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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
85205
|
I baked custard at too much heat, is there a name for what I created?
Recently a friend from the Americas gave me a simple recipe for custard, I never had custard (or at least not knowingly) and thus wanted to try it out. The recipe in it's original form would be:
3-4 eggs
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 teaspoon salt
3 cups milk
1 teaspoon vanilla
some nutmeg
Blend & put into bowls, put bowls into larger dish filled with water.
Put into the oven at 176F & cook for around 45min.
Knowing that I am from Switzerland he tried to translate it to metric (this is the recipe that I got from him):
3-4 eggs
118ml sugar
1.2ml salt
709ml milk
4.8ml vanilla
some nutmeg
Blend & put into bowls, put bowls into larger dish filed with water.
Put into the oven at 176C & cook for around 45min.
As my oven only does 5C increases I put it in at 180C and didn't spend much time thinking about it. The result does not taste bad at all, but the consistency is less that of a cream (looked up custard on Wikipedia in the end) and more that of supermarket flan.
Q: Is there a name for the monstrosity I created or is it still custard?
What you made is a baked custard, and it sounds like it came out rather well.
A runny/pouring custard is made in a pan on the stove top, rather than baked, but has a similar ratio of ingredients, sometimes with added flour or cornflour to thicken it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.658331
| 2017-10-24T07:25:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85205",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30673
|
Baking naan without an oven?
Is it possible to make eggless naan without an oven?
Here is a recipe that you might want to try out: http://foodformyfamily.com/recipes/how-to-make-naan-in-the-oven. I think the main thing is to just turn your oven up as high as it will go. And maybe turn on the grill as well if you have one. A pizza stone might also help.
but i want to prepare the one without oven.
Then you should edit your question to say so. Most readers will interpret the question as written as "I don't have access to a tandoor, how can I make naan in a normal oven". Actually I'll edit it for you; I will also omit eggless; it's not relevant.
@slim How do you figure the egg-less part of the request is irrevlant? OP is asking for an egg free recipe to make without an oven. Both seem to be relevant points to me.
@nicoleeats the way I read it, they have an eggless recipe (which is most naans) and want to cook it other than in an oven. The egg has no bearing on how you can cook it.
@nicoleeats not necessarily all naans are eggless, here is the recipe by famous cook sanjeev kapoor but i want eggless naan recipe so there i mentioned and edited my question again. http://www.sanjeevkapoor.com/naan.aspx
@SunishthaSingh and slim I know that when I go to the Indian grocery store around the corner all the packages list egg and milk ingredients (being vegan I check for that). I was just saying that it seemed you wanted an eggless recipe so I thought it shouldn't be discounted.
@nicoleeats thank you for sharing your experience as well as supporting my question.
I've had good luck baking naan on an indoor grill. I have an electric one, but you could use a stovetop one as well. Just apply a little butter, ghee, or spray oil, wipe it off, and bake.
(Click for larger images)
I used an alternative method to make lavash: an inverted wok over a stove burner. You'll need a gas stove to do this one. I applied them dry, cooked about 1-2 minutes on one side only. You can brush with butter or ghee after they're done.
@ joefish thank you very much for image attachments...
I've tried an electric griddle and didn't like the results. Mine doesn't get nearly hot enough and the result was more like tortillas instead of open, chewy, and slightly charred the way naan should be.
@joefish the recipe you provided is not containing eggs but still does it have any additional effects to the softness of naan?what else i can use instead of eggs which results the same or hardly noticeable differences in taste,texture and softness.
@Sobachatina, I cranked the griddle up as high as it would go, and I was very pleased with the result. It's obviously not the same as proper naan cooked in a tandoor, but they were soft, chewy and delicious.
@SunishthaSingh, most of the recipes I've seen use yogurt. I don't know if it will be exactly the same as your recipe with egg, but you should try it and find out.
@JoeFish there are lots of recipes in which yogurt,yeast,baking soda and egg is included in ingredients.can you suggest regarding these, on omitting which ingredients the resultant naan will remain soft,chewy and delicious
A naan by definition is a leavened flatbread baked in a tandoor.
You can improvise by using a very hot oven, perhaps with a pizza stone to retain heat when the oven door is opened, and to transmit heat into the naan through direct contact.
However, you have asked how to prepare naan without any kind of oven.
You can cook bread that's similar to a naan on a dry frying pan. Prepare the dough in the same way as you would prepare naan dough. Heat a frying pan until it is very hot. Roll out pieces that will fit in the pan and are about 5mm thick. Place in the frying pan and heat until cooked on one side. You will see it swell up. Turn it over to cook the other side.
This is not naan - it is closer to kulcha - but it is a delicious flatbread accompaniment to curry, just like naan.
I frequently cook flatbread in a frying pan. My preferred method, in addition to what you mentioned, is to add a teaspoon of water to the pan and cover it with a lid. This generates a lot of steam quickly and can spatter if it touches oil, so be careful. The steam helps simulate an important aspect of the tandoor. It keeps the bread more pliable and allows it to "poof" before being fully cooked.
I have had the best results baking naan on an outdoor grill- preferably charcoal.
Get the grill as hot as you can. If your grill is big enough then indirect heat would be good. If the bread is over the flames then there will be a little charring but that tastes good as long as it isn't excessive.
The naan will cook for around a minute on each side. Use plenty of butter.
The key to naan is temperature of baking. I have found that somewhere around 315 °C – 425 °C [600 °F – 800 °F] is the optimum temperature for making naan. Most home ovens are not able to attain that high a temperature, which is why it is difficult to replicate the results of a restaurant at home.
Without an oven it is even more difficult to attain that high a temperature, although there are recipes that use the inside wall of a pressure cooker as a tandoor for making naan on the stove top. You can try using that technique but increase the percent hydration of the dough. I make naan dough with about 80 percent yogurt by weight. You can try increasing the proportion of yogurt and see if the stove top technique works.
I think the closest you can get to Naan without an oven is to bake it in a pan/skillet on high heat (as mentioned as well earlier). I personally don't have experience with naan-baking, however I once made tortillas (which is of course not the same as Naan) in a non-stick skillet which worked nicely.
Even though tortillas and Naan are two different things, I recommend you try it using a skillet.
Two stage cooking is hard to best. Turn it way up with a small metal (not ceramic, it can break) on the floor of the oven. Every time the bread goes in, put a full size ice cube in the pan before you close the door. I like the idea of an inverted wok over a seasoned cast iron skillet, high heat, but for appearance and char. More yogurt (compensate it's sourness by getting in touch with the yoghurt before you cook with it, taste it first!) and ghee, no eggs
Thank you for contributing, but I think you might’ve missed the ‘without an oven’ part of the question. There might be other naan questions on here where that advice would be useful, though
Welcome! While this is interesting information, it doesn’t answer the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.658491
| 2013-02-04T09:27:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30673",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Alk Onymous",
"David Cryan",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"High Plains Grifter",
"JeffThompson",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"K. Stewart",
"Olaf Kock",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Tim Lewellyn",
"bonifaceaw",
"cbos",
"colejkeene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"mary couch pike",
"past A level's student",
"schlomm",
"slim",
"tasmaniski",
"user23514"
],
"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
}
|
32351
|
How can I improve rich taste of spiced milk tea?
I don't have experience in preparing milk tea. I do have good previous experiences with preparing lemon tea, ice tea and black tea. I mostly used to drink black tea or lemon tea, but nowadays I have started enjoying milk tea.
I tried to prepare it by several procedure and also googled for the methods of spiced tea but I still am not getting the desired results. Nobody seem to like the tea prepared by me. I need to prepare tea almost every morning and evening so I would like to understand where and what I am doing wrong.
Here is recipe I am currently using :
1.Boil water and afterwards add milk to boiling water let it boil to 4-5 mins(equal amount of milk and water quantity).
2.Add adequate amount of tea leaves(loose tea) to the boiling solution.
3.After 5 mins, add sugar to it(as per taste) and tea spice/(ginger and basil leaves).
4.Serve it after straining tea leaves from sieve.
When I make the tea, I always find it tasteless. Mostly I find that the rich milk taste isn't good enough. It has a brownish color and the smell of tea seems to be ruined. It still has fragrance but nowhere near as much as I am expecting from best quality tea leaves I am using.
Can any one suggest what I can do to improve my cup of milk tea? Are only certain types of tea leaves applicable to this method of tea making? Are there any steps I can take to maximize the rich milky flavor of my tea?Is boiling tea leaves more than adequate time may have negative impact to its essential oils, flavor and color?
At this point, your question is very subjective and not that answerable. One thing you can do to make the question better is to list what is wrong with the spiced tea you are currently making or what you would like to improve upon.
@Jay i added recipe in question body, ty for letting me inform the part left :)
well i edited as i can explain, but i wasn't explain how worst it tasted sometimes.
I made some edits to your question to improve the quality of it. If I accidentally change any of your original meaning, edit it farther using the edit button under the question tags.
I noticed you reverted the recipe back to its original form. Is there a reason why? It makes it much harder to read.
@Jay ty for your help and support in editing. :)
let us continue this discussion in chat
Hmmm.....
Well, I've lived in India for 12 yrs & this is how I make 'masala chai' or 'spiced milk tea' at home & in my restaurant-
2 cups water
1 teaspoon black tea, loose leaf (I use Tokla tea from Nepal)
1 tablespoon grated fresh ginger
10 black peppercorns, coarsely ground
500 ml full fat 'whole' milk
Sugar to taste
In a stainless steel 3L pot combine tea, water, ginger & black pepper, bring to boil over high heat. Allow to boil for about 2 minutes.
Add milk to boiling tea, again allow to come to a boil. (Watch the pot closely in case the milk begins to foam, if it does foam- stir & decrease heat a little) Allow to simmer uncovered for 6 minutes.
Remove from heat, let stand for 2 minutes. Add sugar to taste if desired & stir. Use a tea strainer to strain into cups to serve. (or serve sugar on the side so people can add sugar to their own tastes)
Some notes-
I think you are trying to make 'tulsi' chai?
Tulsi = Indian holy basil
If so usually the fresh tulsi leaves (around 8-10) are added to the boiling tea mixture with around 8 green cardamoms, 2 cloves, 1/4 tsp fennel seeds, and a pinch of cumin seeds as I recall. Some Indians dry roast the whole spices to mellow the flavor a bit.
Use spices like fennel, cloves, star anise, cumin sparingly as their strong flavors can take over & give the chai a 'mouthwash' taste which isn't pleasant.
hey ty :) its what exactlly i was seeking for long time :)
Be careful you aren't burning your milk for one. Milk needs low heat and constant motion to make sure that the fats don't settle at the bottom of the pan and get overheated.
You should also make sure your tea isn't oversteeped. Tea has a tannic flavor that can be overwhelming when allowed to boil for too long. To solve this, I'd recommend using an infuser. That way, when the pot of milk tea has reached the right level of tea flavor, you can remove the tea and continue adding spices or sugar and cooling the tea down until it's ready to serve.
Have you looked at recipes for other milk teas?
Traditional Indian chai is made by boiling the milk first and adding the tea and spices and allowing them to infuse in the milk and its fats. This gives it a bold, rich flavor that lingers on your tongue. The bitterness of cloves/ginger/cinnamon/cardamon is offset with adding the right amount of sugar of course. And I think any variety of black tea makes a good match, but assam is the traditional choice.
I'm aware that Indians have a kind of chai that is not a milk tea that's served with basil and lemon, a refreshing tea like a lemonade. Basil milk tea does not sound like a good match to me but I'd be curious whether removing basil alone would fix this issue.
English add cream or milk after the tea has been poured to offset the bitterness of it, for the same reason most Western Europeans/North Americans add milk to coffee. If there's any citrus in the tea, you'll have to use heavy cream to prevent it from curdling which is unsightly and will ruin the taste of the tea.
Lastly, for Asian milk teas, I've never actually had real milk used in the making of Bubbletea.
I like your answer,but as i mentioned i tried many recipes but still your answer is not satisfying me,i appreciate your answer and help. I followed the method you mentioned, about adding sugar to reduce bitterness, and cream that i already followed.
But every time i don't want to use cream. Any other alternative.
You didn't mention whether you may be oversteeping your tea or burning your milk. Do you constantly stir the pot while the milk is boiling? Have you used an infuser to remove the tea once the milk tea has reached a desired strength? I think these two are the most likely causes of your problem. I would suggest not allowing the pot to reach a rolling boil which is too hot, but a gentle simmer before adding tea and spices.
ty i'll keep in mind this time while preparing and the get back to you soon whether it helped me out or not. :)
Black tea is best suited for milk tea as it is strong enough to make it's presence felt even with so much milk. If you use oolong/green tea, which has milder flavors, the taste of the tea will be overpowered by the milk and the sweetness of the sugar.
Also, you should consider letting the tea steep in the boiling water before adding the milk. As milk is a much denser liquid, tea takes much longer to infuse and you increase the risk of tannins getting released which might make the tea taste bitter. Refer to this chart for approximate tea steeping times.
This one is purely subjective, but basil seems like a strange herb to add to milk tea, I do not think it's flavor profile goes well with tea. In any case, most basil, when cooked, tend to become very bitter, so I would reconsider the spice/herb mixture you are using.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.659074
| 2013-03-02T18:56:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32351",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Jay",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"hgs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40434
|
Is it Safe to Fry Honey?
I have honey and porkchops. Is it safe to marinate the porkchops in a honey based marinade and then fry them in a blend of cooking oils?
Are you saying you want to mix honey and oil, and use it as a frying medium?
Yes. Is that a safe thing to do?
It will almost certainly burn and scortch and be completely unpalatable. And very difficult to clean. Its probably safe within some particular definition of the word. A fire extinguisher may be advisable.
Class B, suitable for oil fires.
I should probably revise my question. I marinated the porkchops in a blend of honey, soy, and other oils. I let that sit for about an hour. In volume, the sauce was probably about 25% honey. Then I fried the porkchops - they were cut thin - in that sauce. I stirred constantly and it didn't burn too badly at all. The taste was okay, though I should add more flavours (mustard, balsamic, etc.).
Sure, there is no reason to think there are safety issues. Honey/soy is pretty cloying, so you might want some strong flavors like chili or garlic or ginger to (or all three) to help balance it out and give it complexity.
You should edit your question to make it clear exactly what you want to ask if you still want answers.
"I should probably revise my question" is certainly correct. Since it has been a month and somebody else "bumped" the question by editing an answer, I took the liberty of editing your question.
I've heard of adding sugar to stir-fries, to make a caramel flavoured sauce/glaze in Vietnamese cooking, as in this recipe. Although I've usually seen sugar used, I see no reason why a similar effect could not be obtained by using honey.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.659633
| 2013-12-20T03:21:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40434",
"authors": [
"2734364041",
"Cascabel",
"Jack",
"Joachim",
"Jolenealaska",
"Juliet Taylor",
"Newb",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"doaskd 2ds",
"freddy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96296",
"manssansndns",
"rorochichichi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80867
|
Can I safely run the microwave for an extended time with just a bowl of water?
I would like to leave a microwave running for several minutes (2-5, the longer the better) as part of a research project (I'm measuring the microwave emissions).
Is it safe to put a bowl of water in the microwave to prevent the magnetron from overheating? If not is there something else I could put in.
To answer the obvious question, I do not want to put food in the microwave because I intend to be running the microwave frequently, and it is not sustainable to buy a frozen pizza every time I want to run the microwave.
Sure you can - heating water is essentially what microwaves are built for. They heat food by heating the water inside. So skip the pizza and use plain old tap water.
You want to take two small precautions, though:
Use a microwave-safe container, e.g. a heat-proof glass or porcelain bowl.
Take precautions against overheating - a small stone or toothpick should do the trick.
I can't speak to the efficacy of water to prevent magnetrons from overheating. But yes, you can safely "cook" a microwaveable bowl of water for as long as you have water.
See the link on Stephie's answer about overheating if you have to touch the bowl or water before it has the opportunity to cool.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.660070
| 2017-04-13T06:44:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80867",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67661
|
Colour fading strawberry
Someone brought me some strawberries. After washing and wrapping in facial tissue, I found red color in the tissue. My question is will natural strawberry color do that? Or was the color painted on to make the strawberries good looking?
Related, possibly a duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23808/are-strawberries-really-dyed
Unfortunately, there really isn't a good answer on the related question (at least to this question), and this question really asks something different. If the question is "will undyed strawberries stain tissue?", then it is not a duplicate of the related question.
It is impossible to know whether it is dye or not unless we get some guidance on where you live. Some countries have regulations regarding dyeing strawberries and others do not.
It could be helpful to know where you live, as Catija mentioned. If possible, a photograph of the strawberry and tissue would also be of great help.
I have certainly seen red come off when drying strawberries I've grown myself. But I don't normally dry them (I don't even wash them unless they're dirty).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.660218
| 2016-03-22T10:31:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67661",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Eirik Hennum Lie",
"Giuseppe Cupelli",
"Jan Zuniga",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marylyn brady",
"Ramiro Rivera",
"Robert Edwards",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"zinmac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71020
|
Is there a specific name for the mise en place containers used in professional kitchens?
I've recently been watching the PBS show "The Mind of a Chef" and noticed the plastic containers the chefs use to store ingredients as part of their mise en place. To me they seem like a better alternative to other methods such as the custard cups Alton Brown uses which I find clumsy and annoying to use and wash.
The containers are stackable and come with lids and seem relatively sturdy. Seeing as they keeping quite a lot of them at hand, my guess is that they are disposable and / or cheap to acquire.
I've been browsing some online restaurant supply stores, but the only storage containers I could find in similar sizes are quite expensive at around 1.5€ each.
Is there a specific name these containers are sold under?
1.50 each is expensive? They're not disposable... That's not too far off from what you'd pay for something like Gladware which is $4-6 for 4-5 pieces with lids.
I use my regular bowls. They'll require a quick wash if I'm serving soup or salad, but they work fine otherwise.
Try Googling for 'prep bowls'
If there are more than two non-chain restaurants near you, there's likely to be a restaurant supply store within reasonable shopping distance.
Around here, they're called 'deli containers'. Those are specifically the heavier weight ones that can deal with hot foods. I don't see delis using them much anymore (they've switched to thinner, less expensive ones), but all of the restaurants near me that sell soup as takeout use them.
They generally go for $0.08 to $0.20 in bulk, depending on how many you're buying and if they have lids. (eg, a case of 1000 without lids is about $80 for the 16oz ones; maybe $100 to $120 for the taller (32oz ones))
You might be able to ask your local Chinese restaurants if they'll sell you some -- I can also get lighter weight ones in smaller lots (25) at most of the hispanic & asian grocery stores near me, as many of them have an aisle with goods that people running food trucks would need.
Looking online, you can get a case of 240 16oz w/ lids for $25, 240 32oz w/ lids for $39 ... but it's asking me for personal info before it'll tell me what shipping would be.
And now advertisements for deli containers are following me around to other websites.
If you can order delivery from your local Chinese place, they'll often pack soups and such in these sorts of deli containers. I've found they hold up very nicely in the dishwasher. Other dishes sometimes get packed in rectangular flat containers that are a good size for leftovers.
This should be a hint:
...stackable and come with lids and seem relatively sturdy.
If they're relatively sturdy, then they're not really disposable. There's no need for something to be sturdy if you're going to throw it away after one use.
So, look for plastic containers that suit your needs, and reuse them until they break. If they're on the cheap side, they might not last as long as nice food storage containers, but they'll still last quite a while, certainly long enough to make 1.5€ not seem like a big deal.
If you want something not terribly durable but at least a tiny bit reusable, kind of on the borderline of disposable, you might search for to-go containers (I guess they'd be takeaway containers in UK English). They'd be easier to find at restaurant supply stores than consumer stores.
If you really do want cheap and disposable and don't care about lids, just look for plastic bowls. That doesn't seem as useful to me, but I'm sure there are some situations where it might be good, e.g. if you're doing some one-time cooking at a much larger scale than normal.
You will want even a disposable container sturdy if the other alternative is breaking/spilling contents/contaminating contents...
The plastic containers you depict are easily obtainable as to-go containers at restaurant supply stores. They are known as plastic to-go bowls or containers.
Those containers look to be about 16 oz to me. If you search for "16 oz disposable containers with lids" you should find what you are looking for.
I found these on Amazon UK, which cost about £10 for 50. They are microwaveable and dishwasher safe, so can be reused.
Thanks, I digged some more and found disposable containers used for Salads or Antipasti at a different restaurant supply store. They come with lids that seal tightly and cost around 60€ for 100, so around 0,60€ per piece and seem a bit sturdier. They remind me of plastic tubs in which larger amounts of yoghurt or pre-made potato salad are sold in.
In many kitchens, certain staple items are a source of both the item, and its container for re-use. Don't know if that's what's going on in the pictured kitchen, but it certainly goes on at the one professional kitchen I have some regular inside contact with. Sour cream tubs, mozzerella ball buckets, fish boxes all get re-used (after cleaning and sanitizing, of course) pretty much until they break, or perhaps a little sooner if the incoming supply exceeds the wear-out rate of the ones in use.
...and indeed, my local Chinese take-out packs its soup in pretty heavy #5 plastic (polypropylene - hot is OK) clear containers, which get re-used in my home kitchen.
Cheap is good, but free via re-use and diversion from the waste stream is better (or getting more of your money's worth from the money you spent to buy the stuff in the container.)
Just found these: https://freundcontainer.com/plastic-square-snap-lock-containers-w-tamper-evident-lid/
took me awhile, but I prefer these to traditonal round deli quart/pint containers. No wasted space when placed side-by-side, they also stack more securely without flopping around. Hopefully this helps somebody looking for the same thing.
Thanks. I've gotten kimchi from a grocery store that was packed in that. (well, it was in a plastic bag, inside the plastic container). I like them because they're wider than the round deli containers ... but I don't know if you'd get any real savings in space, as the lip sticks out much farther than the lids on round containers.
I'm no expert, but a quick search led to this online store. It seems you are looking for DuraHome Food Storage Containers with Lids.
Personally, I prefer square containers. This Stainless Yakumi Pan looks fenomenal, but it's a tad expensive.
Other brands offer other options. I saw Ziploc round containers with a screw-on lid.
Gastronorm containers are ubiquitous in the professional kitchen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.660386
| 2016-06-28T20:22:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71020",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"JS.",
"Joe",
"buddahbrot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jscs",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62101
|
When making crockpot chili and adding raw hamburger, won't that make the chili greasy if not strained?
If you add raw ground beef, what about the grease in the meat mixing in with the chili? ill..
I edited your question to avoid off-topic health issues. We are happy to discuss flavor, but we're not qualified to address health claims.
The amount of grease the meat exudes is dependent upon the amount of fat in the beef. If your beef is lean (<10% fat), you will not likely notice a difference in the greasiness in the final product by not straining. If your meat is fatty (ground beef in the US can contain up to 30% fat), then the final product will have noticeable grease. The fat contributes in a good way (IMO) to the flavor and mouth-feel of chili if the meat is in the 15% range.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.661000
| 2015-09-27T21:48:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62101",
"authors": [
"Arquesia Grice",
"Jo Ann Weber",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leighton duCille",
"Michael Koritsas",
"aileen gardner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"pauline morgan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
407
|
What are good references for Gluten free baking
I have several members of my family who are GF. Baking for them has become a real challenge. I'm looking for good references to learn to understand how to work with this limitation in my baking. What are good references (online or print) for good GF baked goods?
I see two people decided they didn't think this question fit well with the site. Can you suggest ways to improve the question to fit better? BTW, gluten-free cooking is a very, very important topic in a cooking site, so, we need to find good ways to encourage such questions here.
Just make the question community Wiki, since it's asking for a list with no right answer.
This is an excellent site to learn about gluten free baking:
http://glutenfreegoddess.blogspot.com
I have personally tried many of the recipes and they have been excellent.
This is a very subjective question. For example: I find the recipes on Gluten-Free Goddess to use excessive Xanthan Gum (bouncy balls do not make good cupcakes). That being said I highly suggest you start with the basics and make your own flour to learn the balance of how different flours effect the texture and flavor of baked goods.
A few good books with recipes (and discussions) about gluten-free flour are:
Gluten-Free Quick and Easy
The Gluten-Free Gourmet Cooks Fast and Healthy
Although I don't have personal experience with The Gluten-Free Gourmet Makes Dessert or The Gluten-Free Gourmet Bakes Bread, I do trust Bette Hagman enough to suggest them as potentially good resources.
There are also a number of gluten-free flour mixes available which can be used as flour replacements in regular recipes to achieve gluten-free results:
Pamela's Baking mix
Arrowhead Mills Gluten-Free flour
King Arthur Gluten-Free Multipurpose Flour
Just a warning: Be careful! Many mixes say that they are 1-to-1 replacements, however they contain baking powder and sugar, so can cause things to go wonky. Additionally you need to understand that most gluten-free flours don't hold moisture as well as typical wheat flour, and you have to replace the elasticity provided by the missing gluten (for some recipes the prepared flour mixtures take care of this for you, however you may still need to tweak things).
While I can suggest that you use meringue to help give cookies structure without having them crumble when picking them up, or that you use apple sauce in cakes to keep them moist. A lot of this kind of information comes from simply understanding the science of cooking (and baking). Suggested reading includes:
On Food and Cooking
BakeWise
Honestly there are a lot of resources out there and google is a great way to find them. If, however, you have specific questions about what went wrong with a recipe this is probably a better forum for that question than this current one.
Thanks for, the science of cooking suggestions. Looking forward to reading!
A handful of resources my wife (who is gluten-intolerant) suggested:
Gluten-Free Girl
Gluten Free Gobsmacked
Books by Bette Hagman
One concern my wife mentioned (especially for others who come across this question who may not be aware) about non-gluten-free people preparing food for gluten-free people is the awareness of cross-contamination. If your kitchen is not completely gluten-free, you have to be very careful to segregate anything that may have had exposure to any flour, bread, etc. This includes things like spreads, tubs of butter, and the like that people frequently use with bread.
The best bet is to buy all your ingredients fresh, and keep them in a separate tote or shelf so that they cannot ever get mixed up with potentially-contaminated items. The same goes for baking dishes, utensils, and other food preparation surfaces.
So, if you're making peanut-butter cookies, use a fresh jar of peanut butter. :-)
I believe it is important to consider that those who are cooking gluten free are often under a considerable amount of pressure to learn new cooking techniques in a short amount of time, as they are working with unfamiliar ingredients.
Finding reliable resources is often difficult.
A supportive and understanding environment is essential on this topic as the complexity of the diet is overwhelming to those who are just starting out.
http://www.livingwithout.com/
The above link is an excellent resource for anyone who is interested in cooking for those with Celiac Disease or Gluten sensitivities.
Often those on a GF diet have multiple food allergies and sensitivities, this resource takes that into consideration, providing a wealth of information and recipes.
The site and magazine offer simple and delicious GF baking recipes. The comprehensive approach on the subject of baking GF made it possible for me once again enjoy fresh baked goods in my own home.
Yes, this is an old question, but the book's new -- America's Test Kitchen's "How Can It Be Gluten Free".
In the book, they discuss the advantages/disadvantages of different pre-made gluten-free 'flour' mixes (as some worked well as flour replacements for some types of recipes, but not all ... so one good for bread might not be so great for brownies or cookies). They discuss some of the issues with wheat flour replacements (off tastes, too dense, too crumbly, no browning, overly starchy, etc.) and things you can do to counteract them. They have a lot of gluten free recipes, including one for making your own flour replacement.
They discuss using different hydration levels to reduce grittiness, adding powdered milk to improve browning, using potato flakes as a binder in recipes instead of bread crumbs. etc.
(I'd list more things, but I gave my copy to a co-worker who's gluten free).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.661130
| 2010-07-10T05:15:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/407",
"authors": [
"Al Crowley",
"Barb Eadson",
"Brh",
"C. K. Young",
"Clean",
"Jos",
"Ocaasi",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Steerpike",
"coral jasmine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/999",
"kevin",
"mjhilton",
"mjobrien"
],
"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
}
|
440
|
A vegan alternative to Quorn?
It seems that almost all meat replacements in the UK have eggs. Are there any good vegan alternatives?
Is there a specific use you are looking for? What I use depends on the texture I want.
yes, I am looking for something that doesn't require a lot of extra work to make tasty (i.e. not tofu), and comes as slices for sandwiches, or burgers, etc.
Did you try vegetables instead of using highly processed factory plastic food as meat replacement? Beans? Lentils? Grains?
Yeah, I mostly use fresh ingredients, but sometimes it is handy to have something pre-prepared.
Also see @Pulse's answer. Check out the China town for 'vegetarian food', they have all sort of fake meat from chicken to beef, from abalone to fish, all made of modified tofu fibres.
I'll definitely go and have a look. Do you have any recommended brands or products that you've tried?
I am not sure of the exact brands as I live in the far east where food is produced. My advice would be to go by the taiwanese brands. the quality control's better...
Seitan is good, and very easy to make at home. (Just a little time consuming.)
My measurements are not metric, so if anyone can translate, I'd appreciate it.
Bring to a boil about a gallon of water. Add to that any particular flavors you like. I usually add dried basil and oregano, some vegetable broth (about a cup), vegan worchestershire or soy sauce, and dried minced onions.
While waiting for that to boil, take one cup of wheat gluten. Add just about a cup of water and mix until combined. You'll have a ball of sticky dough. Put that ball under running cold water for a minute, then knead underwater for five minutes. You'll end up with something firm and rubbery.
Drop into the boiling broth. Watch it for about five minutes to make sure it doesn't stick to the bottom of the pot, then leave it to simmer for two hours.
That's all!
thanks for the recipe! I do like seitan, but never have tried making it myself.
Wheat gluten is not easy or cheap to acquire in the UK, in my experience.
In the UK, you may want to have a look at the Vegan Society. They endorse a range of products which can be recognized through their sunflower logo.
I'm rather fond of products made by a company named The Redwood Wholefood Company, they produce quite an interesting range of vegan meat substitutes, including ready-to-use slices.
You should be able to find these products at a wholefood shop; Hollands & Baretts carry them sometimes (and they may have other vegan offerings as well).
Quorn have introduced some vegan products themselves since that question was asked (as of 2017).
What about Tofu It's essentially the coagulated soy milk, pressed into blocsk. It's great in all kinds of recipes, especially Asian dishes, it really absorbs the flavours from the rest of the ingredients.
I'm into tofu, but in this case I'm looking more for something instant, like a sandwich slice or burger.
Are you open to tofu preparations that you do ahead of time, resulting in a sandwich slice you can later slap on bread? If so, marinate, slice real thin, spread on a greased cookie sheet, and roast in a 400 degree (F) oven for 10 minutes or so.
