I've read this is more about making the food look good. You can also do this trick with vinegar. It's the acidity that does the trick.
Freezing is great, and you can keep things for ages(sometimes a year or two) without losing nutrients. The downside being that the texture/flavor of the food can change. But this will be fine for most dishes. You can have smoothies, fruit sauces, soups, lasagnas, casseroles, stir fry, and a bunch of other things without really noticing the difference. Some things are even fine by themselves. Sliced frozen bananas and strawberries are a great treat and healthy ice cream replacement.
Airtight is important, as you said--ziploc bags are fine though you can also get airtight glass containers. It's a bit of an investment, but you save money in the long run by not throwing away food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.636515
| 2015-02-02T11:42:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54294",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe Carty",
"Katrina Job",
"M St Brice",
"Maureen Barstow",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sandra Jeffrey",
"amy littlefield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8139",
"its_me",
"phil higgs",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27852
|
How can you change the environmental factors to change the proportions of sourdough microbiological cultures?
How can you increase/decrease the proportions of lactobacili and yeast in a sourdough starter. For example, if I wanted a more acidic bread, increasing the lactobacili, or if I wanted a less acidic bread, then less of them.
Is this possible to control or will it always revert to a state that is preferable to it?
There are a variety of theories about what the most important factors are to control the sourness of a sourdough bread. Many times you will find conflicting evidence from different sources.
General Considerations
Some starters are naturally more sour. Some organisms produce more tart flavors, while others produce buttery notes. Some combinations of yeast and bacteria work together and push the process toward acid production, while others compete for resources (Article 3, page 21-22) yielding less acid.
Fermentation time counts. Anything you do to increase the amount of time it takes to complete bulk fermentation will likely increase sourness. Usually this is done by using a small amount of starter. You can also increase sourness by degassing the dough and letting it rise again.
Flour type matters. The ash content of the flour contributes to buffering the acidity and extending the flavors of the end product. Higher ash content flours allow the microorganisms to keep working longer. In general, ash content is directly related to extraction rate. Also, some starters "like" certain flours better than others, this is especially true for whole wheat, rye, or other specialty grain flours.
Fermentation temperature is tricky. I have read many sources that go on and on about temperature and sourdough. Some claim a lower temperature increases sourness, others claim that it decreases sourness. I tend to find that proofing in my fridge increases sourness somewhat, but also makes rising take an incredibly long time. According to some sources (page 22), many of the bacteria in sourdough thrive at temperatures between 85-105˚F, while the yeasts thrive at 75-80˚F. Strict control of temperatures within one of these "optimal" ranges can alter the mix of organic molecules produced by a given culture, but most home bakers do not have the equipment needed to maintain such specific temperature tolerances throughout bulk fermentation.
Articles
Squeeze more sour from your sourdough
How to develop sour flavor in sourdough
Sourdough: a tool for the improved flavour
Tip
No matter whether you want it more sour or less sour, always start with an active culture. The microorganism milieu of your culture is dynamic. If you try to start a loaf with a starter that is only semi-awake your results will be unpredictable and unlikely to be replicable.
Thanks, that's really helpful, only what's 'ash' in flour?
Since sourdough is a wild culture, I think you'll have a hard time controlling the acidity very precisely. Foods fermented with wild yeast or lactobacillus cultures are always subject to chance, and they tend to find their own equilibrium. That said, I did find this article that recommends regular, careful feeding of your starter as the best way to control the acidity.
So, if you wanted to get it more acidic, you might scientifically neglect to feed the starter for a few days and see what happens.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.637113
| 2012-10-16T16:03:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27852",
"authors": [
"Avwenagha Enajite",
"Eli Schochet",
"Lottz91",
"MTAYLOR227 ",
"Prema",
"Rory",
"Sebiddychef",
"Sherri Garrett",
"bakedfromscratch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22874
|
What is this Asian dish made with boiled vegetables?
Does anyone know which is the dish where we have a pot/pan of boiling vegetables/meat in the center and people sit around it with their noodles and soup bowls and keep picking things from it and eating?
I think you mean a hot-pot stew (huǒ guō). There are many styles, Wikipedia has a fairly good article about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pot
In Japan they call it nabe. Sometimes they add rice to it instead of noodles. As nico pointed out it is essentially a hot pot stew.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.637395
| 2012-04-08T12:48:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22874",
"authors": [
"BobTheAwesome",
"Brianna sadler",
"Mark Osullivan",
"Peter Olson",
"Ryan Polley",
"Topher Brink",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51670",
"user51633"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43774
|
Using Rainbow Chard for Spanakopita
Just for giggles I am planning to make spanakopita using rainbow chard instead of spinach. It's been years since I've worked with chard, so I have forgotten how it behaves. If I were using spinach I would steam it until it wilted and volume was reduced by half. Then I would chop it and wring the hell out of it with a tea towel. I wouldn't use any stalk that extended beyond the leaves. I want to use more of the stalk of the chard, because that's where most of the color is.
So, will treating the chard leaves like spinach be enough to dry it out for spanakopita? Keeping the bottom layer of filo crisp is paramount. Is there anything more I should do? Concerning the stalks, I'm thinking that I want to dice them fairly small, salt and drain them, steam them until tender, and then wring them with the leaves. Does that sound like the best way to handle them? Is there anything I should do differently?
The color of the chard is the whole reason for this little endeavor. Is there anything I can do to help keep the color bright?
Finally, the flavors in my traditional spanakopita include parmesan, feta, yoghurt, lemon, dill, mint and nutmeg. Is there any reason to consider different flavorings with the chard instead of spinach?
Chard isn't as tender as spinach and will require more than just light steaming lest it be chewy and fibrous.
You said you want to keep its bright colors, so I would recommend blanching it in salt water. You need to add quite a bit of salt, such that it tastes like seawater. This keeps plant cells from bursting and releasing pigment. You can rinse your chard after pouring it off to tame saltiness.
Ah yes, chewiness. It's about halfway to collard green in that regard, isn't it?
I accepted JoshieSimmons' answer because my experimentation backed it up.
Upon further research I also dug up the suggestions of adding baking soda (actually dulling the colors), adding olive oil to the blanching water (didn't seem to make any difference), and I saw more references to adding salt to the water. I didn't bother experimenting with adding acid, I found quite a few comments that suggested that cooking brightly colored vegetables in acid dulled the colors. The salt definitely worked.
JoshieSimmons is also correct that chard simply takes longer to cook than spinach.
Once I the chard was tender, I wrang it out just like I would spinach for spanakopita. With the other ingredients the colors of the chard didn't come through as much as I hoped, but it was still a successful dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.637504
| 2014-04-29T10:33:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43774",
"authors": [
"1st Oklahoma Homes",
"Apex Fence",
"Find Leak Detection",
"Jolenealaska",
"Spammer",
"ardudley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"malexander"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29522
|
Doogh/Ayran from scratch
I have found several recipes online for making doogh or ayran (I love this stuff sooo much), and they all seem to involve diluting greek yogurt with either water or soda. I want to make my yogurt drink from scratch, so that means making greek yogurt is my first step. However, greek yogurt is yogurt that has been strained to remove whey, so I thought, if all I care about is the drink, should I skip straining, or will the flavor be better (maybe fresher-tasting) if I strain out the whey then add water?
I have no idea why it starts with Greek yogurt. Wherever I've had it - at home, restaurant-made, or ready-bought, it contained just plain yogurt, water and salt. (The ratio varies to taste). This includes ayran made in traditional Turkish restaurants run by Turkish owners. Also, I can't think of a practical reason why true (strained) Greek yogurt could make a difference. The whey doesn't have a strong taste on its own, and what little it has, it is similar to the yogurt itself, so you probably won't notice a difference. You are just losing the nutrients from the whey.
In some countries, true Greek yogurt isn't available, and what you get sold as "Greek yogurt" is actually sour cream with double the fat content, but with the same protein and lactose content as plain yogurt. This could have some taste difference in comparison to ayran made with plain yogurt, but in my eyes, it will be a negative change. If you use the same yogurt:water ratio as with plain yogurt, you will get too much fat, which isn't pleasant in ayran (which is mostly a refreshing drink). If you use a doubled water ratio so the fat amount stays the same, you get much less taste.
Conclusion, go with the normal yogurt. It is not only cheaper, it is also the traditional, time-proven way of getting tasty ayran.
Thanks rumtscho. So far I've tried making it from commercial greek yogurt (chobani), and it's not as good as the real deal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.637758
| 2012-12-28T23:53:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29522",
"authors": [
"Dean Wilson",
"DragonFax",
"J J",
"Nan",
"dardub",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68714",
"user14954"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28849
|
How to cook good "arepas"?
Arepas are a traditional dish from Venezuelan cuisine. After eating them a couple of times, the other day I decided to try to cook them myself. I searched over the internet the recipe and I found several differences. Ones cooked it mixing the pre-cooked corn flour P.A.N. brand with water, others with milk. Some fry them in the oven, other in the pan. And there is even yellow or white corn flour.
So in brief my question is, what's better to cook arepas?
to use yellow or white pre-cooked corn flour?
to use water or milk?
to cook them in the oven or in the pan?
This seems like asking for a recipe preference. I am not sure you can get a factual answer, just opinion.
I agree with @SAJ14SAJ, what do you mean by better?
The English wikipedia article on Arepas answers what's the traditional way to cook arepas for your questions. (Maybe you read the Spanish article, which doesn't answer that).
I think you would be better off looking into the difference each of the above recipe changes would make (i.e. milk may make for a more tender arepa vs. water and frying will change the outermost textures)
White pre-cooked corn flour, water, pinch of salt and cooked in the pan is the traditional way of making and cooking arepas.
However, cookery is a living and evolving subject and very much a matter of personal taste.
I strongly recommend you experiment with the different flours, milk or water or half and half, cooked in the pan and in the oven and decide for yourself which you prefer and which comes closest to the ones you've tried and liked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.637939
| 2012-12-03T15:14:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28849",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Brendan",
"GdD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Matt",
"Pete Garafano",
"Rashmi Mahajan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SuperGadger",
"gigantea8",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66865"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29360
|
How to know (without a thermometer) whether an egg is cooked when we put a lid on the top of it?
Last time I tried to cook sunny side up eggs on a metal skillet. I put butter on the skillet, allowed it to heat and then I cracked two eggs on it. Immediately I placed a glass lid with a hole on the eggs.
I found that the eggs did NOT turn "brown" from below (I kept on checking them periodically by lifting them up by a spoon).
After waiting for quite some time I saw the egg yolk wearing a white layer on them (from the top). I turned off the gas, and to my horror those were the most "hard" eggs I had ever eaten.
Without a thermometer what is the way to know that the "time's up"!
P.S. I DO want the salmonella to be killed.
I would say that salmonella bacteria dies at 65°C, and yolk sets up at 70°C. But not finding good references on those values (yet), and being salmonellosis so dangerous, I don't dare to answer it as an assertion.
What was the purpose of the lid?
@J.A.I.L. Doesn't the look and feel or the egg tell in anyway that it is done? If instead of steaming, I simply fry it on the butter, then it gets brown very soon and I know it is done.
@J.A.I.L. To cook the top by steam. To cook both side parallely. To keep the yolk runny yet cooked.
My guess is that having steam arround, the ourter part of the egg doesn't dry, and so it doestn't get brown. But the inner part needs the same amount of time to get done. If you had it more time with the lid than what you would have had it without it, it's normal it's harder.
@J.A.I.L. so what's the way out now? :)
Related: Seasoned Advice: How does salmonella get into eggs
Do you need the lid? Your reasons listed for the lid are manageable without a lid (except steaming of course).
I often cook eggs in a 1-qt pan with a glass lid. I make sure the pan is hot enough that the egg sizzles continuously when I drop it in, and then leave the lid off just long enough to season the egg. Then I put on the lid, and wait for the white above the yolk to turn translucent (which I can see through the glass). At that point, the yolk is a little runny; shortly afterwards when the white it opaque, the yolk will be congealed on the outside but still a little runny on the inside, and not long after that, the yolk will be solid. Depending on what I'm in the mood for, I take it out at a different time.
The bottom of the egg is always browned, and the white is fluffy and full of holes like bread because of all the steam trapped inside. I'm not sure why your egg isn't turning out the way you like. It sounds like it might not have cooked fast enough on top, but the bottom got overcooked and over-hardened and dried out.
I'd suggest trying a few things:
Don't check on the egg. Opening it up to check on it will let out all the steam. You might get a few wasted eggs at first while you get the hang of the timing, but it's not going to turn out right if you keep opening it up.
Heat up the pan more before you start. You can always turn it down while it steams, but I find that cooking it when the butter just starts to sizzle isn't hot enough; I make sure it's hot enough to make the egg sizzle continuously once it hits the pan.
Use a smaller pan. A big pan will take a while to fill with steam and heat all the way up.
Watch the area around the yolk for it to become translucent. Jiggle the pan a little to see if it's cooked.
Agreed, although I calibrate my pans and remember how they cook certain foods at certain temperatures, the jiggle method is a good sanity check.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.638126
| 2012-12-21T05:31:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29360",
"authors": [
"Anne.",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bambi Woods",
"Brother58697",
"Dev2929",
"Isabela de Almeida",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Mien",
"gnucchi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68284",
"werdnanoslen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28310
|
How long will homemade Pico de Gallo last in the refrigerator?
I am trying to start doing more prep work in the beginning of the week due to a busy work schedule. We love eating pico de gallo on omelets. Was just curious how long homemade pico would last in the refrigerator. Haven't made it homemade yet, but will be doing it shortly. :)
My record is overnight because I whatever I don't eat when i make it, I end up eating the next morning. I think the tomatoes will be soggy and not nice to eat long before it's bad for you. 3 days for raw vegetables doesn't seem too long to keep it, especially if you have some acid in yours like lime juice.
When I have mixed thoroughly I then put it in mason jars with lids and keep it in fridge for about 1 and 1/2 weeks. I have not found the tomatoes to get mushy at all. When I take a jar from fridge, I have to break seal as it does tend to seal when we put cap and seal back on. I hope this helps!
(In case it's relevant, mine contains tomatoes, red onion, lime juice, cilantro, jalapeños, peperoncini, salt, and pepper.)
The Pico de Gallo I make (plum tomatoes, white onion, fresh jalapeno peppers, lime juice, a tiny bit of olive oil and chopped fresh cilantro, salt and pepper) will last approximately 1 week if kept in a sealed container in the refrigerator. Over that time the tomatoes will get a little mushy and the cilantro will wilt.
Perhaps you can have everything else mixed and just add the chopped tomatos and freshly chopped cilantro when you are ready to serve?
I've eaten pico that only I have made for up to 2 weeks. I use a good bit of fresh lime juice and that seems to keep everything fresh for a long time. As long as the tomatoes continue to look fresh it should be fine.
Once you slice into a fresh tomato, you're looking at 1-2 days before it starts to get mushy and go "off" and 3 days to go sour (in the fridge). Fresh lemon and lime juice starts to go rancid after a few days as well. Best to make small batches fresh and consume the same day. 1-2 weeks? Oh, man...
I prefer the way my pico tastes after sitting overnight. So sameday is out for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.638587
| 2012-11-08T22:54:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28310",
"authors": [
"Alex_B",
"Bee Magnolia",
"Botox Treatment NYC",
"Kate Gregory",
"Lokesh Jami Loke Jami",
"Norma Burroughs",
"R.M. Crosby",
"Summer",
"anonymous",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"hytromo",
"ncank"
],
"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
}
|
27731
|
How to prevent my marshmallows from melting in my hot cocoa?
Whenever I make a hot cocoa, adding powdered cocoa in a hot water (not boiling), and add my marshmallows in it, the marshmallows just melts until they are completely gone. I really want to feel the mushy marshmallows melt in my mouth, not in my cocoa.
How can I prevent my marshmallows from melting in my cocoa?
OT: try using boiling milk instead of water. That is the only way to get a proper thick hot chocolate (maybe add a teaspoon of cornstarch to the mix). A tad longer but absolutely worth the wait.
Marshmallows will dissolve ("melt") in your hot cocoa for the same reason that they "melt" in your mouth: both provide heat and moisture. If you could somehow treat the marshmallows so that they didn't dissolve in the cocoa you wouldn't get the desired effect in your mouth either. It comes down to a matter of timing: how can you keep the marshmallows intact until you drink the cocoa?
I can think of three options:
Drink the cocoa more quickly.
Use larger marshmallows.
Add more marshmallows as necessary.
It's not clear from your question exactly what kind of marshmallows you're referring to. I suspect that you're talking about the crunchily dehydrated "micro-mini" marshmallows that come in a packet of hot cocoa mix. Call me a snob, but those things hardly qualify as a "marshmallow" at all; you should perhaps be happy that they dissolve, or else sift them out of the mix and throw them away! If you like them, though, you'll be happy to know that you can buy more: Amazon carries 12 oz. bags of dehydrated micro-mini marshmallows, and adding a spoonful to your cup when you're ready to drink should solve the problem.
If you feel like an upgrading your brew, pick up a bag of mini marshmallows and add a handful of those. Minis should be large enough to last for quite a while, and since they're not dehydrated they'll be somewhat sturdier in the cup. Marshmallows come in a number of sizes... if the minis don't last long enough for you, go with a few standard sized (approximately 1 inch) marshmallows. I've seen jumbo marshmallows in the store lately, but you'll probably need a larger cup if you want to have any room left for the cocoa. Try one of these lovelies.
Probably not exactly what you're looking for, but when I was a kid, I'd just keep the marshmallows separate, and toss them in a couple at a time. (This might work best if you're also using a spoon.)
This is the only solution here that will actually work.
Boil the chocolate powder. No, microwave it, because boiling would cause the bottom to burn. Microwave the chocolate powder in water and then stir it to get a thick paste. After cooling, keep it refrigerated.
Whenever you feel like having a cuppa, scoop a few spoons into your cup and mix in warm water. Throw in your marshmallows. You could even mix the chocolate into your cuppa-cino, and then the marshmallows = marsh-mellowed mocha-cino.
Non native English speaker here: What is a cuppa?
I'm confused why this would be different - either it's just as hot and they melt, or it's not hot enough, yes?
@nico "a cuppa" is British slang for "a cup of [coffee/tea/cocoa]"
None of this will work; they will melt.
They will not melt in warm water. Cocoa powder requires hot boiling or microwaving to form a paste. Once in paste form, only warm water is required to stir it into a perfect suspension. By the time you have completed stirring, a minute later, the cuppa would be so chilled that there would be no way of melting the marshmallows. That is how I do it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.638828
| 2012-10-11T04:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27731",
"authors": [
"Burke",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"DaveS",
"Febi M Felix",
"Hemant Vision Display",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TREE",
"TooThick4Dave",
"Vinay Verma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"tracy kettles",
"user62678"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25589
|
How to choose good quality Chinese slicer knives?
Chinese slicer knives look like cleavers, but are very thin and meant to chop foods that are reasonably soft, e.g. not bone.
I've heard that Chan Chi Kee (CCK) is the best, but it's very difficult to compare since it is very difficult to find good Chinese knives to begin with, and then it's even more difficult to try them out at a store. In addition to CCK, I've also heard of Shuanghuan. Both of these brands are from Hong Kong. Can any professional cooks elaborate on their use and benefits? What are the advantages of each of these brands? Are there other good slicer knives I should consider?
Normally, 'we' don't talk about brands here. If you could reword the question to ask for the benefits of a Chinese slicer, that would be great. Welcome to the site.
@BaffledCook: While you're right that we try to avoid brands for broader answers, it's hard to avoid them when the products are so similar, aside from manufacturer. This seems like a reasonable use of brands, as per Aaronut's comment.
@BaffledCook Shopping recommendation questions of the sort "tell me what to buy" are offtopic across the network. But if the question and answers tell people how to choose good equipment, as opposed to "brand X is the greatest evah!!!!", they are considered OK even when they mention brands. You are right that this question was on the verge, I changed the wording a bit now.
@BobMcGee, if they are so similar, using brand names becomes even less appealing. The question should be about features one knife (in this case) has that another knife doesn't have. If they have the same features...
Short answer:
I've only heard good things about the CCK #1 small slicer, and would suggest that. If you're new to the style of knife, pick up a cheap carbon-steel Dexter Russell one for like $20-25 at your local Chinatown.
Long answer: Chinese slicer knives (more commonly called Chinese cleavers) are multipurpose knives, so they fill the same niche as French-style chef knives. They're common options for cheap restaurant knives, and I've seen them used professionally. I now use a Dexter Chinese Cleaver as my primary knife at home.
The common features of Chinese cleavers are a squared-off, deep, often carbon steel blade, bamboo barrel-style handle, and pure awesomeness. Generally the blades are around 200mm long x 75-90mm deep, or about 8" x 3". As you note, the blades are not as heavy or thick as German-style cleavers, so they can't handle bone.
Although they get mentioned a lot for vegetable chopping, Chinese cleavers are remarkably flexible for both meat and vegetables. You can find videos of Chef Martin Yan deboning a chicken in under 30 seconds with a Chinese cleaver. The deep blade makes chopping thick objects simple, where the squared corner is remarkable for fine detail work. The spine of the knife can be used to tenderize meat or scrape cutting boards. The broad blade is perfect for transferring cut product to a pan. You can even use the handle for crushing spices!
The carbon steel blades can be love or hate for many people. Personally, I love how mine takes and holds an edge comparable to the most expensive stainless steels. The fly in the ointment is that they can rust right before your eyes if you cut lemons or acidic tomatoes. They should always be cleaned and dried PROMPTLY after use, to avoid rust. Between use, I oil mine lightly with vegetable oil, as an extra precaution. Between this and the water-intolerance of the bamboo handle, they do need some special care.
Although stainless-steel cleavers are becoming more common, I really think it defeats the point if you use one. They're supposed to be cheap and ugly, but workhorses. A good Chinese cleaver shouldn't set you back more than $50 in your local Chinatown or online... mine was about $25 and it does dang fine, though I will probably upgrade to a CCK #1 eventually.
This is only info on the CCK model noted below. Using the brand name since I have not used any other brand of Chinese slicer/cleaver.
I have been using CCK peking duck stainless handle slicer knives (KF210) in various lengths for 15 years mostly for vegetable/fruit prep.
They are cheap, thin, precise, lightweight, and last quite long between sharpenings.
All of mine came from a traditional Chinese kitchen supply shop in an infamous, Chinese, mega-mall in Markham/Toronto, ON, Canada (if you're in the area and need to know where to find one.) They all cost under $30CAD.
Because they are so thin (1.7 mm at the thickest point) they don't wedge apart whatever you're cutting which sometimes causes the item to shred. Carrots, for example, when sliced and diced with a CCK have super clean edges allowing them to be sliced and diced super thin. If you were to cut the same carrot with a french chef's knife it would shred because the knife becomes much thicker at the spine forcing the vegetable to split making it unattractive. Think of a woodcutting axe in which the blade is purposely made wider at the spine to wedge and split the wood apart.
The straight cutting edge is great for producing close to perfect batons, matchsticks, juliennes, dices, etc. Square knife blade = square edge on finished product. The square shape is advantageous for crushing garlic and spices with all that even area to bang your hand down on. The large rectangle blade provides a great surface to pick your prepped veggies off the cutting board with. The spine can also be used for peeling ginger, perfect for removing only the skin and none of the flesh.
My two current KF210's; the 18 cm weighs 132 g and the 20.5 cm weighs 153g. Comparatively light multipurpose knives that I find that my hand chooses most often because they cause the least fatigue when prepping many veggies.