Along Pulse's lines, seitan may work well. Depending on the dish, sometimes I prefer seitan's texture over tofu. In the US, you can find it in many health food stores in the refrigerated section, often by tofu, and sometimes regular grocery stores if you're lucky.
GO TO HOLLAND AND BARETTS they are soooo good. Get the vegetarian's choice sausages and burgers they are vegan and their texture is far better than anything i've tasted before. They also do lots of vegan cheeses, ham, pepperoni. It depends what holland and barrett store you go to some also have fresh pasties and sausage rolls etc.
If you are looking for lunchmeat sliced thingies, I recommend the following companies:
Gardein
Tofurky
Yves
For mince my favourite is Sainsbury's own brand. They use eggs in other meat-like products but not in the mince soya protein. It is by far the best I've tried and is about £1.5 for a whole bag. You find it in the frozen section.
For everything else Fry's Family is my first choice. You can find them in most health shops and at online at Ocado.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.661611
| 2010-07-10T09:55:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/440",
"authors": [
"Bala Clark",
"Davette James",
"David Sykes",
"In the Booley House",
"Kiesa",
"MrAndrew1337",
"Onalee Lawson",
"Rebekah",
"TildalWave",
"bubu",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/900",
"melle",
"xorsyst"
],
"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
}
|
79743
|
Can I reuse marinade that was used on precooked meat?
Can I reuse Greek marinade that I used on precooked ribs ?
Hello Vivian! The content of your marinade doesn't matter for the answer. It is important to state in the title what the problem is though, and especially with this question, because if people assume it's about marinated used on uncooked meat, they will vote to close as a duplicate. So I changed your title.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.662000
| 2017-04-08T15:35:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79743",
"authors": [
"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
}
|
72878
|
What is a "fruit protector" as a recipe ingredient?
On reading a U. S. book about making one's own cordials, I came across
'1 tablespoon fruit protector' listed in the ingredients of a recipe.
Do you know what fruit protector is called in Britain?
I'm not familiar with the stuff, but a quick search online shows a couple of brands, and the ingredient lists are similar : dextrose, ascorbic acid, citric acid, and silicon dioxide. So as strange as it sounds ... it's actually pretty similar to instant lemonade mix. (although I don't know if the proportions are similar).
It's a redox agent (antioxidant). Oxygen reacts with it, instead of turning the fruit brown.
To the best of my knowledge there is only one major brand of fruit/vegetable preserver, Fruit-Fresh. In the U.S. it is often found in the canning section of grocery stores. It is available on Amazon UK (Fruit-Fresh) so you may also be able to find it in local markets.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.662070
| 2016-08-04T14:03:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72878",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
}
|
74723
|
Smoothie - water as base liquid, originally?
I am wondering, for termbase purposes, about the base liquid for smoothies: is it originally water?
I would appreciate your help as native English speakers, as we were considering equivalents in our language made using milk, yogurt, fruit juice as a base liquid for this drink.
Thank you very much!
Termbase? What is that?
@Catija The OP is creating a food taxonomy. Quite a difficult task, especially if it is multi-language, as it seems.
Generally people don't use water, because they don't want watered-down flavors. Fruit juice, milk, and yogurt all provide some flavor, so people tend to like them more.
But you certainly can use water if you want. It'll probably work best if you have some good flavorful fruit, and you might end up wanting to add extra sweetness, but it's possible. (I personally don't mind using ice, to get it extra cold with more icy texture, but that's not universal.)
In any case, it's not a strictly defined term; if you have a frozen drink that tastes like it's made out of actual blended fruit (and dairy and whatever else), I'm sure people will call it a smoothie.
Considering that even smoothie shops like Jamba Juice use ice in all (most?) of their smoothies, I don't think it's that unpopular. Though they use special ice.
@Catija Maybe I should've said "not universal" - I didn't think it was that unpopular either, but then I discovered plenty of skeptics here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54662/1672
@Catija, special ice? What do you mean?
@LorelC. They use crushed ice pellets not solid ice the way a homemade smoothie would.
No many people not use water because due to water u cannot get extra good results for your base, so people use milk,juices and yugurt etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.662179
| 2016-10-13T23:36:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74723",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77938
|
breading/crumbing: mixing the eggs and flour?
i was wondering why the recipes for crumbed/breaded foods always say that we should dredge in flour first, then dip in eggs, then coat with crumbs. Would it work if I mixed the eggs and flour to make a kind of batter, and dip the item (chicken wing, for example) in this batter, and then coat with crumbs? Is there a reason for them being done as separate steps? Cos , by the time i get to the last few, the eggs are all full of flour anyway... so why not just mix them up from the start?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53390/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-light-coating-of-flour-in-a-three-step-bound-breading?rq=1
I do it like that, never had a problem.
Entirely different texture due to different proportions.
Through standard crumbing technique you're getting an even, thin crusty layer of what is mostly crumbs, with a small amount of egg.
If you make a mix you can dip the meat in, you'll need to use some 3x as much egg, and you get a smooth texture more resembling a corn-dog.
If you mix crumbs and egg in the proportions as they appear on crumbed meat, you'd get a thick dough, not a batter. And it just wouldn't stick to the meat.
In general, when battering, wet sticks to dry and dry sticks to wet, but they don't stick to themselves.
Thus, if starting with wet food, like meat, the process is usually:
flour (dry, sticks to the meat, which is wet)
eggs (wet, sticks to the flour, which is dry)
crumbs (dry, sticks to the eggs, which are wet)
If you have a wet layer right next to wet food, the batter will fall off during cooking. If you try to stick dry to dry or wet to wet, it just won't adhere well.
You don't need the whole process (you could just use flour and omit the other two layers, for example), but the wet-dry rule is important.
It would be possible to mix (e.g.) eggs and flour to make a wet batter, but that should still be applied to food which is dry. If the food isn't dry, it would need to be floured.
It depends on the final texture you want to achieve. There are tempura recipes that call for flour->batter->breadcrumbs (panko) [thanks @catija!]. You can omit the initial flour layer if you're able to create a dry enough surface for the batter to adhere to. You can even omit the final breadcrumb layer (this is the tempura that I'm used to).
Batters (generally) will result in a relatively thicker (puffier?) coating than the "flour->egg->breadcrumbs" approach. You mentioned chicken wings; usually those are coated in flour (or some sort of starch: potato/corn), fried, and tossed in some sort of sauce. I've seen healthier variations that are roasted or even grilled.
General tips for breading: if you're cooking with friends/family, it's helpful (and fun) to have one person on each station: flour, eggs, breadcrumbs. If you're cooking alone, give yourself plenty of room (large plates), use utensils to help with the initial coating, and keep one hand for dry ingredients (flour and breadcrumbs) and the other hand strictly for the eggs. If you mix up, wash your hands, pat them dry, and continue; otherwise you'll end up with a clumpy mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.662338
| 2017-01-31T13:35:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77938",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120174
|
How to clean tea stains from a mug with steel interior?
How can I clean this tea mug?
This is a Contigo mug and I believe it is stainless steel.
It has seen a lot of tea and there is a black coating that has broken in scales in the bottom.
I've tried to soak it with vinegar but it doesn't help and since the mug is quite narrow, it's hard to scrub, so I'm looking for a chemical way to soften, or dissolve that layer.
Just a thought that wasn't given in other answers, but is not worth an answer itself: In addition to whatever solvent you use (soap/hot water, isopropyl alcohol, etc), toss in some small pebbles or rock salt, cap the thing, and shake the hell out of it. The pebbles/rock salt will help by physically scrubbing the surface as well. Works great for certain glasswear where it's difficult to get inside ...
I had great success cleaning tea and other food residue with chlorine-free bleach (sodium percarbonate). Put a couple of tablespoons in, soak with hot water and leave overnight. Then scrub a bit, and everything comes off easily.
+1, agree this works very well, it might not even need a scrub after, with all the residue just floating to the surface! Pure sodium percarbonate may not be easily available outside of specialist shops (e.g. homebrewing), but it's often available as a laundry stain remover/whitener (Oxyaction or similar, I think?). This contains additional ingredients like perfume, which I wouldn't use with plastics or porous surfaces as I'm worried it would permanently flavour the flask, but will be fine with stainless steel and glass!
You can buy percarbonate on eBay pretty cheap [UK £6.25 a kilo if you look hard]. I always like to keep some on hand for when I don't want the smell of Oxy washing additive in whatever I'm cleaning. Ironically, old, well cleaned Oxy tubs are great for keeping it in.
sodium percarbonate is the primary ingredient in oxyclean. it would work even better if you mix it with some TSP and/or dishwasher detergent.
+1; a little Oxiclean powder from a tub was extremely effective at clearing out old coffee and tea stains from my well-used Contigo. It's tremendously easy to find in the US, and any scenting rinsed away without trouble.
I use the tablets sold for denture soaking for this purpose. I use boiling water (rather than the just 'warm' water used with dentures) and maybe a couple of tablets if the staining is severe. I leave for up to 1 hour. Then the staining if not gone will be loosened enough for scrubbing with an abrasive-backed sponge. Also for stainless steel ordinary household vinegar is good.
Yet another way of cleaning coffee/tea stains could be to use a denture cleaner, one of those tablets that fizz if thrown into some water. I personally really like this, as it's simple, safe, and can be used not only for mugs for also for e.g. thermos bottles or reusable plastic/glass bottles with a much narrower opening.
Just boil some water, fill the mug with it while it's still boiling hot, set it in a sink just in case it overflows with fizzing, and drop in one or two tablets, then leave overnight. If the mug/bottle doesn't overflow/is done overflowing, you can use an oven mitt to carefully take it out of the sink and place it somewhere safe if you need to use the sink.
The next day you can usually just dump out the water and rinse once or twice, but I tend to do this more regularly, so I've never quite had a buildup like in your picture. In your case you might have to repeat, in which case you might not just want to rinse but also use a cloth or brush to see if you can remove more.
If your mug is unpainted on the outside, you can clean it in the dishwasher. However, if it is painted, then you can't. Here's alternate ways of cleaning:
What worked for me:
Put 1 tsp of dishwashing detergent in the mug, then fill it with 90C or hotter water. Let soak for 1 hour. Scrub briefly with a bottle brush. Pour out. Repeat if necessary.
(note: this works in a Contigo mug, which is stainless steel. It is not a good idea for aluminum or some plastic mugs)
What many internet sources suggest:
Make a baking-soda and vinegar mixture in the mug. Scrub, and rinse.
I have successfully used some dishwasher detergent instead of the regular dishwashing soap (if the material permits), it’s a bit more “active”.
I've had good success with, strangely enough, fizzy Vitamin C tablets. I stumbled across this by accident when I notices a badly stained teacup was sparkling after I dissolved one of these in my cup. This has become my go-to way of cleaning stained cups.
This will be because of the ascorbic acid that is in the tablet. I have used citric acid to similar effect (and it is much cheaper)
Well, I drink it for the vitamin C @Tragamor, so it's not a waste.
@GdD vitamin C and all the historic tea you mean?
I clean my stainless steel travel mugs using Barkeepers Friend and a non-abrasive scrubbing sponge. Barkeepers Friend's main ingredient is oxalic acid. It's recommended by e.g. AllClad for cleaning their stainless steel pans, and it works like a charm. For hardened stains I usually sprinkle the powder and then cover it with a wet paper towel and let it soak like that for a while, but it's usually not necessary.
If you're in N. America you should be able to find it at most grocery stores and also big box home improvement stores like Home Depot. I have no idea if it's available internationally, but I would assume that it or something similar should be.
+1 for BKF. Had great success using it on various stainless steel stains.
Tea stains in ordinary glazed china mugs are easily removed with a citric acid + hot water + scrubbing with a non-stick sponge.
Let the citric acid solution "soak" in the mug for 5 - 10 minutes before scrubbing gently.
Citric acid can be bought at most pharmacists, veterinary products stores and dairy products stores.
Citric acid can also be bought cheaply and in bulk at "bin" style stores. Pharmacies tend to charge medical-grade prices.
The classic way to deal with tea stains is bicarbonate of soda/baking powder! Mix it with a little water to make a paste, apply liberally, leave to sit for a while and rub off.
bicarb soda <> baking power. I don't know but I think the acid in b.powder would neutralise the bicarb.
I usually scrub with salt - just salt and a little bit of water. For the actual scrubbing I would use one of those sponges with a 'sole' of rather hard plastic felt - put the salt in, fold up the sponge with the scrubbing side out, so you can insert it into the mug and use something like the handle of a wooden spoon to push it around. It works surprisingly well.
I’ve had great success using bottle cleaning tablets. They usually contain baking soda, hydrogen peroxide, and citric acid.
https://www.today.com/shop/people-say-these-tablets-make-their-bottles-look-brand-new-t173018
Just did it the other day on a coffee thermos to remove a very stubborn black spot and now it looks very shiny and brand new.
I don't think anyone has mentioned enzymatic cleaners, AKA "oxy-" cleaners. One major brand name is Oxy-clean. The tea stains are protein, and enzymatic cleaners do a great job of breaking down proteins. I've used enzymatic cleaners to great effect in removing coffee and tea stains from glassware and mugs. I've made the inside of Thermoses and coffee carafes look like new with zero scrubbing.
One major caveat: If there is any printing on the object you're cleaning, like measurement marks on the side of a Pyrex measuring cup, the enzymatic cleaner can take it right off.
For stainless steel, Barkeeper's Friend is great, I send that recommendation if there's a reason to not use an enzymatic cleaner.
Just for completeness, we have used liquid bleach to remove tea/stains from ceramic and plastic mugs. But never tried on metal ones. It might ruin your metal. :-)
Note: We have used diluted, water-treatment-level, sodium hypochlorite bleach (standard from supermarkets). Let it soak for a while. Then clean thoroughly. Here "water-treatment-level" means that it is a pure solution of sodium hypochlorite in water, without additives (e.g. perfume). The bottles we get have clear labels, either "can be used to disinfect water for drinking" or "cannot be used etc.".
I've cleaned some mysterious stains using CLR as a last resort.
https://clrbrands.com/Products/CLR-Household/CLR-Calcium-Lime-and-Rust-Remover
However this stuff has it's own collection of nasty chemicals and you will need to rinse the bowl a dozen times with warm water and agitation. Also let the item sit overnight to dry, and then rinse a couple more times.
Curiously, there are multiple different packagings/labellings around the world for the same product.
In general I have found tooth paste excellent for cleaning
or polishing stainless steel - the cheaper the better :)
The cheap and nasty brands that make your eyes water are often the best.
Also good for chrome and any surface that you might scratch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.662634
| 2022-03-29T23:04:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120174",
"authors": [
"Clumsy cat",
"Criggie",
"GdD",
"Jeff Bowman",
"Laconic Droid",
"Michael Harvey",
"Stephie",
"Steve",
"Tetsujin",
"Tragamor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98553",
"jsavn",
"mcalex",
"stannius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82396
|
Nutrition: Yogurt vs Milk
I'm generally a fan of having quite a bit of whole milk/yogurt made with whole milk (no flavoured stuff, no extra sugar). I'm also quite finicky about calories. I have found that the low sugar content of yogurt vs. milk, and it's rather more savoury nature, mean I enjoy cooking and working with it much more. Is there any nutritional reason I can't just drop all milk consumption for yogurt? Do I lose anything other than the sugar (assuming equal calories consumed)?
EDIT: So to clarify what my question is:
What nutrients/chemicals are lost/changed in the process of converting milk to yogurt? As far as I can tell the most major one is the reduction in sugar per calorie which to me is a big bonus.
As a note, we do not address questions of "health" or general nutrition so if that's what you're looking for, you might want to look at the scope of the [health.se] instead. As far as I'm aware, they will address some questions on this topic but we do not have a nutrition site as of yet.
I edited out some of the more objectively off-topic aspects of your question. The question may still be closed by the community, but closing isn't a certainty. An argument can be made (and I would make that argument) that it is on-topic now. I like the question because it is scientifically interesting (I upvoted it after editing). Oh! and Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10753/homemade-yogurt-nutrition-info?rq=1
Hello Sean, and welcome to the site. You have probably noticed by now that we are quite strict in the type of questions we accept. Almost all of nutrition is off topic, but there is a small part which we do accept, and your question seems to fall under it - only it needs to be more more precisely defined. Your edit is already very good, but it needs a bit of final clarification. "What chemicals" makes the question unanswerable - there are hundreds of chemicals in both milk and yogurt, and probably not all of them are even identified. You probably mean "what chemicals which are relevant (cont.)
(cont.) to my diet" - but the big problem there is that there is no consensus in the world about a full list of such nutrients. For example, you seem to follow a diet in which the total amount of sugars is important - this is reasonably common, but not universal. And for most other stuff, there is even less of a consensus. So you would have to give us a list of the nutrients you find interesting, before we can tell you how they differ. We cannot do the work of deciding which nutrients should interest you, since this involves deciding which of thousands of nutritional theories is correct.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.663392
| 2017-06-14T20:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82396",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"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
}
|
71842
|
Graham Cracker Sheets
Please tell me what are Graham Cracker Sheets? I live in Australia and have not heard of them but I'm sure we have an equivalent, any advice appreciated.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! See this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50371/is-there-a-super-close-substitute-for-graham-crackers and this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45327/how-much-is-a-cup-of-graham-cracker-crumbs-in-crackers-and-weight The picture in the second question is of a graham cracker sheet. If you are trying to make a specific recipe, we can probably be of more help if you post the recipe or at least what you want to do with the crackers. Without more info, this question is likely to be closed as a duplicate of the first question I listed...
But don't let it bother you if that happens. It only means that someone else asked the same good question first.
A rough equivalent for graham cracker sheets might be a sheet of gingerbread. Graham is very similar to gingerbread; generally less sweet, less spiced and with some more rough grind of wheat (the "graham flour").
Another similar item would be McVitie's original digestive biscuits - http://www.manassen.com.au/Product-Detail.asp?CategoryID=77&ProductID=7542&SubProductID=136
Graham cracker is a little bit sweeter, with less bran and therefore crisper.
And if you want to go all out for the real thing, take a look here: http://www.usafoods.com.au/search?keywords=graham
Choose one of the products described as "honey" - not "cinnamon".
Take care: the real graham crackers are very hydrophilic and they will spoil quickly after opening!
From what I've been told by a relative, Australia doesn't really have an equivalent of Graham Crackers. Given how rarely you can find them at the import stores, you're best off making your own. I use this recipe at King Arthur Flour.
I like it because the measurements are adaptable between volumes and weights, so the recipe can work in any country. Any quality brand name of flour will work. It doesn't have to be KAF brand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.663617
| 2016-08-03T07:51:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71842",
"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
}
|
90355
|
Best way to Store and Rewarm Fried Chicken
I'm looking for a good way to store fried chicken, as well as a good way to warm it up without it becoming soggy. I often have to cook a day or 2 in advance and the chicken loses its crunchy crust.
For the record, I usually coat my chicken in flour, dip in eggs, coat in cornflake crumbs, and fry.
Possible duplicate of Crispy fried chicken goes limp: picnic disaster
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20297/best-way-to-hold-deep-fried-foods?rq=1
Nothing you do will be perfect but here are a few things you can do to help.
When done frying dry well in a dry space.
Sealed spaces will trap the moisture released by the chicken as it cools. Refrigerators are natural moist spaces as well. You will want to do this on a drying rack to prevent the chicken sitting in its own runoff juices. Use of a fan will speed up the process and allow you to get the chicken in the fridge sooner for safety reasons.
Store with a desiccant of some kind.
Can't find a desiccant? Don't want to use those little packs that come with your new shoes that practically screams Don't eat me!? Well I usually just use a paper bag. Add a few paper towels if needed. Rice and salt can be your friend too.
Reheating is easy Fryer or Oven.
I prefer fryer because it will come out closest to the original that way. However it is also easier to break the delicate crusty exterior. The stronger your coating the better chance of succeeding with this (Note: for items that don't have a fragile exterior like French Fries this almost always works great.) One way to ensure your coating is stronger is to have rested it after applying the coating for some time before the actual initial frying. The Oven however works well too and I prefer this method for larger batches for sheer convenience. I go with a lower temperature of 300 degrees F in order to achieve more internal heat before the exterior begins to burn but feel free to adjust for your needs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.663775
| 2018-06-15T02:05:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90355",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68877
|
Help with ice cream cake
I'm making an ice cream cake for my brothers birthday. I was putting the ice cream on the first layer of cake and put it in the freezer. I couldn't finish putting the icecream on because it was melting, I tried putting more ice cream on it 15 minutes later but it was melting all over the place. I put it in the freezer again. I think at the beginning my ice cream was way too soft. How do I fix this?? Any help will be appreciated! Thanks.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Is this homemade ice cream?
Was the cake warm when you added the ice cream? You might try chilling it once it's cooled after baking.
The problem was a malfunctioning freezer; this is why ice cream melted overnight in it.
Hi! Thank you for coming back to report what happened. There is no need to be ashamed because a cake didn't work. You can be sure that all the famous cooks in the world have ruined dozens of cakes in their lives, this is how everybody learns. I wish you a nice celebration despite the melted cake!
To the other users: I considered converting this to a comment, but in fact the OP recognized their problem and gave the correct answer - the cake must have caused trouble because of the malfunctioning freezer. So I see this post as an answer by our standards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.663951
| 2016-05-08T02:19:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68877",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"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
}
|
72870
|
How do I fix pickles that are too sour?
I made dill pickles using an old Ukrainian recipe fermenting the cucumbers in salt water. I wanted to can them when they were finished instead of keeping 10lbs of fermented pickles in my refrigerator. I didn't want to use the salt brine the pickles fermented in,so I made a brine using 1qt white vinegar, 3tbls salt, 1tsp mustard seed,and 1/2 cup sugar. The result is really, really sour pickles! Can I open the jars and dump the brine and use salted water as canning liquid? Or what can I use?
If you are going to do anything, do it when you are ready to put the pickles in the fridge again, not when canning - acid keeps the canned pickles safe.
So - leave them really sour as canned. When ready to eat a jar, open, dump the brine, add water (whether or not you salt it is up to you and the salt level in the pickles - I'd try plain water) - put it in the fridge. You might want to let that soak for a day or two, and you might want to dump it again and replace it again, depending on how things taste at that point.
Traditional preserving methods may in fact be too intense for eating as-is, and this is not always a matter of what you are used to. I recall reading a story set in the 1800’s, and noted details of preparing dinner: salted meat was left to soak in the morning to cook that evening. The salt and dessication was a practical preservative and something to deal with, not part of the intended flavor.
I made sausage with a recipe said to be the favorite of Chopin, and it was far too salty to eat—comparing other period recipies, I noted they generally had about triple the salt of a modern form.
The same might be true of your canning method. The acid preserves the fruit without modern refrigeration etc. and maybe they didn’t eat them out of the jar. Maybe they added them to dishes where the intensity would be diluted by the entire recipe; maybe there was a process you don't know about like replacing the liquid after the jar is taken from long-term storage and opened for use.
That would be my guess: you rince and replace the liquid after opening the can.
The real tradition may have kept the original brine (or fresh brine without the fermentation products) in a barrel that was not what we consider to be hermetically sealed. So you're mixing two different techniques, and they may have interacted in ways not intended.
The sugar in your brine is probably not for any sweetness of flavor but as another dessicant. Note that white sugar would ot have been available before the 18th century so that’s not authentic (or not that old). To reduce the sourness, consider baking soda to actually cancel the acidity.
You need the acid for preservation, I'd suggest adding more sugar to the mix to balance the acid flavor. You won't be reducing the acid so you will still have the preservation, but it may work to make them more palatable. I'd experiment on one jar first to see. You could do this before canning, or you could mix in after opening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.664093
| 2016-08-04T03:34:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72870",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73345
|
Can I get botulism by using 2 cups vinegar to 8 cups water when canning pickles - as most recipes require 1:1 ratio of vinegar to water?
I recently canned pickles using 2 cups vinegar to 8 cups water ratio but I see that most canning recipes ask for 1:1 ratio of vinegar to water. My question is: Can I get botulism from using 2 cups vinegar to 8 cups water? (I boiled 10 min in water bath after).
What was the acidity of the vinegar?
While I'm sure some people here may have various opinions, the fact is that official food safety guidelines say to use "approved recipes" (such as from the national, state, and university-run food preservation groups). These recipes go through a rigorous empirical testing and verification process and any deviation from them could cause problems. Unless you can find an approved recipe that uses the proportions you list with the amount of cucumbers you used, etc., no one can guarantee your process is safe.
@Athanasius - That looks like an answer to me.
@DebbieM. - I see your point, but I actually did no research on whether recipes exist that could validate the procedure in the question. It might indeed be safe; I don't know. Without the detailed recipe and source, I don't think an answer is possible.
Out of sheer curiosity, I recently tested my pickle recipe with an digital PH meter and used buffer solution to calibrate the meter.
Bacteria can't grow below 4.6ph.
My recipe uses Apple Cider Vinegar with 5% acidity at 1 cup vinegar to 4 cups water or 2 cups / 8 cups. I also used tap water and boiled the brine for a long time (Note: Both tap water and boiling reduce the acidity of the mixture.)
After testing my brine and a puree of pickles and brine, the acidity of the mix across two batches measured an average of 3.80ph.
Straight brine: 3.23ph
The range (PINT jars):
Pickle juice: 3.70ph to 3.80ph
Pickle juice and solid puree: 3.79ph to 3.83ph
It takes a whole lot of water to dilute the acidity. So this range falls well below and well within the range of "safety".
*** Please note that I am not a chemist and these numbers are only applicable to my recipe and my kitchen methods. However, what is clear is that 1 cup vinegar to 4 cups water is safe, according to my experiment.
A 1 cup to 1 cup ratio would result in an extremely sour pickle.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. This is a great answer, except I'd love to know where your "bacteria can't grow below 4.6ph" statement came from. Perhaps you could supply a link to a source?
This is a very good data point, although I'm afraid that people will read into it more than a data point. The question answered by guidelines "is it possible to make a safe batch with this technique", but "will somebody who attempts to use the technique always get a safe batch". +1 for your effort and sharing, I'd still suggest people who try the ratio should also measure the pH (cheap paper strips should be sufficient, most of us don't keep an electronic pH meter).
Ph of 4.6 comes from the CDC and the World Health Organization and a professional chemist who happens to love my pickles.
http://www.cdc.gov/botulism/pdf/bot-manual.pdf
Yes, my experiments are simply a data point. And, as I clearly stated, only applicable to my recipe and my kitchen preparation.
My purpose was to offset the outright scare tactics so frequently found among recipe blogs and online recipe sources that provide zero evidence about proper recipe ratios beyond unscientific opinion.
I like what you've done, and have up-voted your response...and I appreciate your further clarification. I don't think you were specifically calling my citation out, but just to clarify I will point out, that Douglas Baldwin (who I cited above) has a significant amount of expertise, and is not peddling scare tactics (See: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/). I would also point out that ChefSteps (with whom Baldwin is now associated) is not a recipe blog, but a company founded by former collaborators on the ground breaking book "Modernist Cuisine". So, these are trustworthy sources.
While no one will tell you if you will get botulism or not, it's the acidity in pickles that makes them safe. According to Douglas Baldwin
"Food pathogens can't grow below a pH of 4.0. 5% vinegar is 25% more acidic than this." He goes on to talk about the pasteurization step. You'll have to scroll a bit to read the section. We don't know your vinegar's starting acidity, and you diluted it significantly....So, you would have to calculate the total acidity of your brine, beginning with the acidity of your vinegar, to determine if you are within the correct safety parameters.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.664363
| 2016-08-23T02:23:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73345",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Debbie M.",
"Paul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50506",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81593
|
Gases used in packaging food?
What's the difference between CO2 and N2 used in food packaging?
CO2 is carbon dioxide and N2 is Nitrogen gas.
In either case, this is referred to as "Modified atmosphere packaging", which means the food is packaged in something other than simply "air".
The point of doing this is that it increases the shelf life of the product.
From the website of a company who sells machines that do this:
When modifying the atmosphere inside of a package, the amount of oxygen can typically be reduced to 3% or less. Inert gases used for MAP are typically denser than oxygen. As such, the oxygen inside the package is forced out of the package. This results in extended product shelf life, product integrity, protection against discoloration, and for products like chips, a cushion-like buffer against damage (this is commonly referred to as a “pillow pack”).
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Carbon dioxide inhibits the growth of most aerobic bacteria and molds. Generally speaking, the higher the level of CO2 in the package, the longer the achievable shelf-life. However, CO2 is readily absorbed by fats and water - therefore, most foods will absorb CO2. Excess levels of CO2 in MAP can cause flavor tainting, drip loss and pack collapse. It is important, therefore, that a balance is struck between the commercially desirable shelf-life of a product and the degree to which any negative effects can be tolerated. When CO2 is required to control bacterial and mold growth, a minimum of 20% is recommended.
Nitrogen (N2)
Nitrogen is an inert gas and is used to exclude air and, in particular, oxygen. It is also used as a balance gas (filler gas) to make up the difference in a gas mixture, to prevent the collapse of packs containing high-moisture and fat-containing foods, caused by the tendency of these foods to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For modified atmosphere packaging of dried snack products 100% nitrogen is used to prevent oxidative rancidity.
And additional clarity from the Wikipedia article on the subject:
The modification process often tries to lower the amount of oxygen (O2), moving it from 20.9% to 0%, in order to slow down the growth of aerobic organisms and prevent oxidation reactions. The removed oxygen can be replaced with nitrogen (N2), commonly acknowledged as an inert gas, or carbon dioxide (CO2), which can lower the pH or inhibit the growth of bacteria. Carbon monoxide can be used for preserving the red color of meat.
Air is typically 80% Nitrogen.
Well... N2 is 100%, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. If you'd like to expand on your comment to make it more useful, that would be appreciated.
I just thought it was worth mentioning, because not everybody is aware that the majority of everyday air is Nitrogen. When food is packed in Nitrogen, you're not introducing anything new to the food, rather you're depriving it of the highly reactive chemicals O2, CO2, CO, etc. as you're excellent answer explains.
I really appreciate your broadening your comment. It's significantly more helpful now! Thank you for your very valid points.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.664710
| 2017-05-11T19:14:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81593",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Octopus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103328
|
What kind of bourbon is best for making whiskey balls?
What kind of bourbon should I use in this recipe for "whiskey balls" (aka "bourbon balls" aka "tipsies")?
1 6 ounce pkg — 1 cup chocolate bits (chips)
3 tbsp light corn syrup
1/2 cup bourbon
2 1/2 cups fine vanilla wafer crumbs (use a rolling pin!)
1/2 cup powdered sugar
1 cup finely chopped walnuts
Melt chocolate over hot — not boiling — water. Add syrup and bourbon. Combine crumbs, powdered sugar and nuts. (I do this first before melting the chocolate.) Blend into the chocolate mixture, stirring well.
Let stand about 30 minutes; then form in 1 inch balls (rolling in hands). Roll balls in granulated sugar. Let ripen in covered container for several days. (Makes about 50.)
P.S. Being very much an amateur drinker, I woulddn't know what difference in flavor there might be between, say, Old Crow or Wild Turkey. What I'm looking for is a list of brands that will add a strong whiskey flavor to the product, without my paying extra for nuances and overtones that will get lost in the chocolate. As a man of simple tastes, I will have no problem sipping the leftover whiskey, even if it is not of the highest quality, or I could save it for the next holiday. As for other types of booze, I'm sure rum balls would be delightful, but bourbon whiskey is traditional — the recipe is from a dear departed aunt.
After posting this question I deleted it because I read the warning "Please do not use for 'which ingredient should I use in my dish' - this kind of question is subjective and will be closed." But I don't see how my question is any different from this question about what type of beer is best for beer-battered fish and that question seems to be well received, so I undeleted my question.
I actually suggest rolling back your edit -- "which is best" is subjective and potentially closeable, while "which is used" is less inviting of opinion and "here's my favorite" style answers :)
@Erica I will edit to clarify what I mean by "best" si it won't be subjective.
Honestly, "whatever you want" is the only answer :)
I have a similar seasonal recipe, and in various years, have tried:
expensive bourbon
cheap bourbon
rum
Drambuie
Kahlua
And so on...
The flavors of your chosen liqueur will be somewhat muted by the chocolate, and so something with the complexity of Drambuie was a bit of a waste. However, ultra-cheap bourbon was a little disappointing, as it provided booziness but not much other taste. Kahlua, Grand Marnier, and similar choices with their own flavor profiles can play very nicely with the chocolate, so it's also OK to get creative.
The best choice is a bourbon (or other) that you might enjoy sipping on its own, ideally one that is already on your shelf (if you don't mind sharing 1/2 cup of it). If you hate a particular liqueur, you won't enjoy this dessert as much! If you don't know much about whiskey or have much interest in it other than as an ingredient, a mid-range price is probably the way to go. Asking the proprietor of a liquor store can often result in a good brand recommendation.
This sounds a lot like "don't cook with a wine you wouldn't drink", a sentiment I fully endorse. I might not go with an expensive bourbon but with a good middle-of-the-road brand. Also, just to be pedantic, there is a clear distinction between bourbon and whiskey. Personal preference is to choose a decent bourbon.
I suggest using a regular bourbon; one that you can drink after you open a bottle for the recipe.
If you don't drink the stuff, and just want some for the recipe, get the cheap one in small bottles, enough for 1/2 cup.
I occasionally make similar whisky-based truffles. I'm normally a great fan of peaty whiskeys (e.g. Islay), and I once used Caol Ila. The smokey flavour did not work well with the chocolate.
Therefore I would (personally) recommend against using something peaty/smoky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.664986
| 2019-11-07T05:26:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103328",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"bof",
"doneal24",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79374"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103408
|
Making pita more chewy/ rubbery
I make 100% whole wheat pita bread often. I use whole wheat flour, yeast, salt water and a touch of honey to feed the yeast. I would like my pita to be more chewy and rubbery. I know those are not attributes people usually want but I prefer it. I can find thousands of articles on how to make things light and fluffy but not more chewy. I would appreciate any pointers you could give me. I have tried kneading with a dough hook for long periods of time which helps but I would like it to be chewier without having to add gluten. Could adding milk, yogurt, olive oil help? Are there any techniques like kneading after the initial rise etc. help? Thanks in advance, Pat.
The thing that makes bread chewy is gluten. The easiest way to make chewier bread would probably be to use flour with a higher gluten content. You've said you don't want to "add gluten" so I'll assume that option is not on the table. For the same reason, I'll assume that replacing some of the whole wheat flour with white flour (which has a higher gluten content) is not an option.
So then, how do we get the most gluten formation out of your whole wheat dough?
Do not add shortening (fats and oils - or as you put it, milk, yogurt and olive oil). That will have the opposite effect. Shortening inhibits the formation of long gluten strands and will make your dough more cake-like (smaller, tighter crumb).
As you noticed, more kneading creates longer gluten chains. Usually we're advised not to over-knead, because it makes the dough though. If you want tough dough, knead until you're blue in the face. With this proviso:
Whole wheat flour contains sharp, hard pieces of the germ and bran. These sharp edged bits can break or "slash" your gluten strands (just like if you added a sharp pebble to the dough). To counter act this effect, you can try to soften the pieces of germ and bran using the autolyse method.
This technique has additional benefits and can or should be used when using white flour, as well. Note the first bullet, which is especially applicable here:
using the autolyse method affects dough development in many positive ways:
The flour fully hydrates. This is particularly useful when working with whole-grain flour because the bran softens as it hydrates, reducing its negative effect on gluten development.
Gluten bonds begin developing with no effort on the part of the baker, and kneading time is consequently reduced.
Carotenoid pigments remain intact, leading to better color, aroma, and flavor.
Fermentation proceeds at a slower pace, allowing for full flavor development and better keeping quality.
The dough becomes more extensible (stretchy), which allows it to expand easily. This leads to easier shaping, greater loaf volume, a more open crumb structure, and cuts that open more fully.
https://www.kingarthurflour.com/blog/2017/09/29/using-the-autolyse-method
You should read that entire article if you're interested in developing your bread baking technique, but the very short version is: mix the flour and water and let rest for 20-60 minutes, then add the rest of the ingredients and kneed.
Another thing you can try to increase the toughness of the bread would be to skip the resting phases between shaping the breads. Typically, when we make pitas, we do a bulk fermentation, then split the dough and roll it into balls, then let the balls rest before finally shaping them into the flat rounds. This rest period relaxes the gluten and makes the dough less tough. Skipping this step may result in a tougher pita. It will also make the pita harder to shape.
What a good answer! I don't disagree with any of it, I have a suggestion to leave a small amount of the water and all of the salt out during autolyse. Salt inhibits yeast, leaving it out leads to much more gluten development. After autolyse you put the salt (dissolved in the remaining water) in and mix.
I think you have a shuffle error - did you mean "replacing some of the white flour with whole wheat flour (which has more gluten)" in the first paragraph?
@rumtscho, I'm missing something here. The poster said they use 100% whole wheat flour. There's no white flour to replace.
@Juhasz Oh, I was going by the sentence only, didn't even realize OP was using whole flour. Whole wheat flour has more gluten than white flour, so the statement doesn't make sense for me, that's why I assumed it was a switching thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.665288
| 2019-11-11T18:39:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103408",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107305
|
Would it be possible to make a chili that drew its influence from eastern cooking and used curry as a base?
My plan is to follow the concept of a conventional chili, but replace the chili powder with a homemade curry powder spice blend containing coriander, cumin, turmeric, ginger, peony, lovage, star anise, fennel seeds, Rehmannia, and cayenne. The idea is to sautee the beef with onions and fennel, seasoning it lightly, and then, add it to a beef stock, along with a few varieties of bean, stewed tomato, the curry powder from before, and rice wine. I also had the idea of making miniature naan-parmesan wraps that would be stirred into the chili in the last few minutes of cooking, as to absorb some of the liquid from the chili, in place of the traditional cracker. So my question is, would this work in a way that remained as pleasing to the senses as conventional chili or curry (if not more), and if not, how could I tweak it to make the tastes blend better for a more appealing dish?
Also, how can I add the naan wraps to the chili while having it retain its fluffiness and not getting soggy?
Thank you so much, and I greatly look forward to your response.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Whether it's any good ("pleasing to the senses") is off topic, as it's entirely a matter of opinion. I might think it's great while a Texas might think it's the worst chili ever... The other reading of the first part of your question is a "recipe request" which is also off topic. The part of this question that is on topic is how you can add naan to a chili/curry without them getting mushy. I'd suggest using the Edit button to focus your question on the naan question, and/or tighten up focus on specific concerns with the recipe itself
I think if we consider it more "is my mad idea going to work?" then we can answer it, 'yes, so long as you don't put the bread in it. Make it a bit thicker first.'
It sounds to me like a curry with beans, not a chilli with curry powder.
Apart from splashing in soggy nan at the end, which I don't think is going to work, it sounds like it would make a decent aromatic curry.
You don't mention quantities, but I'd go heavy on the onion & hold the stock back to give the end result a 'firmer' gravy, which would mean you have less mopping up to do. I'd also be tempted to get your spice blend in with or even before the onions to enhance the flavours. Maybe add a touch more towards the end to re-lift the aromatics, which will have sunk in a bit over a few hours' cook.
Serve in soup-plates [flat dishes] and use the nan to pick up the curry, rather than attempt to sit the whole thing on a rice bed. If your curry base is firm enough, you could lay out the nans/mini-wraps on the edge of the plate right at service, without giving them time to go soggy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.665724
| 2020-04-05T11:01:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107305",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108667
|
Does cooking food destroy BPA?
These days, stocking up on and eating canned food to reduce grocery shopping trips is tempting but reports have found possibly BPA can be an issue with eating certain levels of those foods [1]. Aside from if you believe BPA is possibly harmful or not, can cooking food (e.g., from a can) in a non-BPA container help destroy any BPA in the food? If so, what level and type of cooking may be needed, boiling in water on the stove or simply the standard microwave directions on cans?
Reference:
[1] https://www.womenshealthmag.com/food/a19993318/canned-food-safety/
you would want to heat the food hot enough to boil away the BPA: 360°C/680°F. Most food won't be very good after such high heat.
I found some publications about the decomposition of Bisphenols A and E in high-temperature water (BPA: https://doi.org/10.1039/B313509H, BPE: https://doi.org/10.1021/ie060888l). But "high temperature" in their context means 250°C - 300°C (at correspondingly high pressures), while at lower temperatures the reaction rate was practically zero.
Since the reactions described rely on water, dry heating is probably even less successful (and besides, most foods contain water anyway). And I would at least not take it for granted that the decomposition products in either case are less harmful than BPA itself.
So, for household purposes, the answer is clear: No, heating food is not a viable option to destroy BPA.
Matthias Brandl, thanks for your in-depth investigation here. I found that water typically boils at around 100°C so reaching 250°C - 300°C may be challenging with conventional equip. Water above 100°C is superheated water and changes its physical properties. In theory, one could put food from a can into a container with extra water, vent for stream, and cover protecting splatters, then put it into an oven at 250°C for 30min (loosely based on a quick look at B313509H), and maybe it would synthesize IPP from BPA. The safety, practicality, and quality of that cooking might however be issues.
The water in your container will not reach a temperature over 100°C, because water boils at 100°C at sea level pressure (not considering superheating the water since with all the nucleation points in typical food this will likely not happen anyway, and it can be massively dangerous if it happens). The air in your oven will be hotter, but that will only transfer more heat to the water, thus boiling it off faster (all the energy transferred to the water will go into its evaporation). To heat water to such temperatures, you really need high pressures: About 40 bar for 250°C, 86 bar for 300°C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.665965
| 2020-05-28T00:51:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108667",
"authors": [
"CompNeuroDev",
"Matthias Brandl",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84136"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32133
|
How long does the cream in a freshly baked chicken pie last for?
I am planning on baking a chicken pie that contains double cream tonight and serving it two days later.
How long does the cream in the freshly baked pie last for? Do you think it will be still okay after two days?
You mean that you will make the cream tonight, but put it in the pie itself on Sunday and serve? What cream is it exactly? And are you planning on storing the cream in the fridge?
i am putting double cream in a chicken pie that i am making
(I am assuming the pie essentially contains chicken broth, either as an ingredient, or from cooking the chicken in the filling, and basing the hold time on that as the likely most perishable ingredient in the pie...)
Such a pie will be safe for two to three days (possibly more, but I like to treat safety conservatively....)
However, if you have a bottom crust, it will likely get quite soggy over that period of time.
If you need to prepare your pie ahead, it might be better from a quality perspective to prepare the filling stove top separately from the crust, and blind bake the crust. Then on the night of service, you can combine the two and bake to heat through and crisp up the crust. This will almost certainly give you a better product than making the pie fully in advance.
You might want to edit or delete your answer based on the additional information the OP added in the comment.
Safe in the fridge or on the counter?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.666190
| 2013-02-22T17:56:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32133",
"authors": [
"Armchair",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Bruce Seymour",
"Elzee",
"Jay",
"Mien",
"Odysseas",
"Pedrickthechippy",
"Rebecca Strong",
"Sophie",
"Timothy Farrington",
"Tolli",
"William Braman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rackandboneman",
"user74092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59412
|
Brown Coconut water safety issue?
If you like sour and the water is not rancid is there any danger in drinking the water?
If so what is the danger? I grew up drinking it and it was delightful. There were never any warnings against drinking it. If the water is unsafe to drink then in my opinion the coconut meat is also unsafe. Please be specific.
There are (sometimes) warnings against drinking the water of mature cocomuts: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/51575/23376
The only thing I know is that sour water from the brown mature coconuts is horrible tasting but I didn't get sick from it. I would not keep the meat if the coconut water is in question. The meat is not safe from bacteria if bacteria has touched it.
Check out what organyx has to say here about the pink and purple color: http://www.chow.com/food-news/84067/is-coconut-water-bad-for-you/
I've found this site very informative in the past: http://foodbabe.com/2014/07/15/how-to-buy-the-healthiest-coconut-water-and-avoid-the-worst/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.666684
| 2015-07-28T00:10:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59412",
"authors": [
"Barrie Paton",
"CANDITA CAMPBELL",
"Ching Chong",
"Cindy Tucker",
"Donald Denman",
"Geraldine Quintana",
"Marianne Spencer",
"albert villarreal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59169
|
Pineapple store bought can pops when opening, is it safe?
When opening a store bought can of pineapple, it popped loudly. Is it safe to eat?
Define "popped"...
In short, the "pop" has to do with different pressure inside and outside the can. Once the can is unsealed or pierced, the pressure evens out, resulting in a sound.
The question that remains is why there was a difference and to guestimate, how much.
A slight difference is fine - probably because the conditions (temperature, pressure) were slightly different at the factory than in in your kitchen.
But there is the - admittedly rare - case where the contents of a can weren't properly pasteurized / conserved. In these cases, bacterial growth might happen, resulting in excess pressure that makes a distinct sound. The food inside may or may not smell "off". There are bacteria like Clostridium botulinum that thrive in anaerobic conditions and produce a tasteless but dangerous poison. So if a can appears bulged or shows signs of excess pressure when opening (or glass jars loose the vacuum seal and don't "pop") it's absolutely advisable to discard the contents.
That said, your pineapple is probably at a very low risk as botulism is way more likely in protein-rich foods like meat, fish and legumes but only you were there when you opened your can and can make an informed decision.
And always remember rule no.1 of food safety:
When in doubt, throw it out.
Upvoted, comment below Q removed...
@Fabby Thanks. It's just that we usually play it very, very safe here and leave it to each user's discretion how to handle his or her specific situation and make an informed decision. It's like driving without a seatbelt - most likely you will arrive fine, stastistically speaking, but I don't want to be the person who had told the accident victim not to bother with the thing....
To be specific, if it popped because air was rushing in, that should be fine. There should normally be a bit lower pressure inside, and that difference could be increased if you opened it somewhere significantly colder than the temperature it was canned at. (Homemade canned goods make a sort of suction pop when you pry the lid off, and that's definitely a very good thing.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.666856
| 2015-07-19T00:31:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59169",
"authors": [
"Avery Williams",
"Cascabel",
"Fabby",
"Jeff Schlechtleitner",
"Lisa Matthews",
"Philip Grove",
"Stephie",
"Tomasz Daspien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"paul rondel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59570
|
Is it safe to reuse water used to steam corn?
Now that the corn season is underway, someone in the house is steaming corn almost on a daily basis. Is it safe to leave the pot on the stove(covered) with the water in it and reuse it 2 or 3 times before discarding and starting fresh? Sugar has been added to the water.
It's a cup or two... right? Is there any reason to keep it? It's one thing to save a gallon of oil for deep frying. A cup or two of water seems odd to save.
Re-used for what purpose? Cooking other vegetables?
No, it is not safe; what you would have left in the pot would have the same <2-4 hours worth of safety at room temperature as anything else. What you would have in the pot after steaming corn is sweetened corn broth; it will mold and it will grow bacteria. You would probably be fine 9999 times out of 10,000, but considering the expense of starting fresh every time, there is no good way to justify the risk of saving the water.
I agree on the food safety comment, but I think it is reasonable to want to conserve water.
If you want to reuse the water safely, you should either immediately use it for cooking something else or freeze it between uses. If you go straight from steamer to freezer, I think you should be able to keep it within the safety time range.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.667083
| 2015-08-04T00:56:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59570",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Claire Law",
"GdD",
"George Hollingsworth",
"Kippy Reed",
"Kodi Marshall",
"Linda Woods",
"Melissa Gonzalez",
"NadjaCS",
"Terence Shaw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179"
],
"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
}
|
60451
|
Refrigerator in garage was turned off
We just realized that our garage refrigerator/freezer was not on. The eggs are still cold to the touch but the vegetables, rice w/shrimp and meatballs in the freezer are not frozen but still cold. The ice cream is mostly melted. This tells us that the frig hasn't been off for a long time but we don't know for how long. Should we throww all the frozen foods away? Or would it be safe to cook everything instead.
You'll get a much better answer if you can take actual temperature measurements from the inside of the refrigerator and freezer.
If the eggs float in water, they probably should be tossed.
I'm afraid the frozen goods are a lost cause. Throw them away. The eggs in the fridge are probably fine. Break one in a dish and give it the sniff test. If it still smells clean and good, they are probably fine. But don't delay in using them. Make a souffle!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.667261
| 2015-09-02T17:40:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60451",
"authors": [
"Alan Pham",
"Andrew Alecock",
"Bryan Diienno",
"Devery Johnson",
"Gail Riley",
"Randy Brunk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"logophobe",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60387
|
White threads on top of mushrooms?
I just opened a pack of baby bella mushrooms that I bought yesterday. They were firm and in good condition, but the one on the bottom had wispy white threads growing out of the top. I thought it could be mold, but it also seems possible it was the mushroom's own mycelium growing out. None of the others had it. I threw it out along with the ones touching it, but I wonder, could anyone else more knowledgeable in mycology tell me if it was unsafe mold or not?
Can you add a picture?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.667384
| 2015-08-31T01:24:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60387",
"authors": [
"Lisa England",
"Patrick Hofman",
"Robert Smith",
"Tamyra Wong",
"eduardo barrera",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56842
|
Are large veins in a rhubarb leaf safe to eat?
I've got a lovely rhubarb plant. Nice stalks, huge leaves. The biggest leaves have veins in them bigger than some of the smaller stalks. It seems a shame to throw them away— but obviously I am not keen on poisoning myself and my family.
Are these 'veins' part of the poisonous leaf, or the delicious, safe stem?
Your question contains false assumptions. There is no "poisonous leaf" and "safe stem". There is "toxic leaf" and "toxic stem" with the amount of oxalate in the leaf being higher in the leaf. I don't know whether the amount in the vein is higher or lower than in the "leafy" part of the leaf, but I doubt that anybody has ever bothered to measure it.
Translated...I wouldn't try
Also, it's the same toxin that's in spinach and chard and several other greens, but rhubarb leaves have a LOT more oxalic acid and is not edible. The stalks are edible, but I t's much safer when they are cooked.
It's an old source (1922), but divides the rhubarb into "leaf stalks", "prominent veins," and "leaves." It states that the leaf stalks are the only edible portion.(1)
In addition, oxalates are in all parts of the plant. But only specifically stated to be in lower quantities in the stalk (2). In fact, people susceptible to kidney stones can be advised to avoid even rhubarb stalks (4). Cooking the leaves can actually INCREASE the toxicity. (3)
Logic would dictate that the veins, being the transition point from stalks to leaves would have a value in between the values in the stalks and leaves. Thus safety indicates one should avoid eating them.
Sources:
1: https://books.google.com/books?id=_GDXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false
2: http://www.rhubarbinfo.com/poison
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhubarb
4: http://www.healwithfood.org/health-benefits/rhubarb-stalks.php
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.667475
| 2015-04-21T17:48:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56842",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Lisa Laisney",
"Manuel Herrera",
"Michelle Castillo",
"Teresa Greer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rory bryan",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92056
|
Cooking pinto beans in a pressure cooker
So I have read some of the questions and answers regarding soaking and cooking pinto beans and I am still trying to figure out the best process for my needs. I cook a bunch of pinto beans at one time and then freeze them. Because I cook a lot of beans at a time, I like using the pressure cooker. My main concern is loss of nutrients. I have been soaking the beans for 24 hours and then cooking them in a pressure cooker. Does this method compare well to others in retention of nutrients?
Hi Pamela. Your question had a couple of elements that are specifically off-topic here, so I edited those out to keep the question from being closed. See the Tour and Help Center for more about how the site works. Welcome to Seasoned Advice, I hope we can be of help.
took out my secondary concern which was important to me and made any answers to my question kinda 1/2 worthless. but thanks to those who answered what ended up being 1/2 my question.
I know that the edit was less than ideal, but I am bound by community guidelines. I am working on an answer though that you might find helpful, so I hope you do come back and read it.
There doesn't seem to be much of a difference in nutrition between pressure cooking and boiling beans. Cooking at pressure cooker temperatures at 10, 20, or 40 minutes instead of boiling in a pot changed the nutrition/antinutrient content and digestibility by less than 5%.
Soaking prior to cooking was generally found to be advantageous. However, the results were not unanimous, and it didn't change very much in terms of nutrition. Soaking and discarding the water was found to:
reduce the carbohydrate fraction and maintain/increase fiber content.
reduce mineral content, but increase bioavailability.
reduce the oligosaccarides that cause flatulence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814604004649
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02395.x
First I have to wonder just what nutrition you are expecting to get from pinto beans? There isn't that much there to begin with, but most of what is there is probably washed away with the water assuming you pour that off to keep the beans.
But still, the pressure cooker is my method of choice for making pintos. FWIW I always use beef or chicken broth in the pressure cooker when preparing my beans, it really helps to infuse the meaty flavor into the beans. When preparing beans for my chili recipe I will also slice up a jalapeno or two. You don't need to soak the beans prior to putting them into the pressure cooker, but a good rinse and sort is in order.
Hi Cos. I edited the question here to remove a couple of off-topic elements. Unfortunately, that had the effect of making some of your answer nonsensical. I just deleted those portions of your answer; sorry for wreaking havoc on your prose.
I'm afraid I can't access the uploaded image t see the nutrition info, but everything I've ever read about pinto beans says their are packed with good stuff eg: 'A nutrient-dense legume, the pinto bean contains many essential nutrients and is very low in saturated fat. It is a good source of protein, phosphorus and manganese, and very high in dietary fiber and folate.' Could you add a link to the source for them being nutritionally poor?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.667666
| 2018-09-02T20:34:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92056",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Pamela Balazer",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69041"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124947
|
Which stones heat up well?
When cooking outdoors, stones are often used around an open fire. These help contain the coals and provide surfaces for balancing food. They can also get quite hot.
Are there any rules of thumb to follow when selecting such stones to avoid them splitting at high heat?
This doesn't sound like an especially useful question. First, if the answer is on the lines of "syenite is better than granodiorite", would you be able to ID them in the wild? And second, even if you can recognize different types of stones, you usually get the same type of stones in any given area.
By way of background, my mother is an archaeologist. Starting in around 2000, she started working in the Great Basin, where evidence of past human habitation tends to be pretty sparse, and not associated to permanent settlements. The most common kinds of artifacts found in that region are stone tools (ceramics weren't introduced until relatively recently, and other kinds of artifacts don't generally preserve all that well). Because it was a thing which was possible to study, she started getting really interested in fire cracked rock. Her interest was in studying how rocks break from thermal stress as they are used in hearths, in boiling baskets, and in other cooking applications. Over the last 20 years or so, she has build hundreds of fires and worked with many kinds of stone and cooking methods in order to determine how the rocks break down (we've had a few Thanksgiving turkeys cooked using these techniques, for example).
A few observations from her work:
Thermal stress will break down your rocks over time. However, we've never experienced stones "exploding". They crack, and they split, but it not extraordinarily violent. They just kind of fall apart.
This is probably obvious, but the more rapidly the temperature of the rock is changed, the more quickly it will break down. If you line a hearth with rocks, then build a fire on top of that, the rocks will generally heat fairly gently. If you dig out the hearth while the rocks are hot, put in food to cook, then bury the whole thing and let it sit for a couple of hours, the food will cook slowly, and the rocks will experience little thermal shock. On the other hand, if you drop the rocks into boiling water (was you would want to do when making soup, for example), they experience a great deal of thermal shock, and break apart pretty quickly.
Rocks with a finer grained structure last longer. Rocks like basalt, rhyolite, and "chert" tend to last quite a long time (they can go through 10+ heating/quenching cycles and remain pretty much intact). On the other hand, rocks with a larger grain tend to break down much more quickly. Granite and sandstone fall apart rapidly, often the first time that they are used.
The take home here, I think, is that your rocks will eventually split as they go through thermal cycles, but rocks with a finer structure are likely to last longer. Also, if you can reduce the thermal stress the rocks experience, they will last longer (so, for example, don't quench your fire with water, but bury it with dirt when you want to put it out; try to avoid putting the rocks directly into the fire; etc).
If you are cooking outdoor like in a camping set up, you can't really afford to go looking around for good refractory stones. You use what you have at hand.
If you are worried about the stones splitting, you have to do the opposite of what our ancestor used to do to split stones, that is be gentler with the heating and the cooling, which are the moments when thermal stress is higher: start the fire slow, and don't quench it with water immediately after it was burning fiercely.
Of course if you are in a situation where the fire must be put off quickly, splitting the stones around it is a lesser concern.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.667935
| 2023-08-12T04:30:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124947",
"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
}
|
103981
|
Is adding garlic powder to pasta with oil safe?
Semi-food related but wasn't sure where else to post it.
I was just cooking up a quick late night meal and ended up throwing a little garlic powder onto my pasta (which already had a small amount of olive oil on it) after eating it I found out about botulism and it's causes and effects.
Question is do I run a risk of botulism because of this? Or will the fact I ate it right away help?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9146/dry-garlic-in-oil-botulism-risk
Please note that "is it safe" is not the same as "will it be OK". The second question is no more answerable than "will I win the lottery".
Botulinum bacteria require a moist environment to germinate, reproduce, and produce botulinum toxin. Therefore, there is no risk of botulism from eating fully dried ingredients (unless they already contained botulinum toxin, which would not occur in a normal processing pipeline).
It is absolutely possible to acquire a foodborne illness from uncooked dried ingredients. For instance, there have been various cases of E. coli poisoning from uncooked dry flour, and salmonella has been found in dried herbs and spices. So it's not safe in an absolute sense. But there's no reason to worry any more about sprinkling powdered garlic on your food, than about sprinkling on, say, ground pepper.
Doubtful. The botulism risk usually arises from long term storage of garlic cloves in olive oil under anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions. You with your garlic powder are nowhere near those conditions. Cooks cook garlic in olive oil all the time, with no ill effects.
Promoted to answer as requested. I was not sure where we draw the line on food safety concerns.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.668354
| 2019-12-08T23:38:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103981",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104688
|
Can I repair a pan where a spot on the bottom changed after staying too long on the burner?
Left my new gift on the burner when I was gonna clean it. Super depressed about it. Can I save it or throw it away?
This is the bottom of the pan, right? As in: the underside, which was in contact with the stove burner.
How long was it on the burner? Does it still sit flat?
From the way that picture looks, this is a sandwich-bottom pan with some thin kind of coating on the bottom. That coating seems to have come off. In that case, there is nothing you can do to make it look the way it did before.
If I were you, I would just continue to use the pan as-is. No need to throw it away, as it will still work, and no need to try to change something about the spot, as it is not really repairable.
You'll have to test how reactive the new surface is. If the now-visible layer is aluminium or blue steel, it won't do well in a dishwasher. If you see the spot rusting (or getting some other kind of corrosion), clean away whatever has built up, and from then on, only wash the pan by hand.
All Clad is a highly respected company and their products are well-made. If I was in your shoes, I'd contact their customer service and provide that picture to see if there is anything they can do to either repair or replace. The worst that could happen is for them to say "no", but you never know...they might do something for you! Worth the effort!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.668504
| 2020-01-12T03:53:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104688",
"authors": [
"RalphMudhouse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37708
|
What is the shelf life of pickled gherkins stored dry?
Our almost 2 years old toddler loves oignons accompagnying pickled gherkins. Unfortunately, trying to pick one by herself, she spilled all the pickle from a brand new (commercial, pasteurized) jar. I guess the lack of pickle will affect the gherkins conservation : how long will they remain edible (kept in the fridge) ? Still a few weeks, or rather a few days ?
For the sake of clarification due to differing terms in America, Gherkins here is referring to the actual pickled cucumbers(where it is commonly referred to as the "pickle" in the US) and the pickle the OP is referring to is the pickling liquid. Correct me if im wrong.
Jay, a gherkin is not the same thing as a cucumber, right? But both can be pickled I guess. Here it is about pickled gherkins. Or what is usually meant with "pickles". But the pickle is indeed also the name of the liquid.
@Mien: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherkin Gherkin is a type of flavor for pickled cucumbers.
It also refers to size. Gherkins (in the US) are small.
You might see some loss of quality within a couple of months, but under refrigeration they will not become close to "unsafe" in that length of time. They're already "pickled", the worst you will face is dried out pickles. You can always add more "pickle" in the form of vinegar, salt, sugar and water (boiled and cooled), but it seems pretty unnecessary - two potato salads and you're done with them.
Sorry, I don't think that is true. The drying out is a safety issue, because the acid that protects the vegetable will no longer be present. There is a reason they are stored in the pickling medium.
The acid is well soaked in by the time it's a pickle. I have no sources but thirty years of experience being a pickle, olive, hot pepper juice drinker. I love that stuff. Never ever ever have I ever had a suspicion that the olive, pickle or pepper might have turned. I wouldn't bet the farm on years, but 2 months? Easy.
Sorry, I cannot agree. The cucumber is like a sponge; it needs to be bathed in the pickle to maintain safety. While you may have had good experiences, that is not a basis to make public recommendations in my mind. These pickles should now be treated as refrigerator food, and eaten relatively soon--a week or two.