As for the sharpness, I find that it stays in the top 10% of sharpness for a couple of days but then plateaus at between the 75%-90% sharpness for almost a month with regular honing. I run them on my Japanese whetstones about once a week if I'm keeping on top of things. I've been told that my Chinese slicers are "scary sharp" by the average joe but they haven't even experienced the scary sharpness of my Japanese sushi knife...
That being said, Chinese slicers are top-notch when it comes to affordable, everyday, multipurpose, workhorse kitchen knives although any other knife with similar characteristics will most definitely give you similar results.
There are also japanese makers (let's mention Sugimoto as an example) that have a great reputation for their chinese-style cleavers; these will tend to be more expensive but will give you a combination of chinese style with japanese steel technology.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.639182
| 2012-08-10T18:15:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25589",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bee",
"BobMcGee",
"MARIE CROOKS",
"Modusindorum",
"Odeva",
"Sue",
"Susan M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69569",
"rumtscho",
"user58691",
"user58696",
"user58697"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90445
|
Can ricotta be made with UHT milk?
I live in an area where ricotta cheese is non existent, and all the dairy products I have access to are high temp pasteurized. Will that work? Are there any herbs in ricotta? I'm trying to make my lasagna without it, and it would just would not be the same.
"high temp pasteurized" like in UHT ? if that is so, you are out of luck; I'm surprised you cannot find regular pasteurized milk?
Agreed that it's a duplicate. Vincent, see the linked answer. You can make a ricotta-like cheese with UHT milk (but not most other cheeses).
It seems that the body of the question indeed asks about the use of UHT (= "high temp pasteurized") milk, so I changed the title and closed. If the question was for a recipe for making your own ricotta, I am afraid we do not swap recipes. A simple search on the Internet found 400 000 results, and all on the first page were recipes, so you shouldn't have trouble finding one.
AFAIK, there are not herbs in ricotta, but there's nothing preventing you to add herb to it, I do it all the time when using it on toasts; and would be acceptable for a lasagna.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.640057
| 2018-06-19T09:12:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90445",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93757
|
How to achieve a crispy skin when roasting a chicken?
I have an accurate electric oven, but when I attempt to roast a chicken, it always seems to come out more steamed than roasted. A lot of liquid seeps out during the cooking, could this be causing the chicken to seem more steamed than roasted?
Here’s what I do:
I bake a 3-pound roaster chicken at 325-350 deg F, in an electric oven. I place the chicken uncovered on a wire grate over a sheet pan or shallow roasting pan. I seasoned with salt and pepper, following what seems standard procedure in most recipes. I use a meat thermometer and remove the chicken when 160 deg.F. is reached.
I tried dumping out the liquid during roasting, which didn’t help. I even tried browning in a skillet first, but that was just a mess.
I would like to crisp up the skin. How can I do this?
related, or maybe a duplicate: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63685/how-to-get-that-crispy-skin-on-a-roasted-turkey-or-chicken
The issue in achieving crispy skin is managing the moisture content. At least one day (but as many as 3) before you plan to roast the chicken, salt the exterior and interior with kosher salt. Place in the refrigerator uncovered. This will draw out moisture.
I also prefer roasting at much higher temperatures, in the 425F to 450F range. This will help as well.
Finally, try to use chickens that were not frozen first...or, if they were, plan ahead so they thaw very slowly in the refrigerator. Quick thawing pf chicken causes the release of an excessive amount of liquid when cooking.
The reason a chicken will come out of a roasting with rubbery skin is because of the moisture of the skin/chicken. The key is to managing the moisture before placing it in the oven. Too much (or any) moisture will steam the chicken instead of roasting it.
I have a recipe that I follow for oven roasted chicken which never fails to yield crispy skin.
First, remove the giblets and rinse the chicken
Then pat the chicken down with copious amounts of paper towels, inside and out. This step is very important. Try to reduce as much surface moisture as you can
The chicken should then be set out in a well-ventilated area for at least 20 minutes. This will aid in drying the chicken out
Place the chicken in a cast iron pan. Heavily coat the skin with kosher salt and cracked pepper. Add other herbs and spices as you wish
Roast for ~45 minutes at 450°. Check the temp with meat thermometer
I cook it much hotter and much flatter and it comes out juicy with crispy skin. Here's the recipe if you want to try it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.640189
| 2018-11-09T19:24:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93757",
"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
}
|
113140
|
Where can I find information on a given pan's bottom diameter?
I am currently looking for a small pan. I measured the plate (ceramic) where it would be used (15 cm) and started looking for 15 cm pans online with little success. So far I've discovered that the advertised measurement for a pan typically refers to the upper diameter of the pan, not to that of the cooking surface, but that takes me back to square 1: how to know whether the pan will fit on the designed plate?
Where can I find this information, when it is missing from the product description?
Sorry, I wasn't able to find a question in your post. You have already recognized that the metric you are looking for is not publicly available. Can you formulate exactly what you want to know? Please note that our site does not take questions about the business decisions of sellers, so "why don't they mark their pans by the bottom diameter" is a question we would close.
I agree that the question is very open ended, but I think @Johanna's answer goes in the right direction: the missing information is relevant to make a purchase decision and I was hoping to find tips to get around the fact that it is not explicit. I can imagine many types of answers (e.g. "a couple of cms of difference are fine", "you can find measurements for common models at ", "rule of thumb: bottom diameter = top diameter - 2 cm").
My question is ultimately: how do I make an informed purchase with the information I have so that I don't have to return the pan afterwards?
Hi Sergio, thank you for clearing that up! If you were to ask "is it OK for the pan to not fit the plate" or "how much difference is acceptable", the question would have to stay closed, since this is a subjective question. If you are looking to purchase a pan that fits, we have to assume that for you personally, you expect that your pan fits. Also, the question "how to make an informed decision" is trivially, you don't. So I edited it to match the third possible question I gleaned from your comment, where to find more information, and reopened.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.640409
| 2020-12-13T15:34:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113140",
"authors": [
"Sergio A. Figueroa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45449",
"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
}
|
70809
|
How can I reduce the salt in oversalted potatoes?
Let's just say I was experimenting, and now I have a pan full of diced carrots and potatoes that have been boiled and way, way over-brined. They taste like... salt. It's very bad.
This isn't an answer, but know that sometimes it's best to just trash it and not throw good ingredients after bad. It depends on the salt level, if you oversalted 4 potatoes and you feel like adding a fifth potato would make it palatable, go for it. But if you put 4x the amount of salt you should have, maybe just start over.
Basically dilution is the key, though a rinse and a short soak in fresh water will help a bit.
You could freeze them in small quantities and use them up in vegetable soup a little at a time. Don't forget that commercial stock has quite a lot of salt in, so reduce that accordingly.
Some thick stews could tolerate some mashed veg in them, again in fairly small quantities.
By mixing with completely unsalted veg you could make a form of bubble and squeak, but you'd have to mash/mix it more than normal to avoid having locally salty bits.
On the bubble & squeak approach -- there's also the Dutch stamppot (but use an unsalted meat, not bacon), or any form of hash, really. I've even had a potato salad that was made w/ mashed potatoes that was really, really good.
@Joe, that sounds suitable. Your mention of hash made me wonder if they would work in a scrambled-egg-based hash of even a tortilla (Spanish omelette).
It's actually much more difficult to make a spanish tortilla with leftovers, and probably worse if they potatoes are cooked to falling apart. You need sufficient heat in the potatoes so the eggs properly bind to them. But your comment also made me think of potato pancakes (matafan, made w/ mashed potatoes, not latke style) and croquettes. Maybe even gnocchi. Or maybe even the topping for a shepherd's pie.
@Joe, yes, lightly cooked works better
Osmosis is your friend here.
If you have not mashed them yet, drain them, cover with fresh water, wait, repeat - until the salt level is acceptable. I think that would be difficult with a mash since you'd lose vegetable with each draining. You will probably need to do this in the refrigerator to allow sufficient time for the salt to diffuse out without having spoilage. If you elevate the veg above the bottom of the container, the process works better, as the heavier brine tends to collect in the bottom.
I happen to do this with salty olives (which conveniently float, so no rack is needed to elevate them) in order to reduce the salt level to one I find pleasant. I'd suggest at least 12 hours per change of water, and then another 12 without water to let the salt left equalize unless you want a "salty center" effect.
You don't want osmosis. Osmosis is the movement of water from an area of low solute concentration across a membrane to an area of high solute concentration. Osmosis would cause the salty vegetables to absorb water. I suspect that what you actually want is for the salt to diffuse out of the vegetables into the water; the problem with that is that all the other flavour compounds in the veggies will also be diffusing out.
This will wash away some of the flavors but still good solution.
If you are making lemon Greek potatoes like I was, you can rinse them, chop them in half, then soak them in water for 3-7 minutes.
There was enough flavour left after, and it seemed to get the heavy salt out of the outer half inch of potato.
Ultimately it made the whole potato taste much better, and the salt went from unbearable to unnoticeable with a dab of tzatziki.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.640609
| 2016-06-19T07:28:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70809",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dan C",
"David Richerby",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117131
|
Baking Bread in Dutch Oven with Hairline Crack
I recently bought a ceramic slow cooker insert at a thrift store. It has a glass top and is the perfect shape for using as a Dutch oven in baking bread, which I do regularly. When I got home, my husband found a hairline crack going down the side. I’d like to know if this is still usable. Here’s the method I currently use with my cast iron/enamel coated Dutch oven:
I preheat the oven to 500F with empty Dutch oven, with the lid on. When it’s reaches temperature, I take my shaped dough from the fridge where it’s been all night in a bowl on parchment paper. I slash it, then lift it by the parchment paper and place it in the Dutch oven. Sometimes I slip some ice cubes under the parchment before putting the lid on, although I could skip this step if it’s not recommended.
Question: would this procedure be ok for the Dutch oven described above, with the hairline crack?
Ceramic inserts for slow cookers are not dutch ovens, I would really hesitate to use them as such.
Agree with @GdD, also, (a) I have found the ice/water/additional steam is not necessary when using a Dutch oven and lid, and (b) a dramatic temperature change created by the ice could be problematic given the hairline crack.
I'm not sure why the ceramic insert and glass top wouldn't be considered a Dutch oven. As for ice, I find it helps as a rule; I think it depends if there is leakage or not. For your comment b), as I said I'm willing to forego the ice if that's a problem for the crack. My question stands about whether or not to use it as described with the hairline crack (forgetting about the ice).
I would not use it for this purpose.
Your main issue with using ceramic bread cloches (the standard ceramic "Dutch oven") with the kind of recipe you have is thermal shock: you're heating the vessel to 500F, then depositing a mass of very wet cold dough inside it. This can often result in a cloche cracking. This is why cloche manufacturers direct the owner to heat the cloche with the dough in it.
In your case, you're taking a vessel that was never meant for temperatures above 220F, which already has a crack in it, and preforming that routine. I'd fully expect it to crack in half as soon as you introduce the dough.
I've taken your advice and am getting rid of the cracked ceramic insert. I agree that it's risky. I will say though that I often used an unglazed clay baker, preheated, in which I put a refrigerated dough BUT the parchment it's on is room temperature. The final proof is done in the fridge but not on parchment paper; I flip it onto the parchment once out of the fridge. I've never had a problem with thermal shock. Maybe it's just luck!
Arlo: you've been doing it in metal, which is much better than ceramic at tolerating temperature differences.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.640924
| 2021-09-08T17:21:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117131",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75055
|
How to time the blanching of potatoes for freezing
I've read numerous articles on the procedure to peel, blanch then bag and store potatoes in a freezer. The procedure states to bring a big pot of water to boil than put in the potatoes and blanch 3-5 minutes. Of course when you drop in potatoes the temperature of the pot goes down. So do you start your 3-5 minute timer for blanching after the pot with the potatoes start boiling again or do you start timing 3-5 minutes as soon as you put the potatoes in?
If the temperature drops, you are doing it wrong. The whole point of blanching is to bring up the temperature of the vegetables up very quickly. This means
slice your vegetables small
use a very large pot
blanch in small portions
A 1:10 ratio is typical, so if you use a 5 liter pot, you can blanch in 500 g portions. Put your vegetables into a strainer. Submerge the strainer in the water (which should be at a roiling boil), start the clock immediately (the water should only need several seconds to get back to full boil) and when ready, plunge into iced water to stop cooking immediately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.641255
| 2016-10-27T16:19:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75055",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129197
|
Do I need cake dowels for a two tier cake (two layers in each tier)
I want to bake a two tiered cake. I have two 9 inch pans and two 6 inch pans. I'm not sure if you can just adapt any recipe for this as it adjust two layers in each tier?
Do I need cake dowels?
related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/39746/67
You may not need dowels for a two tier cake, but it really depends on the cake itself.
A pound cake or other cake intended for stacking tends to be denser and better able to support the weight of an upper tier, Especially if the upper tier is a less dense cake.
Trying to stack on top of a chiffon cake or similar airy cake is going to require additional support
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.641369
| 2024-09-11T09:58:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129197",
"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
}
|
129515
|
How to cook indomie brand instant noodles in an electric kettle after in has been soaked in warm water with the seasoning
Like yesterday when I was cooking indomie in an electric kettle.the current was not stable so when the water was a bit hot I added the seasoning and the light in the kettle went off so I added the indomie fingers crossed it will come out well cos the current like I said was not stable but few minutes later the power went off completely from the whole building and my indomie still in the water . Though I drained the water and poured out the indomie in an open plate ️ but I am still worried if the indomie will turn out well judging firm the fact that it soaked water
I had to look up 'Indomie' and found that it's a brand of instant noodle. Aren't you meant to pour boiling water onto the noodles in a bowl rather than putting them into your kettle?
As per this answer, pasta and noodles* don't need boiling water to cook, merely water that's over about 80ºC. (I guess instant noodles start from boiling water coz that's easy to prepare and stays above 80ºC for long enough to cook fully.) (* In my country, ‘pasta’ and ‘noodles’ are separate and distinct, though the temperature presumably applies to both.) So the question is: how long were your noodles over 80ºC?
@KateBunting Indomie say simmer for 3 minutes (luckily I had an odd pack left - they're among the better instant noodles so I have them for camping and when I get in from a long ride). Cooking them in a kettle is a known hack for people without proper cooking facilities - not one I've tried, but I think I can come up with an answer
@gidds instant noodles can be revived with three minutes of steaming, as well. you're just softening the pre-cooked and then fried noodles
I have a pack of Indomie here, and they say they should be simmered for 3 minutes. But that's not really necessary. I usually pour over boiling water, cover, and wait 5 minutes. They're done then.
Just as an aside: When people cook them in a kettle, generally they add the seasoning to the bowl, not the kettle. The salt and oil in the seasoning isn't good for your kettle, and taints other things made using water boiled in the same kettle. Personally if I wanted noodles soft and really hot in a hotel room or student dorm, I still wouldn't put them in the kettle, but pour boiling water over them, wait until they're nearly soft, drain, pour more boiling water on them and then add the seasoning.
Ramen-type instant noodles are pre-cooked so really all you have to do is soften them enough to be palatable. Apparently some people even like to eat them cold and hard, straight out of the packet!
That means that if they're soft enough to eat, and hot enough to enjoy (both thresholds which may depend on your hunger and budget), go ahead.
However if you left them sitting in warm water for hours waiting for the power to come back on, it's not a good idea from the point of view of food safety.
I second not cooking them in the kettle, there's oil in the actual noodles, even if you don't add the flavor packet to the kettle you're still going to get noodle flavored coffee and tea.
Good point @GdD - the precooking involves frying so that will deliver oil. And if this is in a hotel, you're spoiling the kettle for the next person
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.641457
| 2024-11-07T07:07:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129515",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kate Bunting",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6346
|
What temperature are dark beers (stouts and nut browns) supposed to be consumed at?
I remember reading somewhere that certain beers are supposed to be drunk much closer to room temperature than most people drink them for optimal flavor. Specifically stout beers and nut brown ales are only supposed to be "slightly chilled". I think I read that the temperature for optimal flavor is around 55 ℉ (13 ℃). However, most people I've met are shocked when I tell them this and swear by a nice cold one. My own personal experience does seem to confirm the "slightly chilled". Am I crazy?
This ought to be a community wiki. As evidenced in the question itself, this is subjective. (I prefer a ice-cold Guinness myself)
@awithrow: Purists will tell you that cold Guinness is an anathema. "Guinness Ice-cold" is a marketing ploy to get people drinking again (and it worked). The colder a liquid is the less you actually taste it, which is why most popular American beers (Bud, MGD, Coors etc) are served extremely cold, they'd loose hands down on a chilled (not ice cold) taste test with any standard European beer (e.g. Heineken or Carlsberg) . . . that said I too like my Guinness cold :)
@Binary: FWIW, Heineken, in the US, tends to be a bit skunky. Donno if it's the green bottles or just the time on the shelf, but I certainly wouldn't recommend drinking it or Budweiser warm.
@Knives: Its the bottles. Light causes a chemical reaction in the beer that causes the skunkiness. Brown bottles block the majority of the light, limiting the problem. The only way to avoid this is not to buy beer in green or clear bottles.
@Knives ...which is why many German/Belgian beers do better on draft in America than from the bottle. Heineken is terrible from the bottle as is Stella, but if I see a tap head with either I know it will be a better pint.
No, you're not crazy. You have good taste. The reason for drinking darker beer like stouts and porters is for the flavor. If they are over-chilled, you lose most of that flavor. Don't obsess over it, but in general a lot of people serve dark beer too cold.
That said, you should drink your beer at whatever temperature makes you happy. There is nothing wrong with a nice cold pilsner or Hefe-wizen on a hot day.
Some beers like a good Saison I actually prefer to drink "too cold." Then let the beer warm up as I drink it, changing the flavor and experience and the glass gets empty. Same with scotch.
The important rule is as above, it's what you prefer.
Yes porter should be drank at at almost room temperature, how it was drank before fridges where invented to really enjoy the flavours
in summer i like my XXXX cold,
my stout cool,
in winter i drink my stout room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.641759
| 2010-08-30T12:06:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6346",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Carrie M Leo",
"Frankie Short",
"KeithB",
"MeltedPez",
"Shog9",
"Sly",
"awithrow",
"georgiosd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"mfg",
"neyo",
"user12634",
"user1611753",
"vincentofvictoria"
],
"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
}
|
5079
|
What mammals' milks are drunk by humans?
I'd like to make an exhaustive list of the various animals whose milk humans drink. Here's the ones I can think of:
human
cow
goat
sheep
camel
yak
buffalo
donkey/ass
Any others? If so, where?
@Michael: I switched this to CW. All questions asking for a list should be marked as such.
@Michael: What purpose does this serve besides being a list of milk? If it's just a list of milk, is that really useful?
Hey hobodave - should questions that ask for a list but have a definitive answer be CW? I think there is a finite set of milks that humans drink, so there is an actual answer here, not just a list of opinions. (I'm find with it being CW, just want to understand for future ref).
The purpose I had in mind was to make myself aware of foods that I'd be interested in trying but haven't yet had the opportunity to.
@Michael: Yes. I don't think this list is as concise as you think. Unless by finite you mean less than or equal to the total number mammal species. :P Nearly any list is finite given a large enough set of data. I don't think finiteness has a bearing on whether lists should be CW. The "list" typically refers to the format of the answers. A user answering this can quite simply say "Walrus" and that be a valid answer. This results in a long list of all completely valid answers. The CW provides the ability for those to be edited into the question itself as a form of index.
It also prevents the disproportionate rep explosions that can occur from 50+ people up-voting the answer "Walrus" just because it's so exotic and cool.
Makes sense on the list explanation!
I don't see any problem with this question in theory... seems valid enough.
@Michael Two recommendations: 1) encourage users to combine all of the answers into a single place (either your question, or one answer) 2) ask for taste-notes, nutrition differences, cooking differences among the different animals.
Every morning I walk on to the Savannah to milk a lion. It's delicious.
Holly: Nothing wrong with dog's milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other type of milk, dog's milk.
Lister: Why?
Holly: No bugger'll drink it. And the advantage of dog's milk is that when it goes off it tastes exactly the same as when it's fresh.
(Red Dwarf, "Kryten")
Add to this answer... Who and where, what it tastes like, how it differs, how it's used in cooking...
Human
Where: Worldwide
Uses: Nursing
Cow
Where: Most common source of dairy worldwide
Uses: All dairy products (milk, cheese, yogurt, etc.)
Goat
Where: India, Bangladesh, Africa, France, common across Europe.
Uses: Milk, cheese
Sheep
Where: Across Europe
Uses: Primarily cheese
Camel
Where: Middle East
Uses: Milk
Note: Camel milk can be an important source of water in extremely arid climates or survival situations. The milk can have a salty taste due to camels' high consumption of sodium.
Yak
Where: South East Asia, Mongolia, Northern China, Tibet, Nepal
Uses: Milk, Cheese, and butter; localized dairy products such as dahi, paneer
Water Buffalo
Where: India, Parts of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, China, South America, Europe (best known in Italy and throughout the Balkan states)
Uses: Milk, yogurt, cheese (mozzarella and others), candy
Note: Water Buffalos are the 2nd most common source of dairy in the world.
Horse
Where: Mongolia
Uses: Kumis (lightly alcoholic fermented drink)
Donkey / Ass
Where: Mediterranean countries
Uses: Milk, yogurt, cosmetic and medical use
Reindeer / Caribou
Where: Scandinavian countries, Mongolia
Uses: Cheese, Butter
Note: Reindeer milk is 22% butterfat and produces extremely rich cream cheese which Lapplanders sometimes use in coffee rather than regular cream.
Moose
Where: Russia and Sweden
Uses: Milk, limited cheese production
Goat milk is also common in Northern China.
I'm not sure if water buffalo (used for mozzerella) and buffalo are the same thing.
Wondeful, Ocaasi, thanks for starting the final edit on this.
@Michael Oh no, it took ingenuity to ask for a list of milks. I give you full due.
Please add reindeer milk. And (unless you want to edit the question to include "commonly") you'd better add wolves for Romulus and Remus :)
Goat milk to drink can be found in France in regular plastic bottles in supermarkets. It is usually half-skimmed because this is a very creamy one.
I can confirm that buffallo milk is extensively used in India too. Its a very creamy, protein rich milk and is used for making curd-based sweets. And feeding youngsters.
Dog milk is alleged to last longer than any other type of milk ;)
Oh, I just remembered one more (don't worry, I'll edit it into a index when we seem done). Horse. Popular in Mongolia I believe.
It is used for drinking (directly) but also as an ingredient for single fermentation (koumis) or alcoholic fermentation (airag, also called milk wine)
Donkey milk is missing from the list.
It is, but with community wiki items, you should have enough reputation be able to go and edit the question to add it to the list.
I hand't noticed I could do it by myself.
We drink the milk of walruses and elephants.
you sir, are a smart ass, hey we drink the milk of those too :)
@sarge: we really do!
wanna give us reference / location for those so we can add them to the index above? (or just go ahead and put them in)
I've seen it on the discovery channel. Walrus milk has been consumed by the Inuit people for centuries. The elephant thing was in Africa, I don't remember details.
Interesting... I just tried for awhile to google up some details of either of those things, didn't have any luck so I'm not adding them to the index answer for now. If anyone can locate the info, please add it!