Well, over-paranoia trumps three decades of anecdotal evidence - I have no basis other than always drinking my pickle. Right now, in my fridge, I have 3 kinds of olives (dry), 4 types of peppers (dry), a jar of capers (dry) and a single "married" jar of pickles...For some reason I always kind of feel bad for pickles lacking hydration. At any rate, for any of these I might get concerned at the 1 year point. 2 months? They're still wet with their brine unless they've partied in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.668660
| 2013-10-18T12:10:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37708",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37637
|
Will a sharpener for a wider edge ruin a knife with a narrow edge?
I'm loving my new Victorionox chefs knife, and I'm aware the it has a 15 degree blade edge. When the time comes to sharpen it, will using a sharpener for a 20 degree blade ruin the knife edge?
i use the bottom of a ceramic cup and i've never had a problem...:)
Dear Geo, welcome to our site! You have probably noticed that the title of your question changed. On our site, everybody can edit others' posts for clarity. I changed your title to be more descriptive of the actual question, and left the post as it is.
If you sharpen it with a 20 degree edge, it will remove material until it matches the 20 degree bevel.
It is up to you whether you like this better or not; however, if you selected this particular knife because you like the way it feels and cuts, the 15 degree bevel may be a contributor to that.
Will it harm the knife? No, but it will change its performance characteristics.
Sharpening Supplies provides a table of common bevel angles for various purposes, but indicates it is mostly up to personal preference. They indicate 20 degrees is common for chef's knives, and go on to say:
The lower the angle the sharper it becomes, but it also becomes less
durable and more prone to chipping. If you seek a very durable edge, a
larger angle is preferred because it can withstand more than the
thinner edge of a low bevel angle.
The angle of the edge should adjust itself when sharpening anyway.
Most professional chefs will probably use a sharpening steel or stone and will just sharpen their knives in a way that feels natural.
It helps to understand the way a knife edge becomes dull. If you were to zoom in on a knife edge you would see what look like hundreds and thousands of teeth, much the same as on a saw blade. When the knife is used these teeth become misaligned, and because they are so tiny knife blades require regular sharpening.
A 15 degree blade kept at this level will consequently feel sharper but for a shorter period of time and will require more regular sharpening. Conversely a 20 degree blade will hold an edge for longer and will cut as if "sharp" for longer but will not give you quite the same smooth easy feeling. It is similar to thinking about the difference between a razor blade and a non-serrated steak knife. I very much doubt many people will sharpen, or change their steak knives much, but they will (or should) change their razor blade frequently.
Chefs who use a steel or sharpening stone will give their knives an edge which is unique to them due to the unique angle of sharpening on either side of the blade and the direction the knife is sharpened (some sharpen away from the handle and some sharpen towards it). Which is why you should never let anyone but you sharpen your knives.
In short, as long as you are consistent the blade should be fine and last you a very long time. Victorinox knives are nice. I had a couple of them when I was working in kitchens and they should last you a very long time if looked after. My head chef's filleting knife had a blade that was as wide as a fat pen he had it that long and sharpened it that much!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.668903
| 2013-10-15T19:46:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37637",
"authors": [
"dax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19921",
"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
}
|
110378
|
Are there any types of food that have magnetic properties?
In terms of food presentation, I thought it would be spectacular to have it float or levitate above the table instead of being served on a plate. Hence I wonder whether there are any types of food that have magnetic properties. Or, put differently, I'm curious whether magnetic material exists that is (safely) edible.
The reason why the full word is "ferromagnetic" is that magnetic substances are typically made out of iron. Iron is not really edible - you can (and have to) consume it as a trace element, but the daily dose is a few milligrams. If you put enough magnetized iron in a dish to lift it visibly, you will damage a lot of your digestive tract eating it. And that's even before the question of how you are going to orient the magnet if you have dispersed the iron in your food as some kind of powder.
There are also other metals which can be magnetic, but they are even worse for eating than iron. If there is any kind of space-age material that is magnetic without being a metal compound (I'm not on the leading edge of material science and don't know if such a thing exists), it is practically certain that it is not a food.
Levitation for presentation purposes exists, but it is done by levitating the plate, or sometimes by hiding magnets within a larger food structure (typically in cake art).
Technically, you can levitate most foods using a magnet. You just need a bigger magnet.
@LSchoon wow, 16 Tesla! I am prepared to believe that with this thing, they can levitate anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.669151
| 2020-08-24T09:21:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110378",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"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
}
|
109927
|
Why worry about "danger zone" when thawing meat if I'm going to be cooking the meat immediately after?
I'm cooking my meat above 55C, mostly around 65C.
I understand there are all kinds of safety measures surrounding defrosting. Using cold water and changing it every 30min or defrosting in the fridge. Making sure not to leave it on the counter or not to use warm/hot water.
This is because of the danger zone; bacteria doubles every ~20 min.
If I am defrosting meat in order to cook it, and I am cooking at safe temperatures, then why should I worry about how I defrost my meat?
Does this answer your question? Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked?
If I am defrosting meat in order to cook it, and I am cooking at safe temperatures, then why should I worry about how I defrost my meat?
If this were true, wouldn't it then follow that it would be safe to cook meat which has already spoiled, so long as you cooked it at a safe temperature? It's not true. While the bacteria would be killed by cooking at a safe temperature, but the toxins they leave behind remain and can make you ill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.669297
| 2020-07-29T11:56:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109927",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109940
|
How high is the bacterial reduction when using Lysol brand sanitizing wipes, when compared to bleach solution?
Suppose you have some utensils and dishes that came into contact with raw meat. After cleaning them with hot soapy water, if I also use Lysol sanitizing wipes, what proportion of the bacteria is killed? How does this relate to using a bleach solution for sanitizing?
Hi Applesnax, your quesiton was based on a wrong assumption - neither your wipes nor bleach will kill 100% of bacteria. I reworded your question to be closest to your original - to compare which proportion is killed with each (it is still somewhat underdefined, because we haven't specified what strength of bleach solution is meant, hopefully the answerers will have numbers at hand). But we cannot tell you whether the reduction in bacteria is "good enough" or not, this is a decision you have to make yourself after the answers with the numbers come in.
Why do you think you need to do more than clean with hot soapy water? Are you in a commercial situation, or at home? There are sanitizing protocols for restaurants and sometimes sterilizing protocols for commercial enterprises, but these are not often necessary for home use. Explaining your setting would result in a better answer.
If you are cleaning your utensils thoroughly with hot soapy water then you will get minimal benefit from using a bleach solution or lysol. This is because hot soapy water is already very effective at cleaning.
@moscafj: I heard that hot water and soap is for removing grease and debris from dishes in order to prepare them for disinfection, but it doesn't itself kill bacteria. To do so, I heard you have to follow up with a disinfecting agent. Also this is a home cooking setting (not commercial).
Here is a good explanation of why hand washing is effective. The same applies to kitchen utensils. For home cleanliness in the kitchen, hot, soapy water is generally all that is necessary for clean up. There are, of course, situations where you want to sanitize, or even sterilize...for example, I sanitize when brewing beer, because I want only one strain of yeast (the one I add) to be active. Also when canning, one wants to be sure that jars are free of any contaminants. However, for normal, everyday clean-up...even with raw meat, soap and water gets the job done.
Even with viruses, soap and water gets the job done, one might add.
@Cerberus...see the linked article.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.669404
| 2020-07-30T12:27:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109940",
"authors": [
"Applesnax",
"Cerberus",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85908",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36827
|
How to replace icing sugar and glucose in a cake icing?
I love cooking especially sweets but I'm not a professional.
This time I tried to make ready-to-roll icing for the first time to decorate cupcakes but it was horrible (I used crystallized sugar instead of icing sugar which I can't find and another kind of syrup instead of liquid glucose which i can't find either) so the dough was barely holding together.
So here is my question: What can I replace liquid glucose and icing sugar with?
PS. I live in a country where it is hard to find this kind of ingredients.
If you have one of those spinning blade coffee grinders, you can use it to make powdered sugar. A little cornstarch will stabilize it.
If you cannot find these ingredients, it will be hard to get this type of icing made.
The first thing is the liquid glucose. If you used any old thing labelled "syrup", chances are that it contained water, and this is what made your mix a sugar. Liquid glucose is mostly sugar, with almost no wetness to it. Substituting something very wet will not work.
Things which will work instead of glucose syrup are agave syrup, treacles, corn syrup, mollasses, golden syrup and honey. You should be aware that most of those will give you a more or less strong coloring and will have a bit of taste on its own. It depends on the type of your cupcakes whether the taste fits them. Corn syrup and golden syrup will be the best alternatives, but they are also less popular around the world.
The other thing is the sugar. It absolutely must be in a powdered form. Crystals won't work. If you have a food processor, just put the crystalized sugar in there and process it. Use it immediately, or it will fuse together due to air moisture.
But you may still be able to find icing sugar. It is just another word for powdered sugar, and it is used in Middle Eastern cuisine (your profile says Lebanon), for example for dusting lokum, but also in some halva recipes. If you can find a confectioner who does these things, you can ask them for a source of powdered sugar.
If you cannot find ingredients which produce an acceptable quality of icing, you can also try other types of icing recipes for decoration. Most do use powdered sugar for easier incorporation, but some are made with sugar dissolved in a liquid.
Thanks, there are chances of finding these ingredients here but they may go with another name as for the icing sugar, i just didn't know it was powdered sugar which we have.
Liquid glucose can be replaced with plain corn syrup, in most cases. The icing sugar is almost the same as powdered sugar, if you have access to that. If you can't find powdered sugar either, you'll need to put granulated sugar into a food processor with about 2 tablespoons of cornstarch per cup of sugar and blend it until it's a fine powder. The cornstarch in the icing sugar is what holds the icing together, so that's the most critical part.
Interesting. I thought about the role of the cornstarch, but dismissed it as uninteresting, as I do not expect it to hold together anything when not cooked. Do you have firsthand experience with starchless icings? I cannot experiment myself as I don't have a food processor.
Well, a starchless icing is generally going to turn out like the example did. That's why the starch is so vital: when wet, cornstarch is a non-Newtonian fluid, which is what allows it to work as icing. Without the starch, you just have a regular fluid. Powdered sugar and icing sugar (at least in the US), both contain starch already, icing has slightly more to let icings set up thicker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.669618
| 2013-09-15T17:18:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36827",
"authors": [
"Aldo Abouchedid",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77250
|
Bumps on carbon steel seasoning, can I repair it
I've just got a new De Buyer carbon steel pan and I'm 3 seasons in (oven method) and I'm noticing quite an uneven surface (especially little bubbles). I've tried as best as possible to keep the layers of oil used very thin. I'm wondering if I should strip it down and start over or just forge ahead?
I think you are fine. I personally feel the best way to continue to season a pan is to actually just to cook in it. The first things I like after the oven or range top seasoning is to use onions, green onions and other inexpensive ingredients. Perhaps also to deep fry some onion rings or french fries as well. This will have the correct heat and also plenty of oil to seep into the pan. Hope this helps.
As JGsd said, use the pan. But I'd also suggest using metal utensils, so you scrape away the high spots.
But in looking at your picture, I'd say that you had too much oil per layer. You want to heat up the pan, add oil, wait just a little bit, and then wipe away as much of it as you can.
If you wipe down the pan while the oil is cold, it's a little more viscous, and you leave a little bit too much oil. It then thins out as it heats up but will form patterns like what I'm seeing in your picture.
How are you seasoning it? I just seasoned my mew carbon steel and looove it.
You need to wipe alllll the oil out of it after applying it. It look as though you put it in the oven right side up with oil still in it.
Put it in the self.clean oven cycle to strip it. Tske it out when cooled and wash down.
I tried flaxseed oil and wasn't impressed. I mixed crisco, red palm oil, ans grapeseed oil. Put the pan in the oven at 200F for 10 mins. Take out and rub down really well. Now wipe it all off. Think its all.off? Tske a paper towel and wipe it again. Put in oven for 1 hour at 475 and let cool. Repeat.
Im a first time cast iron user and repeated this process 7 times with my 2 new skillets one is cast iron one is carbon steel and they csme oit gorgeous and completely non stick. Then i restored 2 old pans and only did this process 3 times and theyre both completely non stick and gorgeous
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.669916
| 2017-01-08T09:05:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77250",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40216
|
Baking a Brie with the outer rind broken
How can I fix it when the Brie is cracked on one spot? I am planning to bake it and I do not have a receipt to return it. I know last time I baked a Brie with crack, the inside just gooey spread-out.
You cannot really repair a piece of cheese, so your original plan will not work as-is.
One option would be to make a crusty baked cheese. For that, you make bread dough, roll out two discs like small pizza crusts, and pack the cheese in them, crimping the seam on the upper side. When you bake, any cheese getting out through a crack will stay packaged within the dough. It will still be gooey when you cut the dough, but by this point, you will be already eating it :) and the cheese inside won't get out in the oven where it dries out unpleasantly. Other crusts will probably work too (pie crust dough for example), I just said bread because this is what I am accustomed to. Only pick doughs which you can seal well, dry phylo sheets won't help, the cheese will come out if your seal is not perfect.
If you don't want to, or can't do it with dough, you have to buy another piece of cheese for baking and use this one in a recipe without baking, for example cut up into a salad or melted into a cream soup.
You cannot fix the rind, but you could contain its oozing.
Some bries come in a little wooden box the exact shape of the brie. If you have one of those you can bake the brie in the box, lining it with cheesecloth. The box will contain the brie so it doesn't ooze. Any oven-safe container will do that fits the shape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.670129
| 2013-12-13T16:51:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40216",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Coroletchi",
"Cynthia Maddox",
"Khallel",
"Remy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93493",
"qwerty shark",
"randy kepic",
"soup"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113144
|
Will searing meat before braising it improve the flavor?
I have been making this simple brisket recipe for years and it usually comes out great.
Marinate with lemon juice, mustard, salt and pepper. Then cover with water and cook slowly for a couple of hours (not fully cooked at this stage). Cool. Slice. Place in oven-proof serving dish and cover with a BBQ type sauce. Cover the dish and finish cooking in a moderate oven.
My questions are:
Would searing the meat before cooking in water improve the flavor of the meat?
Does one take the meat out of the cooking water before OR after chilling for the best meat flavor?
Generally, yes. Searing the meat will improve the flavor on the outermost layer of your brisket due to a process known as the Maillard Reaction. It's the process of using heat to chemically transform proteins and sugars into new complex flavors. This process creates the "crispy" layer found on steaks and burgers and releases the smells that make your mouth water.
While this flavor will only be present on the outside of the meat, it will help to season the broth/liquid which will penetrate the brisket as it cooks, flavoring more of the meat.
I would be cautious when searing after using a mostly mustard based marinade, as the mustard could possibly burn before getting the desired level of sear.
As far as removing the meat from the braising liquid, the flavor will not be affected as much as the juiciness of the brisket as well as the continued cooking time. Air cooling a brisket will cause the meat to cool much more rapidly compared to cooling the brisket and liquid together (since the liquid must cool as well, it will take longer). This continued "cooking" during the cooling process will help to break down the tough connective tissue, which briskets contain much of (hence the reason that most briskets are cooked/smoked for 10-12 hours). If the brisket turns out a little tough after after air cooling, you can braise for a longer period to overcome the toughness.
If you do choose to remove the brisket from the liquid to cool, I would recommend to wrap the brisket with plastic wrap to help the meat keep all of its precious liquids!
Since the recipe calls for covering the brisket in water, they could rinse off the mustard glaze (collecting and saving the rinse water), then pat the brisket dry and sear it. Then use the rinse water to cover the brisket and proceed with the original recipe.
@csk : or do what you said but use something more flavorful for the rising & braising. (hard cider, beer, cola, or something else that goes well with barbeque sauce). And I'd recommend that you cool it down it at least a little bit of the liquid, just maybe not a deep bath, so it's available for the meat to re-absorb as it cools
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.670395
| 2020-12-13T20:33:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113144",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114377
|
Freezing sandwiches for toasting at work
There's a sandwich press at my work and I'm trying to think of a way I can meal prep sandwiches for the whole week in one go. I'm thinking freezing them is the best bet, but I want them to be healthy as well and I'm not sure how vegetables will go in the freezer (probably badly).
Ideally I'll make all the sandwiches on Sunday, then put them in the freezer (wrapped in baking paper). Then, I'll take them to work in the morning (straight from the freezer), put them in the fridge when I get to work, and then put them straight in the sandwich press (inside the baking paper). That way I don't have to clean the press.
What would be the best way to incorporate vegetables into the sandwiches (maybe after toasting them)?
Hi mint, welcome to Seasoned Advice. We don't take questions with suggestions on which ingredient to use, so I had to edit that part out. The question as a whole is interesting, thanks for posting it!
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/114196/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/36496/67 . As you're going to lose some of the crispness of the vegetables from freezing & thawing, you might want to try vegetables that have already had the cell walls damaged ... like pickled vegetables or roasted peppers.
Freezing them will cause the cells to break down slightly, leading to a mushier vegetable. However, since you're planning on heating them anyway, I wouldn't worry about that. Heating will also make the vegetables softer and mushier, so I doubt that the initial freezing will significantly change the quality of the final hot sandwich. I would personally attempt to cook them straight from frozen if you have a freezer at work. The vegetables can release liquid over a slow defrost in the fridge which may affect the structural integrity of the bread.
If there's a microwave as well, a quick defrost might help, warming the filling too. The press I used to have wouldn't shut on a frozen sandwich and I'd expect the outside to be burnt before the inside was hot.
Tuna fish sandwiches typically freeze well, so I recommend those.
Here is a recipe for that specializes in making the tuna fish sandwich freezer safe: Freeze Ahead Tuna Sandwiches
Its ingredients are:
3 ounces cream cheese, softened
2 tablespoons whipped salad dressing (Miracle Whip)
1 (6-ounce) can chunk tuna, drained
1/4 cup shallot, chopped
1/4 cup carrot, shredded
1 tablespoon lemon juice
2 tablespoons butter, softened
8 slices bread (whole wheat, or large sandwich buns)
Though in my opinion, any tuna fish sandwich recipe would work just fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.670651
| 2021-02-18T12:18:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114377",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32293
|
why does oil temperature rise when I put food in the pan
I tried deep frying in oil using a thermometer for the first time today, my usual method is to test temp with a small amount of food.
I was using a wok filled 1/2 full with vegetable oil. I heated it until the thermometer read 350 deg F. I then put in some Somosa that were frozen. A lot of steam and bubbles were created. I lowered the gas flame and noticed that the temperature had risen to 390 degF. My instinct tells me that the oil temp was likely to be really at 390 because the Samosa cooked faster than I expected.
I tried this a few times and consistently got the same results even with non-frozen food. The temperature did not change if I stirred the oil.
Could there be something wrong with the themometer?. I calibrated it with boiling water before I started.
Have I discovered a new form of energy? :)
I doubt you have discovered new physics in your wok :-) You haven't described in enough detail (read, excessive, obsessively compulsive, completely over the top detail) for an assessment of what exactly is happening. The only explanation that comes to mind is that the the heat of the flame, even as adjusted, is such that it continues to add energy to the oil faster than the food and air cool it, thus leading to a net increase in temperature during the cooking interval. Another good hypothesis is your thermometer is wacky :-)
What is the reaction time of your thermometer? Most kitchen thermometers seem to have a reaction time of 10 sec. It is possible that the temperature actually started falling when you threw in the food, but the display continued climbing for some time because it has a lag.
I don't understand the downvote.
I think I have solved the mystery. It turns out that even though the tip of thermometer was 1 inch below the surface of the oil it was not measuring the right temp. I repeated the experiment, heated the oil to indicated 350 deg, when I spooned some hot oil further up the shaft of the thermometer and the indicated temp shot up to 400 deg. Introducing cold food to the oil causes the oil to contact the shaft of the thermometer higher up resulting in a higher temp reading.
It depends on the type of the thermometer and the position of the sensor inside of it. In all likely hood, you're not measuring the oil temperature but the air/steam above the surface.
When you put the food in, it produces more flow due to the water evaporating from the food and leaving the oil and registering on the sensor.
This is sometimes tricky, because some sensors are right at the tip and if you let it sink to the bottom you have yet another problem of reading the burner contact point and not the fluid.
Your best bet is to try and keep your sensor probe somewhat horizontal and almost fully submerged..
@mandomando has it right, I was measuring the air temperature and not the oil. I have done some more experiments and observed interesting results.
I tested two analog probes - a small Taylor and a candy/fryer CDN from Sur le Table. Both showed the same results - unless the probe is at least 2 inches into the food it can read as much as 50 degF too low. Looking at the CDN web site http://www.cdnw.com/sites/default/files/English_IRXL400en_0.pdf, I found a note saying that the probe will be inaccurate unless the probe is inserted up to a small dimple in the side of the probe. On both of my probes the dimple is 2 inches from the tip.
Conclusion - be very careful when using analog probes. In my case, using a fat frying thermometer submerged just 1/2 inch below the dimple resulted in a reading 50 degF lower than indicated.
I did the same experiment on a small Taylor digital probe and found that it read correctly at all depths.
Also, I found all of the probes indicated different temperatures. I would advise anyone using them to test them in a pan of boiling water before use.
I just had the same problem.. and then compared with a digital and found it was reading false temperatures more than 70degrees lower. I realized the analog thermometer has to be submerged over half its length. Mine was only touching by the tip because that’s what I was used to with my meat thermometer. I do like the analog one because takes no batteries and reads quite high, just need to get the knack of it first. Was very strange to put the chicken in my oil and it starts climbing higher and higher in temp. I am always paranoid and cautios when deep frying so when the canola oil was smoking splattering and popping louder and louder at 235 degrees, I was very confused and Freaked out..so mora of story.. experiment with new thermometers and see how they work..
Trust me, after a few batches of almond brittle tossed out and
500 degree fried chicken..I learnt the hard way..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.670871
| 2013-02-28T17:41:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32293",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"MalcL",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55031
|
What can I use instead of butter for Jamie Oliver's steak recipe?
Jamie Oliver had a steak recipe that was fairly simple:
Season (salt/pepper/olive oil)
Dry pan (no oil in the pan) on heat
Fry a minute+ on each side, flip several times
When browned, rub the outside with a clove of garlic, some rosemary, and a bit of butter and keep grilling on the pan
Rest, collect the juices, and use as sauce over the steak.
If I don't want to use the butter (or any dairy product) for the above step, what else can I use in that rubbing step instead of the butter? What exactly does the butter rubbing do, what effect would there be if I skip that alltogether, and what can I do to preserve the effect?
He mentioned that you can add butter to the resting juices to sweeten them, but didn't explain what rubbing when grilling does.
The butter is there for flavor, mouth feel, and to add some body to the sauce you make. I'd replace the butter with.... nothing at all. Many of the flavor compounds in garlic and rosemary are fat soluble and fat is not exactly in short supply when it comes to steak, so you should be able to run those on directly and still get some flavor. Alternatively you could steep some olive oil with the garlic and rosemary and brush a bit on, but I would just simmer them in the juices for a minute instead and then spoon them on the cooked steak.
I have a few comment's on Jamie's recipe:
Do not use olive oil when frying steak, it has too low a smoke point and may turn bitter. Use vegetable oil (canola/rapeseed, corn, peanut, sunflower, safflower, or blend) instead.
Do not pepper the steak before frying as pepper will burn and turn bitter. Add fresh pepper just after you remove it from the pan to rest. If you want a pepper flavor inside the steak use a marinade. Salting before is fine
The oil is not a seasoning, that's the salt and pepper. The oil's purpose is to help conduct the heat from the pan to the steak until the steak's juices come out
There flip repeatedly method works but it isn't the only way to do it, I prefer to flip once after about 65% of the cooking time has elapsed. Doing a 65-35 rather than a 50-50 flip will make your steak evenly pink in the middle and means you can turn your attention to other things. I also think you get a better sear when using a pan. I use the 1 minute flip over charcoal though as it keeps the steak from getting too crispy
McGee is in favour of flipping every minute. Source
Cooking issues checked that. They're in favour of flipping.
The only effects of rubbing a bit of butter on the steak in the middle of frying it I can think of are:
Add a hint of buttery flavour.
Provide more fat to help keep the steak from sticking to the pan.
Salt the steak a tiny bit, assuming you used salted butter.
I think only the second effect would be important enough to make it worthwhile find a substitute for. Rubbing the steak with some more olive oil, dairy-free margarine or even just spraying with cooking spray, should work as a substitute. However you can probably get away with not doing anything to replace the butter. In addition to the oil you've already seasoned the steak with, fat rendered from the steak itself should keep it from sticking. If you find it sticks anyways, then next time you can rub on some more oil.
I don't think it would be worthwhile to find some non-dairy substitute for the flavour of the butter. If you think the steak is going to miss that bit of salt the butter provides, I would just add a dash of salt to the juices you're using as a sauce.
I don't know how much "a bit of butter" is, but on a hot steak you could probably melt a fair amount on quickly, and if the saltiness and butter flavor are noticeable, the extra fat itself might be too.
I think much of that flavour would be lost since the steak is put back on in the pan to fry. Either way, I don't think a non-dairy butter flavour substitute would really be worth it. Not unless you're trying to recreate the buttery steaks grandma used to make or something. There's already salt in seasoning, but if more is needed it's easier to add it earlier or later.
I was talking more about just a bit of extra fat in the surface of the meat, something that's as much mouthfeel as flavor. Could even alter the way it browns? I still suspect it might not matter that much, but worth considering.
@Jefromi - I can provide a YouTube link. But it looks to be fairly little - like a slice couple millimeters thick
I found this recipe online, which seems closest to the Jamie Oliver recipe you mention in brief. The only divergence is no mention of turning the steak over regularly, and I agree with @GdD's method. http://www.precisionnutrition.com/the-perfect-steak
Coconut oil is similar smoke point to butter, so that will help sear the steak with a slightly different flavour. Avocado oil has an even higher smoke point, so is another good substitute.
However, you might want to try beef tallow or similar? You can get the temperature much higher.
Some people say get the steak to room temperature, whilst others say freeze it first. I am going to try the latter method next time (but only when using a meat thermometer!!)
Finally, where your steak comes from and cut will make the most difference, so pay a bit extra and go to a butchers or choose a better cut. I prefer fattier steaks, my wife prefers prime, so we just buy one of each and everyone is happy.
You could try ghee / unclarified butter. You can make it pretty easily with unsalted butter, which will remove the dairy solids, or you can buy it at Trader Joe's, online and at many grocery stores, including Walmart (look in the Ethnic foods section with Indian products).
Ghee or unclarified butter is still a dairy product... That doesn't really solve the problem.
I think you could just do without the butter. It does add a certain enhancement to the steak, but nothing that will be missed too badly. You may want to grill the steak for better flavor (that's just my opinion) instead of frying it--and you will easily do without the butter.
If you don't want to use dairy then don't. However, butter on a steak has very distinct flavor a feel effects. There is no substitute to replace this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.671310
| 2015-02-23T02:59:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55031",
"authors": [
"Amanda Nilsen",
"Amy Schoch",
"BaffledCook",
"Bat Woman",
"Brandy jenifer",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"DVK",
"Ela Sunderman",
"Harris G.",
"Jack Wray",
"Leanne Harris",
"Michael Costello",
"Raymond Humphrey",
"Ross Ridge",
"Solar Flare",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"laur1976"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37130
|
Kale vs Spinach in Zuppa Toscana lasting
I know that kale is the original recipe, but I've always liked spinach better. I think it has a nice sour kick to it. The problem is that spinach gets soggy much faster and quickly loses its texture. Is there any way to make the spinach stay firm longer in the soup?
Probably not--but you don't have to add it until you are ready to serve. The leftovers can be spinachless until you are ready to portion out a bowl.
Another common mistake here is to use baby spinach. The larger thicker leaves of "adult" spinach retain their texture much better. I also appreciate the stronger vegetal flavor.
It's common to add the spinach to a soup like this by putting the raw spinach in a bowl and ladling the hot soup over it. This protects the spinach from overcooking and losing both flavor and color before being served. Once the spinach is actually in the soup, there isn't much that you can do to keep it from getting soggy.
I guess this does seem a bit more fancy anyways :)
Yes it does, it's a very nice presentation. Watch out for him, he is a Smartypants.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.671880
| 2013-09-26T23:06:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37130",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Hamidreza",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kai",
"Myriam Sarah",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"dave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87247",
"rsavchenko",
"user87231"
],
"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
}
|
56657
|
how long does a cake with avocado frosting last in the fridge?
I am making a cake that I will frost with avocado frosting. For how many days can I keep cakes/cupcakes frosted with avocado frosting in the fridge?
I use this avocado frosting recipe from Alton Brown:
Ingredients:
8 ounces avocado meat, approximately 2 small to medium
2 teaspoons freshly squeezed lemon juice
1 pound powdered sugar, sifted
1/2 teaspoon lemon extract
Directions
Peel and pit the avocado. Place the avocado into the bowl of a stand mixer fitted with the whisk attachment along with the lemon juice and beat until lightened in color, approximately 2 to 3 minutes. Add the powdered sugar a little at a time and beat until smooth. Add the lemon extract and mix to combine. If not using right away, store in the refrigerator.
I'm not actually sure if this is a food safety question, or a discoloration question (although it's probably related to safety)
I don't think the cited duplicate question is valid. First, there is no mention of avocados or anything similar enough to make a reasonable conclusion about storage. Second, as @Erica brought up, it's not a food safety question but instead is asking about aesthetic qualities.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.672033
| 2015-04-13T14:06:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56657",
"authors": [
"Bianca",
"Brady S.",
"Erica",
"Katherine Herda",
"Linda Lou Lizzylou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34922",
"tkmckenzie",
"user3036885"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110885
|
Can oatmeal be cooked in rice milk in a regular oven and pan?
I usually cook a big portion of oatmeal in a big plastic bowl with 1 liter of rice milk at 600W for 5-7 minutes in a microwave oven. however, I don't have one at my disposal at the moment.
Can the same process be done in a regular oven? If so, at what temperature? For how long?
Maybe I should use water instead or rice milk?
Hmm. Most recipes for oatmeal in the oven are for cookies or bars. But it should work for porridge too. I happen to have oatmeal and a pre-heated oven, so I'll give it a shot.
Yep, you can make oatmeal in the oven. Mine turned out just fine, quite good in fact.
I used a small casserole dish with a lid in a 350F (180C) oven.
I heated 1 cup each of water and milk with a dash of salt in the covered casserole dish for 20 minutes which brought the liquid nearly to a boil. I stirred in 1 cup of old-fashioned oats (not quick-cooking), replaced the lid, and baked without stirring for 20 minutes.