Monkey milk is popular in central America.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.642047
| 2010-08-13T04:25:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5079",
"authors": [
"Achshar",
"Bananaman",
"Caleb",
"Gary Reno",
"J. Win.",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Larry Wang",
"Leah",
"Mad Jack",
"Michael Natkin",
"Noldorin",
"Ocaasi",
"Peter Taylor",
"Septagram",
"Sheila Jones",
"Thomas Horrocks",
"dplanet",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9980",
"immutabl",
"j08691",
"jimbio",
"jtpereyda",
"kmb64",
"lunar",
"nlinus",
"ogerard",
"sarge_smith",
"toloco",
"user65559",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28918
|
Why is my first batch of cookies out of the oven too flat?
Every time I make cookies, the first batch out of the oven is a bit too thin and flat. Subsequent batches are as expected. What could be causing this?
Do you chill your cookie dough?
I do not chill the dough; it usually doesn't seem necessary.
And yet your cookies come out thin! Try it and the oven temperature tip and you'll be golden.
Ha ha, fair enough.
It may be that your oven is not up to temperature before your first batch goes in. If it's not hot enough your cookies will have more time to melt and flatten before they cook. Try giving the oven 10 more minute preheating time before putting your first batch in.
Some ovens now have a preheat timer, usually about 10 minutes. In my expreience that is not long enough for consistent baking, although you have to get to know your own oven. 30 minutes is usually a better time. Ovens bake mostly be radiant (infrared) transfer of energy from the walls, floor and ceiling to the baked goods. For this reason, the walls, floor, and ceiling must be up to temperature before you start baking for consistent results. (For some applications like braising, this is not as critical.)
Adding to @SAJ14SAJ , even if your oven's air temperature is at the desired level if the inside of your oven may not be fully heat-soaked. When you open the oven door the temperature drops, and then the oven has to heat the air back up. If the oven material isn't up to temperature then that won't happen very quickly, hence flat cookies.
This makes sense. I should probably bake with my pizza stone in the oven, too.
That's not a bad idea, I use mine as it really helps keep the temperature stable, just remember it needs at least half an hour to get up to temperature!
@KatieK I got surprised muffins rised really much more in my woodfired oven than in the electric one. It's like a baking stone of 10 cm (4 in) thickness. So, it makes sense to use a pizza stone in an electric conventional home oven.
I have a gas oven. Wow, you baked in a wood fired oven? That's old school.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.642538
| 2012-12-05T06:56:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28918",
"authors": [
"Chandra Majumdar",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"GileBrt",
"J.A.I.L.",
"KatieK",
"Klaas",
"LD Portocarrero",
"Luke Sauer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66992"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25648
|
How to substitute chicken broth in a vegetarian soup?
I'm making minestrone soup (for the first time) and, on reading the recipe, it calls for chicken broth. Normally this is no problem, but my vegetarian brother is visiting this weekend and I was going to make enough to share.
I'm assuming that chicken broth is non-vegetarian. I've asked him if he's willing to eat it, but for the time being I'm assuming it's verboten.
Not having the broth will obviously change the flavor. (I've never had minestrone before, so I wouldn't have any basis for comparison.) What should I replace it with for best results? Plain water, something with more body (red wine, which the recipe also calls for), or something a little more fun or exotic?
Are you the type to make your own chicken broth? If you are, then all the suggestions about making your own vegetable broth are for you. If not, lemontwist's answer (buy vegetable stock) is probably a little more helpful.
@Jefromi I've never made chicken broth before, but I always enjoy cooking new things.
Your question seems to have two parts:
With what do I replace chicken stock to make the dish vegetarian and
How can I add some zing to the dish for added interest?
To answer 1, I'd make a hearty vegetable stock from scratch. Recipies abound. Alternatively you could rely on a bought stock but I find that these can be overpowering and of course you have less control over the flavour.
To answer 2, consider adding a dollop of pistou to each bowl of soup when serving. Freshly made pistou is easy and adds interest and flavour. See, e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/pistou_soup_67332.
Excellent advise to make the vegetable stock apart.
Somehow I totally missed the existence of vegetable stock. That's probably the best option, all things considered. Your link to pistou is interesting and I'll keep it in mind.
I've added pistou to my soups before. It's fantastic.
There are plenty of "non chicken" broths out there that are vegan/vegetarian. For example: http://www.imaginefoods.com/content/organic-no-chicken-broth
Otherwise vegetable broth in general is very simple to find. I don't think you have to worry much about a vegetarian "missing" the taste of chicken or finding it lacking if you use veggie broth. I haven't eaten meat in 6 years and I don't remember what it tastes like, so I'm not going to be offended if veggie broth doesn't taste much the same as chcken stock, for example.
Most vegetable broths I've seen are just labeled as such, not as a chicken broth substitute. In any case, I'm a little surprised you're the only one who suggested buying it instead of making it.
I'm a big fan of the Better-than-Bouillon no-chicken broth. It's the only one I have experience with, but it tastes more chicken-y, and I think makes a better substitute than vegetable broth.
@Jefromi, I'm pretty lazy when it comes to broth. For some reason I am motivated to make a lot of things from scratch, but not broth. I'm sure it's one of the simpler things to make, but I find buying in this case a lot more convenient.
Chicken broth is not vegetarian. Or if it is (soy?), you don't want to use it.
The best way to make minestrone without chicken or beef broth -- and in my opinion, it's even better -- is simply long simmering. A proper minestrone should take between 50 and 90 minutes to cook.
The second flavoring ingredient is a parmesan (parmigiano) cheese rind. The rind is the hard, outer part of dry, hard cheeses, and does not melt, even with long simmering. But it does add a bit of umami and fat to the soup, which enhances it. Parmesan is the best for this, but if you happen to have a cheese rind for dry jack, pecorino romano, gruyere, or other very hard cheeses, you can use one instead. A piece about 1 inch by 3 inches is good for a large pot of soup.
So, your basic formula is:
Heat water.
add vegetables and aromatics (and cooked beans, if using).
Add cheese rind
Simmer for 1 hour
take out the cheese rind (and bay leaf, if using)
serve.
For more detail on this, CooksIllustrated published a recipe several years ago which is available (for a fee) on their website. You can probably also find it with some searching.
Thanks. The recipe I'm looking at (the second hit on Google for "minestrone") doesn't include the rind, but that's an excellent idea, especially since it means I get to eat the rest of the block of Parmesan.
Parmesan cheese is not vegetarian:
"Parmesan/Parmigiano-Reggiano is an EU Protected Designation of Origin product and has to be made using calf rennet, so it’s definitely not suitable for vegetarians." http://www.vegsoc.org/saycheese
Before you make your soup using parmesan, I'd suggest checking with your brother whether he eats it.
@Nicholas, most vegetarians eat cheese even though there is rennet in it, so the OP would definitely have to ask.
@lemontwist: agreed.
@Nicholas I know my brother eats Parmesan cheese: he buys it in bulk. I didn't know about the rennet; I'll keep that in mind for future veggie recipes.
I generally find unless someone is a strict vegan they ignore the whole rennet issue.
I've been very happy with the vegetable stock from Heidi Swanson's book "Supernatural Cooking". I regularly substitute this for chicken broth when I run out.
2 onions, cut into eighths
2 shallots, quartered
1 garlic clove smashed
2 celery stalks, chopped
a few sprigs of thyme
2 quarts of water
Heat some olive oil in a pan. Add the veggies and thyme, sauté for 5 minutes or so until they pick up some color and soften. Add water and a good pinch of salt. Simmer for 30-60 minutes.
mmm, sounds lovely. a bit of turmeric for color to pass as poultry?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.642766
| 2012-08-14T05:44:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25648",
"authors": [
"Andrew Tingley",
"BaffledCook",
"Cajunluke",
"Cascabel",
"Dawn Renaker Cooper",
"Erin Spencer",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Moboe Twit",
"Nicholas",
"Pat Sommer",
"Toni Roof",
"Totton Heffelfinger",
"buckeye",
"edsobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8269",
"lemontwist",
"mamine"
],
"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
}
|
114009
|
How to obtain the soft and pillowy texture in bread?
Here's a bread recipe (probably a type of Turkish bread):
1 cup of warm milk (200 ml)
1 tea cup of warm water (150 ml)
1 tea cup of oil
1 tea spoon of salt
1.5 tablespoons of sugar,
half a
pack of fresh yeast (21 grams)
1 egg white
5 cups flour
50 grams butter
(glaze: 1 egg yolk + milk)
Preparation: Warm water in a bowl, warm milk, salt, granulated sugar, liquid oil, egg white and fresh yeast, and mix them together. Then knead the dough by incorporating flour gradually. let the dough rest until doubled in bulk, then make 12 equal portions from the dough. put about 5 gr butter on each portion, pat the dough and then roll it and form a spiral out of it. cover and let rest for 20 minutes, then egg wash and bake until golden brown.
The only change I made was using instant yeast instead of fresh, and oat milk instead of regular milk.
This is how it is supposed to turn out like and this is how it actually turned out.
I tried the recipe twice, and it never came out as soft and pillowy as they look in the original recipe. The recipe poster advised that if the final soft texture is desired, cover the tray with a damp towel right when it is done baking and out of the oven for about 5 minutes. I did the same, but alas!
your bread looks nice, maybe it's the oat milk vs. cow milk ? if you are vege/vegan you could try with different milk (almond, soy ... ) to see if it makes a difference.
It may be my personal experience (or pet peeve), but I never had the same quality results with dry yeast instead of fresh, especially when it comes to texture. I know that many of our experienced bakers here use dry and are happy with it. So not an answer, just a thought that may be worth an experiment.
Uncertain from your question, but ensure you're using the accurate measurements, not just some randomly-sized household cups.
Milk is used as a kind of "tenderizer" in breads. Milk makes a softer crust and otherwise improves the texture of bread, so in this case, I think its your substitution that's giving you a problem. Oat milk may be a reasonable substitute for the liquid required in the recipe, but it just won't have the same effect on the finished product.
If you're not vegan, I would recommend using the regular milk next time. If you are, it may be possible to add a tiny bit more sugar and fat (in addition to the oat milk) to the recipe to compensate for the missing milk sugars and fats, but I'm unsure if that will produce the desired result. You may need to do more research into vegan breads to come up with a substitute for the milk in that case.
That makes sense, I must use regular milk to see if it's really the reason behind the pillowy texture I am after. Thanks.
I tried the original recipe once more and the texture was almost like the original recipe:
Here are the changes I've made this time:
I followed the recipe to the letter this time, not substituting oat milk for regular milk and instant yeast for fresh yeast as suggested.
The other change I made was when rolling and shaping the dough, last time I baked the bread I didn't like the crust it developed and wanted them as soft and pillowy as they were in the original recipe. I realized that when I was shaping them I left them uncovered. This time I tried to do it more quickly. I am not sure that also was any helpful to get the desired texture. Now I have to bake the bread once more with oat milk and instant yeast to find that out! Stay tuned!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.643242
| 2021-01-28T23:13:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114009",
"authors": [
"Gigili",
"Max",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54494
|
How to make good looking cake pops?
I've tried to make cake pops a few times but they never came out as beautiful and tidy as the pictures I found on the web. I would love to try more and more to nail the goal but I think I must know some rules or what-to-do's to make progress. So please anyone who has the experience share the important points here, I really appreciate it. Please note that for me, the taste is as important as the look.
The following questions are what I'd like to know:
Does it matter what kind of cake you use, greasy or sponge or something else?
What about the icing? Here the question is, do I have to add less sugar in my cake batter to make it less sweeter so that I can use any kind of icing without worries?
Does it make a big difference what kind of lollipop stick?
I tried googling the subject "how to make cake pops" and read a few search results but most of them used special brands for different uses (e.g. candy melts) which are not available in my country.
Here is an example of some amazing cake pops:
Hi Gigili, a question of the type "everything about "X" is way too broad. But your question body is OK, so I changed the title instead of closing.
@rumtscho: Thank you. There is still a tiny problem, as I said in the question body, it is not about look only, taste matters as much to me.
There are two ways to get the shape. One way is to bake them spherical, the other to crumble the cake and to roll the crumples with icing.
To bake them spherical, you need a mold that goes into the oven, or an appliance for the task.
Your basic cake recipes are what you want here, nothing fancy. White cake, yellow cake or chocolate cake, there's no reason to make it more complicated, considering that your presentation is going to be novel anyway.
A simple buttercream frosting would be fine for rolling the balls (if that's the way you choose to go), but you would want more of candy shell on the outside. Sure, Wilton brand candy melts are an option, but you might find almond bark easier to find. That comes in chocolate and white, and will set more like the candy melts, less soft and melty than real chocolate would be. White bark could be colored how ever you want (use gel coloring, not liquid). Here's an article you might find helpful about better choices than real chocolate for this kind of shell: Love from the Oven
The sweetness of your cake and icing is totally up to you. One thing to consider instead of reducing the sugar would be to possibly add a bitter element, like lemon zest.
The best thing you can use for the sticks, if you can find them. would be the plain paper ones:
Hah, I thought those holes were for piping into, but I was wondering why they were so damn small.
@Doug At first I thought steam release :) I'm adding a picture from Amazon that shows the holes in use.
But if there's no steam release, how does it become round? You'd risk an air pocket where the cake couldn't expand to (or the mold popping open from pressure). The only advantage might be how well the cake adheres to the stick by baking it in. (and I would assume you're baking below 425°F, so you're not going to run into issues w/ autoignition of the paper sticks.)
@Joe I don't know that you put the sticks in before you bake, I assume not, but maybe. I also assume that it would come with instructions :)
Sounds to me like the holes are multi purpose :-)
If you're putting the sticks in afterwards, the holes just seem to be more trouble -- you'd have to then push the sticks out through the hole, unless you managed to find ones that were small enough to slip easily inside the hole -- but the odds of having them all perfectly centered & parallel to each other to lift off the mold cleanly seems quite improbable to me.
@Joe Hmm, lifting the cover is something I hadn't considered. I'm starting to want the dang thing! Just to see how the hell it works.
@Jolenealaska - I know the feeling...
Reminds me of one of these contraptions. http://www.pfmplus.co.uk/shop/other/grillstick-shish-and-kofta-magic-box-model-12/
Thank you for your answer. I read some of the customer reviews for the silicone mold (Amazon) and one of them - who took the time to write down to-do's and not-t-do's in details - said you must know for each cake batter that how much of the mold should be filled. They also say that when baked, you must remove the top mold which means you basically cannot insert lollipop sticks before baking.
So someone at Amazon posted a completely wrong picture. I'll edit out the incorrect info. Thanks for letting me know.
To solve the riddle of the tiny holes: they are also there to test for doneness without openig the mold - at least that's what an advert I read today claims.
It's an enormous amount of work, but I made a batch a few years ago for a friend's daughter's wedding by mixing the cake and frosting and pressing it into two small cookie-cutters (one round and a slightly smaller fluted one), then pushed them out, stacked them to form a wedding cake shape, added the stick and then dipped them in candy melt and decorated them. The only problem I had was that the candy melt has a tendency to not be as thick at the edges, and would often crack as it hardened, so I had to dip many of them a second time. That probably isn't a problem with spherical pops. Still, they were a big hit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.643640
| 2015-02-07T10:55:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54494",
"authors": [
"Abbas Eram",
"Billielynn Wilder",
"Celest Griffith",
"Doreen Rios",
"Doug",
"Gigili",
"Holly Bowling",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Justin Erskine",
"Richard Harries",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"cathy darby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"janet honeycutt",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45758
|
What is the spicy kick in "Kraft Tangy Spaghetti" box meal?
So, since I've lived at home, there has been a boxed spaghetti mix that has always been especially good to me. The thing I like about it is a subtle heat of some kind of pepper or spice. I've tried recreating it but have never even came close. I would love to be able to remake the sauce mix with fresh ingredients and tone down the amount of salt that goes into it. Has anyone tried this and able to identify what this spicy factor is?
For reference, here is what the box looks like (in America anyway)
I assume you don't know the ingredient list, or you're trying to fill in a nebulous "natural flavour" or "spice blend"? Is there some other culinary spice you're trying to isolate (like oregano or Italian seasoning) or just the heat-spice?
I guess all of it, but especially the heat because I've never had a spicy spaghetti sauce like it. Maybe there is a common Italian heat spice that's in it or something
From the spice mix: Dried Onion, Salt, Food Starch-modified, Monosodium Glutamate, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Sugar, Spice, Dried Garlic, Dried Celery, Artificial Color
"Spice" is the secret ingredient the OP is looking for.
@CareyGregory Yes, "spice" is not very helpful, but the list of ingredients is typically the place to start a reverse-engineering project. My first Google Search was about equally eye-opening. Half of the listings are people trying to recreate the sauce, the other half are really awful reviews of the product (like, "This stuff is VILE!")
Is it really the spicy kick you're having trouble with, or are there other aspects of the flavor you're missing?
Is this a southern thing or something? I've lived my whole life in the US and have never encountered anything like it.
It's like a box of spaghetti with a sauce packet inside?
@Marti it might be a southern thing, but at least somewhat recently I've seen a (different graphic design) box of it in Ohio
I love the Kraft Tangy Italian spaghetti sauce seasonings and I just experimented with several of the suggestions listed above. I added some dried crushed red peppers into a blender along with Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dried parsley leaves and an off brand "Italian Seasonings" blend of dried herbs and blended them all together. That was a good start, but then I added a little white vinegar and blended up some mushrooms and poured it all into an 18 quart roaster because I needed to make enough spaghetti and sauce for 50 adults. I began with 1 29 oz. can of canned tomato sauce and also added to it 1 14.5 oz. can of diced tomatoes with onion basil and oregano already in it. That was close, but needed to add some pepperoncini peppers about 1/2 of one per the above measurements of sauce. I added a teaspoon of powdered onion soup mix and a drop of Worcestershire sauce a drop of Louisiana hot sauce and 3 drops of soy sauce and then it tasted really close to it, or so much so that my wife and kids as well as my own tongue could not make out the difference. Hope this helps and works for you as well.
I also enjoy reverse-engineering recipes, so here's some thoughts.
I've never heard of this product, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't simply crushed red chili pepper flakes and/or black pepper. For a product like this, it's probably something commodity or inexpensive. Perhaps you've already tried these things...
A way to bisect this might be to search for a jar of pasta sauce that is as close as you can find to the basic flair of the target sauce. Then add things like crushed red pepper or black pepper to see where that takes you.
The box seems to say "just add tomato paste," so it's possible that it's something in addition to spicy-heat, like acidity or umami that you will get from tomato paste. Might be worth adding that, or other acid (like vinegar or Tabasco), or other umami like mushrooms or anchovy. Or even olives...
But if you're going that far, just make Martha's pasta puttanesca! :) It's fresh and simple.
Happy hacking!
Edit:
After seeing the ingredient list in the comments above, it reads more like onion soup mix or instant ramen noodle packet than pasta sauce! I stand by my blind recommendations! Final notes:
MSG and HVP are for umami (i.e., monosodium glutamate; hydrolyzed soy/vegetable protein). You can find this stuff at Asian markets, but... I personally wouldn't. :) As I posited above, you can get umami from more "conventional" ingredients, e.g., porcini mushrooms, anchovies, soy sauce, etc.
Add black pepper and crushed red pepper flakes to your other favorite jar of pasta sauce.
Abandon ship. Make puttanesca. :)
Nooch (nutritional yeast) or grated Parmesan might work well instead of refined MSG. Also, do not forget that dried onion/garlic powders do not taste the same as minced/pestled/pureed onions/garlic. Also note there is a potential thickener in that mixture (modified starch ... which can mean one or more of a few dozen possible modifications :), texture might be more substantial to the whole experience than assumed.
Let me answer your question. I HAVE recreated the heat and the tang of this sauce. The heat is cayenne pepper powder. The tang is vinegar. Period. Add each and jeep tasting till you get it right. Don't forget to add 1/2 tsp. sugar as well to balance the sauce.
If you have any pickled peppers in your fridge, you might try using some of the liquid from that as it'll give you sour, heat, and a little bit of sweetness.
Kraft Tangy Italian can be replicated using their list of ingredients. Tomato paste and sauce (find your preference in amounts, I like more sauce (or diced or crushed tomatoes) with a tablespoon of paste) , onion powder, garlic powder, celery powder (or celery seeds), sugar (small quantity a must), I don't use the Soy protein, Mono Glu or Food starch...those are stabilizers and this gets eaten... the only thing left is their "SPICE"...it is FENNEL...that is the key to the taste of Kraft Tangy Italian for our family. Careful a little goes a looooong way. Get too much and this stuff is yukky (speaking from personal experience). Get it right and I have yet for anyone to tell the difference! Heat?? have not tasted any heat from the boxed mix but if you want you could add any of the peppers. Cayenne, Paprika, flakes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.644128
| 2014-07-22T00:01:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45758",
"authors": [
"Alan Dyson",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Earlz",
"Jeana Ditch",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Preston",
"Sheila Trotter",
"Toni Dever",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44889
|
What's the difference between dried split peas and dried snack peas such as wasabi peas?
Wasabi peas (and similar snacks) appear to just be dried green peas (coated in wasabi).
Similarly, dried green split peas are also dried green peas (that have been split).
So why is it that wasabi peas are crispy and edible, while dried split peas are hard like stones?
p.s. please edit if you can make this clearer or can think of any decent tags.
Recipes for homemade wasabi peas involve soaking, boiling, and then low-temperature roasting (essentially dehydrating) the peas. Split peas are produced by simply drying the peas after they're harvested and then removing their skins. So the reason is that the snack peas are cooked while the split peas are essentially raw. The cooking process breaks down cell walls and makes the peas tender, even after they're roasted to draw out the moisture again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.644597
| 2014-06-14T22:28:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44889",
"authors": [
"Hannah",
"Jerzy Blazin",
"Tara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"velkoon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82419
|
Frying Steak - disappointing gray crust, not pink inside
Ok so I'm a teenager and I'm starting to get interested in this cooking thing, and in particular, steak.
So anyway, this past week I decided to try my luck at preparing a steak. My family's grill is broken, so I tried to cook it in a pan (after reading and watching plenty of articles and videos on how to cook steak).
So I used some sort of heavy metal pan (I'm not sure what material), and let it heat up on high heat for about 5 minutes. After letting my 3 thin flank steaks sit out for around 30 minutes, I put salt, pepper, and olive oil on them. Next, I put them in the pan and immediately the room filled with smoke.
I opened up windows, doors, and used the vent above the pan but to no avail. Despite all the smoke, the steaks would only seem to turn a bland grey. After a while I had to take them off because I didn't want them to get overdone.
I put the steaks on a plate and covered them with tin foil. After around 10 minutes, I cut into them and they only had a little pink in them. Not the medium rare I was hoping for. Plus, there was the disappointing gray crust.
What did I do wrong? Any help is appreciated.
Thin is (IMHO) a bad steak unless you are the weirdo who likes them well-done. I've been known to buy a roast and slice it when faced with a meat department full of skinny steaks. Otherwise they go from "not cooked" to "overcooked" in a very short time. "Gray crust" sounds like the steaks were wet - try patting them dry, and don't overload the pan (or use the broiler instead if the grill is out of order.)
Never fry with olive oil, it burns too easily. Plus it's a waste of good oil. Use good old fashioned sunflower or rapeseed and you might get a better outcome.
It sounds to me like you've made a good start and almost got there. You picked a heavy pan and got it hot, and you had in mind the outcome you want. You also recognized that you needed to get your steaks off the pan before they overcooked, showing you have the theory and practice down.