So a 1:2 ratio of oats to nearly boiling liquid.
It is as good as any oatmeal I've ever made. Rice milk should work just as well, I'd go half and half with water the first time you do it, and definitely use a pot or dish (ovenproof, of course) with a tight-fitting lid.
See Is there an easy way to tell if a pan/pot is oven-safe? for advice concerning the cooking vessel. You can be pretty relaxed about any pan that is meant for stovetop use for this application because most modern cookware is made to withstand 350F (180C) easily - even non-stick surfaces or handles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.672163
| 2020-09-28T05:46:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110885",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114633
|
Lamb half cook then recook next day
Is it safe to half cook a lamb roast and the recook the roast the next day?
It depends on exactly what you mean by ‘half cook’
The problem comes if you warm it up, but don’t bring it up to a hot enough temperature to kill off any dangerous microbes.
If you then cool it back off and warm it again, then you’re giving the microbes a significantly longer period of time to multiply and produce toxins. (As they have the initial warning period, the cooling until they go dormant, and then the second warning period)
You need the initial cooking to take the meat up to the minimum safe temperature for the meat, or to pasteurize it by bringing it up to sufficient temperature and holding it there for sufficient time to kill pathogens. (See Balwin’s charts for sous vide pasteurization, but keep in mind that you’re not doing sous vide)
You can then cool it off and bring it back to eating temperature the next day. But the process of heating it twice can potentially dry out / overcook the meat. I prefer to slice it up, and place it into hot gravy or other sauce to warm up slowly.
Probably (famous last word)
(curious) what is the reason you want to do it in 2 stages ? Lamb roast usually does not take a long time to cook.
You could quickly roast/brown it at high temperature to have a crust.
Quickly cool it down in the fridge, and the next day, continue cooking up to temperature.
I'm not expecting this to result in the best roast, but it should be feasible,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.672316
| 2021-03-06T22:48:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114633",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116060
|
What kind of yeast is this?
I have a type of yeast that I'm finding hard to identify by English standard.
These are picture of it:
Whole, uncut.
cut in half
In my country, Bulgaria, we call it "live" yeast, despite that both kinds of yeast sold here are actually live. The other kind sold here (called "dry" yeast) is sold in little packets of 7 or 10g and inside it looks like a lot of tiny cillindrical thingies with tiny holes in them. I always thought those are the yeast creatures, themselves, but it might be a way of packing them.
Anyway, since there isn't much information about such things on the Bulgarian internet I want to look things up on the English-speaking one but I don't know if the yeast in the pictures is what you'd call "instant" yeast, as it doesn't look anything like what I've seen on the 'net for it.
The reason I want to know what it would be called in English is that I want to know if there is any difference in the bread product depending on the type of yeast used. From all I've read, both in ENG and BUL 'nets, the only difference between the "live" and "dry" yeast ("instant" and whatever the other kind was called) was that you have to "activate" one kind and you can straight up use the other kind right off the bat.
Is that the only difference between the types of yeast? If I don't care about "activation", can I use either one to the same effect?
I always thought those are the yeast creatures, themselves, but it might be a way of packing them. - bakers yeast are a type of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, these guys are 5 to 10 microns in diameter, which is 0.005 to 0.01 of a millimetre. So single yeast are too small to see without a microscope. There are some images and more details here: https://www.microscopeclub.com/yeast-under-microscope/
In addition to the accepted answer:
This is called Fresh Yeast in English. There are two other types of
yeast commonly available in the English speaking world, called
instant (bread machine) yeast and active dry yeast. Both of these
last two are more commonly used as they keep very well for extended
periods of time.
Fresh yeast is basically a cake of yeast that has been filtered and pressed to remove most of the growth medium. It should be active as it is without any further additions. However, it does not keep for long in the fridge as the yeast are all active and need nutrients to survive.
You can not just substitute 1:1 fresh yeast with active dry or instant. They require different amounts for each. Because fresh yeast has some water in it, it requires a bit more yeast than you would use for the other two options (which also differ slightly as well). You must also check for activity (because the yeast doesn't store well) by placing a small amount of yeast into some warm water with a "pinch" of sugar and checking for foaming. The Spruce Eats has a good article on this. To quote the article:
Because fresh yeast has moisture in it, you should use 3 times the
fresh yeast in weight for the same rising ability of instant yeast
and 2.5 times the amount of active dry yeast.
7 grams instant yeast = 1/4 ounce instant yeast = 2 1/4 teaspoons
instant yeast = 21 grams fresh yeast or 1 1/4 blocks (0.6-ounce
size) or about 1/2 block (2-ounce size) fresh yeast.
1 teaspoon instant yeast (3 grams) = 1/2 block (0.6 ounce size)
fresh yeast.
7 grams of active dry yeast = 2 1/4 teaspoons active dry yeast =
17.5 grams fresh yeast = 1 block (0.6-ounce size) or 1/3 block
(2-ounce size) of fresh yeast.
1 teaspoon active dry yeast =
1/3 block (0.6-ounce size) of fresh yeast.
For what it's worth, checking for activity isn't a thing where I live at least. Fresh yeast is the most commonly used type of yeast and in all my years of using it I've never had to check for activity, nor is it recommended in general. Assuming you bought it within the expiration date, the yeast will be fine. This might vary from country to country of course.
@WilliamMariager Thanks for that - when we used to get fresh yeast regularly, we always used to check that it still worked, but I think that may have been a hang-over from the days when expiry times weren't so common and frugality was more of an issue, so we possibly kept it for longer than recommended.
@bob1 From my childhood I seem to remember that fresh yeast could spoil by molding, paradoxically.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica Based on my experience of frugally using old "fresh" yeast, that's exactly how it usually spoils. It can also dry out. In either case, the yeast always worked and never failed even when I had to cut away pieces of mold or the outsides were visibly dried out. From this I deduce that William's comment is 100% correct and fresh yeast will always work if it's not obviously so spoiled that you can't use it anymore
+1 But just a minor point that instant yeast is not just for bread machines - plenty of bakeries use instant yeast just because it's more convenient and can be mixed in directly with the flour. It's the main type of yeast that I use also (it comes in 450g blocks, so easy to buy lots of) and I don't have a bread machine. Also, another type of yeast that's commonly found in the west is "pizza yeast", which is active dry yeast with added dough conditioners, etc (don't use this stuff!).
@J... Correct - however, sometimes it is sold as bread machine yeast, without the instant part. Also in the context of a home baker, rather than a commercial bakery, it is generally used in a bread machine.
@Nobody - not true, the yeast will reduce in the number of living cells over time, so it will take longer for the yeast to rise the bread. Eventually, even in the absence of spoilage, it will stop working. How long this will take, I don't know and will likely vary from batch to batch.
@bob1 In reality either it will dry out or mold will start to grow waaaay before it stops working. But sure, if you manage to somehow prevent the usual ways of spoilage, then eventually the yeast will starve and die.
It's often called fresh yeast in English.
and this block is often called a 'cake' (cake [fresh] yeast)
Which dialect of English? In old American cookbooks, I’ve often seen it called ‘cake yeast’, as CobaltHex has mentioned. This might be one of those times when the answer isn’t quite so simple
In German, this is also call fresh yeast (or baking yeast).
It is mostly sold as 42g cubes (as shown in your image).
Historicaly, most peaple bought it in a bakery, where a 500g portion was subdivided into 12 portions (41.66g).
Once supermarkets started, the 42g size was retained since that amount was needed for a 750g loaf of bread.
It should be used within 3 weeks.
At stores around where I live (California), this type of yeast is referred to this as wet yeast and the other granulated instant yeast as dry yeast.
Some more info on the now identified fresh yeast:
Fresh yeast has a very short storage life; it can only last about 2 weeks in the refrigerator.
The color of fresh yeast should be pale and grayish brown, not dark brown.
The texture of fresh yeast should be soft and crumbly, not hard or crusty.
Fresh yeast is great for breads that require long fermentation and long rise time or for breads that require multiple proofs, as their active reaction lasts longer than dry yeast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.672503
| 2021-06-13T12:04:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116060",
"authors": [
"CobaltHex",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Nobody",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"William",
"bob1",
"guest105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94355"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41784
|
How to know which pan to use for baking a cake
I would like help on how to know which baking pan to use if the recipe does not specify. I have tried measuring the pan using water to ascertain the quantity but it did not help.
Not specifying the pan size is a huge quality error in a recipe; there are such a variety of high quality sources of recipes on the internet that I would consider this a show stopper, and simply find another recipe to use.
First, for the pan type: If the recipe didn't specify, don't use a special pan like a bundt or similar. Take a standard round pan from thin metal. Line with parchment and oil the walls, you never know how much a new recipe will stick.
As for the size, if the author didn't specify, then the recipe is probably intended for the most common size in the author's culture. The first pan to try would be the one common in the place the recipe comes from. This would be a 9 inch pan in the US and a 26 cm pan in continental Europe. I don't know what the standard size is in other places.
After you have made the batter, fill it into the pan. A good upper limit for rising would be 3 times the original height. If your batter takes up less than 1/3 of the pan height, you can bake it. In the worst case, it will go a little bit above the rim, but this will happen so late that it will be set enough to not get a muffin top, and definitely no spillage. If it is more than 1/3 of the height, move batter into a bigger pan.
If a recipe regularly rises much above 1/3, it is probably overleavened. An overleavened cake might look nicely fluffy at a first glance, but it will have problems such as frequent doming and a metallic taste from too much baking powder. You will get better results if you reduce the baking powder.
When you have decided on a good pan size/type, add it to the recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.673152
| 2014-02-05T10:39:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41784",
"authors": [
"Kotlopou",
"Mr. Bultitude",
"Nice Wildlife Service spam",
"Optionparty",
"Paws 'n' Rec spam",
"Radioactive Pickle",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97475"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42685
|
Murgh Shahi Korma
My father in law thinks "korma" may refer to dates, but it's supposed to be derived from the Urdu term for braising. The other two words "shahi" and "murgh" seem to indicate the Farsi words for king and chicken. Plus the dish is supposedly an import from Persia.
I've seen it with made with raisins, but is there an authentic version that uses dates? Or perhaps a separate Persian dish that resembles korma?
What is your actual question? Are you asking what Korma is? If so I don't think there's a complete answer, there are many regional variations.
As a Persian, I never heard of a food named what you mentioned, with or without dates.
Korma is a Parsi dish of Persian origin. I'm asking if anyone has a recipe for the original Persian Dish, the dish that ultimately became Korma. Perhaps there is a fesenjan-like braise that incorporates palm dates?
Call it culinary anthropology. If nobody shares the dish, then the species will go extinct.
As an Iranian, I've never heard of this dish and I'm certain there is no braise or stew with dates in it (at least not in persian cuisine). However the name sounds persian and your father in law is close, except date in persian is spelled "Khorma" (it has an h).
The word "Korma" in this dish name does not mean "date" and it simply means "braise" which is also a reason to not look for a braise with dates in it. Korma is an Urdu word which you can verify via link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korma
Speaking of culinary anthropology, in the middle ages, Persians brought their cuisine to the Indian subcontinent, and to this day a lot of Persian and Hindi names for many dishes are similar. I would safely assume this dish is Hindu or Indian. However, if you are looking to make a stew with chicken and spices, you are welcome to visit my blog and try my Curry Stew which is a delicious Persian/Indian concoction. It does have chicken and a yummy curry sauce. Here is the link, hope you can try and enjoy it. Good luck.
http://www.tumblingpots.com/1/post/2013/12/curry-stew.html
Is this stew actually something you'd call "korma"? It sounds like it's just a different stew, not really what the OP is asking about.
No, this stew is not "korma" and as I said in my response "I've never heard of this dish". The OP asks later for a similar dish, and I suggested a curry stew with chicken that is made of very similar ingredients to "murghe shahi korma".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korma
Okay, I'm just trying to clarify, because we prefer answers that focus on the question, so the link looks a bit out of place. We're especially careful about asking people to only link to their blogs/sites/stores if it helps answer the question, so this looks borderline. It's unclear, so I'll leave it - it might be an Iranian/Persian dish of some relation to the Indian one?
I understand and appreciate your inputs. I did my best to help the questioner, but honestly I think there is a need for another clarification.
The questioner is under the impression that perhaps there is a persian stew/braise variation out there with "Korma" or dates in it, which is the problem. There is no such a braise, and "Korma" is a word for "braise" in Urdo.
I appreciate the clarification. It appears that korma and khorma are two different beasts.
In northern Indian cuisine, "murgh shahi korma" would be chicken (murgh) in a mild creamy sauce (korma) - although as someone rightfully comments there are lots of regional variations - with the term shahi meaning loosely "fit for a king", and usually indicating a dish made rich with the presence of cream and nuts.
Dried fruit (raisins, etc.) would be a common addition, since it's a Mughlai dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.673596
| 2014-03-12T02:28:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42685",
"authors": [
"Calico Marty",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Mehraban",
"Mon Jardinier Wavre",
"Sarineh at tumblingpots.com",
"Spammer",
"Thuf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99846",
"no u",
"rredondo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49719
|
Do I need special gloves for mozzarella stretching?
I'd like to pick up some gloves for stretching mozzarella. I've seen gloves sold for just this on specialty sites like thebeveragepeople.com and thecheesemaker.com, but I can't tell if they're just a generic product sold as something specific. Is there something generic that will work equally well for (1) hot temperatures and is (2) food safe? I'd like to be able to buy it on Amazon in particular.
Hi! Your question is a very interesting one. Being a Q&A site, we prefer all "titles" to contain a real question and not just a topic, so I edited it for you.
@rumtscho : I thought his title was fine ... sometimes it's better when the title isn't a question (like when the title question isn't the same as the body question).
@Joe It's a networkwide policy to make titles be phrased as questions. In this case, the old one was too unspecific. What does he want to know about mozzarella gloves? It's possible that I misunderstood the body and chose a title which doesn't sum up the problem well, in which case we should try to find a better question-title.
@joe OK, I have an apology: After researching, I saw that having titles worded as questions is a proposal which has been discussed, but never made into binding policy. The important part is to write meaningful, nonambiguous titles. See http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/writing-a-good-title for guidelines.
There is no requirement for specific gloves so far as I know. Gloves themselves aren't actually even necessary. They do however keep your hands clean, and they keep any nasties that could be on your hands or arms out of the cheese. When I make mozz for my family I usually just use my clean bare hands. If I was making to sell I'd most likely use food service gloves with a little butter on them to prevent sticking during stretching, similar to when you're pulling taffy.
The main reason why I'm looking for gloves is due to discomfort from the hot mozzarella stretching. I've tried in the past and struggled with the hot temperatures on my hands. I've ended up with poor results, which I think is because I'm unable to stretch the cheese until it has cooled down a bit.
What are "food service gloves"? I imagine plain latex gloves might melt. Would rubber gloves work? (are there even food safe rubber gloves?) I'd like something reusable.
We usually use nitrile gloves because we have them on hand (they're basically hypoallergenic latex gloves). They don't provide any protection from heat though. I get your concerns though - it can be a hot for the hands. Usually I just suffer through it until it's done (it shouldn't be THAT hot and should cool quickly). You could always try layering them - get some work gloves from a car store and then latex or nitrile gloves a size or 2 larger than usual and put them over the work gloves. You'll lose some deftness but it should cut down on the heat.
The reason why Beverage People and Cheesemaking.com recommend medium neoprene gloves is that they do protect you from the heat for a short time (as in, less than a minute), while still allowing you to get a fairly good grip on the cheese. The neoprene gloves which you link to are fairly standard; search on "neoprene gloves" on Amazon and you'll be presented with lots of options.
However, these will still be somewhat clumsy compared to just using latex or nitrile gloves or your bare hands so if you can stand the heat, you shouldn't use the gloves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.673950
| 2014-11-12T19:36:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49719",
"authors": [
"Bob Wiens",
"Dhara Gadi",
"Ernesto Roque",
"Joe",
"Judith Eisikowitz",
"Lisa R Walker",
"Liz Malinowski",
"Matthew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rumtscho",
"user3341874"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52331
|
Oil temp goes up when turkey breast is added - why?
Why does my oil temperature go up, from 350°F to 400° or 425°, when I add a bone-in turkey breast? It will remain there for about 20 minutes without the burner on.
I have done this twice now with same results. The turkey cooks fine but this puzzles me - any thoughts?
Richard is right, it's most likely a measurement problem. How are you measuring it? Is it possible that the oil is sitting still, but when the turkey piece is dropped, oil from hotter layers swirls close to the probe? Or that it's an infrared thermometer whose readout changes depending on the surface which reflects the rays?
Where does the temperature readout come from?
I would be very curious indeed about the results of measuring the temperature with a thermometer directly in the oil.
As far as I know there is no exothermal chemical reaction between meat and oil, so adding a colder piece of meat to hot oil should ALWAYS reduce the temperature of the total volume (assuming that no extra heat is added from an external source)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.674238
| 2015-01-06T13:59:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52331",
"authors": [
"Brian Jones",
"Demetrios Kalfa",
"FAREEDA KHATOON",
"Kev Peacock",
"Sara Beth Sara4urhaira",
"Steven Mourad",
"Terry Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124240",
"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
}
|
47036
|
Egg safety. When to eat and when to not eat
I have a question about eggs and when it is safe to eat them.
I've read online that there are 2 ways to test if an egg is safe to eat or not (without cracking it open):
Float test: Get a massive bowl, fill it with water and place the egg inside. If it sinks to the bottom and lays on its side, it's "fresh" (not old). If it bobs up slightly then it's a few weeks old and if it floats to the top throw it away (too old).
Those sites also say that test is no indication of whether or not an egg is rotten, it only indicates the age of the egg and that eggs can be rotten before they even expire.
Slosh test: Gently shake the egg near your ear. If you hear a distinct sloshing sound, the egg is rotten and should not be consumed.
Is the above true? Are they old wives tales/myths?
I've also read that egg shells covered in crap and blood are not safe to eat because they more than likely have bacteria. Why do most eggs have crap and blood on them?
I've also read that eggs with dark colored spots all over them should not be consumed. Why? Why do most eggs have weird colored spots all over them?
Sometimes when I gently shake an egg, it does not slosh but I can feel the insides moving around (it kind of feels like a big ball inside rocking back and forth) - is that normal? Is it safe to hard boil and consume those eggs?
I guess my question is, what are the guaranteed ways to determine if an egg is safe to consume without cracking it open? And please, if you can provide any official sources that would be great.
Eggs coverd in "crap" are likely not washed but only brushed. Washing eggs may make the shell/egg more appealing but it also damages the cuticle which is a natural protective coating. If eggs were washed they must be stored in the fridge.
Related: How long can I keep eggs in the refrigerator?
Thanks @Ching when I say they slosh I mean they slosh when I take them home (about 10mins after buying then)
Do you crack the sloshing eggs open to verify they're rotten? I've never had a rotten egg in my life.
When they slosh, I do crack them open @Elendil
I never heard of the slosh test. And I never had a rotten egg in my life, too.
@Ching that's weird, there's like a billion websites that list it. But to be fair not single person I know knows how to tell if an egg is rotten other than going by the expirey date
The expiration date is only a guideline when to discard food. The food is not necessarily rotten after this date. I think you can detect a rotten egg by its smell. Otherwise many would contradict this answer.
I've encountered rotten eggs. Trust me, you'll know immediately that they're rotten from the smell. The idea that grocery stores in a 1st world country are selling rotten eggs is preposterous.
If your concern is with the dirt/poop on the egg versus it being spotless and white/clean it depends on how the eggs are being washed and transported. Your goal should be dirty and never refrigerated or cleaned properly and kept consistently cold. Not so much a function of age or rotten but for salmonella reasons. Check out this short recent article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/why-the-u-s-chills-its-eggs-and-most-of-the-world-doesnt?sc=tw
If the shell is undamaged, and the eggs are not past their expiration/best by date, they are safe to eat. Official source: your government's food safety agency, unless you live in a place with really really lax food regulation. But your profile says Australia - I'm sure things are fine there. If there are problems with salmonella outbreaks, it's not anything that you can detect. A salmonella-contaminated egg will look exactly like an uncontaminated one - that's why governments generally recommend you cook the egg, which will kill the salmonella and make it safe. If you're eating raw/undercooked eggs, you'll have to decide whether the risk where you are is low enough.
In practice, they're actually safe for a while after the best by date, just not as fresh, and if the shell is cracked without damaging the membrane or they were very recently cracked, they're also safe. But no damage and before the date is the most absolute guarantee you can get.
The two tests you mention will help you get some idea how fresh the eggs are. Neither has anything to do with good vs. rotten. As eggs get less fresh, they dry out a bit, forming a larger air pocket. So they'll slosh more, and start to float.
But it doesn't mean they're rotten. An actually rotten egg would be completely obvious by smell - they're sulfurous, a lot like the smell that's added to natural gas. If you're getting eggs that float in water on the day you buy them, with really obvious sloshing, yes, it means they're not fresh, so they're certainly not good as fresh eggs from a farm. So if that's the case, your supermarket isn't selling you good quality eggs. It doesn't mean they're unsafe, though.
As for "Why do most eggs have crap and blood on them?" ... "most" is a huge exaggeration, the places I've seen - they get washed. And as rumtscho pointed out in the comments, the eggs are coming out of a chicken, so some ugly stuff is natural. You never actually said what your eggs look like, but if you live in a place where they're not cleaned (even before selling in a supermarket??), then it still doesn't mean they're unsafe, just that you should probably clean them before cracking them.
And dark spots? Some eggs are naturally speckled - that'd be fine. If it's something else, I guess it would be helpful for you to provide a picture.
Eggs do have crap and sometimes blood on them, because this is how they come out of the chicken. It's a kind of birth after all, and chickens have cloacas, not separate canals for birth, solid and liquid excretion. Large commercial producers here in Europe usually remove the ugly stuff (but not washing the protective wax off), but it is possible that in other parts of the world this isn't so usual, or that the OP buys eggs from a small farmer who doesn't bother.
@rumtscho Thanks, edited. (Meant to be speaking more about the way they're sold.)
There's one test that might show a rotten egg without cracking the shell -- candling (looking at the light shining through the egg). From what I've read, the bacteria blocks the light, so light doesn't pass through the same ... but I have no idea how spoiled it has to be for that to work.
According to a local farmer I spoke with: when you shake an egg and it sloshes, it's rotten. When it floats to the top of a bowl of water its too old and if you feel something moving around inside when you shake it its rotten. If any of those 3, you should not consume the egg. If it has a hairline crack do not eat it because chances are bacteria has already entered into the egg. I also told him that lately when I buy eggs from the supermarket most of them slosh when I shake them gently and he said that's because by the time they get from the farm to the distributor then to the actual supermarket they're already a month old in many cases. So that explains everything. I was right. The eggs have been rotten and I'm not paranoid without good reason.
I just bought a carton of the local farmers eggs and not a single one of them sloshed, moved around inside or floated to the top in a bowl of water.
-1: this is clearly false. Yes, with a lot of storebought eggs you can feel something slightly moving around (though with the ones I get it's really really hard to notice). But that means they're not fresh. It does not mean they're rotten. There's no way your supermarket is selling everyone rotten eggs - they'd be disgusting, and no one would be buying them anymore. Not as fresh as straight from a farmer? Sure. Rotten? No way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.674395
| 2014-09-10T19:26:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47036",
"authors": [
"Amanda Kilpatrick",
"Ben Shomshor",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"Duane Putnam",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Kurt Van den Branden",
"Laura Perry",
"Mark1958",
"My Life",
"Patricia Hunt",
"Philip Mangan",
"Richard Crane",
"Ron Helmer",
"Vijetha Prabhu",
"doejoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jay_t55",
"rumtscho",
"t gray",
"user25333"
],
"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
}
|
63252
|
What's the purpose of syrup in toffee apples?
The toffee apple recipes pretty much all have syrup in them. The ratio of syrup ranges from low to almost as much as the sugar.
My question is: What is purpose of the syrup? If it's just for flavour, then how does it affect the flavour?
I realize it's easier to get the caramel going in the pan with syrup in the base, but if you add water (which most recipes say, and it boils off anyway) that makes it easy enough to get going without burning the sugar.
What kind of syrup?
The bane of sugar syrup or caramel making is unwanted crystalization. A few stray sugar crystals, a premature stir, and your caramel gets grainy instead of smooth.
Corn syrup is an invert sugar (glucose), which can prevent this. Alternatively, a bit of acid (a few drops of lemon juice, a pinch cream of tartar...) will break some of the sucrose (plain sugar) into fructose and glucose.
Do you have to use it? No. It's mostly a safety net. If you follow proper procedure, like not stirring, washing down stray sugar crystals from the walls of your pot..., you can make your caramel apples without syrup. And there are recipes without syrup to be found on the Internet, for example here at Serious Eats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.675025
| 2015-11-07T15:10:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63252",
"authors": [
"Jane Swenson",
"Karen Whitcher",
"Roberta Hoodward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150523",
"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
}
|
67010
|
What is the best way to thicken the liquid in this recipe?
I've made this recipe:
https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/videos/1658203764432266/
1 Red Pepper, Julienne Cut
1 Green Pepper, Julienne Cut
1 Yellow Pepper, Julienne Cut
1 Onions, Julienne Cut
2 lbs. Chicken, Sliced
2 tablespoons Taco Seasoning
1 Can Diced Tomatoes
1 Lime
⅛ tsp. Garlic Powder
8 ounces Cheese
Cut the peppers and onion and place one half into the crock pot
Place the unsliced chicken into the crockpot. Cover with 1 tablespoon of the taco seasoning. Turn the chicken over and cover other half with remaining tablespoon of taco seasoning.
Add the garlic and diced tomatoes
Add remaining peppers and onion
Squeeze lime into the crock pot
Cook on High for 3 hours
Remove the chicken and slice.
Add the chicken back into the crock pot and cook for another 10 minutes.
Use the filling for a tortillia, adding some cheese before eating while it is hot.
several times and it is quite good.
However, after it is cooked, there is a lot of liquid. I've tried draining the liquid, but a lot of the flavor goes along with it.
If it matters, I use frozen chicken breast which is fully thawed before cooking.
Any suggestions?
If you are making a tortilla filler then you probably don't want that much sauce in the end product, so rather than thickening it you might want to consider reducing the amount of liquid that goes into it in the first place. Peppers and onions both shed water as they are cooked, and canned tomatoes have water as well. You don't want to lose your peppers, so I would suggest adding less canned tomato and substituting it with some tomato paste. How much to do depends on the quality of the canned tomatoes, as there's a big difference in quality out there. You get what you pay for - cheap canned tomatoes have water added to the end product, you'll typically get a thicker result and richer flavor with good canned tomatoes as there's more tomato in the can in the first place. That may be all you need to do.
My go-to thickeners are roux, cornstarch and arrowroot powder. A roux is flour fried with butter which is then added to the dish and cooked to a temperature that activates the thickening properties. The good thing about roux is that you can cook it to different levels to add flavor to a dish, but in this case you don't probably don't want that flavor. Cornstarch is relatively flavorless and needs to be heated to a certain temperature to activate it's thickening properties. Arrowroot is a plant product that thickens at a very low temperature, so you can add it after cooking to warm food and it will thicken it without more cooking. In fact, cooking it too much will break down it's thickening properties. It thickens almost instantly too, so there's less guesswork, you just add and stir until it thickens to the consistency you want. Both cornstarch and arrowroot should be mixed with a small amount of water into a slurry before being added, adding directly in powdered form tends to cause clumping.
Another option would be to add a small amount of gelatine at the end of the cooking process, this would thicken up the sauce when it gets cool, and has nice mouth feel.
So first you could try adding a bit of tomato paste and less tomatoes, or using a thicker brand of canned tomato. Or you could thicken using cornstarch or arrowroot depending on whether you plan to cook the sauce additionally afterwards. Experimenting with gelatine might be more work than you want to do, but it has nice properties.
Would you add the additional cornstarch at the start of the 3 hours? If not, when should it be added? I imagine it would take some experimentation, so, what would be a good, safe starting amount for this recipe? And, repeat these questions for the gelatin as well. I don't mind the extra work in figuring out how to improve the recipe. I do drain the diced tomatoes a bit before adding to reduce the amount of liquid.
Cornstarch and arrowroot go in at the end, if I'm going to thicken at the beginning I use flour, either making a roux or coating the meat and frying it off. Gelatine I would also put in at the end. You never really know how much thickening you will need until the end of cooking anyway.
And, by "the end" do you mean the last 10 minutes of cooking or earlier? And, by amounts, I am just looking for scale...1/8 tsp. of Cornstarch or 1 tbsp? I believe gelatin comes in small packets...1 packet or 4 packets?
I tried a couple of the suggestions, but the results weren't quite what I wanted. While it was thickened when cooled, it returned to liquid form when heated. My solution, which I will use for now, was to simply add 1/4 cup rice on top of the chicken, but beneath the tomato, etc. The rice cooked well and absorbed the majority, but not all of the liquid. It became thick enough so as to not drip all over while eating.
Cornstarch if you want the liquid to remain at the same level of clarity, potato starch if you don't mind it getting a bit cloudier. I would imagine plenty of other starches such as rice starch or oat starch would also work, but I don't tend to get too exotic about my thickeners. Just don't use tapioca in a savory recipe. That's just gross; it adds a strange, bitter-sour taste.
Adding an absorptive ingredient - eg croutons, diced bread - into the mix after cooking would soak up the liquids and thus keep them in the dish without giving you a thickened sauce (which might or might not be wanted here).
I too love crock pots and slow cookers, but they do have their drawbacks. I am not a fan of removing the end product to other pans and making a further mess, that defeats the purpose. Looking at the mechanics of the recipe, it tells me that it is a ceramic insert and you are home when you cooking it. (3 hours on high) There are a few tips I have developed over the years to help with such an issue. You did mention you do drain the tomatoes somewhat, I would drain them further. As someone mentioned, you could add a little tomato paste, but not too much.
The problem with adding thickeners in the beginning (outside the recipe) is that you risk deactivating the thickening power, or it thickens too soon and begins to burn on the bottom. There is no accuracy with crock pots and slow cookers.
You can approach this two ways or a combination of the two. If you are present when cooking, I would leave the lid open a crack with a wooden spoon for the last half hour, tilting the lid so the water does not go back into the pot. I usually use a paper towel to catch the water. This ensured the most of the heat is being reflected back into the pot. Using this method you may want to add and addition half hour in cooking. When almost finished you can thicken the liquid with different choices, but it depends on what outcome you are looking for. Is the liquid condensed enough for full flavor? Do you want a clear broth, does that matter? If I were cooking this recipe, I would finish it with Wondra Flour. It is a precooked flour in a can. http://www.goldmedalflour.com/ourflourstory/ourflour/wondraflour Since it is already been activated by the precooking, you wouldn't need a high boil point for it to thicken, mostly time to hydrate. I would start with a teaspoon, then put the cover completely back on and give it an additional 10 mins.
You can also use powdered soy lecithin found in the drugstore aisle where thickened beverages such as Ensure are located. Lasts forever, is tasteless, and can be used at any temperature to thicken vegan mayo and vinegrette, as well as in hot mixtures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.675172
| 2016-03-02T02:07:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67010",
"authors": [
"Gabe Harris",
"GdD",
"Michelle Jones",
"Michelle Kirkendall",
"Ron Cupples",
"Sonya Jelks",
"Trevor Christian",
"Valita Cavanaugh",
"ericg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3650",
"tara merrill"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49033
|
My chocolate-chip cookie expanded after baking
I have been making the same chocolate-chip cookies for a while.
Last week, after baking a batch and removing from the oven, they expanded and became flat.
Usually they stay in the same shape when removed from the oven, (thick and chewy) this time is the only time my cookies really expanded and became flat.
I bake them from the freezer.
What could have gone wrong? too much or too little baking soda? I usually put 1 tsp of baking soda per 3 1/2 cups of regular white flour.
3 things come to mind. Is there any chance you used baking soda today, but baking powder in the past? Do you use an oven thermometer? Have you changed pans (particularly from shiny to dark)?
Hi, All that you mentioned - I did exactly as I always do. I made the previous cookie batch 2 weeks prior to this "bad" one and used the same baking soda and pan. I bake them at 175 degrees. The only difference I can think of is using colder butter when preparing the batch (not at room temperature as usual) and maybe putting too much/little baking powder.
Read your last comment again. Is it just a typo, or is there some question between baking powder/baking soda? That is actually THE easiest way to get flat or domed cookies from the 'same" recipe. See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45123/what-makes-the-difference-between-domed-and-flat-cookies
Definitely used baking soda :) And exactly the same one I used in the precious batched. I baked another tray of the cookies yesterday, they flattened after baking again, so it's definitely something in the ingredients that's off. I read the link you sent - and the difference could have been using too cold of a butter, and not at room temperature.
Then an inaccurate measurement is most most likely culprit. Baking soda isn't going to go bad suddenly like that, and it doesn't affect rising much. Straight from the freezer it's not likely to be butter temperature especially going in that direction (colder than in the past). Same pan? That pretty much leaves measurement error.
Would you say that the problem can be too much or too little baking soda?
Not likely actually, unless you've got a really unusual recipe. We're getting the "extended discussion in comments" comment. Click here and you can enter chat. Can we talk in there?
As you mentioned "expanded and became flat", did you leave the cookies on the sheet pan, vs. moving them to a cooling rack? If they haven't fully set in the oven, they can then spread if you don't move them quickly enough to cool.
There are many reasons why this can be happening, cookies will spread more if the oven is not at the right temperature, try preheating for 20 minutes before you put cookies in the oven. Our ovens sometimes change through time and it might not be hot enough. Another thing could be that you added more sugar than before, sugar tends to make the cookies also spread if you add more that you were supposed too. Another one could be, since air will cause cookies to spread, you don't want to whip too much air into the cookie dough when you're creaming the butter and sugar together. Only cream for as long as it takes to combine the butter and sugar, which might only be 30 seconds or so. Beyond that and you're just incorporating too much air. SO check on this things and maybe something here rings a bell, this has happened to me when I have substituted margarine for butter, and sometimes yeah I tend to cream a bit long cause I get distracted. So yup check on this things :)
There are number of reasons behind this like may be you used baking soda in your recipe.Now a days baking powder is used by bakers to make the perfect cookies. Softened butter is used instead of melted butter and make sure to cool down your cookie dough before baking.
Some other thoughts:
Baking soda does expire. You might try to use it once more to see if
that behavior continues.
Butter content will also affect the shape of a cookie. Could the
measurement have been different Was the butter different somehow
this time?
The butter was colder than usual, not at room temp as should have been. Could that make such a huge difference? I did freeze the cookies after making the batch and bake them almost directly from the freezer.
@Karinushka : yes, it'll make a difference, especially if the recipe calls for creaming (as the butter won't cream if too cold). Another possibility on the 'too much better' is actually too litle flour -- if you're measuring by scooping, you're more prone to getting inconsistent results than if you weigh it or even spoon into the measuring cup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.675880
| 2014-10-19T13:02:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49033",
"authors": [
"Deni",
"Eva Limbacher",
"Gary Leach",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karinushka",
"Laura Yarzebinski",
"Sharon Pentland",
"Vera Raymond",
"dan finn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27534",
"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
}
|
47853
|
I love food and the public but my body can't handle it anymore
I live for food and educating folks who are asking for help with kitchen stuff; I may not have the answers but I will certainly point them to where they need to find the answers they seek.
Right now I work for a gourmet food market as a butcher,and I love it but physically I can't hack it for much longer. I am 35, but have rheumatoid arthritis, plantar fasciitis, and had a spinal fusion at the age of 31.
What are some ideas of jobs that I can do without being in pain day in and day out but not giving up in the food business?
Hello Laine! I'm sorry, but I have to close this question. We just don't deal with career advice on this site, and so it is off topic. I agree with the others that it is well written, and your situation touches me, but we are quite strict about not creating any precedents, and it is my job as a moderator to close off topic questions, whether I like them or not. I hope you will find a good job despite your problems. Best of luck!
I think you're out of luck preparing or serving food. Obviously butchery is also very physically demanding. Depending on how much you can handle physically, you could consider sales, leading to a management position.
Another career that would take networking skill to "get into" would be writing about food.
As a blogger, you'd need strong writing skills and photography skills, but your career "ceiling" would be of your own making. I'm not aware of any well known blogs that center on butchery, that could be an option, but you'd really need to work hard at it to make a living at it. Take a look here for a bunch of books on the subject, and here for internet sources.
To work for somebody else as a food writer, they're mostly going to be looking for candidates with an apprenticeship background or formal education. Again, your butchery background could be a bit of an "in" if you're slick about it.
I can tell you from experience that you can learn A LOT about food writing by throwing yourself into this site. It will also help you to define exactly where your expertise lies. You'll find that the community gives excellent feedback, both positive and negative.
Other than what's already been mentioned, I can't think of a job to transition to that would both make use of your existing skills and keep you off your feet. I can, however, think of a few that might be a bit less physical:
Teacher. You'd have to show how to do things, but then you'd be watching and guiding others, as opposed to having to do all of the intricate cutting yourself. You'd still be on your feet the whole time. I'd look to see if there are any places that teach cooking classes in your area, and talk to them about maybe doing a butchery class. If there are restaurants that are doing 'farm to table' but haven't yet progressed to 'whole animal' cookery, you might be able to get some part-time work training their staff. You might also want to check the Meat Collective Alliance website. If you were willing to further re-train, you can contact your local school system to see if they have a home-economics or culinary arts program.
Knife sharpening / knife sales. If you were maintaining your own knives, I would assume you have sharpening skills; if you were sending them out to be maintained, you might still be able to use your expertise in sales, either industrial or to the public. Sharpening is still going to require good hands (but you can do it sitting), sales will likely require you to be on your feet if public, less so if industrial (as you'll likely be driving around more, so a chance to sit down). Contact local knife shops, kitchenware stores, hunting/outdoor stores, and whoever your current shop gets it knives from.
Health inspector. I suspect that there'd be writing involved (or using a tablet, if they've gone electronic), and you'd have to walk around a lot (with some resting while driving to the next place) ... but it should be less physicality than butchering. Contact your local health department (although, I'm guessing you also know your local inspector).
And, on the scope of butchery blogs ... for meat related blogs, see the list from the Portland Meat Collective
I second the teaching idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.676270
| 2014-10-11T17:16:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47853",
"authors": [
"Ashlie-louise Saddington",
"Cary Shippentower",
"Christina C",
"Gift Inz",
"Grey Dog",
"Tim Mcguire",
"Timothy Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"keith root",
"mike beatty",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116299
|
What does yeast do to flour?
Does yeast overtake flour?
if yes then does it become protein from carbs?
When we start with 100% flour does it become 70% flour 30% yeast germs after fully fermented dough?
Welcome! Note that discussion of “healthy food” is off topic here. So while I am looking forward to the community’s replies, we won’t accept anything about “health”.
Does yeast overtake flour?
That depends on what you mean by "overtake". The most obvious interpretation is that you are asking if you wind up with more yeast than flour. If so, then the answer is no, not even close.
if yes then does it become protein from carbs?
Yeast begins its process by using enzymes to break down the complex carbohydrates that are in the flour (starches), into simpler sugars. They then eat the sugar, producing carbon dioxide in the process which causes the bread to expand (rise).
The process can be accelerated by adding some simple sugar (e.g. table sugar, a.k.a. sucrose) so the yeast has something to eat before it has broken down the starches.
As part of its biological process, the yeast does have to build protein molecules, so technically, yes. New proteins are added during the process of the yeast consuming the starches in the flour.
When we start with 100% flour does it become 70% flour 30% yeast germs after fully fermented dough?
No. Almost all of the flour remains, even after extended periods of time.
The use of yeast in bread-making is highly varied. Some breads use very little and rise for short periods of time. Other breads use more, and/or involve multiple rises, during which a relatively large number of yeast cells are able to reproduce.
As a very rough estimate, one might use a 0.5 to 1.0 grams of yeast for 500 grams of flour. (It doesn't need to be precise; if you start with less yeast, you can just let the dough rise for a longer time…the yeast you put in makes more yeast!)
In ideal conditions, yeast can double in population in about 90 minutes. A short rise for bread might be 45 minutes, increasing yeast population by about 40% at most. Other breads might rise long enough for the population to double or even triple. These are optimistic numbers; very long "rises" often involve cooler temperatures, and even a normal rise generally isn't actually going to produce the maximum reproduction rate.
In the end, you might wind up with at most two or three grams of yeast for 500 grams of flour, a very much not-significant amount compared to the total weight of the bread (which also at the very least includes added water, and sometimes eggs, oils, or other ingredients). At the most extreme, you might start with 0.1% yeast by weight and end up with with 0.6% yeast by weight, with practically all of the flour you started with.
The amount of added protein is negligible, and likewise the amount of reduced carbohydrates.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.676643
| 2021-07-04T08:30:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116299",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116876
|
How to cook orzo in oven?
A while ago I had an orzo dish in a restaurant, where the Orzo had been cooked in the oven together with vegetable stock, garlic, herbs, and cherry tomatoes. The waiter said that the trick is to put the raw Orzo into the hot olive oil with garlic and top it up with the liquid to cook it directly in the oven.
I tried to re-cook the dish but unfortunately, the orzo had either been too cooked/ sticky or not cooked through or got hard on the top.
I tried to find similar recipes online but the orzo always seems to be precooked or cooked in tomato sauce.
What would be the right liquid/orzo scale to cook orzo in the oven?
Are you sure "raw Orzo" means "uncooked dehydrated orzo" and not "uncooked fresh Orzo"?
I'm not clear exactly how you're cooking it. Starting it off on the stove seems the usual method; this provides initial heat and lets you stir it to mix and distribute the heat, then add liquid and put in the oven. The alternative, just putting it cold in the oven, is likely to lead to the top/outside drying out and the centre not cooking properly. See e.g. https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/baked-tomato-mozzarella-orzo
For most preparations the ratio is 1 cup of orzo - 3 cups of water. But if you want it al dente, the ratio is 1 to 2 and a half, while if you want it very soft, it is 1 to 3 and a half.
You may need to adjust the ratio slightly when you have other high moisture ingredients (like the tomatoes). I don’t cook a lot of orzo, but for rice pilaf, I tend to aim for slightly less liquid, because I can always add more and the residual heat will finish cooking it, while you can’t undo too much liquid. And it might take a few attempts to dial in the best ratio for your oven, baking dish proportions and how well the lid seals, etc
You would need to experiment; but I would start with a 1:1 ratio of liquid to orzo.
I would cover the dish with aluminium foil to keep as much moisture in.
Remember that the cherry tomatoes will also release some moisture.
look at the dish from time to time, if it's not cooked and missing liquid, add some more; if it's cooked and there's too much liquid, quit the cooking and next time use less liquid.
You can always add more liquid, but never remove some.
1:1 by weight, or by volume?
Brown the orzo stovetop and then bake it 1:2.
There are several recipes available online, here is a good one:
https://realfood.tesco.com/recipes/baked-mediterranean-orzo.html
This gives a 1:2 ratio of orzo:water in gramms
The recipe you posted does not have a 1:1 ratio.
Apologies now corrected
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.676892
| 2021-08-16T14:21:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116876",
"authors": [
"IE00",
"Joe",
"LightBender",
"Sneftel",
"Stuart F",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117126
|
High sodium Udon noodles
I am on a low sodium diet. Does soaking noodles with too much sodium and dumping the soak water before cooking reduce the sodium level?
While some of the sodium content will leach out of the noddle during soaking, unfortunately most of the sodium will remain. The sodium (salt) is added to the dough before the noodles are formed, making it difficult to remove most of it during cooking.
Instead, there are many brands of Udon Noodles - some will have less sodium content, or even no sodium.
If you're feeling particularly adventurous, you might even try making some of your own!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.677140
| 2021-09-07T23:08:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117126",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123278
|
Cooking in oil VS brushing on oil before cooking for
I'm trying to reduce the amount of oil used to cook products such as flatbread or Pierogi where oil is used to produce a crisp texture on the surface of the foodstuff rather than purely to cook it.
My aim is to reduce the amount of oil that is consumed when the foodstuff is eaten. This comes on top of separate efforts to reduce or substitute oil as an ingredient.
My question is this, if I brush a small amount of oil onto the surface of the foodstuff before cooking, as opposed to using a larger amount applied to the bottom of a pan, will this mean that the finished foodstuff will have less oil in it when it is consumed due to less oil being used during cooking, or more oil in it due to the oil being applied directly to the surface of the foodstuff?
For example, if I use brush 1-2 teaspoons of oil onto a batch of Pierogi before frying it, as opposed to 1-2 tablespoons in a pan. Will this mean that less of the oil is consumed when the Pierogi are eaten?
The type of Pierogi that I will be preparing quite large and are fried rather than boiled as their filling is pre-cooked. The flatbreads are typically pan fried in oil.
Maybe consider brush on or spray + baking, rather than frying.
In this instance, baking isn't appropriate as it dries out the Pierogi long before it crisps them. It also takes a lot longer, maybe 20 minutes in an Prodiż or 40 in a convection oven. As opposed to 5 in a frying pan. Sometimes the explode as well due to steam pressure.
There are definitely foods where you can use, and consume, less oil by brushing them instead of frying them in oil. Chicken parts or fish fillets are good with this technique, which also allows you to sear them on even higher heat, since you don't have to worry about burning the oil in the pan.
Pierogi are not, though. If you are boiling, then frying your pierogi (the most common technique), then the pierogi are actually absorbing very little of the fat in the pan; if you're using a few tablespoons, you should have oil left over after frying. Whereas, if you brush them (which will take a lot more than 2 tsp), then you are fully coating them and that oil will stay on them.
If your goal is to reduce the amount of oil while still crisping them, I suggest instead either using a good nonstick pan with less oil in it, or an air fryer.
The recipes that I use are typically only fried rather than boiled as the filling is pre-cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.677224
| 2023-02-04T19:14:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123278",
"authors": [
"Aaargh Zombies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97617
|
What is tofu that's crispy outside and fluffy inside called?
I sometime eat asian dishes having tofu cubes. The tofu looks a bit fried, it is a bit crispy on the outside but quite soft and fluffy inside. I love this texture combo, I would eat a whole wok of it! Unfortunately I know neither how this kind of tofu preparation is called nor how it is made. What is the name of this preparation style so I can learn how to make it myself?
Welcome, Stphane -- recipe requests are not on topic for this site, so I have tweaked your question a bit to ensure it isn't closed. Hope you find what you're looking for :)
Sharing a link to a video might be relevant.
Traditionally, it's first dropped into boiling water & allowed to sit as the water cools for 15 minutes before drying off & deep frying.
There's a 'cheat' method, though.
Press to dry, sprinkle with a little cornflour & shallow fry, on its own. Add to the dish when cooked. Dress with anything you fancy - chilli, soy sauce, sesame oil, rice wine vinegar...
It's not quite the same as deep fried, but it's a whole lot quicker & easier.
Start with firm tofu; otherwise you'll have to give it the 15 mins in boiled water to firm it up.
Edit: The question changed direction slightly after I'd posted this - as to what it's called; other than 'deep fried' or 'crispy' tofu, I really don't know.
This sounds like fried tofu puffs.
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
The question is "What is the name of this preparation style". I thought I'd answered that, whether or not the link works.
My understanding from watching it being cooked is that it's fried hot and fast in a lot of oil. The tofu itself seems to be a firm variety and the outside dries and crisps from the hot oil. As the inside heats up some steam will be formed, and I think this is what makes it fluffy.
I've never managed to replicate it myself except for a few test pieces - I suspect I'm being mean with the oil and my wok isn't really hot enough to start with (domestic wok rings aren't as powerful as commercial ones), so adding a lot of tofu drops the temperature too much. Deep frying might work but the rest of a typical dish would need stir frying and I'm not set up for deep frying so I've never tried it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.677441
| 2019-04-21T22:41:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97617",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"Erica",
"Stphane",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53609"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79229
|
What is the best place to store garlic in the kitchen?
I've been at a friend's house. When I looked for the garlic I the fridge my friend said garlic doesn't go in the fridge. But another friend said garlic lasts longer if placed in the fridge, even when it hasn't been peeled and placed in plastic foil / film.
What's the best place to put garlic in the kitchen and why?
Except many bottles and cans must be stored in the fridge once opened.
Keep your garlic away from the refrigerator, or any cold storage. Garlic germinates after exposure to cold, which is why it's planted in autumn. This means that putting your garlic in the refrigerator is a bad idea as it will cause it to sprout, which creates undesirable changes in flavor and texture.
The garlic you buy at the store has been cured (dried) and will last for months at room temperature, and that's the best place for it to be. Garlic pots are better than sealed containers because they have holes that allow airflow, keeping the garlic from getting soggy while protecting it from sunlight or other strong light. I grow garlic and make my own garlic strings and braids, which I hang in my kitchen, I always make sure they are hung somewhere out of direct sunlight, but if I wasn't putting them out for show I would keep them in a cool, dark cupboard.
Here's a picture of my garlic pot, although there are many designs out there.
This is a good point, I will add that. Although I make my own garlic strings and hang them, I do keep them out of direct sunlight.
Thank you for your answer. Can you please post a picture of a garlic pot. I have no idea what this is.
I've added a picture of mine @JackMaddington, there are other designs but they all follow the same principle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.677771
| 2017-03-18T07:31:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79229",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jack Maddington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36386"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81234
|
Should I peel turmeric?
I want to know whether there is any need to peel the skin of turmeric from a palatability, taste, food safety or hygiene standpoint? Is there any relevant nutrient content, above that of the turmeric flesh, in what is discarded after peeling?
Welcome! Unfortunately, this site does not address concerns of nutrition or "health". As such, this question will probably be closed.
Please kindly refer to which forum should I ask this
I don't think this general "what is healthy" sort of question is taken by any StackExchange site, sorry. I'm sure there are sites out there that do discuss this sort of thing, but we're not much more likely to know than anyone else.
I hope my edit wasn't too heavy handed.
@rackandboneman I don't see how it fixes anything... it's still asking for "nutritional information".
You really don't like piggybacking in questions huh? :) But nutrient content isn't nutrititional value. I could have fixed the question title though...
@rackandboneman I don't know how you define the difference between "nutritional value" and "nutritional content" (I personally would treat the two terms as roughly the same), but the question is still off topic after your edit. The difference is in who defines what is "relevant" nutrient content. If the OP asks "what percentage of vitamin X is discarded", that would be one of the exceptions which are on-topic. If the question expects that the answerers come up with the idea "vitamin X is relevant, I will say how much of it is discarded", then it's offtopic, like any other nutrition question.
Always thought "is there iron in cumin?" would be valid here, though "is iron good for you? is it good for you when eating cumin or spinach or a battleaxe?" wouldn't?
@rackandboneman yes, your understanding is correct. But the question here is not at all equivalent to "is there iron in cumin". It asks about "any relevant nutrient content" and not about a given nutrient. So the person doing the answering would have to define what should be considered "relevant nutrient content" before being able to write an answer, and that makes it off topic.
To address a few points:
palatability, taste
There's not much taste to the "skin." As with ginger, it's more of a texture thing. For larger/more mature pieces, the skin can be thicker and perhaps create more of a texture contrast. I think most people tend to peel it, but it's not strictly necessary.
food safety or hygiene
No significant food safety issue. Hygiene is about the same as any root/rhizome vegetable. That is to say: anything in the dirt will likely be on the skin, so if you don't want to eat the dirt (and what may be in it), scrub well or peel. If you are concerned about possible pesticides or something else in the dirt, peeling is likely efficient for removing any on the exterior.
As for nutrition, after a few searches, I haven't found good information that implies any significantly different nutrients in the skin.
I assume it'd be like ginger -- no need to peel it on young ginger (when the skin is paper thin, and you could easily cut through it with a thumbnail), but peel it on older bits so you're not stuck with really fibrous bits.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.677940
| 2017-04-25T23:11:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81234",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Gin99",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93797
|
To make avocado oil, how ripe do your avocados need to be?
I'm interested in making pure avocado oil. (No additives). I plan to do this in a recipe that was posted on StackExchange here: How do I press avocadoes to make avocado oil? (Anthony Njoka's answer.
My question is about the necessary ripeness of the avocados. It would make things very convenient if I could pick the avocados before they are ripe. They sit on my table a considerable amount of time before they are ready for guacamole, and when the tree decides it's ready to give up its fruit, I get hundreds of unripe avocados. Making avocado oil seems like the perfect solution.
In an answer to the referenced Stack Exchange question, a respondent said "ripe", which to me means not rock hard, or as you say, unripe. I suspect you will have to let your unripe ones soften before you start. Good luck. I'm guessing that you would want them to be as 'eatable' ripe as you can get them for this, but I am not posting this as an answer, because I think ripeness is a subjective value that may not be objective enough for this forum.
I’m not sure which kind of technology you are going to use to press the avocado oil, but if you want pure and more healthy oil for cooking or cosmetic utilization, I recommend the hydraulic cold press process. Cause physical press will keep the nutrients of oil better.
Back to the question you asked, when hydraulically pressed, the ripeness of avocado greatly affects the final oil yield. The riper the fruit, the higher the oil yield. If you want to maximize the oil yield, just wait patiently be fore the fruit is completely ripe.
https://m.wikihow.com/Make-Avocado-Oil. They need to be ripe. We picked them from under the tree so as no to run over them with the lawn mower. If you can smash it with your hand it's too ripe. If the seed "pops" out when halved, it's just right.
Less ripe ones can work, but take longer to process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.678203
| 2018-11-11T06:13:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93797",
"authors": [
"Jennifer S",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94033
|
How long to cook 500g of boneless pork leg?
I cut a 1.8kg boneless pork leg into three pieces and now am unsure how long is enough to cook it. How long will a 500g piece take to cook?
How do you intend to cook it, and what is the final result you want to achieve?
Just nice not to dry and I have taken the cracking of the top to do separately just want to make sure my pork is cooked
I highly recommend you invest in a meat thermometer. A quality one such as a thermapen. Probe thermometers (link to review site) are a very useful tool as well.
Roasting meat is not a as much a question of time, but of temperature. You are tying to cook pork to a temperature you desire: maybe 60 C (140 F) or 70 C (160 F) depending on your desired taste and recipe. How much time that will take is a function of a number of factors, including the cooking method, oven temperature (if you are roasting), and the size and weight of the pieces being cooked (something you did specify). Having a thermometer to measure the internal temperature will tell you much more about when the meat is done than how much time you are cooking it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.678407
| 2018-11-19T10:24:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94033",
"authors": [
"Logan fox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70689",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98711
|
Can I substitute bread flour for bread machine flour?
Can I use Bread Flour instead of Bread Machine Flour when making a loaf of wheat bread? Recipe calls for 1 and 1/2 cups of wheat flour and 4 cups of bread machine flour.
"Bread machine flour" and "bread flour" are interchangeable terms.
Bread flour, sometimes called bread machine flour, is what most bread maker recipe books will say to use in order to achieve the best results. (Source)
So yes, you should use bread flour in the recipe. It has higher protein than all-purpose flour and will help your bread rise better and hold its shape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.678528
| 2019-04-27T18:49:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98711",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89179
|
Indian cooking - How do I get the consistent taste
I am a grown-up man who has developed an interest in the art of cooking. I have been spending time in the kitchen with my wife and mother-in-law to learn their ways of cooking. Here are the questions I don't seem to be able to get definite answers from them.
1. How do I ensure that a dish has the same consistent taste every time I prepare it? These women don't use any measuring cups/proportions (it an art and not a science!) and use whatever spices/things at hand. I am worried that their method is not going to help me in ensuring a consistent taste.
2. How do I determine the minimum number of things required to get a certain taste? My wife adds at least 10-12 condiments /spices in her curry. My questions is are they all required? What all spices we can avoid and still get the taste I like? Just adding everything from the Masala Dabba doesn't make any sense to me. It is about efficiency for me.
Also, is there a book or website that can help me get the answers to these questions?
Thanks
Welcome, you have asked a very broad question which (IMHO) boils down to "How do I become an expert without first being a beginner". Pick a very basic recipe and try it...then if you need specific help, come and ask. You might review our FAQs and even read some of the other questions here to get a better 'flavor' for what we offer.
maybe i'm off-base, but i thought Indian cooking is supposed to be "inconsistent" compared with other cuisines; just-in-time spices, tradition over recipes, no measuring, many hands, etc.
Perhaps you couldn't get definite answers because there aren't any...
You can't get a consistent taste every time: your basic ingredients won't be the same (different stage of development for vegetables, possibly different varieties, not always the same freshness, etc.), and neither will the fresh spices like ginger and garlic, or things like yoghurt. With experience, you can somewhat correct for this, but never completely.
You probably don't need all the 12 spices, but they each add something to the final taste (or appearance: turmeric and dried sweet pepper come to mind). Leaving out some of the minor ones won't do much harm, but might make you wonder what's missing.
Also, the same spice might get added twice: e.g. cumin: once whole, and fried in the hot oil, then ground just before the simmering stage. And that will give two different "notes" from the same spice.
It's all a question of experience; you can't do a recipe for the first time and have it taste the same as someone who's done it hundred of times, especially if there are no written recipes.
I suggest 2 things:
Get a proper simple recipe with a good ingredients (spices) list; try it as is; taste it, try to describe how it tastes and what ingredients in the recipe brings to the end result. Now, try again by either removing one ingredient (spice) from the recipe and see how it affect the result, is it more/less salty? more/less spicy ... adjust then the quantities or add or remove it from the recipe and make it your own.
Ask what your wife and MIL and ask them why they do this or that, do they skip one spice because it gets things bitter ? or too spicy ? or anything else ?
Thanks guys. I am not a total beginner. I can cook at least 10 dishes independently. I have survived for 2 weeks with my own cooking. My issue is not being able to achieve a consistent taste.
@user66634, once you understand how each seasoning contributes to the flavor, you'll learn to judge how much to put in a dish without measuring.
(perspective of a non-indian indian cooking enthusiast)
"Adding everything from the dabba" makes more sense than it appears to make, unless we are looking at a large dabba with many optional things that are really specific to some preparations (eg black pepper, kasoori methi, methi seeds, very mild or hot additional pepper powders, anardana, szichuan pepper, ajowan, nigella seeds, star anise, fennel seeds, khus, foreign dried herbs ... all of these COULD upset the wrong recipe seriously.)
Mark.
A small 7 way masala dabba is typically filled with these:
Chile powder (Lal Mirch)
Coriander powder
Garam masala
Cumin seeds (Jeera)
Black/brown mustard seeds
Turmeric powder (Haldi)
Assortment of whole spices - green and black cardamom, cloves, tejpat, cinnamon sticks
These are ingredients that you will find in almost every "curry" preparation (apart from the mustard seeds and some of the whole spices being omitted in some).
Other typical ingredients found in most of them:
ginger, garlic and green chilies - each chopped, or ground in a mortar, or bought as ready made paste.
oil and/or ghee
chopped onion and tomato
salt, sugar, vinegar, lime juice to adjust the taste profile (not the aroma profile)
yoghurt and/or cashew paste and/or cream
Now here is the thing: You could make several very good sauces employing absolutely ALL of the ingredients listed after "Mark." - the ratio of amounts used, and WHEN the ingredients are added, being the only difference.
OMITTING any of them - without knowing exactly why you are omitting them -actually has a higher chance of upsetting the basic formula than improving it.
Two notes: Garam massala is itself a mixture of spices, with a lot of variations possible. Also, India is a rather large country, with different climates, and thus very different uses of spices.
I myself now wonder what about the question made me assume that the question was about north indian style - as I said I am an amateur at that myself. The core of what I wanted to say was: sort essential from optional, and "safe to add anyway" from "this can spoil things easily".
Welcome to the world of cooking.
First of all, cooking is both a science and an art.
Secondly, as others have said, try some simple dishes before you jump in at the deep end, to really learn and understand how food behaves when it is being cooked.
And lastly, if you want to have a go at the food your wife & MIL makes, then observe and write everything down.
This might take a few, or several, tries where they cook and you observe, but it would be worth it.
Write down the ingredients, how much are they using, if it's a pinch or spoon or something else, do they just pour from the container?
If the latter, "Wait, stop!" and get a measuring jug or set of scales out.
It might annoy them at first, but it will be for the best for everyone in your household.
And same with spices, try making food without some, and see how you get on with the flavours.
Treat new recipes like science, where you follow the instructions to the letter (Regarding your Q1), and when you know what you're doing, you can treat it as an art(Regarding your Q2)...
EDIT:
And document everything you do, no matter how minuscule.
I keep a cookbook in my kitchen where I document changes I've made to recipes, which heat I used, how long I let the cookware heat up, which spices I substituted and so on. That way you can recreate your best dishes, and you get a feel for which spices are needed and which aren't.
For some recipes I have two columns of ingredients; "Required" and "Would be nice to have"...