Here's the tweaks I would make to get the result you want:
Oil: Olive oil is a great cooking oil for low temperature but it is not a good choice for high temperature as it will 1) smoke, 2) set on fire in some cases (it's flare-up city on the barbecue) and 3) produce off flavors (as in taste bad). Canola (rapeseed), peanut, sunflower, safflower, ie most vegetable oils will work fine for this. You only need a small amount ensure good heat contact with the pan, not a liberal coating
Seasoning: salt is fine to put on your steak, pepper will burn and turn bitter, I suggest you pepper it just after cooking
Steak choice: Even on a hot pan there won't be enough time to get enough crust on a flank steak (or any thin steak) before the meat inside is done, if you want a crust then you're better off with a thicker steak. A grey outside without any crust is typical with a thin steak. When buying a steak remember that you're better off getting quality over quantity, a small piece of good quality filet or ribeye is better than a slab of a tough old rubber. Personally I have no problem with flank steak, I suggest you marinade it first and get your barbecue working again as a searing hot flame is the way to go for flank
The bland grey is typically caused by the meat steaming. You want to dry off your steaks just before cooking them. This will allow the surface to get hotter, as there's no moisture evaporating.
As for the oil -- if you want to cook in a bit of oil, so that you can ensure better heat transfer, until you're experienced with how hot you need to have the pan, you should put a thin layer in the pan. As the oil heats, it will 'shimmer' ... basically, it'll start having small ripples/waves in it. This will happen just before it starts to smoke. You might even let it get to where there are just a couple of whips of light smoke coming off the pan.
This is your sign to add the steaks. (immediately if you waited for it to smoke). The meat will cool down the pan slightly, so it won't go to full on smoking. Mind you, the oil will reduce some of the browning, as Satanicpuppy mentioned, and it's preferable not to let it sit out for thin steaks. (Unless you're going for well done, and then you do not want a hot pan; you need to cook over more gentle heat for that).
Too much oil, probably...Oil will prevent proper caramelization. Also, sounds like the oil you used had a low smoke point, though really you have to expect to fill the house with smoke any time you sear/blacken on the stove.
With a thin steak, it's going to be very easy to overcook. I wouldn't bother letting them sit out: that's more to get a nice uniform pink on a thicker cut of meat, or to prevent a large roast from being undercooked in the center and overcooked on the outside. A few minutes on both sides, and you'll probably be fine.
Something that has been mentioned yet...
I like steak medium rare and I have no trouble frying a thin steak to medium rare but there's a couple of things to bear in mind.
The area that a steak covers in a pan is important - area not volume. It doesn't matter how thick your steak is since the hot pan with some oil is what sears the surface preventing the meat juices running out. When the juices run out freely, you're essentially boiling your steak. If you put too many steaks in the pn at one time (too much surface of the pan covered), it lowers the temperature too much as the meat surface won't be seared.
This can be seen if you try to brown sliced mushrooms. If you put a small amount in a hot pan with oil and stir a couple of times, you get golden brown surfaces with still some body to them. Put too many in and the water comes out making them soggy and grey. (I initially learned this years ago before the internet).
Another thing is lean meat contains more water than well marbled meat which makes sense if you think that the fat on meat as little water in it. The water content of flank steak is roughly 70%. Mushrooms are 92%. If mushrooms can be browned without overcooking them so can thin steak.
My technique is to have cold steak - directly from the fridge - and put it in a very hot cast iron frying pan when the oil just starts smoking. Cast iron is heavy and won't cool off quickly like a thin lightweight pan will. I never overcrowd the pan. At least 2/3 of pan's surface is still bare. I keep the pan on a fairly high heat and ready to turn it up all the way if needed. Each side only gets between 1 to 1 1/2 minutes per side (one of us prefer to have red juices run out when the steak is cut). Through practice, I've become good at judging how thin the steak can be for time. I never go thinner than 3/4 inch (2 cm) as they'll be too cooked.
Whatever food you plan on browning but not fully cooking, it's important for the pan to stay very hot and too much food in it at one time cools it too much. This may not be standard advice as it seems most people believe it's not possible to cook thin steaks to medium rare. This always works for me but I'm only cooking for two. I don't mind doing this in two batches if necessary.
I don't claim it's impossible to get a thin one medium rare - but it's quite unforgiving of slight time variations.
Oh, I know about the slight variations in time! Took me a number of tries to get it right. I'd rather eat steak more under-done than over-done ANY day. :)
First of all, flank steaks are not a good steak to get a good crust on. You would want to use something thicker like a sirloin and a rib eye cap. Second of all, never ever cover your steak with tin foil, that will cause the steak to overcook cause of the steam and you’ll lose your crust because it will get steamed off. Third of all, try using a cast iron pan or a stainless steel pan, let it heat up for at least 6 minutes on medium-high heat and for the oil, use a neutral oil like, canola or peanut oil.
If you're looking for crust on a steak you may want to just flour it a little or use egg and cracker or something like that before you fry it. Cast iron is great idea...good luck in future cooking....oh fried steak is good but grilled is the bomb.
Please proofread your contributions before posting. This answer was mostly nonsensical, and what did make sense didn't answer the question. I have edited out all but the one point that addresses the question with something that hasn't already been suggested. The tour and help center have information that may help you write better received contributions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.644733
| 2017-06-15T18:35:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82419",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"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
}
|
117331
|
How to use this pan?
Does anyone have any idea what this pan is called? It has a bottom dish and a rack that sits on top with several “legs”. It has a cover. There is a hole in the center of both the bottom part and the rack. I'm told it's from Argentina. I'm not sure how to use it and I can’t find anything online.
I think, from the picture, the lid will sit on the upper tier, but is that right, or does it enclose the lower tray as well (in which case it might be useful for steaming)?
I use it instead of oven when cooking small pieces, like chicken legs.
It looks like a "smokeless" stove top grill very similar to the one my mother used to have. Unfortunately I can't find any pictures online but the setup is the same.
You put it on a burner and add water to the lower plate. Food goes on the perforated plate, and you put the cover on to prevent heat from escaping. Fat drips onto the bottom plate with water, so it doesn't burn and doesn't create smoke.
I don't believe it's a Korean grill plate; in those usually the center is closed, both for creating a hot spot and to prevent grease from falling on top of the burner. In the one from the question the food doesn't go directly on top of the burner, it cooks like in an oven not with direct heat.
That’s what I'm thinking, although I'm wondering if the water on the bottom is to catch drips rather than steam the food since it's open on the bottom.
@LizHonig you're right, I remember now; it was called a smokeless grill. I changed my answer to reflect that. I remember having food that was quite dry (from cooking for too long) so definitely not a steamer :)
It sounds rather like a way of cooking foods that wouldn't normally work on top of a stove, when that's all you've got. Here's something similar on Amazon; that has a drip tray but also what looks like a more solid top than in the question
Another related item, without the drip tray or lid: barbecue veg pan (chestnut pans are similar). I say related because in the same way you could grill things that wouldn't go on a wire rack
@ChrisH indeed, more like the one in your first comment. It's a marketing trick as it doesn't "grill" as much, since it's indirect heat - It won't grill much without the lid
They all seem like a bit of a bodge to work around not having something proper, so it's not surprising there will be some variation in design, optimised for different foods.
Luciano, did the pan have a hole in the middle of the lower part, too? Because that's the keeping me from thinking it's any of the things that people have mentioned so far
@Joe I do believe it had a hole, otherwise it would be boiling the water there and then it would be a steamer for sure
looks more like a steamer, but other than that your description seems accurate
The answer is correct. It is called "Parrilla Circular para Hornalla Enlozada" or round enameled grill for stovetop burner. It is put on the stovetop gas stove burner. When water is used in the lower tray, it is not for steaming, it is just to catch to drippings so they do not burn. https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_NQ_NP_2X_938410-MLA73081969841_112023-F.webp
https://shop.jovifel.com.ar/producto/parrilla-circular-enlozada-n-2/
The original answer is correct. Though here I show a picture link of it being used over the stovetop flame. "Parrilla Circular para Hornalla Enlozada" or round enameled grill for stove top burner. It is put on the stove top gas stove burner. When water is used in the lower tray, it is not for steaming, it is just to catch drippings so they do not burn.
https://shop.jovifel.com.ar/producto/parrilla-circular-enlozada-n-2/
yes this exactly is the pan I was describing, good catch!
This is stuff for the Korean BBQ grill. Pieces of meat that are prepped properly are grilled on this stuff. The fire is placed under the dish of the pan. Just look at this pic:
I'm not certain this is correct. Your image shows a largely- solid surface with openings around the outside only. The one in the question shows an even distribution of holes leaving very little surface area to brown the meat. Do you have another example that has a more similar perforation pattern?
Additionally, the pan in the original post is enamelled. That would never be the case for a Korean BBQ pan.
I've got a similar thing to this with a stone (granite IIRC) top, usable for Korean barbecue and similar techniques but also as a mini pizza stone (@sneftel). It's hard to see how the perforated one in the question is similar
@Catija I had a similar one. It's not important if think my answer is wrong, just say it and I delete it.
Opinions on the matter vary, but I think it can be better to keep a plausible but wrong answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.645444
| 2021-09-25T15:26:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117331",
"authors": [
"ALIN",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Liz Honig",
"Look Alterno",
"Luciano",
"Sneftel",
"glenschler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95751",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120861
|
At Home Cake Decorator
So I have been researching how to become a home bakery. The laws are a little more restrictive than if I were to have a commercial kitchen. So I live in Arizona and one of the cottage rules is I can not make anything that needs to be refrigerated. Now, I love decorating and making cakes and cupcakes but I am unable to use frosting. Does anyone have good recipes for a non-refrigerated frosting? I am looking for all kinds of frosting. I am interested! Thank you!
the nature of the site kinda sucks, as this question has been asked before (maybe without your specifics with the commercial intent), but there’s no food way to flag it to see if people have updates years later. But see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4835/67
I made a note that my teacher was a professional in that other post… so it should get bumped to the front page so people see it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.645938
| 2022-06-19T19:05:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120861",
"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
}
|
29807
|
How to bring taste back when too much creme fraiche is added
Occasionally it happens that I add to much creme fraiche to a pasta sauce. Recently this happened with a pasta that contained aubergine, courgette, white mushroom, onion, chicken and some pepper and salt. I added the creme fraiche in the last stage.
This made the dish creamy, but also neutralised the flavour of the ingredients.
Is there a way to to partially reverse this neutralisation?
In my experience, adding cream is what you do when you make a dish that isn't very tasty. The cream neutralizes some of the flavour, and makes the sauce sweeter and fattier, and thus tastier. If a dish is good, simply don't bother with the cream.
I find a squeeze of lemon cuts the creamyness.
Yes, but it might make a balance problem towards the sour, caused by the creme fraiche, worse. You might need to add some sugar...
It depends on the dish and how amenable it is at the stage you make the mistake. Short of redoubling certain ingredients, in most cases, you can't reverse the error.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.646044
| 2013-01-06T22:49:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29807",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Diana Lanni",
"Hapsavage",
"Jeremy Trpka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69991",
"rackandboneman",
"timothyclifford",
"user69396",
"user69991"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123281
|
Does yeast lose strength over time?
I make bread about 2-3 times a week (all the bread we eat) and get yeast in a small jar (Fleischmann's), kept refrigerated. For a mid sized bread, I use 5/8 teaspoon of yeast. However, I have noticed that, the older the yeast, the less the dough rises. When the yeast is pretty old, the dough is as much as an inch below where it rises when it's new, in a KitcheAid mixer metal bowl (about 1 gal). As a result, the bread is thicker and less fluffy.
Does yeast lose strength over time and should I add a little more yeast as it ages?
You should be keeping that jar of yeast in the fridge.
@FuzzyChef we do
The reason why many recipes have you proof the yeast (combine the yeast and sugar and check for activity) is because yeast can go bad. This isn't a binary thing, as you suspected it weakens over time before being fully useless. You can try overcompensating with more yeast but it's a guessing game as to how much more you should be adding. Some other solutions:
Throw it out and get new yeast. This is probably the best solution for beginning bakers.
As @Stephie notes in the comments, you can simply keep the same amount and use visual cues instead of time. Often recipes will say something like 'let rise for 1 hour or doubled in size'.
Perform a yeast freshness test
Get a 1-cup liquid measuring cup.
Add half a cup of warm water. If you have a thermometer, it should read 110° to 115°. If not, just make sure that the water isn’t steaming or hot to the touch – you can comfortably let your finger sit in it for several seconds.
Dissolve a teaspoon of granulated sugar into the water.
Add about 2 and ¼ teaspoons (or a ¼ ounce packet) of dry yeast.
With your watch or timer, observe how long it takes for yeast to active. Within 3 to 4 minutes, it should start to rise. Within 10 minutes, it should be very foamy and have risen to the 1-cup mark.
The added benefit of the yeast test is that you can use it to estimate how much more yeast to add if you want to go that route. For example, if it only rises to the 3/4 cup level, you may want to double the amount.
"Go bad" implies that something becomes harmful for consumption. Is that the case here, or is the yeast simply less effective?
Relying on “let rise for 1 hour or doubled in size” may not work except when it’s just at the beginning of losing efficiency. The structure of the dough after sitting for too long differs, and you’ll get bad results.
Weird proofing story: I grew up as an expat in the 60s. We babied our US brands of yeast because it took a long time to get to us.
No metal
Proof before using
Give it some extra sugar to help it along
Not sure why we had no local sources for yeast.
Welcome to SA! This doesn't appear to be an answer to the question the OP asked, though. Can you explain better?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.646194
| 2023-02-04T20:24:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123281",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Karl Knechtel",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mirabilos"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36226
|
How to clean settled oil fumes from cabinets?
Well, I haven't really cleaned my cabinets right above the stove for a few years so now they are covered in sticky, nasty goo that's basically settled oil fumes (I like to fry and sautee stuff). Any idea what to use to clean it? I tried regular soapy water through a sprayer but that didn't do much.
If it's safe for the cabinet surfaces, Bar Keepers Friend or some similar product (the active ingredient is oxalic acid) is pretty good at dealing with gummy polymerized oil mess. I would not try this on finished wood or painted surfaces, but if you happen to have a metal vent hood above the stove it's fine, or if you're dealing with the hidden unfinished underside of the cabinets.
Failing that, the stronger the soap the better. Soapy water may not do much, but if you squirt a good amount of dish soap into a moist sponge, you may start making progress.
See also Gummy residue from baking spray/oil - this is essentially the same thing as those dark spots you get from stray oil when baking, but generally in larger quantities and possibly a more liquid or at least softer form.
I suspect the oxalic acid would take off the finish, too...
Use a NaOH solution. Sodium hydroxide will saponify the fat, which will make it pretty easy to remove it with water (the molecules will have a hydrophilic and a lipophilic part). At the same time, you will disinfect the area you clean. Since NaOH is a strong alkaline, pretty much all bacteria and molds will die very quickly. Technically, KOH (potassium hydroxide) will work even better, but I didn't use that one yet.
It's also very cheap, since it's an extremely common chemical used for a vast number of things.
Be extremely careful when handling sodium hydroxide (caustic soda, NaOH)
Don't let it come in contact with your skin. Being a strong alkaline, it's very aggressive towards organic material. Always wear rubber gloves, easily removable clothing as well as eye protection and air the room as you work with it.
Should it come into contact with your skin anyway: hold the affected skin area under running water for several minutes and consult a doctor.
Put the NaOH into water, under NO circumstances water on dry NaOH! When it dissolves, it releases a lot of heat, so use cold water if you don't want it to start boiling. Also note that NaOH will dissolve aluminium in a rather violent reaction which also releases hydrogen gas. So keep it away from aluminium.
While caustic soda is an excellent cleaning agent, it has to be handled with utmost care. Only use it when all else fails. After you are done cleaning with it, wipe all surfaces that came into contact with NaOH with citric acid or vinegar to neutralize any residues of it.
Will this damage cabinet finishes or laminates?
I don't think so, but you should try it out at a location where you can't see it first. If after a couple of minutes there is no damage to it, you are fine. It won't do anything to steel and most plastics.
what are some commercially available products that contain NaOH ?
I wouldn't know. I always order pure NaOH from amazon. If you do the same, however, make sure you put the dry NaOH into COLD water and slowly pour the NaOH into it (do not ever pour water on dry NaOH, unless you like severe injuries). A lot of heat will be released. I'd start with 5-10% solutions and work from there. If you want to be on the safe side, order NaOH in liquid form already. It's a bit easier to handle (albeit more expensive).
which product do you get from Amazon ?
Just search for "sodium hydroxide". There are plenty of suppliers. If it's pure NaOH, it doesn't matter where it's from, just get the cheapest.
I have no doubt caustic soda will clean a kitchen. It's an aggressive degreaser, paint stripper, and decomposer of flesh. I think this answer needs a strong warning to use gloves and eye protection.
Indeed, I shall add them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.646728
| 2013-08-22T21:30:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36226",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"Carey Gregory",
"Damon",
"Kostis",
"Pradeep Dhawan",
"RLFP",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Zeeshan Ahmad",
"amphibient",
"blueether",
"dasWesen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85410",
"nahkh",
"stidn",
"zunojeef"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38299
|
Adding Noodles to Soup
If it takes 10 min to boil regular noodles if you drain the water after, give or take, how many minutes before the end of soup cooking should you add them in the pot considering they will keep on cooking in the hot soup after turning heat off so they are not overcooked?
Be careful with the whole concept of adding raw noodles to soup. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5420/can-i-add-uncooked-noodles-directly-to-soup?rq=1
Whether you choose to cook the noodles in the soup, or separately, once they are in the soup, you want to serve it immediately. Either way, they will continue to absorb water and begin to grow mushy. (this is why it is better to refrigerate or freeze soup without the noodles, and add them a la minute when you are heating it to serve later).
Because of this, if you do choose to cook the noodles directly in the broth, you would do so about the same amount of time before it is done, and then serve the soup immediately.
As long as the soup is above about 180 F / 82 C the noodles will be cooking at close to full speed, so if you are going to have hold time before service, you should count this in the cooking time.
I just made a lovely turkey noodle soup and was looking for the answer and came across your question. Since these answers did not answer your question, I thought I’d answer with what I ended up doing.
I added shell noddles (recommended normal cooking time of 8 minutes) to the pretty much done soup. I continued cooking the soup on medium heat for another 15 minutes (tasting noodles as I went). I did think they had reached desired al dente after the 15 minutes, and removed from heat.
Oops typo… after the 15 minutes. They were too hard before then
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.647071
| 2013-11-09T02:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38299",
"authors": [
"Cody O",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mr Reactive",
"Spammer",
"Tina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90207",
"m123"
],
"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
}
|
56246
|
Defrosting meat/fish in warm water
I have found warm water to be a great way to quickly defrost meat and fish as opposed to just letting it sit outside the freezer, which is what my mom does.
But I wonder if there are any negative side effects to the method, as in, for example, compromised taste or compromised food safety. I do understand that the water shouldn't be too hot as to avoid actually cooking the frozen food.
I suspect there's an exact duplicate somewhere... related: acceptable ways to defrost and can I defrost on the counter.
i did search but the accepted answer in the first question only says "Under cool running water"...
Yes, hence just "related" - that said, to be clear, do you mean warm running water, or a bucket full of warm water?
Is this meat sealed, in for example a ziplock bag, and water is touching the bag or is the meat physically touching the water?
For a small fillet of frozen fish in a ziplock bag, this method will be fine because any single serving fish fillet will only take 10 minutes or even less to defrost in warm water, and will take even less time to cook. However, as described in other answers, you cannot extend this method to larger cuts of meat like a massive t-bone steak or a giant chicken breast.
I use this method to defrost tilapia fillets and salmon fillets all of the time, but I am very careful to cook them after a few minutes of defrosting. I find that for thicker salmon fillets I only defrost it half way (about 5-10 minutes) and immediately throw it in the pan with the center still somewhat frozen. This prevents you from overcooking the fish, and still prevents you from keeping the fish in the danger zone too long.
If you would like to use this method on thicker cuts of meats, you can modify it where you use a Tupperware container full of cold water and place it in the fridge. It will defrost faster in the water than it will not placed in water, and the fridge will keep it out of the danger zone (of course this method takes longer).
This in general can be unsafe, because the temperature of the warm water will be in the danger zone. That means that you'll be holding the surface of the food in the danger zone for the duration of the defrosting. Since you don't want to hold food in the danger zone for more than a couple hours, and that's cumulative over the whole process from fridge to eating, this additional time can easily take you from safe to unsafe.
If it's a really small piece like a thin filet it might only take 15 minutes, so it'd be fine, still easy not to go over two hours in the danger zone. If it's very big, though, it could start to be an issue. You can mitigate this some with warm running water or a circulator, but that only goes so far. And in either case you have to be very careful to keep track and make sure the defrosting is fast enough.
Cool running water, on the other hand, is a recommended method. It still works quite quickly, and if the food does enter the danger zone it's at least on the low end of it, so it's not quite so risky.
cool running water out of indoor plumbing is an obscenely wasteful way to accomplish this.
@amphibient And warm water is any less wasteful?
i don't run it, i just fill a bowl and put a small packet of frozen fish in it while it's still in the ziplock...
@amphibient Warm water in a bowl has safety issues, as described in my answer. Warm running water can definitely work but still requires some care (see the answer), so I also mentioned cool running water, since it is in some sense the closest safe alternative. I didn't say it was a good use of water, just that it was safe. That said, you could potentially use a circulator to get the same effect while using much less water.
I wanted to add a new answer here that the USDA did a study in 2011 about warming meats in warm/hot water. The article sums it up well but in short:
At the U.S.D.A. labs in Beltsville, Md., Janet S. Eastridge and Brian C. Bowker test-thawed more than 200 one-inch-thick beef strip loin steaks in three different groups: some in a refrigerator at 37 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit, some in a constantly circulating water bath at 68 degrees, and some in a water bath at 102 degrees.
Air-thawing in the refrigerator took 18 to 20 hours, while the room-temperature water bath thawed the steaks in about 20 minutes, and the hot-summer-day bath in 11 minutes. These water-bath times are so short that any bacterial growth would remain within safe limits.
...
So there’s no downside to quick-thawing steaks, chops, fillets and other relatively thin cuts in warm water right before cooking. Large roasts are a different story. They take long enough to thaw that there may be time for significant bacterial growth on their surfaces. Prompt cooking might well eliminate that problem, but until this has been studied, it’s safest to continue thawing roasts in the refrigerator or in water under 40 degrees.
Sources:
A Hot-Water Bath for Thawing Meats
Effect of Rapid Thawing on the Meat Quality Attributes of USDA Select Beef Strip Loin Steaks)
The official answer is it's unsafe, and if you forget you food it can be.
However, I defrost like this all the time. The trick is to be quick about it. Chicken can be put right in the water directly, and you can massage the frozen parts apart as the heat melts the cracks.
The difference between frozen and safe zone thawed is only a few degrees. Once the pieces have been separated, you can start cooking. It will take longer for the heat to reach the center and the outer rings will be more well done, but you have a meat thermometer right? Use it to make sure the center has been cooked properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.647267
| 2015-03-31T21:23:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56246",
"authors": [
"Brandi Gaw",
"Cameron Barclay",
"Cascabel",
"Natalie",
"Richard T.",
"Sharon Baker",
"Tracy Collins",
"WetlabStudent",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"nazia",
"seb-2020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40227
|
Refrigerating leftover cooked potato
My mom keeps telling me it is unsafe to refrigerate leftover cooked potato in any form because she claims refrigeration accumulates toxins in them (or something like that). I, on the other hand, often refrigerate all forms of cooked potato, including but not limited to boiled, roasted, meshed etc. Often, I will boil a bunch of potatoes, refrigerate them and then just slightly sautee them with spices before eating.
Who is right? Can it be bad to eat leftover refrigerated potatoes?
Refrigerating cooked potatoes is perfectly safe. The myriad of frozen and refrigerated potato products on the market demonstrate this, as do the experiences of millions of home cooks.
In fact, it is raw potatoes that should not be refrigerated, not because of safety concerns, but because they will convert starches to sugars and taste oddly sweet. The ideal storage temperature is slightly higher, 45-50 F.
Potato salad is a prime example of refrigerated cooked potates.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.647746
| 2013-12-13T22:22:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40227",
"authors": [
"Arsan Ezzat",
"Carmi",
"Fatima khan",
"Olivia Aiana",
"bouncingleaf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93491",
"mntra"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30244
|
tamagoyaki eggs sticking to the pan
I've gone through many boxes of eggs trying to cook tamagoyaki, that's Japanese rolled omelet. It uses a rectangle frying pan which is the same as an ordinary frying pan, but rectangle shaped.
In short, you put a little oil in, put a layer of egg in and roll it up. Then repeat.
I've tried low heat, high heat, medium heat, taking it off the heat, small hob, large hob, pre-heating without oil, pre-heating with oil, a small coating of oil, soaked in oil, waited for it to set solid, rolled as soon as it started setting and every recipe and every youtube video guide on tamagoyaki - everything.
The results are always the same: It sticks to the "non-stick" pan and it falls apart.
What's the secret?
Here's a basic successful tamagoyaki instructional video
Here's my result
Are you sure that the "non-stick" properties of your square pan are still OK. The pan in the picture looks pretty tired.
I also note that the pan in the "successful video" has a ridged bottom. This gives more surface area to the bottom of the pan and gets more heat up into the egg mixture to cook it.
You're right I think it is the pan, I've managed to find reviews of the pan and a few people are saying it's no good!
forgot to add, I've tried it now with a regular frying pan - which I wish I'd thought of to begin with - and it's come out OK.
Rolling when the consistency is correct is important. Looking at your example I would say that attempt needed more heat. The egg should be cooked on the bottom, while being 'jelly-like' on the top.
This makes the roll stick to itself without sticking to the pan. You also need to just wipe down the pan with more oil after each roll. When in doubt turn up the heat and control by moving the pan.
Your problem is a bit strange as you should have hit upon the combination with all the attempts you've listed :P
Good luck
Actually it's your pan, I have that same pan in the rectangular shape as yours as well as a round one. That pan actually does NOT have a non-stick surface. It has almost a painted carbon layer on it, but it is not non-stick. That pan is quite finicky with heat and you do need quite a lot of oil to make sure the eggs don't stick. And as one other person said, the pan must be hot, and move the pan closer or farther away from the heat to adjust it.
You also have to oil the pan between layers as well to keep it from sticking. The oil has to be spread with a rolled up paper towel so it is spread thinly. If you pour the oil in, it will pool up too thick and will cook unevenly which leads to sticking. This technique also works with pancakes to make a more even brown color, where a thin layer of fat is better. Hope this helps.
There's couple reason why it sticks. One of the reason is your sugar to egg ratio in your recipe. I've made tamagoyaki couple times when I was a sushi chef. The key is always less sugar to egg to keep from sticking. Also keep the pan HOT! and pour 1-2oz of egg mixture onto the pan at a time. All while you're moving the pan on and off the heat/burner constantly while you're cooking. Don't keep the pan on the heat the whole time you're cooking, it will burn the cooked part of the egg when you pour your egg mixture during the layering process. It's a lot of trial and error, but it's quite fun once you get the hang of it. It's a lot of moving on and off the burner. Also remember revisit your recipe and tweak it. Hope this helps.
I've had the same problem. Did you wash your pan with detergent? Or did you use the pan to cook other things such as bacon?
It sounds funny but when this happened to me my mom "cured" my pan and told me that I must never use that pan again for other things, only for tamagoyaki, and also that I must never wash the pan with detergent, only with very hot water.
I can’t tell from picture but if that is a non stick ceramic coated pan that you have had awhile, i’d ditch it. I have yet to have a ceramic non stick pan that lasts. When THEY start losing their non stick attributes they are really bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.647883
| 2013-01-20T15:27:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30244",
"authors": [
"BuddyElf",
"Christopher Daughtry",
"Kaylie Hodan",
"Saine",
"Shiji.J",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70798",
"hwu",
"joeldixon66"
],
"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
}
|
82627
|
Dough for edible bowls, plates
I want to bake edible bowls that go with e.g. salad or snacks, that is, I need a non-sweet, bread-like dough that gets reasonably hard when baked but is still somewhat edible.
Is there some classic technique, a special ingredient, or just a general direction to go for a such dough?
Bread bowls for thick soup or stew are common, but around here they're round loaves that have the center cut out. Is that not what you want? Look into medieval trenchers too. Any flatbread can be molded into a bread shape. Can you give us an idea of the aesthetic you are trying to achieve?
It is not really what I have in mind. I would like the dough to get rather dry and sturdy, much like dry waffles or ice cream cones, and I imagined it to be rather shapeable, that is, not rising a lot.
What about a pastry shell? https://www.google.com/search?q=pastry+shells&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj398Dl8NjUAhVS1WMKHeRtAIsQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=691
That is a nice idea, thank you. But they are necessarily sweet, are they not? I thought about using rye flour and not much else. That will get hard, will it not? What about italian grissini (dough)?
Pastry shells are not generally sweet, no. They are often filled with savory foods. Any bread will stale if left out. Yes, the Italian Grissini dough looks like you could use it like this: http://www.odlums.ie/recipes/bread-bowls-tomato-soup/
Thanks, that looks great. I would accept that as an answer.
Uncooked tortillas work very well.
Dough plates sound like a PITA to make.
@thrig punny, very punny...
Sounds like you want trenchers (add "recipe" when searching to weed out the digging tools) as the bread plates of old were called. Since recipe requests are off-topic, I won't include a recipe, but your favorite search engine will provide many.
You could also do something in the puff pasty shell line, for a different texture - easier to eat but also less durable.
A savory pizzelle would also fit - you have to form those when hot, before they harden, and the standard pizzelle maker limits the size, but there might be ways around that limitation.
You can also steam and then bake tacos (which you can either purchase or make) into various shapes by laying them in or over something that shapes them the way you like when baking.
I don't know if there's a way to get pappadums soft enough to shape without cracking before heating and hardening/blistering - though they can be somewhat pliable when hot, they are prone to crack.
Hot-water shortcrust can be made very shapeable and firm, yet well edible, if the fat ratio and baking time are well chosen - experimentation is advised. Even thickness is important, so do use a rolling pin: thinner sections will overbake, and overbaked HWS can easily turn molar breaking hard. Also, use caution making the fat-water mixture - this can unexpectedly go ballistic on you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.648229
| 2017-06-25T09:53:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82627",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ramen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58801",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82669
|
Added sugar instead of syrup to sorbet mixture
I made a sorbet at work and I was in such a rush. I'm still new to the making sorbet (it legit is one of the simplest things ever), but I had the biggest bonehead moment ever and put sugar in it instead of sugar syrup. Just so you know our recipe is:
700ml sugar syrup
700ml feijoa juice
100ml of feijoa vodka
But I did the great thing of putting straight sugar in the mix. Do you have any suggestions own how to resolve it or make it smooth or anything?
Everything is added into one container and now it sits in the freezer (unturned) waiting for some genius to give me the answer I need :)
Can you [edit] and reword your question to make it a bit clearer? What exactly is your question? And please write a more descriptive title
So.... did you add 700 ml of sugar? The problem would be that 700 ml of sugar syrup would have less sugar than that.
One problem is the amount of sugar, and to adjust for that the specifics of your sugar syrup would matter (how much water to how much sugar, and is that by weight or volume?)
From there, you could add enough additional juice, vodka and water to regain the proportions, and then it's a problem of dissolving the sugar (which is not being helped by being kept in the freezer while you figure out what to do.)
Running it in a blender or putting it in a mixer with a whisk are typical ways to deal with the dissolving problem, as is warming it up, though you may not want to simmer it as that will affect the vodka and possibly the flavor.
The simplest resolution might be to admit the error and ask your boss what they would like you to do - screw-ups happen, and it might be better to toss the ingredients (or pay for them and take them home to try your salvage operation on) than to try and save them and end up serving inferior product. Generally the cost of ingredients is a small fraction of the price of the product served, and serving a bad batch might have a long-lasting negative impact on anyone who got that batch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.648586
| 2017-06-27T11:45:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82669",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85802
|
How to prevent liquids from spilling when pouring from measuring cup?
One problem I've had that I know others have too is when pouring from those Pyrex glass measuring cups. I just saw it happen in the Binging with Babish video:
Is there any good way to prevent this? I've tried pouring fast and slow, but it always seems to get liquid coming from the sides, thus making a mess.
I found your discussion quite interesting, but flaggers complained (rightly)
that it is becoming long and difficult to follow, also distracting. For anybody interested in weighing rather than measuing by volume, please see the comments which have been moved to chat.
related explanation on the why on Phisics.SE
Answers in comments will be deleted. If you want to answer, please check the numerous answers already posted and see if your idea is already there, and if not, post an actual answer.
I consider this a design flaw. Who approved this design?!
Use a larger measuring cup so it is only partly full. Then the cup will be tilted more when the pour starts.
I like this a lot, simple and effective. It helps you pour faster and "commit" to the pour. Every additional degree of tilt increases the surface area of the liquid and hence the volume you're pouring. The same hand rotation results in a faster pour with a tilted cup.
Downside: takes more space in the dishwasher. Minor downside: measurement accurately is slightly lower.
@PeterCordes Probably no less accurate: you'd likely be replacing this rather squat jug with a taller one of about the same width.
@DavidRicherby By far the most common style of larger measuring cups for liquids, like the one pictured in the OP, has larger ones that are both wider and taller. (This lets you store them nested, so they take up way way less cabinet space than they would if they were all the same width.of) You really do lose accuracy as you move to larger sizes. There are a lot of variations of sizes, but for example: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/414Vc3zxSkL.SY463.jpg
It still spills even when I used a quart measuring cup!
The method that I always use is just to pour down whatever utensil I'm using at the moment (e.g. spoon, knife, rubber scraper, etc.). You just press the utensil into the pouring notch as you pour and the liquid will follow the utensil (bartenders will often use this "trick" when making cocktails).
I learned this from my 9th grade science teacher. We really didn't want to be spilling acids if we could help it :)
In chemistry, the pour spouts are usually a lot more reliable, so a lot of the point there is to avoid splatter: it flows more smoothly down the utensil into the liquid that's already in there, instead of just falling in and splashing. But that's definitely a benefit in the kitchen too!
This one weird trick will save your cocktail dress. Bartenders hate her.
There are two options I've found that work.
The easier one is, just controlling the flow. Make sure the front bottom edge of your measuring cup is also above the pan, and while it drips - it will drip into the pan. This can be tricky if the pan is only a little wider than the measuring cup itself, but it can often help once the dripping starts (since once the front is wet, there's a bit of pull that way via surface tension, and the liquid likes to keep following that path). Specifically, in that picture, the measuring cup can probably be moved two or three inches towards the far side of the pan without issue, and the drip is only one inch or so from being over the edge of the near side.
The trickier one is to pour more cleanly. Pouring fast helps - one sort of example is quickly dumping it into the pot, where there isn't time to drip and the sprout is very quickly lower then the bottom edge anyway... though that does mean you have less control over the flow. But, more than that, the trick is to never "let up" - that is, once it starts pouring, the angle should only get deeper, never shallower.
When the angle gets moved from deeper to more level, even a bit, the spout functionally swings backwards in relation to the pot, and the angle of the stream of liquid can easily sloshes back enough to touch the side. Once wet that side becomes a path of less resistance, and so it slides down instead of pours clean. It is really easy to do accidentally, a little rock backwards to slow the stream or gentle it as the pot gets fuller, or to look into the pot or away to something else, or just any means of getting distracted for a second.
As an aside, if it starts to spill down the side when pouring, either move the bottom over the pot, dump the liquid fast, or stop to clean and dry before pouring again - the wet side is easier to go down, so once it starts it won't pour cleanly till the side is dry again, despite most any techniques.
Well, actually, another possibility is to nudge the spout of the measuring cup over the side of the pot, actually touching the pot's side. As I mentioned, running down a side is easier than jumping off - so if the spout is touching the side of the pot, it will tend to run straight down that inside instead of trying to jump over the edge backwards to run down at a shallower angle.
Related: you can also often pour down a spoon/handle, so that surface tension pulls it that way.
If you blow up the photo, you can see that the milk's pouring over the rim where it is not part of the spout. She’s pouring too fast, not too slow.
@JDługosz - She is either pouring too fast or too slow, both options work - it is really the in-between speeds that fail the worst. Beanluc's answer, pouring slow, is good advice, it just doesn't work well for me and some spouts just aren't that good. Pouring quickly is also valid, the speed and techniques I use are the same techniques used when pouring from one pot to another (ie, it works even when there's no spout at all). The spout isn't controlling the liquid but providing a rough guide, which is why it's important to tilt fast so the side doesn't stay a straighter path down.
Those shortform cups are harder to use than the tallform of the same volume. You get larger waves moving across the surface that contribute to volume surges at the lip. Overload the lip, and liquid won't break cleanly at the lip bottom. It curves around and you get spillage.
A better designed measuring cup will make your pouring easier.
Very much this. Measuring cups are cheap enough to just get better designed one and not bother. Narrower, with pouring notch, and that's it.
Go slower and let the spout/pointy part of the lip do its job.
The reason spilling is happening in the picture is because the pourer is pouring faster than the spout part of the cup can handle.
The cup in the picture does have a pretty small spout, granted. To avoid spill, the pourer would have to go pretty slow with this cup.
The pointy part of the lip on a measuring cup like this WILL let out a flow of liquid dropping straight down into the receiving vessel without causing any of it to run down the outside of the cup you're pouring from, but only if the poured liquid is actually flowing through the spout and not flooding past the spout and pouring down the regular round edge of the measuring cup. If you pour more than the lip-shape can catch, then you're really not doing any different than pouring over the side or back of the cup where there is no spout/lip.
Short answer: If that's too slow for you, then you can switch measuring cups to one with a bigger, deeper, wider spout so that more fluid can flow through it in the short time you're willing to spend.
Isn't this exactly the opposite of what you should do? If you pour very slowly, then surface tension causes the pour to run 100% along the outside of the jug, whereas a very fast pour will have so much momentum that nothing will run down the outside. (And half of it will bounce out of the pan, which is a separate issue.)
Not if the lip is shaped correctly, @DavidRicherby. Properly designed spouts are shaped so that when liquid falls off the end of it, it can't stick to the outside of the container and flow UP to then run down the side. Instead it pours straight down, into the receiving vessel.
OK but this lip isn't shaped correctly, which is the whole problem.
The physics explanation is that surface tension causes the liquid to adhere to the glass, and you need sufficient force to break that adhesion. The pour spout on Pyrex measuring cups is the worst because it's rounded, providing a nice gentle slope for the liquid to dribble down.
There are two fixes for this;
One is to pour all the liquid out very quickly all at once.
Otherwise, if you have to pour slowly, use a cup that is twice as big as the amount you're measuring. This way the pour angle will be too steep for the liquid to dribble down the side.
An old grandmum's trick is to wipe a bit of butter on the underside (outside surface) of the spout. Because the butter is an oil it is hydrophobic (water beads up on hydrophobic surfaces instead of wetting them) so the water or milk's own surface tension will hold it together and discourage it from wetting and running down the glass surface.
This also works with stubborn teapots that never want to pour properly.
Warm the liquid prior to pouring. Warm/hot liquids are less viscous and are less likely to cling to the surface of the vessel while pouring. If warming the liquid is an option (hot water instead of cold, for example), it'll pour faster and more cleanly.
Also, pouring slowly while allowing for at least a perpendicular angle between the spout tip and the surface will prevent this overflowing effect which is often the case of using a shallow spout angle with a mostly full vessel. Vessels without spouts benefit from faster/all-in-one pouring motions.
Use a beaker! (:
Or a measuring cup with a good tip. Our (glass) Pyrex measuring cups have these.
They have "drip tips" that allow you to pour without worrying as much about spillage:
(from Wikipedia)
Edit: Oops, I didn't see that you have the same kind (probably; I can't see the spout in the picture). Pouring carefully (but not too slowly) helps.
Maybe stating the obvious, but if possible, have the bottom of the pitcher above the target as well so if anything runs down the side it still ends up in the target and not on the counter. Still makes a mess on the pitcher, but that is probably easier to clean up.
This reminds me of a situation where the problem was so bad I just ended up not pouring from the tip but rather only from the bottom of the pitcher. You look silly when you do that, but whatever works!
First of all, I wound up here because I have the exact pyrex measuring cups mentioned above, a 2 quart, and two smaller ones at 1 quart each. Only one of the smaller ones does this, so I'm inclined to say that it is a minor manufacturing defect.
I recommend buying a new one that may have a thinner spout (rather than a rounded one) if you use the cup to its full potential (like heating liquids in it)… However, since I have two, I may experiment with the one I hate, and carefully shave the spout with my dremel diamond blade in an attempt to eliminate the rounded lip at the end of the spout.
I warn against trying this at home, unless you're familiar with the dangers of sanding glass, breathing glass dust, and risks involved with etching tempered glass before baking with it.
With all the risks involved, I recommend just looking for a new one that has a less rounded lip instead. They do exist, and they don't cost much. Just keep an eye out, not all pyrex products are created exactly the same.
Pyrex has rounded edges, when you pour you get the coanda effect.
Put a knife against the pour spout, this creates a sharp edge and you won't spill.
Tilt the cup longitudinally so that you're pouring on a slant, not directly tilting the container toward the cup. This will simulate a pouring spout and allow the pour to proceed more cleanly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.648828
| 2017-11-21T21:14:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85802",
"authors": [
"A.N.",
"Beanluc",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"David Richerby",
"JDługosz",
"Megha",
"Michael",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"Mołot",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"Peter Cordes",
"chepner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"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
}
|
47386
|
What can be used as a substitute for potassium nitrate as a preservative?
I want to substitute another preservative for an Italian antipasto recipe. The original recipe calls for granulated potassium nitrate (saltpetre). I had a 16oz box, but it's empty now. What can I use instead?
Hello, and welcome to the site! Your question was rather hard to understand. I tried to reword it, but I'm not sure I could preserve your meaning. If you don't agree with the new version, you can edit it again.
I'm going to take a stab at the edit. Terrance, please do not hesitate to change it back if I'm wrong.
Nitrates and nitrites have very few practical substitutes. They work well as antimicrobial agents, have a not unpleasant taste, and are easy to work with. This is a surprisingly unique set of characteristics.
Using just salt as a preservative would work really well... as long as you are careful to keep the meat in a single piece, and are careful to cultivate the right bacteria. In the right conditions of temperature and humidity, these bacteria break down some of the meat into nitric oxide and, well, nitrates and nitrites.
Celery juice works really well.. except that it's high in nitrates that then break down into nitrites in the curing process. It's also hard to predict how much nitrites will be released into the final product.
If you are really worried about nitrates / nitrites, can safely omit them, but there are some important caveats. First, your antipasto will look... less cheerful. The hemoglobins in the meat will oxidize, and turn from red to grey without the nitrites. Nitrates and nitrites do create other flavors in meats besides just saltiness. You will also need to eat the antipasto fast- without the powers of preservatives, it'll spoil at the same rate as fresh meat. I would treat the final product as such, and would not leave it unrefrigerated for any amount of time
In short, without nitrates, you can make a delicious fresh sausage. Just please cook it, and don't call it a cured meat.
You cannot substitute preservatives in recipe. Food safety is very hard to get right, sometimes small changes can have a very large effect.
If your recipe specifies saltpetre, you have to use saltpetre. Any change to the recipe, or using a subsitute, means that the result has to be tested in a laboratory before it can be declared safe.
If you cannot find any place to purchase more saltpetre, you could choose another antipasto recipe from a trusted source, looking for one which uses a different preservation method, for example canning. Note that you cannot can the original recipe and assume that it will be safe - not all recipes are suitable for canning.
First of all - I second that emotion - don't substitute when it comes to preservatives - it's a critical issue of sanitation - don't substitute - don't substitute. Second, and maybe more importantly - 16 oz.? Good lord! I can only assume that your recipe must be massive to call for a pound of a preservative relative to the combined weights of the other ingredients. Depending on the scope of your recipe, do you know that the recipe you're looking at is from a reliable source?
@StephenEure Please take a look at the original question text. I couldn't understand it well enough to be sure that this amount refers to one batch of antipasti. It could also have meant that the OP just finished his 16 ounces box of saltpetre. But I didn't see why the number would be relevant then. Maybe you can make better sense of it? (If you click on the "edited 1 hour ago" link, you can see the complete edit history).
Wow - OK. Yeah...couldn't make any better sense of it. Thanks.
Preservatives traditionally have been
Salt,
Acid (vinegar, etc),
Salt Peter (Potassium Nitrate, KNo3, never look up how this stuff is produced)
Vegetetable preservation usually relies on first 2, but meat usually involves all 3 for a real long term storage solution. You can use the first 2 to cure pork belly, but it won't last as long as bacon.
The safest way I've been told by a canner is to salt and acidify your preserves but really a pasteurization phase is the best you can do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.649804
| 2014-09-24T18:17:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47386",
"authors": [
"Alan Webb",
"Barbara Alfonso",
"Danielle Heath",
"James Ramsay",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Augitto",
"Mark Boyd",
"Second passport",
"Star Sandoval",
"Stephen Eure",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"turquoise8910"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76588
|
re-freezing green tea?
I just bought green tea leaves in China. They were in a deep freezer when I bought them. They were then in my luggage for a few days on my way back home.
I bought a fair amount of them. Can I now re-freeze at home? Or, like food, is it dangerous to re-freeze green tea leaves?
You can definitely refreeze it. Green tea, especially fresh ones, should be kept frozen to preserve the flavour and aroma. Most people don't do this though. It's completely fine to refreeze it after they're unfrozen, especially since you didn't open them, so no humidity has entered. Do make sure it's well sealed when you refreeze.
Also consider splitting the tea in different smaller bags. Every time you take the bag out of the freezer and open, it will loose some freshness. Repacking the tea in smaller bags allows you to enjoy the tea for longer.
The concern with food is that if the food spends too much time above the danger temperature (40°F) then bacteria may grow, and if you then freeze it the bacteria will be there waiting to harm the final consumer. However, the USDA says that food thawed in a refrigerator for less than a few days can be safely refrozen.
Assuming these leaves are dry, this doesn't apply here: things won't grow on the tea while it's warm, and freezing won't lock in anything dangerous. So, freeze away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.650151
| 2016-12-18T11:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76588",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76802
|
Half butter half shortening in overnight potato rolls?
I am making overnight potato rolls and have always used 2/3 cup of shortening. I was thinking that half butter half shortening might make my rolls even better. Will this idea help or hinder a yeast dough potato roll?