Almost all food, especially Indian food are different. You're correct in saying "it's an art not a science" Try to get the basics of Indian food and try more simple recipes and build up to how she cooks because she's more comfortable with the ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.678624
| 2018-04-17T16:46:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89179",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"The Photon",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66634",
"rackandboneman",
"remco",
"user66634"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89967
|
Can I make bread/pizza dough with only cricket flour and no wheat flour
I want to make bread and pizza dough, but all recipes I find online include other types of flours than the one I am interested in. Is it possible to make with only cricket flour? Acceptable ingredients are cricket flour, eggs, yeast, water, salt and baking powder.
When even the producers of cricket flour only offer recipes including more wheat than cricket, I think you are probably on a hiding to nothing.
Probably someone looking for low–gluten flour
Furthermore — and pardon the frivolous comment, — If you really want to up the ante, you could consider using insect eggs. Grasshopper eggs are especially tasty.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_flour: Cricket flour is an erroneous term used to refer to powder made from crickets using various processes. Cricket flour differs from true flours made from grains by being composed mainly of protein rather than starches and dietary fibre. (emphasis mine)
Soon as I get enough chitin and a weak base which can gummify the chitin while not rendering it inedible, I'll let you know how things go in an answer.
I think you will be disappointed.
While a fantastic protein source, cricket flour does not contain the gluten proteins that make bread what it is. Therefore, bread made with cricket flour must get its structure somewhere else. The majority of recipes I can find are quickbreads which get their structure from added eggs blown up with baking soda. Dense and tender, not light and chewy.
Some recipes for things like cookie dough or standard bread use cricket flour as a protein enhancer but not a complete substitute for wheat flour.
If you are determined to make bread dough without wheat gluten then you will have to employ tricks from standard gluten-free recipes. Making your "bread" more like a cracker or adding gums of various types. Keep in mind that no gluten-free bread will come close to real bread and especially high protein pizza dough. They just can't get the light, crispy, chewy texture.
I'm guessing that cricket flour originally came about when someone's flour got infested and they passed it off as "I did that on purpose!" :D
Agreed. The original poster might want to look at "banting" recipes for "bread" - which is mostly ground seeds/nuts + some psyllium fibre bound together with (a lot of) egg+milk and lightened up with baking powder. Not bad, may take the place of bread/muffins, but not completely indistinguishable from bread either. Pizza base - not sure. I've seen some recipe using cauliflower meal for a base, never tried, never tasted, probably not translatable to crickflour.
I am presuming you mean cricket POWDER not cricket FLOUR in your question.
There can be some confusion as a lot of companies sell their cricket powder as cricket flour but as it is 100% milled crickets it isn't a flour and shouldn't be labelled as a flour because it leads to this sort of confusion.
There are products on the market that are labelled as cricket flour that are a mixture of flour and cricket powder. If you are using one of these then use it the same way you would use normal flour.
If you have cricket powder then you can still use it but I would advise using it as a replacement of up to 20% of whatever flour you are using in the recipe.
Using 100% cricket powder can be done but its not advisable as cricket powder is expensive and using 100% on a pizza base that won't taste nice doesn't make sense. The base will be grainy in texture and depending on the species used it could have an overpowering earthy flavour that probably put you off using it in the future.
This is a very good explanation of the differences. Welcome to the site!
You could make "something" out of it.
It might even be good, but it won't be anything anybody would expect if you said you were making pizza.
Pizza crust is held together with gluten, which is something crickets don't have.
Pizza dough also rises, which is something crickets won't do. At least not when they're dead. 8-)
If you have a bunch of cricket flour, give it a try. It might even be tasty. You'll never know until you try.
Yeah, I want to try, but cricket flour is expensive and I only have very little, which is why I asked if anyone knew of the correct ratios of ingredients :) I am not expecting it to be like real bread, and see this more of a fun experiment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.679239
| 2018-05-24T14:43:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89967",
"authors": [
"CJ Dennis",
"Erica",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Spagirl",
"can-ned_food",
"frIT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67302",
"user3207230"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100810
|
Forgot to add salt to rice before cooking. How can I add salt after cooking to fix that?
I cooked jasmine long grain rice - but forgot to add salt before cooking.
It is a small amount, about 250 ml dry rice.*
When the 20 min where over, I noticed I had forgotten the salt.
Adding salt by just scattering some crystalline salt on it gives a very irregular result.
I understand that salt is not needed for the cooking process itself - it is to be added for flavor.
How can I add an adequate amount of salt to cooked rice?
I think it is good enough to add salt to the surface of the cooked grains, and not necessarily to all grains. I would tolerate altered texture of the rice.
* In case the preparation details are relevant: I washed it, and added about 1.5 times water by volume. Heated to boiling, then heated minimally for 20 min covered.
(I fully expect that this method of preparation is unacceptable of other reasons than missing salt. This is outside the scope of this question.)
Note that the answer is not urgent for me - I crudely fixed it for now. But an answer may profit future readers.
There is no need to add salt while cooking rice; it is there for flavour. If you like the flavour, you can add it anytime. But try it without; you might like it.
@JamesMcLeod Good point. But I already tried - did not work for me.
if you dont add it before the rice will be tasteless inside of the grain, so if you add it after you are just coating it with salt.
@MichaelBenDavid Yes, that's an interesting point. But I currently think that coating each grain individually is good enough. But when having lumps of several grains with no salt inside on the tong, it can be tasted. I think that is what happens when adding salt by a normal salt shaker.
Most of us I believe sprinkle salt on the item and stir or toss to evenly coat. Or am I on a different planet?
@MichaelBenDavid rice grains are not that large that it makes such a big difference. Unlike a quiche or a lasagna.
Seems there is no need to cook rice with salt, at least in my country or my friends who love the culinary.
But if you really need some salty flavor in your rice, maybe you could:
Turn your rice into fried rice, seasoning in the end.
Make some yummy sauces and add onto your rice.
Dissolve salt in water to become a salty solution, spray it on your rice and reheat again.
Hope this would let your rice more flavored :P
Point 3. works pretty well - I had experimented with this: Worked at least ok even without reheating. I used a saturated salt solution, so it added not much water. (It may be even better with hot saturated salt solution, which is more concentrated.)
@VolkerSiegel nice~ Reheat will evaporate unnecessary water, let salt enter rice's texture and prevent rice become too moist, soggy and stuck on the container or pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.679611
| 2019-08-19T02:10:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100810",
"authors": [
"Conifers",
"James McLeod",
"Luciano",
"Michael_Ben_David",
"Rob",
"Volker Siegel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96984
|
What does leftover rendered chicken skin consist of?
After rendering chicken skin, a lot of the fat is released and you're left over with crispy pieces of chicken skin.
What is the remaining crispy skin composed of? Protein, fat, or both?
Sorry, we cannot discuss why something is considered healthy or unhealthy.
This question refers to the healty/unhealty information, but is asking what does chicken skin consist of. Seems like an interesting question. We know flesh = muscle, containing fat and protein, etc.. but what is the actual composition of the skin?
@NRaf edited slightly to ask about composition of skin at the end
I do not think this question is actually off-topic; while it refers to off-topic details, it is primarily asking about the contents of chicken skin after rendering. To me, that seems perfectly on topic.
For reopening, the whole question should be whittled down further, to a point that to me looks like it is too trivial to make sense. It is important that the answers do not address at all the controversy which caused the OP to ask the question in the first place. This is why Iinitially decided to not do it and close instead. Since there are many people who seem to prefer it changed and open, I will make and edit and reopen.
Fried chicken skin (gribenes), what's left of the skin after you render off the fat (schmaltz), gets its crispiness from the skin's protein. However, there is still a lot of fat coating and within the skin. When you crunch into it, there is still a "juicy" mouthfeel of telltale greasiness. The protein provides structure, but carries plenty of fat with it.
Similar phenomenon can be observed with chicharróns and pork rinds (fried pig skin).
Chicken skin is mainly... skin cells?
The epidermis – the outermost tissue itself consisting of three separate layers of cells.
The dermis or corium – the middle tissue.
The hypodermis – the innermost layer or tissue.
So I'd say protein.
Source: http://www.poultryhub.org/physiology/body-systems/integumentary-surface-of-the-bird/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.679879
| 2019-03-19T04:08:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96984",
"authors": [
"Incorporeal Logic",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121965
|
How do I remove the soapy taste in homemade chili using home canned tomatoe juice?
Used home canned juice and store bought tomatoes to make chili. Added 2 tbls of sugar to the chili to cut down the metal taste. Now my chili has a soapy after taste. Can thus be saved or should I dump it and start over?
A soapy taste is an unusual result for a chili, do you know if the taste came from the juice, canned tomatoes or something else?
Please edit and add your full recipe and method.
Welcome to SA! Your question is missing information that folks need in order to help you. Please answer GdD's questions by edtiting your original question.
Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.
Is the soapy taste coming from the dishes (bowl) not getting sufficient rinsing in a dishwasher machine?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.680419
| 2022-10-14T15:37:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121965",
"authors": [
"Community",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"James Risner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47296
|
What food dissolves in acid but not in water?
I've recently been learning about molecular gastronomy, and I was wondering - what edible substances do not dissolve in water, but do in other liquids (e.g. acid)?
In particular, I'm looking for something that can hold other things - for example, consider this hypothetical scenario: a glass of water in which float tiny spheres. You pour the glass into another bowl which contains some other liquid, and as they mix, the tiny spheres dissolve releasing the scent of some highly aromatic component they contained.
So, what substance can be used to contain something else, does not dissolve in water, but does dissolve in another non-poisonous liquid?
Is it important that the result is edible, as in not just non-poisonous, but also that the second liquid doesn't have too much impact on the taste?
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo As this is cooking.se, we have to make the question about edible results. Else it would be off-topic and would have to be closed and possibly migrated.
@rumtscho That's true, but there are plenty of parts of cooking where the (tongue) flavour per se is not critical. I guess I'm not sure where to draw the line between "cooking" and "making something edible with food", as I've noticed a lot of molecular gastronomy stuff is focussed on style over substance - e.g. I saw some smoke-filled sugar spheres that I'm not sure I'd call food...
Benubird: I think it would be easier to help you if you described more precisely what your intentions are. Is it necessary to use an acid, since the acid most probably will have impact on the taste or even have to be so strong, that the result is not really palatable? Or are you just looking for a way to release a "trapped" scent, so that it is irrelevant if the result is actually tasty?
@Benubird I know that some of the stuff they do is not all that tasty, but the minimal requirement for this site is that the result is edible. We cannot accept solutions which will cause chemical burns or poisoning when consumed. Also, while solutions which have little to no taste are fine (because people could and in fact do consume such food :P), stuff which is non-toxic but tastes so vile that people would rather spit it out than eat/drink is also off limits. Food which looks showy but tastes meh is OK.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Mostly I'm exploring options; I'm just learning about molecular gastronomy now, so I don't have a fixed goal. Like I said, I'm aiming for appearance over flavor, but it does need to be eatable. I am particularly looking for something that does not dissolve in water, but does in something else - not necessarily acid - maybe I should change the question title?
Benubird: The point is, that if that "something", in which you want to dissolve "some other thing", which is not soluble in water has impact on the taste, it will be important to find matching "something" and "some other thing". Using a weak acid would be acceptable if you try to make e.g. a fruit drink, but probably not if the result should be savory, e.g. a broth, meat or vegetable soup. If the result can be warm, a completely different (but perhaps too simple) approach would be to gel a concentrate with gelatine, form some interesting shapes, and then dissolve them in warm water.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Yeah, I did think of the gelatin, that was what gave me the idea, but I wanted something that would not dissolve in water.
If your question is specific about acid: Nothing.
The conventional way acids work is by dissolving them in water. I even have some vague memories that it's not technically correct to call a substance an "acid" before it has been dissolved in water - for example, pure HCl (a gas) is not an acid, but once it is dissolved in water, it becomes hydrochlorid acid. pH, the well-known measure for acidity, is defined as the logarithm of the number of protons swimming around in the aqueous solution - and before you dissolve the acidic substance, the protons stay firmly attached to their host molecule. I have never heard of an acid working without water being present.
I am not a chemist, and maybe there is an way to get acid to work using some other polar solvent instead of water. So I don't want to tell you that it's absolutely impossible to have an acid without water (although this could be the case, I just don't know). But:
The acid itself is by definition water-soluble. You can't bring acid and water two together and not get a new, weaker, acid-water solution.
I can't think of any edible polar solvent besides water. Ethanol could qualify, but most people don't consider 96.4% ethanol to be "edible".
If it doesn't matter to you what the other liquid is (not an acid), you can easily use anything non-polar. In food, any fat will do.
You could start by floating solid-fat spheres in water and then pouring them into oil. The problem here is that they will take quite a long time to dissolve (although this can be circumvented by using warm oil). The other way round will work better. Take something which dissolves in water quickly, and make the hollow sphere out of it. Float it in oil. Then you'll pour it into the water to release the fragrance.
Crystals are best for dissolving rapidly in water. I think that either salt or sugar will work well for your spheres. Of course, you are left with two problems: 1) how to manufacture the hollow spheres, and 2) what fragrance to use which will not dissolve the spheres themselves. For 2), you are probably looking at essential oils (warning, use foodsafe ones, not all are!). For 1), you probably need some precision candy-making techniques.
Update: letting food react with acid.
The answer above assumed that you are really looking for stuff which will dissolve in acid. The commenters pointed out that this is not necessary, as you can let the food react with the acid instead. It's an interesting idea, but it won't be easy to get done.
From the major food groups, you can exclude all proteins. We are made of protein, and any acid strong enough to quickly corrode spheres of gelatin or similar will ulcerate our mouths right away.
You can also exclude the sugars. They are water-soluble.
The polysaccharides are a better bet. Especially the hemicelluloses should be good candidates, as they are insoluble in water, and the result of the hydrolisis is edible (sugars and some polisaccharides). But they typically need very strong acids for the reaction. You might try to use a concentrated edible acid for the reaction, then dilute the result for consumption, but you'll have to pay lots of attention to proper ratio. Also, I don't know how you'll manage to physically shape one of the insoluble polysaccharides into a water-tight capsule at home.
The fats are also bad candidates. They are largely unimpressed by acids, in fact their most interesting reactions are with bases (saponification, etc.) The short unsaturated ones will probably react with an acid, but you'll need a fairly strong one, and the result won't really disappear.
The probably easiest way to do this is with salts. Especially the sodium salts tend to be edible and to react readily with acids. Plain old calcium carbonate sounds like a promising material, and with a bit of heating you can get it to react very quickly with acid solutions dilute enough to drink afterwards. Again, you have the problem of somehow making spheres out of it.
while this is true, adding concentrated acid to water holding something that won't dissolve in water could produce mediumly-concentrated acid that will dissolve the substance.
@KateGregory I don't understand your comment. The whole point of what I wrote is that whatever dissolves in a water-acid solution will also dissolve in pure water. So, it's not possible to add something into water, have it not dissolve, and then add acid and have it dissolve.
but that's not true, at least not of non-food items. Metals will dissolve in strong acid but not in water. The experiments with Coke and teeth are also examples of dissolving in acidic solution but not in pure water.
@rumtscho: Even if Kate's wording is incorrect from a scientific point of view, her practical reasoning is correct. For example, if you add aluminum to an aqueous solution of hydrochlorid acid, the acid will react (not dissolve) with the aluminum and create aluminum chloride, which will dissolve in water. It may appear as if the acid dissolves the aluminum, but this is technically not quite correct. If you add aluminum to pure water, there will be no obvious reaction.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed, the wording had brought me to think of literally dissolving the material in the acid solution, not of letting it react with it. And you are right, from a practical point of view, it doesn't matter to the OP if the acid dissolves the spheres or reacts with them.
@KateGregory look at Tor-Einar's comment; the examples you brought are not examples of dissolving, they are examples of a chemical reaction. I agree that for the practical problem we are trying to solve, the distinction doesn't matter, but with the "dissolve" terminology, I just forgot to notice that this is an alternative solution and talked about real solutions only.
Coming from a purely culinary background, aromatics and dietary compounds are generally referred to as being:
water soluble (Vitamins B and C tend to be water-soluble);
fat soluble (Vitamins A, D, E, and K); and
alcohol soluble (such as some compounds found in tomatoes brought out by alcohol, which is why wine and italian foods become an adventure for the palate)
You may want to consider crossing those barriers, as well, since they operate more on the molecular level.
And from another perspective: Almost all of our food is acidic. Acid = Tasty. Tomatoes, Balsamic vinegar, chili powder, etc, etc. If you turn out a basic food, it is going to have a very flat and unpalatable taste, which is why baking soda is used very sparingly when it's needed.
You may want to contact the author of, "On Food and Cooking", as he may be able to help out with your task. His book is excellent and heavy on the science.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.680545
| 2014-09-21T14:32:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47296",
"authors": [
"Benubird",
"Joyce Jones",
"Kari Spitler",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kathy Griga",
"Kimberly Steel-Keelor",
"Kirby Gregory",
"Sharon Hartman",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"shechrystal Richardson",
"user3290880"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46558
|
What emulsifier will help my (nearly carb free) Milk Chocolate?
I'm a Type 2 diabetic and maintain ~ 20g carbs per day. This is great on my numbers, but hard on my sweet tooth :)
One of my favorite treats to make is a simple mix of Virgin Coconut oil, unsweetened coco powder, and Splenda. This combines into a surprisingly smooth thick chocolate sauce that in the fridge hardens into the consistency of a chocolate bar. Yummy!
Recently, I tried to up this to "milk chocolate", simply by adding a bit of whipping cream to the mix. This actually tasted quite amazing, BUT the oil and milk separated like crazy.
I believe I need an Emulsifier to resolve this. Can anyone suggest an Emulsifiers that I can buy in a store and use for this blend? Ideally it should be carb free and mostly flavorless. It can't be egg yolks because this isn't cooked. I read that in real Chocolate making, Lecithin is used, but I also read that Lecithin isn't actually an emulsifier...
Anyways, if anyone knows the chemistry of what I should do here, I'd really appreciate it. Also if you can guess at an amount of Emulsifier (to Roughly 3 to 4 tablespoons of chocolate "goo") to start with, that would be awesome as well.
I'm sure someone will provide a good answer about emulsifiers, we've got some people here very knowledgeable about such things. Keep your eyes out here for a Q&A I plan to post soon concerning artificial sweeteners, you might find that information helpful as well. I'm going to borrow your "chocolate bar" formula, I needed one more thing to sweeten. BTW, I took the liberty of editing out your closing and signature, just because we don't do that here. Interesting question! Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
You might look into powdered cream (dehydrated, basically). I don't know if the taste will work the same as a dry powder - though it might, I understand powdered milk is used in chocolate making rather than the liquid stuff - but you can certainly make a thick paste that should not separate from the oil.
Yes, an emulsifier is the way to go. Lecithine is an emulsifier, and will work. The downside is that it might impart a slight eggy taste, I don't know if this will be a problem for you. Also, it is a bit harder to store than the other emulsifiers, it tends to lump from ambient humidity.
The more common emulsifiers for your case would be xanthan or guar gum. They are not carried that often by stores, although I've seen guar in a health store. But they are quite easy to purchase online. Any of them will work well. The biggest challenge is to disperse them evenly in the food. I would recommend taking a teaspoon out of the cocoa powder, mixing the emulsifier with it (dry), then mixing that teaspoon back into the complete amount of cocoa, then proceed as usual.
You don't have to fear the carbohydrates from emulsifiers. All three will work when used in tiny amounts, about 0.5% - so you can get away with 0.5 g emulsifier per 100 gr "chocolate bar", which shouldn't be much even if they are pure carbohydrates. (Xanthan and guar are carbs, but they are polysaccharides, and I have no idea whether they are insulin-active).
This will help you make your chocolate bars. On the other hand, I don't know if making them is helping you at all. Cocoa powder is 60% carbs, and splenda is 90% carbs. A true chocolate bar (the good brands) consists of cocoa solids (which is cocoa powder + cocoa butter before being separated), and sugar. If you are using the same proportions as in a typical chocolate bar, you are getting about the same amount of carbs from your mixture. It may be a tastier way to temper pure chocolate (unsweetened chocolate) together with some fat until you have reached a carb-to-fat ratio sufficiently good for you. Adding cream is also a possibility, as well as other flavors (vanilla, orange essence, whatever you want - basically unsweetened truffle making). You can also add pure artificial sweeteners to your mixture, which are not bulked up with carbs the way splenda is. This way will be more expensive and time consuming, but will give you a better quality end product.
Actually, the pure sweeteners (sucralose and acesulfame potassium are my favorites) can be acquired MUCH less expensively than Splenda. It's amazing how much money I have saved since I started playing with white powders on my gram scale. :)
Thanks so much for the information! I'm going to have to hunt these down and try them next time :) For what its worth, when I say "Splenda" I actually mean Sucralose (I use a liquid form without sugar alchohols, so its actually 0 calorie, 0 carb), but no one ever knows what I mean when I say Sucralose, so I just say Splenda :). Also, the Cocoa powder I use is 1 net carb per tablespoon (3 carb, but 2 of them are fiber), so a couple of (net) carbs for the whole mess is all I end up with. Works well for me at least!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.681291
| 2014-08-21T04:03:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46558",
"authors": [
"Andrew White",
"Charles G",
"Chris",
"Frances du Rand",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"Samuel KN",
"Sue Peters",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"martin stubbs",
"оксана гончар"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59379
|
Arm Roast after 5 hours still tough
When I make a Arm or Chuck Roast always after 5 hours it is still tough, the beef is grass feed. I have give up making them. My wife wants me to make another Arm Roast again and I want it to come out month watering and not tough. My wife has ALS and it really needs to be very tender for her. I would like to make it in a Dutch Oven in the oven, I would set it at 250F but how long for a 3 pound roast?
I would like it to be very tasty with a sauce or gravy.
Are you roasting this dry or with moisture? It will come out better if you braise it.
If it's too tough, keep cooking it. Some people use "tender" to describe a pot roast that is tender like a good steak, others want it to fall apart with no knife required. I regularly cook pot roast 8-12 hours. As log as you have it covered for most of the time (like in a crock pot or in the over covered with foil), it will keep getting more tender until it falls apart under its own weight (which sounds like it may be what you want).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.681690
| 2015-07-27T01:52:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59379",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jodi Oxenrider",
"Judith Iorio",
"Leah Ritchens",
"Margaret Burt",
"MattyH",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51836
|
How do I make my sourdough bread dough stretchy and not have it tear?
I've been trying to make chewy sourdough bread and it's not going as planned. I read somewhere that if you mix and knead the bread a lot and avoid adding a lot of sugar and use a lot of water that should aid gluten development to make the dough chewy. Also I read that the dough should be stretchy and if you pull two pieces apart it's supposed to be transparent. Well, I don't have anything anywhere near that.
My starter was super fluffy. I took 2 cups of starter, added about 1 cup of water with 1 teaspoon of salt and 1 tea spoon of brown sugar already dissolved. Then I kept adding flour and mixing in one direction until it didn't mix with a spoon anymore. Then I kneaded it for about 1/2 hour to 45 minutes. I tried to avoid adding too much flour to keep the water percentage up, but that's hard to do when you are kneading on a wooden board and the dough keeps sticking. I finally got it to where there was an even layer of dough stuck to the pen so the piece I was kneading didn't stick to it too much anymore, but the dough still refuses to be stretchy. I pull on a piece and it tears with a ragged edge. That's after 1/2-3/4 hour of non-stop kneading. Finally I gave up because it wasn't getting better.
I let it rise for 1 1/2 hours between a heating pad and covered with electric blanket on top. Then I kneaded it again. At first it was slightly more stretchy, but the more I kneaded it the less stretchy it got. I didn't add a lot of flour at this stage either so it kept sticking to the board. Now it's back to the original non-stretchy, tearing consistency.
Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Edit: I should mention that I'm using King Arthur bread flour, so the protein content is most likely not a problem.
What do you mean by "Then I kept adding flour and mixing in one direction until it didn't mix with a spoon anymore."? Are you working from a recipe or formula? If you are looking for a specific texture of bread, it is important to only use as much flour as is called for in the recipe.
@Didgeridrew I am going off a recipe, but I can't add as much flour that the recipe calls for. It just won't go in. Plus the recipe mentions "four amounts may vary as flour varies in absorption". I can never knead as much flour as most recipes call for. It just won't go in.
If the recipe is online, can you please post a link? I've made sourdough breads all over the spectrum, from ciabatta with 90% hydration to bagels with 50% hydration... I've never seen a working recipe that calls for so much flour that it can't all be used. That's why so many recipes caution you from using additional flour during kneading and shaping, most doughs will take it up.
@Didgeridrew I've modified this recipe because original one had flour left over and was too salty. Also, I reduced the sugar and added water because I read that sugar reduces gluten production and water increases it: www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/sour.htm The dude says "Keep in mind that flour amounts are approximate; flour varies in absorbency"
Your recipe is to blame.
Your dough is stiff and tears because it isn't wet enough. While different types of flour do absorb different quantities of water, I think most of the issues you're experiencing are due to the ambiguousness of the recipe and instructions you're using. Most sourdough recipes yield dough around 80% hydration (the weight of water/the weight of flour). The recipe you've cited relies on the starter providing all the hydration for the dough. Doing the math, following the feeding instructions, you would have a starter that is 55% hydration. Adding all the flour called for in the dough recipe, you would end up with a dough that is about 45% hydration... stiffer than bagels (50-55%).
While it is possible to make dough that doesn't have any added water, it is not common, especially with such a stiff starter. Also, the volume of flour would be much smaller than the volume of starter.
Try using a tried and true recipe that doesn't rely on the starter to provide all of the hydration.
Don't worry so much about gluten production and how sugar or fat will affect it. Small amounts of these enrichments, like those in the recipe you linked to, will soften the interior of the bread and help the crust brown nicely. Just look at brioche if you want an example of how far you can push enrichment and still get a well structured bread.
I agree with the "isn't wet enough" answer by Didgeridrew, but I don't think the problem is the recipe. You say
I kneaded it for about 1/2 hour to 45 minutes. I tried to avoid adding too much flour to keep the water percentage up, but that's hard to do when you are kneading on a wooden board and the dough keeps sticking.
That's your problem right there: you kept adding flour. If you are doing it for 45 minutes, you added a lot of it.
I know that it's very unusual to start kneading wet doughs, but this is indeed how it's supposed to go. It will stick. Let it stick. A really wet dough will smear all over your hands and the board; this doesn't matter. Just keep kneading. Don't add any flour at all. When the gluten is ready, it will pull everything back together by itself. Once you get accustomed to it, you'll be able to handle really wet dough - I've done 90%, I didn't have a board there, but had to pour it from one hand into the other, it flowed like lava for the first 15 minutes.
And another thing: decide what hydration percentage you want and stick to it. Measure by weight. The "flour varies by absorbency" part is indeed true, but you have to be experienced in dough handling to know when your dough needs more water and when less. If you aren't, stay with the exact hydration amount. And don't make changes to a recipe; if one doesn't work, find a better one. Changing is much harder.
And a final thing: don't get too hung up on the windowpane test (stretching without tearing). Once you have kneaded a few doughs by hand to the proper stage, you will notice what consistency you need. The windowpane is not completely reliable.
I blame the acid.
Sourdough starters can get very acidic and this breaks up the gluten and makes for very short dough, and dense bread.
I've had a lot of success using less starter and let it rise in the fridge. You'll get all the flavor without letting to much acid break things up.
In general, your expectations of sourdough should not be the same as for other artisan bread. Sourdough bread does not have as open a texture. The more sour it gets the stickier and the smaller the crumb.
When all else fails you can still form a boule. It will look funny as it will flatten as it proofs but will still taste great.
How much starter did you use (in proportion to water. I don't measure my flour because for some reason (maybe due to low humidity), the amount of flour given in all recipies never goes into my dough. Only about 1/2-2/3 go in)?
Also, do you mean you have the first rising of the dough in the fridge? How long do you usually keep it in there to rise it?
Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.681829
| 2014-12-21T23:20:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51836",
"authors": [
"C Britt",
"Chris O'Connor",
"Craig Stephens",
"Creature",
"Didgeridrew",
"Fay Gilliland",
"Jain 999",
"Jody Eubank",
"Joseph Machtemes",
"Marlaina Kimple",
"Sharon Budd",
"Yvette Charleston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29769",
"jincy jerold",
"shirley tan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42130
|
Ideal temperature and method to bake a deep dish pizza
What is the ideal temperature to bake deep dish pizza, and for how long?
I want to bake a deep pan pizza with toppings of mushrooms, olives and mozzarella and cheddar cheese. I have an electric oven.
'Pizza' covers a wide range of things, so nobody can really answer this question without knowing what kind of pizza you want to bake, what kind of oven you want to bake it in and what kind of surface you're going to be baking it on. A deep New York-style pan pizza is a very different thing to a really thin, crispy Neopolitan.
Completely agree with @MatthewWalton, you need to be more specific about the type of pizza you want to make.
I want to baje a deep pan pizza with toppings of mushrooms, olives and mozzarella and cheddar cheese. I have an electric oven.
@user300778 thank you for supplying additional information. Not everybody will notice it in the comments. This is why there is a small grey "edit" link below the post. I edited your new sentence into the post, but feel free to add more if you have more important information.
See this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43430/is-our-oven-at-work-powerful-enough-to-bake-pizza/43431#43431
I'll make a Chicago-style deep dish (tomato sauce on top) with a somewhat biscuit-like crust using a 385-400 F oven. Par-bake the crust for 8 min, then 35+ min for the final product. Using a higher heat with this dough dries out the outer crust before the cheese can melt.
Do Chicago-style "pizzas" really qualify as pizzas at all? ;)
I usually cook it at 180C (356F) for 20/25 minutes in an ventilated oven.
Works for me (I'm 100% italian), even if for best results I agree with @TFD answer above :-)
For genuine Neapolitan pizza (very thin dough, tomatoes, Buffalo mozzarella, olive oil) you would use a wood (oak) fired brick oven at 485°C (900°F)
It should be fully cooked in in less than 90 seconds
If you add other toppings, and use a thicker dough it will take a little longer
Cooking at lower temperatures gives you a nice "pie" or savoury flan, but not a pizza
To make a pizza pie (not a pizza), with a deep pan, with a thick dough layer, you should still use a very hot oven, use the maximum temperature your oven will go to. Some people even override the self clean system to go even hotter. Expect times around 5 to 8 minutes
If your crust starts burning on the edges, either accept it as part of the pizza style, or spread sauce right to the edges. Pre-baking the dough for a minute may reduce soggyness of finished product
Go for traditional pizza's for a generally much nicier experience. And if you have the room build your own wood fired pizza oven (plenty of kits on plans on the net)
Some par-bake the crust/sause moments before adding many topings.
@Optionparty Not on Neapolitan pizza
OP is making a deep dish pizza, not a neapolitan one.