I removed your signature, just because we don't do that here.We are different from other internet sites, so I encourage you to take a look at our tour and help center. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
That should be fine. Potato and butter is a pretty solid flavor pairing! :) Know that butter contains some water (~15%) so you may want to adjust your liquid ingredients accordingly. That amount of butter contains about a teaspoon of water, so not enough to really worry about, but be aware. Use unsalted room temperature butter, and come back and tell us how it went!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.650295
| 2016-12-24T16:43:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76802",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"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
}
|
22377
|
Bread - Liquid proportion in french toast
Torrijas are a Spanish version of French toast (as seen in Kramer vs Kramer). Very popular here during easter.
The trick is to get the torrijas very moist without the bread falling apart. If they stay too dry, it's not very nice.
I've seen a recipe with 750g bread and 1l milk.
I'd like to know what variables influence the perfect french toast, and what proportion of bread vs milk is best. My guess is that the bread type plays a role in the quantity of milk. Or maybe it's a matter of trial and error.
I'll try this answer next time around.
French toast always seemed more about eggs than milk, in my mind.
As Adele's comment suggests, it's really milk+eggs that matters (along with any other significant liquids in your recipe), not just milk.
The type of bread might have some effect: denser breads might not have as much room to take up liquid. But most people use some sort of reasonably light bread, so it can get a good amount of the custard in it - that's kind of the point. Nothing too open, like ciabatta, but also nothing too dense. So really, the amount of liquid is just the amount of free space in the bread, and that doesn't vary that much from bread to bread. If you're asking this in the context of looking at recipes, and the recipes in question specify a number of slices, the size of your loaf of bread and thickness of slices will far and away be the biggest factor.
What does have a bigger effect is how full the bread gets. A lot of people make it by dipping a slice of bread in the liquid mixture for a few seconds on each side, enough to soak up a decent amount of liquid, right before frying in a pan. This might not be long enough to really let it soak in, so it'll use less liquid. But I'll go out on a limb and say most people like it if the custard is thoroughly soaked into the bread. The answer you linked to is a great way to do that. You can also make it by soaking the bread for a longer period in the fridge (an hour to overnight). It'll have time to take up a bit more liquid that way. (You can then fry it as normal, or bake it to get something similar to bread pudding, except in slices.) Either way, the important thing is that the bread pretty much gets saturated.
So as long as you're really letting it soak in, there aren't really a lot of variables: the bread will get full of the custard mixture. If it's critical to plan ahead and get quantities exactly right, find a recipe you really trust. Otherwise, just wing it - if you're dipping the bread in, just mix up a batch, keep going until you run out of liquid, and if you want more, mix up a bit more. You can call this trial and error if you like, but honestly, it's what I do every time. It'll come out well if you let the bread soak up enough.
I have a very nice recipe for torrijas (the best I've ever had), but it doesn't specify the quantity of bread, other than slices. It lets the bread soak for about a quarter of an hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.650388
| 2012-03-18T23:12:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22377",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"BaffledCook",
"K Hollywood",
"Spammer",
"alexanoid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17755
|
What's in a 'Paella'?
Answering this question, I made an ass of myself claiming that
Onions are not used in a real Paella.
Tomatoes neither.
Paprika / Pimentón neither as this will overpower the saffron flavor.
I've seen loads of recipes with all of these ingredients in some way or other (and I posted a recipe with all of these ingredients :-( ).
As I understand it, onions are not used because the will 'pass' the rice. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but I've never eaten a paella with onions. Not that I usually eat paella.
The tomatoes and pimentón will impart too much flavor so it will overpower the saffron taste (by far the most expensive spice on earth). Food coloring can be used to make the paella 'saffron' yellow.
The question is, what defines a real paella? One definition of paella is the 'pan' or 'skillet' itself, meaning that whatever rice dish you make in it can be called paella, but I'd rather have a more 'traditional' view as to what ingredients can or cannot/should or shouldn't be used.
Onions (yes or no)
Tomato (yes or no)
Paprika (no :-)
Saffron (yes)
What does it mean to "pass" rice (other than handing it to someone)?
@baka, when it goes past its proper point of cooking, it becomes mushy.
What do you mean by a "real" paella? One that you'd likely find in Valencia today? One that you would have found in Valencia ~200 years ago? Paella-like rice casseroles (of Moorish origin) have existed in Spain for over 600 years, well before before the tomato was introduced from the Americas. Would they count?
no true scotsman
@ESultanik, I did say I was making an ass of myself...
@BaffledCook I wanted to make sure I was making the correct assumptions before submitting an answer, because we all know that when we assume it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me"! ;-)
@ESultanik, in that case... all of the above. Let me see how you answer that!
Penelope Casas' The Foods and Wines of Spain explains that
Paella is a word that has come worldwide to mean a Spanish rice dish with a variety of seafood and usually some chicken. However, the word originally referred only to the pan in which the food was cooked--the paella or paellera, from the Latin word for pan, patella. Paellas actually come in endless varieties, depending on the chef and on regional specialties.
She emphasizes the technique more than traditional ingredients (which she notes that no two Spaniards will agree on), but includes recipes for a number of different rice dishes from many regions, all prepared in basically the same manner.
Interestingly, her Paella a la Valenciana (Tradicional) actually doesn't call for saffron (it does call for paprika). The meats are snails and rabbit, and she does call for an onion, but it's only used to steep for a while in the broth, and later discarded. She includes a single tomato which is cooked down with green peppers and garlic. Most of her other paella recipes include onion in this step, but it is notably absent from this recipe. She also calls for lima beans and "wide, flat string beans", and serve the dish with scallions on the side.
Traditionally paella is a poor man's food, so what went in depended on what you had. If the only meat you had was snails, you made your paella with snails. So you'll find some people today insisting that to be truly authentic, paella valenciana should have snails.
The "anything goes" mentality still persists to some extent: it's not easy to find two Valencians who agree 100% on the recipe. And in addition to valenciana you have paella de mariscos, de verduras, and mixta (and should arròs negre count?) On that basis the defining aspects would be the type of rice and the technique: a flat pan and a long cooking time to extract flavour from the ingredients before the rice goes in.
Pretty much exactly like trying to define what goes on a 'real' pizza.
The classic Valencia Paella does NOT have onion, though many modern versions do have, especially in the seafood varieties
Classic paella does have a lonely tomato (diced or crushed, mainly for colour), paprika, saffron, green beans, chicken and rabbit, red wine, and a long siesta. Also common to have some Lima beans (garrofon), broad beans, and Artichokes
Proportions for 4 serves is:
400 g rice
400 g meat
4 tsp olive oil
200 g green beans
100 g lima beans
1 tsp paprika
safron (pinch)
1 tomato
2.5 times volume of rice as stock or water
bottle of red wine
Modern Paella can pretty much have anything, lamb, asparagus, potato etc.
red wine? the only red wine in my paellas comes in a porró at the side
@PA. Exactly, red wine is for the cook to consume while waiting to Paella to cook
that reminds me of the famous Irish Whiskey Turkey recipe
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878450X21001293#!
Results
Nine ingredients were used by more than 90% of the participants and the tenth, rabbit, was used by 88.9% of them (Table 2). It is worth highlighting the fact that these ten ingredients are used much more frequently than the next most frequently used (paprika: 62.5%) (see Table 4).
I don't have proper academic credentials to read more. But googling to find news/articles that report the contents, e.g. this one
Pablo and his team of researchers visited 266 villages in Valencia and spoke to 400 cooks over the age of 50. There was, surprisingly, a lot of agreement. Nine ingredients were used by more than 90 percent of the cooks surveyed: water, rice, olive oil, salt, chicken, garrofo beans (which are similar to a butter bean), ferradura beans (flat beans that are a specialty of Valencia), tomato, and saffron.
So tomato is OK. I'd like to read the full results to know how many people put onions in.
wikipaella.org maintains a similar list of ingredients, done by surveying restaurants in Valencia and wider Spain.
https://wikipaella.org/en/ingredients/
Olive Oil
Water
Rice
Saffron
Rabbit
Butter Beans (Garrofó)
Flat green beans (Judía Ferradura)
Chicken
Salt
Tomato
Paprika (82%)
Snails (62%)
Rosemary (48%)
Garlic (48%)
Duck (42%)
Tavella Beans (15%)
Artichoke (14%)
Pork Rinds (7%)
Onions don't even make the list!
9 times out of 10 in Valencia it's snails, chicken and rabbit. This is with a white bean, something like a butter bean and sliced green beans. The meat, garlic and paprika are cooked with water to form a broth. Cook till broth reduces slightly, add rice (bomba is best)pinch of saffron and veg, stir once, no more. When rice is nearly done, remove from heat. Some chefs take off a small amount of the broth at this point, to assure the slightly dry consistency, which can be used to adjust before service, this seems a bit of a cheat to me. Cover with a towel and rest, allowing rice to finish.
The addition of a tomato seems hotly contested in Valencia. I'd go on whim.
Something that seems wrong is chicken stock
90% seems a bit high for inclusion of snails. I think that at most 50% of the restaurants where I've eaten paella in Valencia included them, and I've never seen them in the supermarkets or in the kits for contests or community paella cooking events.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.650680
| 2011-09-15T11:06:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17755",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Benjol",
"ESultanik",
"PA.",
"Peter Taylor",
"Shayna Munson Powell",
"TFD",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"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
}
|
16031
|
Fresh mussels, or are they?
I bought and cooked these mussels today. I'd like to know if there is anything wrong with the left hand mussel. Is the color, size an indicator for freshness? I'm guessing it was 'captured' (OK, collected) longer ago than the one on the right.
A couple of weeks ago I bought a batch that came out like the one on the right.
Captured longer ago or not, should not make a difference. When you buy mussels, they are still alive. You can check this by trying to open one. Normally, this isn't an easy task. (Sometimes, their shells can open/close when opening the package in which they came in.)
The left hand mussel doesn't look tasty, but there really is nothing wrong with it. It's just a smaller size mussel. If you buy bigger mussels (e.g. Jumbo), you shouldn't have many of those in it.
As for the colour: a lot of people think this is a matter of sex. Males are white, females are orange. However, this isn't true. The difference in colour is a genetic one, it's the quantity of pigment a specific mussel has. The difference in colour doesn't make a difference in taste or texture.
Shortly: that mussel on the left hand side is okay to eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.651349
| 2011-07-08T17:55:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16031",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Kevin Kheroux",
"MrDobilina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34125"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32944
|
Flour in the roux
There are a great many questions here about roux. This is about the best ratio of
flour to butter (fat), and also whether the type of flour (protein content) affects this ratio.
Let me explain. Roux is a thickening agent. The less you have to use, the less fat you ingest. I've seen recipes ranging from 1:1 flour to butter to 1,6:1 flour to butter. That is 60% more flour than butter!
I'm also wondering if the type of flour affects the efficiency of the roux. More proteins (gluten) means higher thickening power (or not), or does it not have any effect?
I've read that heating the roux until it's darker than golden brown will reduce it's thickening power. Is that true?
This is close to a duplicate of your own question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9300/minimum-amount-of-fat-in-roux Didn't notice this until after I wrote an answer.
Note that flour doesn't actually contain gluten, it contains glutenins and gliadins which develop gluten in the presence of water and heat. This is important because I doubt that a roux actually has enough time to really develop any gluten. Starch thickens, gluten creates elasticity.
According to On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee, roux functions as a thickener due the starches in the flour swelling up and interfering with the flow of water.
In fact, he indicates that technique can be used with any starch and any fat.
This implies that a lower-protein flour (which implies higher starch, weight per weight) like soft summer wheat, or a cake flour will make a more effective roux.
As an aside: roux can be made with oil instead of butter. As we know oil contains no water, and gluten only forms in the presence of water, we know that roux functions without gluten, as there can be no gluten development in an oil-based roux.
McGee explains that cooking the roux initially increases its thickening power by cross-connecting some of the starches. However, as browning occurs, the maillard reactions are transforming starches and proteins into other molecules, and reducing the ability of the roux to thicken.
So yes, it is true that the darker the roux, the less thickening power it has.
In New Orleans style gumbos, for example, the roux is so dark (almost a mahogony color) that it adds no thickening power at all to the stew—it is there for the flavor. The thickening in that dish comes from (depending on the tradition followed) either file powder or ochra, or both (not considered traditional).
I was not able to determine an ideal ratio of flour to fat. McGee indicates that a 1:1 ratio is traditional. However, if that fat is butter, about 20% of it is water, so that really does leave more flour than fat after the water evaporates. In any case, as long as there is sufficient fat for the roux to be cooked smoothly, it will work fine. Additionally, the fat in the roux is also indirectly an ingredient in the finished dish, so it might be desirable in its own right, depending on the outcome.
what about the use of high protein flour? does that make a difference?
Since flour is pretty much protein and starch, the more protein, the less starch. Starch is the active thickener in roux, so it will have slightly less thickening power. I would still use it if it is all that is on hand--the difference between low and high protein flour is a couple of percentage points. This is in the noise for most recipes, since we are not doing industrial quantities at home.
Great answer SAJ14SAJ, thanks. I'm making quite a lot of roux for croquettes (mostly) and I'm using bakers-flour. Now I can switch to all-purpose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.651478
| 2013-03-23T17:23:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32944",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Audrey Cousar",
"BaffledCook",
"Dementedpenguin",
"Lichoness Gaming",
"Linda",
"Nutrition Revolution",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76200",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33296
|
Why should you scrub/clean cast iron cookware with salt?
I've seen this a number of times (for example here, or here at cooking.SE), and I do it at home, but I'd like to know for what reason salt is good for cleaning (cast) iron cookware.
I know it's a stop-gap measure when a non-stick pan looses it's coating (I can't find the reference).
salt is a good cheap abrasive
Does this answer your question? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32802/why-are-standard-cast-iron-maintenance-practices-compatible-with-food-safety (It should if you're just asking about food safety.)
@Jefromi, thanks for the link, but it's about science, not safety.
But... the "science" is about cleaning it (so that it's safe) without damaging it.
@Brendan It's really best to take the time to write an actual answer, rather than leaving one as a comment.
The purpose for cleaning with salt is that it is an abrasive, and helps remove anything sticking to the pan, without being harsh enough to remove the seasoning.
Its not a stop-gap measure for poor seasoning; it is intended to preserve the seasoning. The main issue is avoiding soaps and detergents which would tend to remove the seasoning that makes cast iron fairly non-stick.
Stop-gap for non-stick pans, not seasoned cast iron ones.
There is no benefit that I know of for non-stick pans, even if damaged.
Someone claimed you should heat the non-stick with salt before each use after the coating becomes less effective. I can't find the reference, so... :-(
:-) Here's a Q&A
Its nonsense. Water doesn't wet PTFE. You actually want to minimize abrasion on the non-stick coating because once it is gone, the benefit to the pan is essentially gone. And the Q&A assertion is nonsense as well, as the answer indicated.
But the Q&A is about cast iron, again...
Baffled, I cannot keep up on what aspect of what you are asking about. But all aspects of that Q&A are nonsense, for cast iron or any other type of pan.
@SAJ14SAJ I can understand Baffled's confusion. The question, your answer, and the Q&A are all about cast iron, but your comment above is about PTFE-coated non-stick pans. Is it established that a seasoned cast iron pan does not retain some level of moisture that salt could remove? If so, I haven't seen the proof, or even the reasoning. Maybe you should add an answer to that question.
@CareyGregory Nonstick is mentioned in the original question, and again implied "coating" in the comments before I brought it up. And I feel no more need to respond to the silly Q&A question than I would to demonstrate that bubblegum is not an effective cleaner. There just is no plausible merit to the question to even address. You will notice the overall consensus of comments and answers supports the viewpoint that the salt promoting nonstick thing is nonsensical, when it is immediately removed from the pan.
I think the question should have been more about the coating than about the cleaning. As in: Does the salt affect the coating positively? If an edit occurs to you to make the Q&A less silly, I'd welcome it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.651815
| 2013-04-07T15:52:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33296",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Brendan",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"CountZero",
"Frank Gerstmann",
"Halis S.",
"Jehof",
"Matt",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77176"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32355
|
Re-boiling of tea?
I used to keep tea in thermos container after preparing. But i want to know how to keep it hot when serving within 5-10 minutes.
When I reboil it as-is, then it becomes tasteless: it's like drinking boiled sweet-bitter water not a cup of tea.
When I reboil it after adding some more milk to it, still i didn't tasted good enough (the flavor lost its strength)
When I added hot milk to it before reboiling it did not come to the desired results
No matter how I reheat it, what I get is a waste and it doesn't taste good. If I am only serving after 5-10 minutes,it seems unnecessary to use a thermos. What measures i can take while boiling again, if I want a rich and full cup of tea? Should i use thermos? Or am I missing some other method?
Your second and third bullet point state exactly the same. Did you mean that you tried adding milk before and after boiling?
@Mien its not tha same, in first i simply added milk(room temperature) and then reheated. While in second i added hot boiled milk to the tea before reheating.
Much of the flavor and aroma of tea comes from volatile oils/compounds.
The heat applied to tea leaves while steeping them is key to releasing those volatile compounds but when you reboil the tea, a large portion the flavor compounds in the water are likely just going to be vaporized. The end result is the reheated tea will have very little 'tea' flavor left. The tannins however are less volatile and remain in the re-heated tea hence the bitterness.
A pre-warmed ceramic teapot would probably due the trick for keeping your tea warm for 5-10 minutes.
+1 for your help. Answer is good enough regarding the taste of tea, the trick you shared of pre-warmed ceramic pot didn't worked out.
@SunishthaSingh As requested in http:/a/32421/14401: Although I am not a tea drinker... my best guess is that this answer--to pre-warm a ceramic pot--so that the tea loses the least heat possible is your best approach. Liquid in contact with a large surface (like tea in a teapot) will transfer heat fairly quickly due to convection in the liquid and the large surface area to do it. Also, note that that physics here favors large batches--they will cool more slowly. So make a larger pot of tea, not just one or two cups. As a non-tea drinker, I cannot speak to the flavor issues.
Also: use a tea cozy. Its like a blanket for your teapot :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_cosy
Cast-iron teacups hold heat for quite some time. Similarly, a cast-iron teakettle can have the leaves removed and still keep the tea hot. I always use a cast-iron pot when I'm making multiple cups to drink in sequence.
do you use to keep lid on while preparing in multiple cups to drink in sequence to regulate the vaporization of its volatile compounds and flavor as mentioned by Glenn Stevens
@SunishthaSingh I'm not sure I understood your comment correctly but yes, I keep the lid on the pot, it holds in more heat that way.
does it affects to the taste of tea?
@SunishthaSingh Not significantly in my opinion. Certainly nowhere near as much as reheating
ty for your help, m going to try it out. :)
You could use a tea cosy for your teapot. Put the tea cosy on the teapot as soon as you're water is boiling, and it will keep the tea warm for the next 10-15 minutes.
It won't be boiling, but it doesn't need to be.
Is there a particular reason you do not want to use a Thermos? I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but steeping one cup at a time with water warmed in an electric kettle could solve the problem.
If you'd rather steep one kettle at a time instead of per-cup, steep in a thick ceramic teapot other vessel that is more likely to hold the heat over time.
Adding milk will always cool your tea.
I use one of these guys to make a single cup of hot tea and let it steep just as long as I'd like depending on the leaf at hand: http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/96bb/
what i follow before reheating is either adding milk, then reheating tea or adding hot milk then reheating. This process is also changed the taste of tea and its flavor affected by it.
i don't want to use thermos just for a single cup of tea that's it nothing else. And that too for 5-10 mins.
This cute problem is centuries old.
Put your teapot on top of a simmering kettle on the stove. The steams from the kettle keep it at the perfect temperture and steep it properly.
how to manage temperature and taste perfectly balanced that is for what i am seeking here, i know the problem is centuries old. But i am a newbie in tea making.
@SunishthaSingh for taste, use quality tea leaves. Many tea bags are essentially tea dust. For temperature, use the method above. Each tea blend will need its own timing (5-15mins) which will be determined by how you like it.
i m using taj mahal tea hope you have heard
i know tea quality is good enough.
You should try to make up your tea and keep the tea bag / herbs (or whatever you used to make it) in the thermos and reboil it with all the ingredient and just filter for serving. I have never tried but it MAY work, i will be curious if it works or not
Traditionally people would make very strong tea, which would go cool or even cold, and add hot or boiling water to thin it down to drinking strength and heat it up at the same time.
The (Russian) Samovar was used in this tradition, in England they had a small teapot and a much bigger hot water 'pot'.
It does not bring your drink to boiling heat but that is right as nobody can drink boiling tea, and many people even suggest to use water that is no longer boiling (or even never came to the boil) to get the most out of your tea.
If you do not want to go to that method, the best way to use a good thermos is to pre-heat is with hot water, then replace that with boiling water for a few minutes, then poor poor out the boiling water (which is no longer really boiling) and replace it with tea without allowing the thermos to cool at all.
Depending on the quality of the thermos it should keep hot enough for you for a few hours. If yours does not keep hot enough for at least an hour, you should replace it as it is faulty.
You can improve the time a thermos keeps hot by adding an extra layer, like keeping it in a thick layer of towels or in a sleeping bag, making sure that the 'open' end is well covered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.652114
| 2013-03-02T20:06:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32355",
"authors": [
"MandoMando",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"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
}
|
30576
|
at what temperature should apple-choco pie be prepared?
I have done this in the past but didn't really get the pie to turn out like I expect. I am wondering if I am not cooking it at the correct temperature since all the other aspects of the apple-choco pie recipe have been followed.
Here is the recipe:
ingredients
For the chocolate pastry:
3/4 cup plain wheat flour (maida)
3 tbsp cocoa powder
5 tbsp powdered sugar
4 tbsp butter/ghee
For the filling:
2 apples chopped in small pieces
2 tbsp brown sugar
2 tbsp chopped nuts (walnut, cashew)
Make the pastry:
mix all the ingredients in a bowl and add the butter into the flour, till it resembles bread crumbs. Add 1 tablespoon of cold water to gently knead it into a firm dough. Refrigerate for 15 minutes. Roll out 2/3 of the dough into a circle. Prick with fork at regular intervals and refrigerate for 10 minutes. Bake it in a pre-heated oven at 300°F for 15 minutes.
Make the filling:
mix the apple(chopped), sugar, walnuts & keep aside.
Place the filling on the half baked chocolate pastry and sprinkle the sugar mixture on top. Cover with the remaining rolled out chocolate pastry and seal the edges. Prick the top of the pie with a fork at regular intervals. Bake in a pre-heated oven at 300°F until
golden brown.
But it still didn't have the taste I wanted. In fact, it wasn't baked properly. What mistakes were there that resulted in the base of the pie being sticky?
What other fruit can I use instead of apples, other than dry fruits? Which tastes better than apples?
Do you have a recipe that you followed, perhaps? It would be much easier to gauge how long and at what temperature this should be cooked if we know what's in it.
this seems like more of a my recipe didn't work please help problem rather than a distinct question separate from say a question regarding baking temperatures for pie. If there is something specific to this type of pie or how it is produced please list that so we can help clarify the question.
Unanswerable as-is, but feel free to edit this with a recipe and an explanation of what went wrong and we'll reopen it.
Thanks for providing the recipe. I don't think anyone is going to be able to tell you what to do about the apples tasting bad ("yukks"), but I think we can at least help with the issue of it not getting baked properly. (@Aaronut Looks okay to go ahead and reopen now I think, even though it's not perfect.)
@Sunishtha Singh - If you have a second question, you should really post a second question rather than adding it here. You should also be more specific about why you want a substitution for the apples; "tastes better" is very subjective.
FWIW - I think that apples + chocolate is a weird flavor combination, but your pastry recipe doesn't actually have much chocolate in it.
Are you using butter or ghee? They're really quite different; ghee has less water and milk solids than butter. Using one or the other would make a big difference in your pie crust's texture.
@KatieK i used both,2 tbsp ghee+2 tbsp white butter.what differences will be there in pie crust's texture
@SunishthaSingh - The effect of different fats on pie crusts could be a whole question, especially considering (plain yellow) butter vs. ghee vs. white butter. I'd expect a ghee-based crust to be flatter and denser than one made with butter. In your case, I'd find out which fat the recipe-writer uses, and then use only that.
We can only guess at the cause of your quality problems with the bottom crust.
If it is due to excess moisture from the filling seeping into the crust, there are two main approaches you might take.
Par-heat the apples (as recommended by Kenji Alt) after they are cut up, but prior to baking. This will help set the pectin and cause them to loose less moisture into the pie as it is baked. You can do this in the microwave, or by pouring hot water over them. See the link for details.
Create a barrier layer between the bottom crust and the filling with a complimentary ingredient moisture will not (quickly) penetrate.
Protecting bottom crust with a barrier
I would suggest using a thin layer of semi-sweet or bitter-sweet chocolate. Complimentary thick preserves, such as apple or peach may also work:
Blind-bake the crust as directed (bake it without a filling). Edit: It is strange that your recipe does not say to dock the crust before blind baking, nor to use pie weights, or rice, or something to keep it from bubbling up and buckling.
Spread melted chocolate (or preserves) in the shell.
Pour the filling on top, being careful not to disturb the barrier layer too much.
Bake as normal.
Quality of Recipe
The recipe has a number of strange aspects, as Jefromi and I have both noted in our answers such as a low temperature, time/temperature ratio for the apples, not specifying type of apples, in addition to poor blind baking instructions.
You might be better off searching for a better quality recipe that tickles your fancy.
Adding a barrier is a decent idea, though usually a fully pre-baked crust doesn't suffer too badly from a short baking time, especially with minimal liquid.
@Jefromi Agreed. The recipe is very, very strange.
as i baked first tym with help of my frnd n so recipe given by her.i don noe what went wrong while baking & why ,but when i ate @ her place i felt quite gud.
I agree, this recipe seems to be missing some key pointers on how to execute it properly. I imagine this is one of those situations where your friend is making a lot of assumptions about your knowledge in the kitchen or isn't thinking through her process and documenting it for you properly.
@Brendan can you provide that missing procedure for this apple pie recipie
I would go with a different recipe such as this one here http://www.kayotic.nl/blog/chocolate-apple-pie which you can then adapt to your own tastes.
The pre-baking of the pastry is missing a "how to tell when it's done" instruction. My guess is there's a good chance you didn't bake it long enough. In general, when pre-baking plain pie crusts, you're aiming for golden brown. It's a bit harder to tell when it's got the brown from the chocolate in it, but if you look closely you should still be able to see the change in color. It should also just look cooked - a bit of texture develops on the surface and it appears to have dried out. As SAJ14SAJ suggests, you also normally pre-bake crusts with weights in them to keep them from bubbling too much. (This is also why you poke holes.) A common method is to cover with a piece of foil, then fill with dry beans.
As for temperature, in my experience, pie crusts are generally pre-baked at 350°F. But the important thing is to check and know when it's done.
Now, baking the filled pie. This is the weird thing - usually apple pies don't use pre-baked crusts, because it takes more like an hour to fully cook the apples til they're soft. Maybe you didn't like the apples because they were still crunchy and a bit raw, and the flavor hadn't smoothed out with the nuts and sugar? If that's the case, you may want to skip pre-baking the crust, and instead fill and cover the pie and bake it all together, for 45 minutes to an hour. If the crust browns too much, you can loosely cover it with foil.
If on the other hand, you like the apples like that, or the quantity of apples is sufficiently small that they're actually cooking fully, then sure, stick to the recipe. (You could increase the temperature to 350°F here too, but that'll mean the crust is done when the apples are even less done.) If you've properly pre-baked the crust, you shouldn't have problems with the bottom of the pie being undercooked.
I wondered about the cooking through of the apples too... but there is such a small volume of filling in this pie. My guess is it might be thinner and cook more quickly with less depth to penetrate, but hard to tell. Certainly worth considering. I agree on the temperature seeming quite low. The blind bake without instructions to dock, and to use something to keep it from buckling is also odd.
@SAJ14SAJ Right, I totally missed that it didn't include the normal blind baking technique. I'm not sure about the apples cooking fully, though - it'll be faster with less, but it also just takes time for them to slowly soften at that temperature.
I agree on the time/temperature conundrum. With the number of strange things in this recipe, I have to wonder if it is a tested recipe--the OP may be better off finding a quality recipe he or she likes.
+1 for thinking of different possible causes; I think between the two answers most of the likely candidates are covered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.652645
| 2013-01-31T19:25:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30576",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AmagicalFishy",
"BILL A",
"Beth Shearon",
"Brendan",
"Carol Ward",
"Cascabel",
"Corporal Oddball",
"Donny Kurnia",
"Janette Colthart",
"Joanne Mancina",
"KatieK",
"Kurren",
"Marie Everett",
"Nate Borts",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Taina Lande",
"colejkeene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71879",
"kodahScripts",
"user71468",
"user71469",
"user71565"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126382
|
Can Michelin Star Amuse Bouche recipes be adapted to cater to dietary restrictions
Can Michelin Star Amuse Bouche recipes be adapted to cater to dietary restrictions, such as gluten-free or vegan options?
The FAQ section from the link you provided answers your question for the most part. Although it only mentions vegetarian options, rather than vegan. But in short, the answer is yes. If you're after advice on how to adapt said recipes, or suggestions for ingredients, then that is a different question.
And the answer to Q5 specifically says that chefs make gluten free and dairy free.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.653679
| 2024-01-16T01:05:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126382",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122755
|
Pumpkin Bread - using Splenda instead of sugar
I have used this recipe with sugar and it's wonderful. When using Splenda the batter was too thick and I can taste the baking soda, which was a fresh box. I was also a half ounce short of pumkin. Any ideas how to alter it to use Splenda in the future?
3 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3 cups sugar
4 large eggs
2 teaspoons baking soda
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
2 1/2 teaspoons cardamom
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
15 oz pumpkin purée
3/4 cup vegetable oil
2/3 cup water
Splenda makes 1 for 1 sweeteners for baking.
Can be used for baking and cooking. It measures and pours just 1-to-1 like sugar. 1 cup of Splenda Original Granulated Sweetener is equal in sweetness to 1 cup of sugar.
In high sugar recipes, they recommend mixing with sugar:
In recipes where the amount of sugar is quite high, sugar often contributes significantly to the structure and texture. So, for frosting, candy, fudge, caramel, pecan pies, angel food or pound cake, you’ll get the best results when you only replace about 25% of the sugar required with Splenda Original Granulated Sweetener instead of a full sugar replacement.
I buy the Splenda product, but I’m not directly or indirectly connect in any way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.653758
| 2022-12-23T02:52:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122755",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66334
|
Is the mixing order important when substituting white sugar + molasses for brown sugar?
I bake cookies at a relatively large scale (16 qt batches) My recipe calls for both white & light brown sugars. In an effort to make production more efficient I would like to substitute the brown sugar with a combination of cane sugar and molasses.
My question is this: Must we premix the cane sugar with the molasses? Or may we just add the cane sugar and molasses into the mixer at the "creaming" stage? Or add the cane sugar at the creaming stage and the molasses in with the eggs? What would be the anticipated outcome of each scenario?
I am aware of the hydroscopic properties inherent in the brown sugar, but somewhat confounded by the question of whether separating the molasses from the cane sugar, then reuniting them in the dough, would impact this.
Does the recipe call for creaming the sugars with butter?
Yes. The recipe also calls for molasses (in addition to the existing molasses in the brown sugar) to be added along with the eggs after the sugars have been creamed with the butters.
As you probably know, the creaming step is important.
Sugar crystals cut up the fat and make a lot of air pockets.
If liquid is added early then the sugars dissolve and creaming doesn't happen.
If there is too little sugar it is less effective.
If there is too much sugar the fat is reduced to a crumbly mass and is not fluffy.
Your recipe calls for a certain amount of white and brown sugar to be creamed and then more molasses to be added with the wet ingredients.
The safest method would be to thoroughly mix your white sugar and the white sugar + molasses to approximate the original recipe and then cream- adding the additional molasses later. Beyond this substitution you are creating your own recipe and it will require some experimentation.
Try adding all the molasses in the initial mix and see if that doesn't dissolve your sugar too much.
Try leaving all the molasses until after creaming.
In both cases- the creaming is successful if the butter is creamy and fluffy. Not a batter and not crumbly sugar.
Obviously I would do these experiments on a smaller portion and not risk a huge batch.
I doubt anyone could tell you exactly how this will turn out without experimenting. I've never seen a table that lists the water concentrations at which creaming is effective.
Thank you very much for providing this detailed response to my question. It is kind of you to have taken the time to do so.
I made a dark treacle cake recently and it also calls for brown sugar and additional treacle. And instinct is telling me creaming the plain white sugar with butter before going on to mix in the molasses (amount required to convert white to brown sugar, as well as the extra the recipe calls for) along with the other liquids would work for your recipe like it did my dark treacle cake.
Hello Tharounadamu and welcome. I have edited your post pretty heavily for the purpose of making it more in line with the question. (You are always free to roll it back.) Please understand that we are a strict Q & A site, not a discussion forum. As a new user, we invite you to visit our Tour and Help pages. They can both be found under the 'help' dropdown at the top of the page.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.653895
| 2016-02-08T20:30:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66334",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Cocine Plotner",
"Dot",
"Elaine Blue",
"Helen Nicholson",
"J Day",
"Rosanne Raso",
"Sandra Villalonga",
"Wayne Carol Grabowski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43246"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64852
|
Is plastic saying "dishwasher safe" safe on both shelfs or only on the top shelf?
I have some new plastic "Thermos" brand drink ware that says "Dishwasher Safe". If it doesn't Say "Top Rack Only", can I put on the bottom if the top rack is full? I generally wash all plastic up top, but when space is gone, I would like to utilize the bottom.
Any thoughts?
For anybody answering: we already have a question explaining the difference between top and bottom shelf, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34414/. Please only stick to the "is this item safe on the bottom shelf" part here. You can answer the other question if you want to discuss the theoretical difference.
The reason some products are marked "Top Rack Only", is because many dishwashers have the heating element situated at the bottom of the interior, in close proximity to the bottom rack. It looks and acts much like the heating element in an electric oven.
Typically, this heater comes on during the final rinse cycle, to boost the water temperature. It also comes on during the dry cycle, to "bake" the dishes dry. Items placed on the bottom rack will therefore be exposed to a more intense heat than on the top rack, so things made of plastic can melt or deform.
Your dishwasher likely has options for "temperature boost" and "heated dry". If you turn both off, the heating element will probably not come on. Alternatively, try to place your container in the center of the bottom rack, in such a way that it's as far as possible from the heating element. If you use heated dry, take it out before that cycle begins, and/or check on it during the dry cycle
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.654219
| 2015-12-27T19:33:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64852",
"authors": [
"Bernadette Salamat",
"Hattie Cleaves",
"Nancy Cox",
"Tim Nixon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"melinda walsh",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80862
|
Pyrex that can be used in an instant pot
What pyrex would be suitable for pressure steaming in an Instant Pot (also known as 'Pot in Pot' cooking)? I am a new user and want to make sure I have the correct cookware.
@Jolenealaska Steaming is a different function on the Instant Pot, there's even a button labeled "steaming" and it implies not using pressure. The steam button on at least some instant pots is steaming under pressure. See page 15 of https://instantpot.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DUO-Series-Manual-English-July-21-2017-Low-Res.pdf
That is commonly done, and yes, any pyrex is fine for it although metal has an advantage in that it wouldn't require extra time. Anytime you use glass, pyrex, ceramic or any other heat absorbent material for "pot in pot" cooking, add ~5 minutes to the time under pressure. Anything that is safe to use in the oven is safe to use in the Instant Pot. Whatever you use inside the liner of the Instant Pot as your cooking vessel, use the trivet and add water (at least 1 1/2 cups or so) to the inner pot of the Instant Pot, and be sure there is some room (it doesn't need to be much) to allow steam to pass between your inner pot and the Instant Pot liner.
Here's more on the subject of 'pot in pot' cooking.
So since this is steaming, even though a bowl will be safe, a basket might well be better for a lot of things, where you don't want all the water to collect in your food?
@Jefromi A basket may be better for some items, but condensation is accounted for in recipes that use the "pot in pot" method. I do grits PIP for example, because they scorch on the bottom of the inner pot otherwise. I follow a recipe that calls for less water in the grits for PIP than it calls for if you don't use a separate vessel.
Why do you add 5 minutes to the time under pressure rather than expecting it to take 5 minutes longer to come up to pressure? Food also absorbs heat, yet IP cooking time is not dependent on how much food of a given type you are cooking—the time under pressure for a cup of chickpeas is the same as the time for a quart.
I am new to Instant Pot also.
Had a "chat" with Ranier at Instant Pot today to ask about glass dish to use in Instant Pot.
Was told that anything that is oven proof is okay or to use a smaller Instant Pot insert. Mine is a six quart. I was ready to throw it out the back door last week because I was having such a hard time putting lid on.
This is going to be my favorite fun kitchen gadget.
Manufacturers of Pyrex, Corningware, and Anchor Hocking do not recommend their products in the Instant Pot. I emailed, chat with them.
Can you link to an official citation? If so, I would think this is the right answer.
If you want to have a minimalist kitchen, a good option is oven-safe Glasslock, which has the advantage of also providing a convenient way to pack food for refrigeration and transport. It's also available in a variety of stackable sizes; obviously round Glasslock will fit more efficiently in an Instant Pot than will square or rectangular.
I am making chocolate pots de creme and also at times I like to make creme brulee so I use individual ramekins in the Instant Pot to pressure cook.
Thanks, but this was already clarified a while back, edited into the question and all. I've gone ahead and removed those obsolete comments that you were responding to. I think your suggestion of ramekins is an answer to the question, so I'll leave that here, but I'll edit out the bit that was a response to the now-deleted comments.
So I work for Corelle, Corningware & More (who own Pyrex and we sell/work with the instant pot company. From what I know, older Pyrex might be better suited because of the way it was made. However, as a previous commenter stated, we generally do not reccomend it. Now, I work retail so there might be better answers out there as to why. However, I do use Pyrex and the corningware bakeware and personally I think that the bakeware and ramekins would likely do well. They are very durable (lol trust me I have seen them dropped on all sorts of surfaces) and they are oven safe. I think that if you choose to try one of these products for this pot-in-pot method then that's probably your best bet!
Why they don’t recommend it in general, or why older stuff would be better? I suspect I know the answer on the older stuff— it was made from a different material which is better at handling the internal stresses you get when you don’t hear the container evenly. You still might have problems if you heated the base quickly before the sides had a chance to heat up. (Which would be much like heating it stovetop, which is not recommended for most Pyrex)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.654416
| 2017-04-13T02:20:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80862",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Phil",
"Shannon Severance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"intuited"
],
"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
}
|
74306
|
Are refrigerator section pickles (Clausen) safe if left unrefrigerated?
I bought some Clausen Pickles, not knowing the jar said "always refrigerate'". I mean they were in the refrigerated section at Kroger. But They stayed up in my cabinet for about a week and a half, before I put them in the refrigerator. Then after about 2 days, to let them get good and cold, there was a film in the juice and some on the pickles. But it wiped right off of the pickles. But the film in still in the juice. Would you say they're okay to eat? I need some opinions. They still taste the same.. Maybe a little different.
I called Heinz (Kraft), the makers of Clausen Pickles. They told me that they can't recommend consuming their pickles labeled "always keep refrigerated" if the package has been unrefrigerated for as long as a week and a half. Even if the jar is still sealed, they won't assure us that it is still safe to eat the pickles.
That seems like very much a CYA statement, but it is from the horse's mouth.
So, consider yourself warned that the pickles may not be safe.
The old adage When in Doubt, Throw it Out seems to apply here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.654812
| 2016-09-27T19:29:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74306",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60292
|
Can you save garlic powder that has clumped due to moisture?
Every time I have garlic powder around, it always ends up forming into a hard sticky lump. Is there any way to reconstitute this into a usable form? Placing it in warm water seems to take forever and it never really dissolves.
It wouldn't dissolve, because it's ground up plant fiber with a little aromatic oil in it -- you'd end up with a paste at best, but most likely a watery, garlicky concoction you could totally cook with. To store, protect from humidity in an air-tight container in the fridge or freezer.
@goblinbox : fridge or freezer might make things worse unless it was devoid of air -- any air in the container would have moisture that would condense when it was chilled, adding moisture to the spices each time you used it.
Especially true in humid places like the Midwest. On the other hand, I live in Minnesota and my garlic powder, stored open and on the shelf, isn't clumped. Spice behavior mystery!
Reworded the title, "reconstitute" sounds as if you are trying to create a garlic puree out of the powder.
I've had this happen with other types of spices as well. I put it in the blender or coffee grinder to loosen it up again. Works well for me.
If it's really sticky try putting it in a dehydrator first.
I have tried pouring oil in the garlic powder bottle/jar. And you have instant garlic oil for your noodles, roasts etc. Goes long way as oil acts like a preservative. How is that?
Oil doesn't act as a preservative, it only saves you from aerobic bacteria. Your chance of botulism is probably lower than with fresh garlic, but the combination still sounds dangerous.
Take the cap off the bottle of garlic powder. Put it in the microwave next to a cup of water. Run the microwave on defrost or thaw. Check the garlic powder after about 40 seconds. The garlic powder will loosen. Run microwave a little longer if needed.
I would say this is exacerbating the issue by adding more moisture to the powder. It is a short term solution but will have a negative impact in the long term. The powder is likely to mould if then kept any longer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.654950
| 2015-08-27T20:33:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60292",
"authors": [
"Ben White",
"Colin Kerr",
"Debbie McKenzie",
"Joe",
"Med Card Innovators LLC",
"NKY Homesteading",
"canardgras",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"koustav mondal",
"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
}
|
57627
|
Should I actually add nutmeg to eggnog?
Where did adding nutmeg to eggnog come from?
I've tried nutmeg before and can't really taste anything other than nog.
So where did the idea of adding nutmeg come from?
Did you try pre-grated from a box or freshly grated?
I was new to cooking so it came from spice container at Walmart
Or have you always had it with nutmeg (possibly it came with it), so nutmeg just tastes like eggnog?
Usually buy eggnog at holidays. Family tradition of sprinkling in nutmeg. But why nutmeg?
Eggnog, even from a carton, typically contains nutmeg, so you'd sprinkle it for garnish instead of using e.g. cinnamon which would change the original flavour.
Besides, most pre-grated spices tend to go stale rather quickly, if not stored properly (e.g. too warm, too long) they might have lost quite a bit of flavour when you buy them. Whole nutmeg keeps very long, grated doesn't in my experience.
There's a reason that nutmeg is one of the few spices regularly bought whole... it loses all flavor in an extremely short time if pre-ground.
It's not really worth adding it to store-bought eggnog. However, homemade eggnog often has two layers: yolk-cream-sugar-booze topped with egg white foam, and the nutmeg is sprinkled on that foam. With that composition, the nutmeg flavor contributes a lot more.
Add it if you like!
As mentioned in the comments, eggnog usually already has nutmeg in it, so when you say you say you can't taste anything other than nog, in reality you're probably tasting eggnog including nutmeg!
If what you add is pre-ground, the flavor probably isn't terribly strong. And even with freshly grated nutmeg, you're probably only adding a tiny bit. So if you sprinkle a little on, it's really more for looks than taste. But if you want to be able to taste it, definitely try freshly grated.
Commercial eggnog virtually ALWAYS has nutmeg in it, so you are just adding to that. While it's easy to grab the stuff, it's worth making your own eggnog if you'd like to raise your 'nog experience several notches.
I can't imagine grinding nutmeg at home - that would take a heck of a grinder, and it would be hard to do less than a whole nutmeg at a time, which is a LOT of nutmeg. Of course, there's also the fact that there's an easier solution and I have it already - a nutmeg grater.
Rather than using any old grater (and having your "grated other things" taste like nutmeg, which can be persistent) you just get one of these little graters - it has a compartment in the top for the current nutmeg you are grating as needed to be stored in, and you only grate nutmeg on it, so it does not get on anything that you don't want nutmegged. You pop out the nutmeg, grate what you need, and pop it back in the storage part until the next use.
I wrote "grated" and I'm sure that's what @Jefromi meant, but good idea to show a picture of the "thingy" which IMHO every spice cupboard needs. (And now I'm waiting for the kitchen purists' rants on single-use items...)
@Stephie Hmm... "Kitchen Purists" ranting - I suggest some freshly ground black pepper, from a pepper mill, blown in their faces. And I wonder how many of them have a coffee maker or teapot that doesn't get used for anything else...?
^_^ good to know you have my back!
Obligatory kitchen purist perspective: a Microplane grater works very well too. It's also good for other large whole spices (like cinnamon), works well for hard cheeses, and I also sometimes use it to grate garlic and ginger for marinades. It's stainless steel and easy to clean so it doesn't pick up other flavors. I'll take it over any single-use grating gadget.
Yup, unless you're using tons of nutmeg just get a microplane. Really good for grating zest too.
Don't forget chocolate! I use it for everything! Love microplanes!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.655195
| 2015-05-20T03:25:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57627",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"Glenda Brown",
"Joshua James",
"Lisa Robinson",
"Max Brown",
"Melinda Cabrera",
"Petunia Morrison",
"Samee87",
"Stephie",
"drderme",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35651",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102425
|
Difference between types of yeast
While double checking a recipe I realized I might have used the wrong type of yeast. There is instant, active, liquid, dry and fresh yeast. What are the culinary differences between all the types of yeast?
Yeasts are pretty much interchangeable but have different fermentation qualities. Most recipes will specify the kind and amount of yeast. Adding more yeast than called for makes bakes rise a little faster and taste yeastier, and this appears to be a regional preference in the US and in some other countries, so amounts called for in recipes will vary.
Instant yeast is dry yeast that is as it suggests faster acting, for a faster rise. Good for pizza dough that doesn't need a long rise, for example. Also, the ratio of instant yeast to flour is around one-half percent, about half that of active yeast. (2.5g of instant vs. 5g active per 500g of flour). Instant yeast can be added dry to the flour and salt (which inhibits yeast, so it's good to place the salt opposite the yeast in the bowl) when combining the dry ingredients and does not require proofing in water. Typically you will add very warm (@ 100ºF/40ºC but no warmer than 120ºF/48ºC) water to a recipe using instant yeast.
Active dry yeast is typically granulated and takes longer to rise than instant yeast. The ratio of yeast to dough is 1% (thus 5g active yeast per 500g of flour) and the yeast should be proofed in lukewarm to warm (about 75-90ºF / 23-32ºC) water with about a tbsp. of granulated sugar to ensure it foams and is live. Active dry yeast is proofed then added to the dry ingredients. More complex flavors and texture can be obtained by slower rising so active yeast is good for many breads. Active dry is the yeast typically used by my mother for her homemade white bread and cinnamon rolls, and results in a mildly yeasty bake with a fairly tight crumb structure.
Live yeast is a more perishable yeast typically found in refrigerator sections of the grocery. Its ratio to flour is 2%, double that of active dry yeast (10g of live yeast per 500g of flour) and should also be proofed in warm water with sugar as with active dry yeast to ensure it is live, and added to the combined and mixed dry ingredients after proofing. It can spoil due to mold and lasts about 2 weeks in the fridge.
Wild yeasts include the sourdough starters, which contain both wild yeasts from the air and probiotics (good bacteria). These wild yeasts can create a complex flavor and texture and take longer to prepare. Sourdough starters must be continually fed (some bakers feed daily, others refrigerate starter and feed weekly or as used for recipes) and typically will take 4-6 hours to prepare a mature starter batch (sometimes called a "sponge", "poolish", or "levain") for a recipe. These starter batches are either mixed with all of the recipe's warm water then added to dry ingredients (except for salt) before autolyze (the period where the dry ingredients are mixed with water and left sitting to absorb the water and start developing gluten) or mixed with a little water and added along with the salt after the autolyze. Fermentation times for rustic or sourdough bread using wild yeasts are often extended by refrigeration of the dough for 12 to 24 hours during the rise, and the longer fermentation results in a typically more open crumb with large voids and varying amounts of sourdough flavor to the bread.
When in doubt, best results come from following the recipe when choosing the type of yeast. All yeast types can be used with varying amounts of different types of flour, and the dough working techniques and fermentation times will vary depending on the flour; typically whole grain-heavy recipes will take a longer time to develop gluten but will have deeper and "more rustic" flavor, and may need several hours longer to rise to achieve the desired texture and flavor.
Really appreciated reading your answer, thank you!
I think you are kind of making it overly complicated. TL;DR is that they are all interchangeable (apart from the wild ones which recipes will rarely call for), you use the amount indicated on the package and for all of them you can mix them with the rest of the ingredients at once. Never in my life yeast just didn't work at all, worst likely case is that you'll get less of a rise out of it than usual. And fresh yeast keeps way longer than 2 weeks, even if it develops small amounts of mold after a month or longer you can cut it off and it still works (at your own risk). Throw away if too moldy.
not all instant yeast is rapid rise! unless specified, the speed will be the same as active yeast
There is instant, active, liquid, dry and fresh yeast. What are the culinary differences between all the types of yeast?
They're in different states of activity, and thus require different types of preparation and amounts of time before they're able to do they're yeasty thing.
Therefore, using dry yeast where active yeast is required will result in incomplete fermentation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.655525
| 2019-09-21T14:30:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102425",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Nobody",
"aitía",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100268
|
What ingredients do Bernaise sauce and fruit smoothies have in common?
I am trying to narrow down the source of a food allergy. I had a really bad reaction recently and that was my second bad reaction in 2 years. In the first instance, it was after drinking a fruit smoothie at Smoothie King with "all natural" ingredients, I may or may not have had one with the turbinado in it. The second time was this past week at a steakhouse where I tried the Bernaise sauce. I'm assuming that they made it in house but it may have very well been from a vendor.
So, can someone please help me figure out what ingredients those two foods would have in common? Someone suggested that maybe cornstarch was in both of those? Are there any other common ingredients?
If you feel comfortable sharing, could you narrow down the definition of "really bad reaction"? What were the symptoms? For a while I thought i was allergic to pineapple, however it turned out it had urticaria which was totally unrelated to food. In any case: your best bet is to see a doctor.
Ask your doctor about food allergies. There are standardized allergy tests to narrow the culprits
There are no natural ingredients in common with those things, so I'd suspect something like a stabilzer/thickener, maybe Xanthan gum or Carageenan?
Did you have a protein smoothie with egg in it? And is your allergic reaction stomach cramps? If so, the common factor could be eggs.
Bernaise = butter, egg, vinegar (usually white wine), salt, pepper, and herbs. It would surprise me if any of those things were in your smoothie. So, based on the information you provided, I would say they have nothing in common. Beyond that, you would have to go the the Smoothie King, and the steak house, and ask for a list of ingredients to see if there is something out of the ordinary in their recipes. Maybe you should just go see your physician.
That is all true if you assume that both places use natural ingredients. But there could still be something, like an additive or preservative, that is used across both of those.
And without knowing the specific smoothie and the exact steakhouse sauce how could we be able to help you in this case? We, as people on the internet, can only assume, that the main ingredients of both foods you mentioned, are the problem.
Of course this has to be a guess, but one possibility is xanthan gun or guar gum. These are common stabilisers and emulsifiers in commerical food products. I should stress that there is no evidence they are harmful or likely to cause allergic reactions in general.
This post on chowhound suggests using xanthan gum to stabilise a large batch of bernaise sauce. Searching for ingredients in commercial chocolate ice creams (particularly cheaper brands) found many using guar gum as a stabiliser.
It's a good guess, but xanthan and guar gums are hugely common in processed foods. It would be impossible for the OP to only have encountered them in those two circumstances.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.655999
| 2019-07-19T01:18:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100268",
"authors": [
"Gretel_f",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Sneftel",
"Unknown Coder",
"Wayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121591
|
Having a hard time seasoning an iron skillet. Sticky seasoning
EDIT: The other question speaks about seasoning in oven. I cannot fit my skillet in any oven. It's big with a plastic handle.
I have an iron skillet and I have no idea how to season it properly. I once washed the skillet cause the oil buildup was too much and then gave a real hard wash. Now the Skilelt won't season. The seasoning gets kinda sticky and little lines appear or hardened oil.
What is the proper way to season the skillet on Gas Stove?
This is how I am trying now.
Wash the skillet clean.
Add a thin film of oil and wipe the excess oil.
Heat the skillet till it smokes.
I have tried heating the skilelt to high temp first and the result is still the same. The seasoning gets sticky.
Wrong oil? See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13555/what-oil-is-best-for-seasoning-a-cast-iron-skillet?rq=1 [though I don't agree with the accepted answer, I personally think it's about the worst for 'soft/sticky'; read further down.] BTW, seasoning doesn't wash off, you need to sand it off. If it did, it wasn't done properly.
@unlisted I am using Mustard oil or Rice Bran Oil. I used lemon and metal sponge to clean the skillet like how it was when it was new.
Or this one: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/641/34242
There is no difference between seasoning in an oven and on stovetop, the oven is just less error-prone, but else the process is the same, so there is no sense to keep the question open. You are already doing the proper steps anyway, so you won't get any written answers that can tell you more, from here on it is a matter of temperature control. You can go through our questions on seasoning pans, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/seasoning-pans, in case you want to catch some extra tidbits.
@rumtscho Do I need to heat the pan at high flame and for long do I heat it? High flame or medium flame? I have no idea. Why my seasoning is coming as sticky then?
@4-K both high and medium flame will work. You have to heat it until it is done, no matter how long it takes. "Done" is something you can tell by experience. If you don't have the experience, you have to either have somebody physically present to show it to you, or work by trial and error.
if it's sticky, you can just heat it again and leave it for a bit longer, until it stops being sticky. stickiness mostly means you used too much oil or didn't heat it for long enough.
Common error which I'll suspect from the "until it smokes" descriptor is going too hot, rather than hot enough for long enough; or thinking that too hot for less time is just as good as hot enough for long enough. If the plastic handle is not oven safe, remove it (and the pan was poorly designed...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.656262
| 2022-09-07T14:42:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121591",
"authors": [
"4-K",
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66758
|
How much to heat mustard oil before cooking?
We use mustard oil.
How do I know if the oil is ready for cooking?
My mother always waits till the pungent smell goes off.
I can't put my finger to know if the oil is ready.
As far as I know, you actually need to heat mustard oil until it starts smoking, because this will break down some of the compounds which are deemed not fit for consumption (at least in EU, probably the same for the US). The ones here are always labeled "For external use only". But I gladly leave answering to better informed people.
Hello Mrstupid, health questions are off topic here. I had to remove the part about nutrients from your question. We could tell you if the oil is dangerous in the sense of "don't eat it underheated because you will end up in hospital with mustard poisoning" (that's food safety) but we can't discuss if less or more heated oil is "good for you" in some unclear health sense.
@rumtscho Thanks, but what about the main part: How do I know if the oil is ready for cooking?
The main part is fully OK, and I left it as you wrote it. Now we sit and hope that somebody who knows the answer will write it down.
To check if mustard oil is ready to use, add onion peel: if it browns immediately, the oil is ready to use.
You can also notice the change in fluidity of the oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.656507
| 2016-02-23T16:00:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66758",
"authors": [
"4-K",
"Bob Love",
"Ike 80",
"Mack Wiggins",
"Queen Shabrae",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"Zella Dunn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"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
}
|
66898
|
Brown sediments when frying meat
Possibly, this is a rather trivial question, but I've not yet found any good explanation.
Whether I cook a steak for bacon, as long as it is red meat, the ground of the pan fills with a brown sediment, similar to this picture.
What's that? As for bacon, I heard that some people even collect the flavored grease.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Note that questions on health and nutrition are mostly off-topic here.
Hello Xiphias, and welcome! Stephie is right, healthiness is off topic, and we don't want questions to even invite a discussion about it. Your main question is fully OK, but I removed half a sentence just in case somebody took it as an opportunity to start a health discussion.
@rumtscho Thank you for pointing that out and editing! Just as nice here as at StackOverflow ... :-)
The brown color is given by the caramelization of the sugars contained in the meat. It is due to a chemical reaction that is triggered by the high temperature in the pan (take place between 140c and 180c or 284f and 356f) called Maillard reaction. It is exactly the same thing that gives bread and fried foods their characteristic golden-brown color and their delicious taste!
But back to the picture: the reason why you see the bottom of the pan becoming brown is because during cooking the meat lets some juices out. Those juices contain sugars that caramelize and stick to the pan or float in the hot grease.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Le me point you to our [tour] and our [help] - both good places tomlearn more about how this site and the whole Stack Exchange network works. Looking forward to more contributions from you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.656665
| 2016-02-27T19:18:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66898",
"authors": [
"Elin Rees Mrs Elin Hume",
"Freddy Ramirez",
"John Sommer",
"Paki Chawhte",
"Stephie",
"Tim Kington",
"Xiphias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"susan clark"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71493
|
How is flambéing different from just adding alcohol?
A wonderful recipe in a book says:
Slightly roast pepper with oil, then deglaze with brandy and light it up immediately, wait for the flame to go out. [Then add other ingredients]
Since that process felt quite dangerous, especially if the pan is hot and the alcohol vaporises quickly, I was wondering:
What is the difference between just adding brandy to burning it with regard to taste?
Hi Xiphias, health is one of our major off topics, so I removed that subquestion.
From a physics standpoint, it seems unlikely that lighting the alcohol vapor will actually speed up the alcohol evaporation. Compared to the heat stored in the body of the alcohol solution, the heat contributed by the flame (most of which goes straight up) seems likely to be insignificant.
What is the difference between just adding brandy to burning it with regard to taste?
Time and theatric impact (flambe is often done table side in a restaurant) are the big difference.
Flambe:
very quick, almost instant reduction of alcohol
texture/composition changes to dish are limited due to short process
visually dramatic
subtle changes in flavor
Adding alcohol, then further cooking:
longer cooking time to reduce alcohol
longer cooking will have a different effect on texture/composition
there will be changes in flavor, but in a different way from flambe
With most recipes, it comes down to time. If a long simmer to remove alcohol is undesired, you flambe. Example: Bananas Foster, if you simmered that for a long time, you'll get a hot bitter banana mush. Flambe is the better choice.
Without seeing your entire recipe: if your peppers are cooked a long time, you could simply add the alcohol and let the cooking reduce it. But if the recipe is a quick saute or similar, if you don't flambe, you may not get the flavor change the author intended. And, you may end up serving alcohol.
That's interesting. The recipe goes on: "add bacon bits and diced onion, sauté for a couple of minutes, then add white wine and other ingredients and cook until the liquid has mostly evaporated. [...]". Reading your answer, I interpret the recipe as if "just adding" would be similar since there is a long cooking phase, although I do not know what happens to the alcohol when sautéing with bacon bits and diced onion.
The second add of alcohol will evaporate while sauteeing. Flambe v. cooking reduction is a very subtle difference. A person with a gifted ability to taste would be able to determine you didn't flambe the first add of alcohol. Most people, including me, wouldn't detect the difference.
Your answer implies that the alcohol will be removed with both methods, so there is little difference. In fact, a significant fraction of the alcohol remains both with flambeing and with simmering, although I can't say which one will leave more.
You will end up serving alcohol in either case. The only question is how much. In flambeing the alcohol can't ignite until it's evaporated, which also happens in simmering. The difference is that as the vapour is consumed by burning, more can evaporate, which should be preferential over water evaporation. Some figures: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Data/retn/retn06.pdf
@rumtscho the link I've just posted in my last comment may be of interest
I edited remove to reduce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.656854
| 2016-07-18T11:12:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71493",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Paulb",
"Xiphias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43773",
"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
}
|
68224
|
What is the Function of Gelatine
I have a recipe that calls for leaf gelatine but I have none. What does gelatine do in a recipe?
Hello johnc, and welcome to our site! We function differently from classic discussion boards, and we insist on only answering each question once, so people can easily find information in once place instead of hunting for it between dozens of threads. Half of your question has been answered here before, so I removed it - see for answers http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/725. The other part is fine, although it would be much easier to answer if you said what the recipe is. Gelatine is more of an exception, but most ingredients in cooking have different functions depending on recipe.
what recipe are you doing ?
It really depends on how much of it you're using.
If it's only a small amount, it might be for mouthfeel -- it'll make the liquid more viscous and less 'watery'. Consider a good chicken soup, where the broth has a bit of body to it.
If it's a large amount, it's to get the liquid to set up. In something like a panna cotta, aspics, mousse, or a no-bake pie, it's to get the liquid to firm up and become either solid or at least scoopable.
And gelatin doesn't need to be used in solely liquid dishes -- America's Test Kitchen used in a meatloaf recipe for what was most likely mouthfeel.
... but it's possible that there are other uses. I seem to recall hearing that it can be used to clarify broths as well.
Thanks all who answered for both the advice and the info on using the site. My recipe is for a no bake cheese cake using philly and sugar, so from the answers I would guess it is it firm it up a bit after the sugar has loosened the philly.
In the ATK meatloaf recipe, it was (as you suspect) to give the impression of greater moisture in the final product without increasing the fat content of the meat, avoiding a greasy meatloaf.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.657135
| 2016-04-12T12:03:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68224",
"authors": [
"Chris Bergin",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"johnc",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71360
|
Can the skin of lychee be used for anything?
We recently saw and picked up some lychee from the grocery store.
It appears that the skin is inedible, but my girlfriend is wondering if it could be used for anything.
Should the lychee skin just be tossed, or can it be used in some way?
Your question is a very nice use of the culinary-uses tag. Still, discussing the non-culinary uses of the skins is out of our scope. So I removed the sentence which invited non-cooking uses.
Perhaps a hat, a brooch, or a pterodactyl...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.657302
| 2016-07-11T19:45:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71360",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"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
}
|
11
|
How should I poach an egg?
What's the best method to poach an egg without it turning into an eggy soupy mess?
I fill a tall frying pan (or pot) with water.
Add some white vinegar.
Let it come to a boil
Add the eggs. Don't make it too overcrowded
Take it out with a flipper or a spoon with holes when they look done.
I make a whirpool in the water before dropping the eggs.
I use this method as well as the whirlpool. I just use a spoon to add the eggs. That way the eggs maintain their shape more.
I've never gotten whirlpools to work well for me... I also use a spoon to gently dump the egg in the water.
Surely the problem with whirlpools is you can only do one egg at once.
I have tried many techniques but what gets the best results for me is dropping them directly in water and vinegar. Complete method below:
Take eggs out of fridge early and leave to reach room temp. It is okay to leave them out of fridge overnight if cooking for breakfast.
Fill pan with water - I use frying pan with minimum depth of 4cm.
Add splash of vinegar to help the egg coagulate.
Bring water to boil then reduce heat until you can see a few tiny bubbles rising from bottom of pan.
Crack 1st egg into ramekin of some sort - I use a narrow tea cup.
If cooking one egg:
Stir the pan very slowly from the outside and then gently slide egg from ramekin into middle of pan.
NOTE: Do not make a rapid whirlpool in the center of pan - the centrifugal forces will pull the yolk towards the side of the pan creating a yolk sack with whites left in the middle of whirlpool.
If cooking many eggs:
Gently slide egg from ramekin near outside edge of pan with following eggs near edges of pan. Use a spoon to push escaping whites towards egg after sliding in for a couple of seconds until it starts to coagulate.
Cook for about 3-4mins for runny, longer for harder yolk.
If eating immediately:
Use a slotted spoon to lift eggs onto a plate with 2 layers of paper towel. Make sure to drain excess water - you may like to shake slotted spoon a bit.
Place a paper towel over eggs and press down gently to soak up excess water.
You should be able to pick up your perfectly poached egg with your hands and show your friends how pro you are.
If cooking lots or eating later:
Remove eggs with slotted spoon and place into bowl of cold water.
You may quickly heat them up in hot water when ready to use.
This is my morning routine twice a week - with english muffin, butter, bacon, rocket/spinach salad and hollandaise sauce.
This gets my vote because it includes what I think is the most important detail. The water should be at the barest simmer, otherwise the rolling of the boil will cause the whites to fall off the yolks.
Personally, I cannot stand the taste of vinegar in a poached egg.
Here is the method that I use with perfect results every time:
In a covered saute pan, bring water to a full boil. Add about a teaspoon of salt to the water. The salt performs the same function as vinegar: keep the egg whites from scattering and you ending up with poached yolks.
Break the eggs by twos into a small dishes. So two eggs each for four people, eight eggs, four small prep bowls.
Be sure to prep all other ingredients that will go with the eggs so that they are ready slightly before the eggs: Toast? Plan to toast the toast and butter the toast and plate the toast so neither eggs not toast are ready first. Toast gets dry; eggs get hard. All wrong... Hollandaise also should be prepared to be ready at the same time as the eggs so it does not separate.
Once you all ready to "pull the trigger" because you have planned the plates and the other ingredients and the water is boiling and the cover is ready -- Poach the Eggs! Here is how:
Turn off the heat on the pan;
Quickly but carefully lower each bowl to the water, tip the eggs gently into the water from the bowl;
Cover the pan;
Time the eggs:
For really soft eggs, about 3 minutes.
Larger eggs or firmer eggs, 4 minutes.
Use a slotted spoon or slotted spatula to gently lift the eggs from the water. Hold for a second to drain, touch the bottom of the spoon / spatula to a paper towel to dry.
Put eggs on the toast or the other preparation.
Enjoy!
Take some microwave plastic wrap and place it in a ramekin; push the plastic into the corners and lightly oil the inside with a brush. Gently break a fresh egg into the centre of the plastic lined ramekin, then gently pull up the sides of the plastic wrap and tie it off with string or a plastic band. Place the pouch in boiling water for (depends on your eggs) minutes. Open the pouch and you have a perfect poached egg.
yeah no yucky vineger taste :)
Heating plastic wrap in direct contact with food can cause chemicals from the plastic to "migrate" into the food. You may or may not be concerned about this.
You can buy some things (in the UK, maybe not in the US) called poach pods which I use, and work a treat. They're £5 for 2 (or about $8) I guess. They don't take up much room when stored as they stack:- Green poachpod® 2 Silicone Egg Poaching Pods.
Yep, I bought these in the US, and they work for me
Julia child recommends putting the eggs in boiling water for 10 seconds, then crack them into these things (though hers are recommended to be perforated metal); see Page 82-83 in Julia and Jacques Cooking at Home by Julia Child and Jaques Pepin.
Just to add to the other answers ... the fresher the egg (properly free range helps too) the better the shape and firmness of the result, whatever technique or trick you use.
To be perfect honest, I'm a fairly big fan of microwaving eggs in lieu of poaching. There are little plastic gadgets you can get that you break the eggs into. You can microwave them either to hard or soft boiled levels, and they end up as nice, symmetrical mounds. The only trick is not to microwave on too high a power, or the yolks might explode! In that case, the result is a bit exploded in texture, but because the eggs are in the plastic gadget, at least you don't have egg all over the inside of your microwave!
I actually poach in a microwave using a bowl of boiling water that I heated up first (in the microwave). Works nicely.
Heston Blumenthal seems to have a good way to do this and get "the perfect egg every time", and it actually looks pretty easy.
Use a fresh egg. Fresh eggs have a firmer albumen which helps the poached egg form (fresh eggs sink in water, because an air bubble is produced over time)
Avoid direct heat in the pan: Put a plate upside-down at the bottom
Get the water to 80°C
Use a straining-spoon to remove any water albumen from the egg (even fresh eggs have a little), and drop into the water
Cook for 4 Minutes
(Watch on YouTube)
I haven't had a chance to try this technique yet, but it seems pretty straightforward, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.
Boil a reasonably large pan of water with a small pinch of salt, then take it off the heat. Crack the eggs gently into the water so they lie separately from each other. Leave them for about three minutes and they're done. Voila!
BTW: I don't stir the water as I fond this can make the white separate from the yolk.
I believe that adding salt to the water causes a reaction in the egg proteins making them more rubbery.
A sous vide technique to produce poached egg-like results by cooking the eggs in the shell due to Chefsteps is described below:
Heat up your water bath to 147 degrees Fahrenheit (64 degrees Celsius)
Put your eggs (in the shell) in the water bath for 1 hour 40 minutes to 2 hours.
Crack the eggs into a slotted spoon and let the loose white drain, and serve.
A video of this process is here.
You can also use their egg calculator to see what other time+temperature combinations look like.
I've tried the vinegar and the swirling water technique... I didn't have much luck. The following 2 have worked for me, but both have negatives
Make sure the water is nearly simmering
Crack the egg into a small cup so it's easy to pour
Tilt the pan of boiling water, so when you drop the egg in, it sinks to the depth. This seems to allow all the whites to settle together
Carefully put the pan back on to a gentle simmer
Sadly, it makes it very hard to cook more than 1 (I've managed 2 max)
The other way we've had some luck is
Part fill the pan of water
Add tall chef rings so the tips of the rings are out of the water
When the water is nearly simmer, or just simmering, add the eggs into the rings
Careful when removing the eggs and rings, as this can be a pain and the eggs have on occasion stuck to the ring
A technique promoted by J. Kenji Lopez-Alt is as follows (Based on Heston Blumenthal's technique):
Start with the freshest egg you can
Crack the egg into a fine mesh strainer and swirl until all the loose egg white is drained off.
Bring a few inches of water to about 180 degrees Fahrenheit
Lower the egg into the water with the fine mesh strainer. Give it a shake to make sure it releases from the strainer and roll it out with the strainer.
Flip the egg periodically, and cook for about 3-4 minutes
You can see a video of him performing this technique here.
Use a small pot with hot water from a kettle or water boiler, add small amount of vinegar (helps to keep the egg together) then wait until you see small bubbles. No need to swirl the water, just add the egg and don't let the water boil vigorously. Wait until cooked to your preference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.657425
| 2010-07-09T19:12:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Chris Dennis",
"Curiousitys",
"Curry",
"Cyndi",
"Daniel LeCheminant",
"Ian",
"Jacob R",
"Kev",
"Kevin Smith",
"MGOwen",
"Michael Natkin",
"Michelle John",
"NBenatar",
"Peter V",
"Sam Saffron",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"alexmuller",
"bobobobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"jumoel",
"ljubomir",
"pdemarest",
"tonylo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.