@razummy OP changed question after I first posted!
My electric oven only goes up to 250C (~480F), but I'm able to consistenly get good results with the following method.
Roll the dough to a thickness of at most 3mm (~.1 inches).
Bake the dough without any toppings on it (not even tomato sauce) for 2 minutes. I bake it on a cheapo Ikea aluminum over tray; you might get better results with a pizza stone.
Take the precooked dough out, put the toppings on it, and put it back in the oven. This step should be done as quickly as possible.
Bake the pizza for another 5 to 7 minutes. I normally eyeball it and take it out when the mozzarella is nicely melted and the tomato sauce is starting to bubble from the heat.
Despite the obvious conflict of interest, my wife claims that this method gives the dough a flavor and consistency only a minor step below what we get at the best Italian pizzerias in town.
The OP is making deep dish pizza.
The excellent book Cooking for Geeks recommends 750°F to 900°F. Basically, if you want pizzeria-style pizza, your home oven isn't going to get hot enough.
...unless you use their method for overclocking your oven by abusing the cleaning cycle. Warning: this will void your warranty.
This cannot possibly apply to deep dish pizza.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.682378
| 2014-02-18T08:43:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42130",
"authors": [
"Eesa",
"Eliethesaiyan",
"GdD",
"Gil Hamilton",
"Guest",
"Jimmy Vo",
"Jolenealaska",
"MAC FIX PLANO",
"Matthew Walton",
"Optionparty",
"Ryan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Susie",
"TFD",
"VIDU NZ spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98489",
"nick012000",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"tarabyte",
"user300778"
],
"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
}
|
42726
|
cooking oven temperature
I have a murphy electric cake oven. it is a classic electric cake oven(not a modern one) In the recipe book it is mentioned to preheat it to 200 degree C for 10 mins. But it is not specified anywhere what should the temperature of the oven be while baking. My cake often gets overcooked/burnt if i keep a high temperature. or remains uncooked if i keep it low. Can anyone specify a temp. for baking a cake or a brownie please.
Ironically we had a previous question about what pasta instructions mean when they say bring to a boil then cook for X minutes, and in answering I said it was implied that you keep boiling, like oven instructions mean for you to heat then keep it heated. Maybe it's a more common confusion than I thought? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/29939/1672
The baking recipe idiom "preheat oven to X" implies to bake the item at that same temperature, unless the recipe specifies changing it.
200 C (390 F) is a little higher than most baked goods, but not out of the range of possibility. more typical would be 180 C / 350 F.
I concur here; when baking from scratch, I usually use 180 degrees C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.682851
| 2014-03-13T17:11:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42726",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ethan",
"JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns",
"Marais",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99865",
"razumny",
"user99859"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36935
|
Can I eat white vinegar if it has tons of deposits in it?
I have a bottle of white vinegar on which it says that the presence of deposits is normal. My problem/concern is that there are LOTS of deposits. What are they? Is there any danger associated with eating these deposits?
What kind of vinegar is it? Depending on the vinegar, even significant amounts of deposits may be naturally occurring.
Can you provide a photo?
@SAJ14SAJ No, sorry
There are unfiltered vinegars on the market that come with a lot of solids, and it's perfectly normal for those to have all kinds of chunky weirdness if they've sat for a little while.
Wine vinegar has a wide range of normal behaviour: it can get cloudy* or develop sediment, and that's normal. Even filtered vinegar can develop cloudiness and still be perfectly safe.
If your distilled vinegar gets cloudy, I'd worry. That shouldn't happen. Still, foreign bacteria do NOT grow well in vinegar. If your distilled vinegar is growing something, you probably know why.
Commercially produced vinegar very seldom goes bad, unless you're storing it outside on your deck, or something. If you brew your own, your mileage may vary.
*This is often a result of leaving live bacteria ("The Mother") in the vinegar. Some people think this makes it better, like live yoghurt cultures. There isn't much data either way, but it's certainly not harmful.
I don't mean to be insulting, but it's not full of fruit flies, is it? They don't care if vinegar is distilled
I don't think any bacteria will survive in a bottle of vinegar, the older the vinegar the more sour it becomes. There are some vinegar's out there that are 10 years old and super expensive.
It is possible for bacteria to survive in vinegar; that is generally how it was created in the first place. However, the largest danger is that it will become diluted and thus more hospitable, and that dilution can be local to for example, just the top of the bottle. Still, it is not the most likely scenario for higher acidity vinegars. Some of the arsenal vinegars with higher sugar levels and less acidity may be the target of molds or bacteria.
Regarding distilled vinegar, it's not very likely that it will become more sour as the fermenting bacteria will have been distilled out.
@sourd'oh And yet, if it is distilled, there should be no deposits.. .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.682986
| 2013-09-19T13:47:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36935",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shawn",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87615",
"jshd",
"razumny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42912
|
What technique is used to remove the bubbles and big hole from swiss rolls?
I would like to make a Swiss roll without big holes. The skin has to be smooth and beautiful - no bubble and holes. Do you have any technique or suggestion on this?
It's hard to offer any advice without seeing the recipe you are using.
Pouring your icing over the roll is the easiest method, but only covers the top and sides, but not under the curve. This is a common and traditional treatment.
Place the roll (seam side down) on a wire rack over a sheet tray, and pour the coating over. The sheet tray catches the run off so that you can reuse it.
This can be done with ganache, tempered chocolate, or a sugar-chocolate based glaze. No matter which glaze you use, you want it thick enough to adhere to the roll quickly. Let chocolate or ganache cool until they are fairly thick and coat a spoon well.
After you pour, pop any bubbles which may appear with a toothpick or the tip of a pointed paring knife.
This video from Zoe Bakes shows the basic technique using ganache, although it is on a standard round layer cake rather than a Swiss roll.
Getting coating over the entire surface of the roll (including the bottom side) is much more challenging. It is best done by dipping, if the Swiss roll is not too large. You will need a coating that will set up hard, either tempered chocolate or sugar-based glaze. This will also require a great deal of surplus glaze, although it can be reused.
If the roll is too large to feasibly dip, you can still do the pouring method. Start with the roll bottom side up, pour the coating and let it set, then turn it top side up and do a second pour. This will leave a seam, which is hard to avoid if you cannot dip.
You will get better results by freezing the roll first with either technique.
See related:
Ganache coating on a roulade
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.683191
| 2014-03-22T04:17:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42912",
"authors": [
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Wunyje",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"national equipment spam",
"razumny",
"sotirelisc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18704
|
Way to fix sharp tasting sauce
I've made a sauce with some white wine (with cream & tarragon) but it's really sharp. Probably the wine was a bit old, or I didn't boil it off well enough - is there any way to fix it?
And what's the most likely cause?
Your suggestion was on point. My mushroom in red wine sauce was bold in flavor. I heated it up then simmer and its perfect. Thank you so much.
If "sharp" means too much alcohol left, bring it back to a simmer and cook off more of it, then adjust with more cream if needed.
If "sharp" means too acidic, your options are:
(1) add more cream and other ingredients to dilute the acid
(2) try to mask the acid with a bit of sugar
(3) I guess you could try to neutralize the acid with a very small amount of something basic, like baking soda. But that seems like a bad idea, it will probably taste terrible.
I kept on cooking it - added some stock and a little more cream. Tasted great - thanks :)
Adding baking soda will react with any acid to form salts. So the food will taste bad. You're first suggestion of using sugar is probably best. Personally, I'd bin it an try again with a better wine. Always taste a wine before putting it into your dish. If the wine tastes bad then the resulting sauce will also taste bad.
@Rincewind42: Sure, but I think the OP (like many of us) clearly preferred to salvage the sauce, rather than throw it away, go shopping, and start all over before having dinner.
Baking soda works perfect it saved me many times :) but you need to be very careful with the amount it has to just a little bit. I’m adding no more than 1/4 of a tea spoon and it’s enough for a saucepan with a dinner for two.
We tried this and had the same reaction with the cringing at the end. Per comments I added butter, half and half, garlic, onion powder, chili powder and at least now it's palatable!!! And I don't have to throw it away and all the fresh bread I just cut up to have with fondue that would go stale quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.683395
| 2011-10-31T21:00:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18704",
"authors": [
"Anonymous Man",
"Cascabel",
"Joe Lee-Moyet",
"Maggie",
"Martyn",
"Rincewind42",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"user1630345",
"user3499545"
],
"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
}
|
123840
|
What is the edibility of fish organs?
Are organs of fish edible? For example, I was wondering about the heart, liver, and all the other unidentified organs or glands inside mackerel, before deciding to discard or keep them.
Are different organs treated differently?
(I can't identify most of the organs.)
Most fish are pretty similar to other animals in this regard. All organs are edible (with well known exceptions such as pufferfish liver), but some are unappetising at least unless cleaned and prepared properly (the gall bladder, and the digestive organs).
Since fish tend to be small, most of the tastier organs aren’t worth rooting around for and individually handling. The liver, the roe, and the swim bladders of large fish are the only exceptions you’re likely to find (the latter dried and boiled for isinglass). But whole mackerel, sardines, anchovies, and other fish were and are used whole to make fermented fish sauce, so it’s clearly not a question of poisoning.
I have eaten cod livers (from a can), so in general yes some fish organs are definitely eadible.
Fish organs are usually edible, but often very unpalatable.
The livers of various fish have long been eaten, generally for nutritional reasons, although some people like the taste. The roe sacs are often eaten because diners think they taste good. Other fish innards, such as the intestine, are used in a variety of fermented preparations, both with and without the rest of the fish.
While it is usual to remove the organs before eating in many countries, there are many else where it belongs to the fish and is always eaten.
Some organs like the eggs from female fish might even be considered a delicacy in those countries, where people normally don't eat the organs. A good recipe is to fry them together with onions, vinegar and some salt.
All organs are edible (from commonly consumed fishes, there are fishes that have highly toxic organs! The liver of pufferfish isn't edible), just like from most animals. It's rather a question of taste. With small fishes, mostly the organs aren't removed at all because it would be too much work. Anchovies are an example.
You should consider, that fish organs have the highest amount of environmental pollution, microplastics e.g. and heavy metal accumulation! It is highly recomendable to not eat the organs at all! The least heavy metal accumulation happens in the muscles. Other tissues have more, like organs, skin, lungs, brain etc.
Nevertheless, the organs are at the same time those parts with the highest nutritional value. Like FuzzyChef said, organs are also used for preparing fermented food.
Before I aware of the pollution, I ate all organs (apart from the lungs) from sardines, mackerel, horse mackerel, and anchovy. They taste totally different than anything else. Not bad not really good but interesting.
Deep frying the bones from fish is extremely delicious and supplies high amounts of potassium and calcium. The bones get crisp and you can easily eat them. Just keep the pollution in mind and hold the balance.
We call this offal and you can find it served in some restaurants. It's also in a lot of old cooking books which tend to not shy away from using such parts, and they lend well to a good stew.
So I would say yes but if you're looking at some of them they don't, especially farmed fish, look too pretty.
There is a rich variety of salted fish innard dishes in Korean cuisine under the umbrella term of jeotgal, meaning "salted seafood". There are many preparations for different parts of the fish, or just all the innards together. Mackerel innards specifically are known as godeungeo-naejang-jeot. I am not finding any recipes in English, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are recipes in Korean if you don't mind a bit of detective work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.683596
| 2023-04-08T05:20:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123840",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65931
|
Does the yogurt set from 500 ml milk result in 500 g yogurt?
I want to prepare 500 g yogurt. I have 500 ml skimmed milk.
So, will the resultant yogurt be of 500 g?
If not, then how much skimmed milk do I need to get 500 g yogurt?
Stephie's answer is really good and she touches upon this, but to keep it a separate issue, 1 ml of DISTILLED WATER = 1 g, other fluids will have more or less mass depending on their density. An extreme example, a ml of lead will weight closer to 1/5th of an ounce (I am guessing but it's close) which is many grams.
Making yogurt means letting lactic acid bacteria alter the texture and chemical composition of milk by digesting lactose and producing lactic acid, which in turn interacts with the proteins in the milk, causing the milk to thicken and taste sour.
Unlike in cheese making you are not separating curds and whey, so you are not "losing" significant amounts of substance.
Yes, there might be some fluctuation - an increasing number of lactobacillae and them eating lactose - but on a very small level.
For our general kitchen precision, 500 g milk makes 500 g yogurt.
Side note: 500 ml milk is not exactly 500 g, in fact, it's 510 g according to my sources, but I consider these values precise enough for general cooking purposes. Otherwise, you can't even stir, as minute amounts will remain on spooons or in your pots and pans. This is a kitchen, not a lab.
While I agree that 510g vs 500g isn't a significant difference (it's 2tsp, or 2%), I think it's silly to compare a difference of 2tsp to the couple of drops that would stick to a spoon when you stir it. Also, note that the increasing number of bacteria doesn't increase the total mass: the new bacteria aren't created out of nothing; rather, they're created from the material already present in the original bacteria population and the milk.
@David by the time you've stirred it and either left a little stuck to the bowl or scraped it out with a spatula -- to which more will stick -- you've probably lost at least a couple of tsp.
@DavidRicherby not to mention the difference between starting the yogurt with a few spoonfuls of yogurt vs. adding the lactobacillae separately as powder or similar. As I said: Kitchen maths.
Since the yogurt making process takes place around 40C, over the course of the 8 to 10 hours it takes, there will be some condensation on the inside of the lid of the machine - which obviously comes from the milk/yoghurt mix - when preparing 8 glasses of 150 ml each, I estimate the condensation to be 10 ml.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.683886
| 2016-01-27T09:12:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65931",
"authors": [
"Ann Wood",
"Barbara Harris",
"Bernadette Nash",
"Chris H",
"Dave Page",
"David Richerby",
"Escoce",
"Jenny Peters",
"K P",
"Sarah Evason",
"Shane Sweet",
"Stephie",
"Val Aguero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"shannon yarbrough"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24833
|
Lard (or other fat) as a subsitute for butter in desserts for someone with a dairy allergy?
My wife is currently unable to consume any dairy as our breast-fed baby has a milk protein allergy. When reading many dessert recipes, many of them call for butter. For example:
http://smittenkitchen.com/2008/04/shaker-lemon-pie/
or http://chefmichaelsmith.com/Recipe/cinnamon-rolls/
I know pie crusts for example can be made with either, but can they always be substituted?
When would I not want to use lard over butter?
What ratios should I use to convert the recipe?
Is there some other milk-protein free alternative that would work better?
In general lard can always be substituted for butter, but you will not get the same flavour, obviously. Lard is perhaps a bit more 'savoury' than butter, so it may be worth trying a pie out just to see if it works with a sweet filling.
You should be able to convert straight from butter to lard. Another alternative is vegetable shortening, which you can use in all kinds of baking.
Reasonably purified lard works well in both pie crusts and rich sweet breads (brioche, challah), I have used it often for that. Will probably be good for other stuff too, only for cookies you could get slightly different shapes due to the different melting process. Just make sure you aren't getting the variety with little crunchy pieces in it, it obviously isn't good for baking.
Recipes for which you can substitute margarine for butter can have non-dairy margarines substituted instead - you have to check the ingredients list, most margarines contain milk solids. Here in Australia, my dairy free friends and I use Nuttelex, but that's not available in the USA.
Thanks, I'll look closer. I wasn't aware there were any dairy free margarines, all the ones I've found to date contain milk solids.
Look for kosher margarine. Fleichmann's margarine is one common brand, but any kosher margarine will note whether or not it contains dairy. The symbol designating a kosher authority (such as the U in a circle) will have a letter D next to it for dairy.
If you use Butter Flavored Crisco its an 'acceptable' substitute for butter in a 1:1 ratio.
Coconut oil is gorgeous in crusts and many baked goods. Get the best quality raw you are willing to pay for and she won't miss butter at all.
Try a bottle of macadamia oil too. A little in baking where butteriness is wanted or even sauteeing veg.
Supposedly, these oils are back in favor nutritionally so baby will get the benefits too.
Although most people have said that you can do a 1:1 substitution, I want to warn you that it's not always true.
The problem is that butter is part water, and so when you bake with it, it'll give off a little steam. If you use it melted it'll add water to the mix, which will develop a little bit of gluten when mixed with flour (first recipe, part of the second). You may need to adjust your recipe slightly. Typically, you want to reduce the amount of lard or other solid fat used by about 10-20%, and add back in 10-15% water (or other liquid; if you're dealing with un-melted butter, you may want to use vodka so it won't add to gluten development, but will still add steam).
That being said, one alternative might be to use clarified butter or ghee. Depending on how sensitive the person is, it might not be worth the risk, but for people with a milk protein intolerance who really crave the butter flavor they might be willing to try it. (and, as with the solid fat substitution, you need to adjust as it's all oil, no water)
If you use lard or criso, you'll want to substitute canola or another neutral oil for a portion. Butter has a lower melting point than lard or shortening, so a little oil help match the mouth feel of butter. I can't help you on the flavor. Maybe sprinkle some buttered popcorn jelly-bellys on top?
If the butter will get melted anyway, is this still the case? How much to substitute?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.684142
| 2012-07-03T22:09:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24833",
"authors": [
"BlueMagic1923",
"Martha F.",
"Roland Jay Tugade Jr",
"SIMEL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58063",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
72923
|
What is the use of a convection broiler?
My oven has a convection broil setting. Why? Under what circumstances is it useful to have a breeze blowing over food under the broiler?
Upvoted. I wonder this myself. A broiler relies on radiation rather than convection, so why bother blowing the air around in the oven when you're broiling? I'd love to know if there are any practical reasons to do that.
Maybe if you're dehydrating something? Especially something you don't mind toasting a bit? That's the benefit I thought of, anyway, the airflow would draw off moisture quicker.
You might be warming something under the dish you are broiling
... under what? You're an old-timer here; surely you can come up with a better/clearer answer than this.
@DanielGriscom Under the main dish be broiled. Clearly you should be able to figure that out. Cheers - I don't retaliate.
... retaliate? For downvoting? Wasn't me; apparently two other people thought this was a poor answer.
@DanielGriscom Cool, not trying into a fight.
I read warNing and thought it's a joke that I really do not get. But it makes a lot of sense now.
With large roasts (I'm talking bone in 20lb to 40lb) it could be useful. Although the meat would have to be tenderized and probably cooked at lower temperatures first. But it would ensure that the meat remained moist at a higher temperature while crisping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.684445
| 2016-08-06T16:50:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/72923",
"authors": [
"Chris Bergin",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"paparazzo",
"simbabque"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93163
|
Should I use salted or unsalted butter if the recipe doesn't specify?
When recipes call for “butter” but doesn’t specify “salted” or “unsalted”, which should I use? Does it matter?
Where's the recipe from? That might also matter: At least in Germany, butter is usually unsalted, so that's usually the assumption in German recipes.
Generally, you should use unsalted butter. You can always add salt to your unsalted butter, but you can't take it out if you want it less salty!
If it's just being melted on some vegetables, then salted butter is probably fine. However, different brands of salted butter have different amounts of salt added, which makes it difficult to know how much total salt is going into your food. This is more problematic in baking. It's possible to easily oversalt or undersalt just by using a different brand — leading to unpredictable results. By using unsalted butter, the only salt remaining in the recipe is what you have added, and you have more careful control over the outcome.
If you need to substitute one for another, you can estimate how much salt is in salted butter and adjust your recipe accordingly.
If you are not sure whether a particular recipe calls for salted or unsalted, look for clues.
Is there additional salt in the recipe? (If not, it may expect some salt from the butter. If so, it may expect unsalted butter!)
How old is the recipe? (Newer recipes tend to assume unsalted butter. Older recipes tend to assume salted butter.)
Where was the recipe written? Different cultures assume different butters (and salt levels may vary between countries for salted butter!); I will not give an exhaustive list here, mostly because I don't know, but it's worth researching.
If you have the time, interest, and money, you can try making the recipe twice (once with salted, once with unsalted butter) and see which tastes better. This is a bigger investment, though, so only worth doing if you really want to get the recipe as good as possible.
@Gherman "Salted butter is generally used as a condiment because of its strong taste and longer shelf life, whereas unsalted butter is usually used for baking and cooking so that the cook can better control the sodium content and flavor in their dish!" https://www.tillamook.com/community/blog/battle-of-the-butters-salted-butter-vs-unsalted-butter/
@Chloe — using salt as a preservative for butter was a much more significant factor before refrigeration became widespread. (Also, bacteria apparently can grow in butter, so it's worth at least being aware of the difference.)
@Erica These days, a more significant shelf life issue is picking up flavours/smells from other things it's stored alongside in the fridge, in my experience. Although maybe that's just my kitchen hygiene. ;)
It does matter, using salted butter changes the salt content of the dish, which will change the flavor. It probably won't greatly affect the chemistry of a dish aside from that, however.
In my experience it's much more common to see unsalted butter in recipes, so I almost always default to unsalted if the recipe doesn't specify.
If they meant salted butter and I use unsalted, I can usually fix it by adding salt. The only real advantage of salted butter is its longer shelf life.
Well, the other advantage of salted butter is that it tastes nicer spread on bread (modulo personal opinion).
@DavidRicherby Try sprinkling a little coarsely ground salt on unsalted buttered bread and get the best of both worlds. :-D
...Let it be known I once accidentally spread unsalted butter on bread. I learned that unsalted butter is the flavor of sadness. I tried to rectify the error by sprinkling over some salt, but it only succeeded in accentuating the existing flavor, sadness, bringing the subtle notes of shame and despair to the forefront..... Cinnamon-sugar and the broiler took care of it though!
@kitukwfyer - Let it be known ... that with the right kind of bread, and the right kind of butter(!), unsalted butter bread is delicious! And as an aside to the aside: How can you people stand eating sweet jam with salted butter. Bäh! :-D
@Martin - You really need to try a sandwich filled with thickly sliced mature cheddar cheese (v. salty) and thickly spread strawberry jam (v. sweet); you will be very pleasantly surprised :-)
@Spratty Never tried it with jam, but cheese and marmalade are to die for. I probably have had it in a sandwich, but more commonly as slices of cheese laid over marmalade-on-toast.
Good question!
It depends on the dish being made. Easy rule of thumb:
Savory/seasoned as a main dish or meat = salted butter
Sweet, fruit or greens heavy = unsalted
Also - you can make melted/browned butter easily, by slowly melting the butter so you have a stable cooking medium.
This may be somewhat country-specific. Here in the UK, sweetness levels which may be considered normal for the US palate are generally considered overkill here. Using salted butter can provide a balance to the flavour which is missing in unsalted butter.
Adding salt separately can solve that problem, of course. But with salt levels being relatively consistent in butter over here, and with most people who do use real butter as a spread using salted butter, my experience is that UK recipes are more likely to assume salted butter unless otherwise stated.
"my experience is that UK recipes are more likely to assume salted butter unless otherwise stated." [citation needed] And how would adding salt compensate for a lack of sweetness?
@DavidRicherby The other way around - the salt compensates for an excess of sweetness. It's most evident in high-sugar baked goods such as flapjacks, but also in buttercream icing. I'm afraid I can't give a citation for my personal experience or my taste in baking though. :)
OK. So why would a UK recipe compensate for sweetness by secretly hoping that you use salted butter, rather than just reducing the amount of sugar? That makes no sense, especially as "everybody knows" that you use unsalted butter for baking.
@DavidRicherby Salt and sugar together do interesting umami things to your tastebuds, so reducing the amount of sugar does not do the same thing as adding salt. There are also some processes (e.g. emulsifying buttercream) which need the sugar. So a recipe may assume that you're using salted butter and then not have "1/2 tsp salt" in the recipe, which otherwise would be needed for using unsalted butter.
@DavidRicherby you can use the polite phrase [citation needed] to rudely say "I don't believe your personal experience" all you like, but you're still wrong. In the UK, butter is salted unless stated otherwise. I've provided sources in my answer.
@Pod Perhaps just different experiences. David's experience is that "everybody knows you use unsalted butter for baking". My experience is that "everybody I know uses salted butter for everything unless otherwise specified", because with salted butter being way more common in everyday use, why would a recipe secretly hope that you weren't going to use the butter you had already? Either way, it's something we can both live with, so long as we can be more specific in recipes. :)
In the UK, if a recipe just calls for "butter", it is asking for salted butter.
This is because historically all butter was "salted butter", with "unsalted butter" being very expensive before the advent of refrigeration due to its low shelf life.
Additionally, the majority of products labelled "butter" will be salted butter, with the unsalted butter being explicitly labelled "unsalted butter", e.g. Compare the marketing of major brands in the UK in their use of butter vs unsalted butter:
http://www.kerrygold.co.uk/home/products/
https://www.arlafoods.co.uk/brands/butter-and-spreads/
https://www.dairycrest.co.uk/brands/butters-spreads-oils/country-life/
Here is another source:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/301909/leading-brands-of-butter-in-the-uk/
What's interesting is that, with the prevalence of internet-based recipes from the US and other English-speaking countries, the term "salted" is now being applied to plain old "butter". e.g. I remember about 5 years ago Sainsbury's started calling butter "salted butter", which confused my partner at the time as she just wanted "butter", thinking this was an extra salty butter.
The default in labeling is not necessarily the same thing as the default in recipes. It's true in the US as well that salted butter is often simply labeled butter. But still, it's also common to expect to use unsalted butter in recipes, especially baking. Do you have anything about that side of things?
....If you're right, then that actually explains why European recipes seem to forget the salt all the time. I mean, sometimes it made me worry if y'all were really okay over there. That does make me wonder though if your regular butter is extra salty compared to American "salted butter"? I wouldn't think so, but clearly I've never been anywhere, lol.
Salt and butter have two very different functions. Using them together does not allow you to control them separately. For example, if you need more fat but the dish is already salted, you need butter but not salt. Therefore, if you want to be as accurate as possible, use unsalted butter.
Just a note on all of this - it is not necessarily just about the taste. A few people have touched on the shelf life, which also makes a difference.
Salted butter is designed to last longer, therefore when doing things like baking - where you want to use the freshest ingredients for a better result - you should always use unsalted, because it will be fresher. (Especially true when making "challenging" things like pastry).
Sorry but this doesn't make sense. "Last longer" means exactly the same thing as "stays fresh longer". The age of the product is irrelevant: what you care about is how much its quality has deteriorated during that time. And, since salted butter deteriorates more slowly, you can use older salted butter and it will be just as fresh (i.e., will have deteriorated the same amount) as newer unsalted butter. Indeed, if I buy salted and unsalted butter today, by your argument, I should use the salted butter to bake with, because it will be fresher!
@DavidRicherby That is certainly not true. There are various measures of freshness, not all of which are helped by salt. Salt's primary use in butter is to prevent microbial growth, and it might have some effect on retaining moisture, but not on oxidation. And it might increase the absorption of smells from the fridge, etc.
Exactly what @Matthew Read said. "Designed to last longer" gives a result that is "still edible and not dangerous" rather than "fresh". Not the same thing at all.
If it's a recipe for homemade bread they say it's best to use unsalted butter because salt tempers yeast activity, therefore, theoretically, using salted butter would raise salt content (slightly) and possibly lengthen rising time, lessen oven "blooming", and up the finished saltiness of baked bread. Regardless, I don't find it makes that much difference, for bread baking anyway.
There is no such thing as unsalted butter. Butter is just made of milk, without salt or any other additive. If you add salt to it, it becomes salted butter, which is a different thing than butter.
That said, the word "butter" can sometimes refer to salted butter in some countries like the UK. In countries like France, butter is normally sold unsalted, and salted butter is considered like butter with an additive (salt).
So if the recipe needs butter, just take what is the default in the country of origin of the recipe book. If you don't know, just take unsalted butter, it's always easier to add salt afterwise than trying to desalt your butter :-).
What you say about "unsalted" butter is true, but it does not necessarily carry through to recipes. Given the proliferation of salted butter and the fact that it is generally the default in the supermarket (giving rise to the term "unsalted butter" to differentiate), many of the recipe books I have will specifically state "unsalted butter" if it's considered important. Otherwise it is unspecified, which seems like "meh, either" to me :P
Linguistically true, but is that the same as how the term is colloquially used?
In much of the English-speaking world this may be logical but it isn't true. The default can in fact be assumed to be salted (in that there's more choice of brands and price points for salted, and some small shops only stock salted)
So it actually depends where you're from. In France, butter is de facto unsalted, and butter refers to unsalted butter. It seems so much more logical that way. I don't think I deserve that -1.
Updated my answer to take account of country specifics
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.684646
| 2018-10-23T14:17:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93163",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Daniel",
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"Gabriel Hautclocq",
"Graham",
"Martin",
"Matthew Read",
"Pod",
"Spratty",
"TripeHound",
"ceejayoz",
"hoffmale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70126",
"kitukwfyer",
"rickibarnes"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93100
|
Confused about cayenne pepper, chili powder and paprika
What is the difference between cayenne pepper, chilli powder, and paprika powder? They seem pretty similar. Are they interchangeable in recipes? Will it be a big difference if I substitute one for another?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16076/what-international-cooking-terms-sound-similar-but-have-different-meanings
I regularly make chili (the stew) using paprika, cumin, oregano, and garlic for the seasonings. It tastes different from the canned stuff, but this is primarily due to different salt and heat levels, not to the specific cultivar of capsicum annuum. I could achieve something very like a restaurant chili if I added more salt and used a hot paprika instead of sweet.
Cayenne pepper powder comes from the cayenne pepper. It is hot/spicy, registering 30,000 to 50,000 Scoville units.
Chilli powder, depending where you live, can mean anything between pure powdered chilli pepper (location would determine the specific type of pepper) to a spice blend of chillies with cumin, oregano, and/or other spices. Depending on the brand (or if you make it yourself) the heat and flavor can vary.
Paprika is the dried and ground pepper capsicum annuum, the species of pepper that includes a wide variety of shapes and sizes, such as sweet bell pepper, jalapeno, New Mexico chili and cayenne. It appears that the tomato pepper is the most commonly used variety for the production of paprika. Of course, there are also smoked varieties (sweet, bittersweet, and hot).
I would say that they are generally not interchangeable. Just a little bit of cayenne, for example, will bring quite a bit of heat to your final dish. Chili powder will bring more flavor/spices than paprika.
It really depends on the final result you are looking for, but simple substitutions will result in very different outcomes.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this hot debate has been moved to chat.
The moved comments were mostly a discussion about whether chilli powder in the UK is/was/is understood to be just powdered chilli or a spice blend containing other things too. I've posted a question to try to clear this up: Chilli powder in the UK.
Smoked paprika is widely available in the US as well.
Most of the peppers for paprika that I see available to home gardeners aren't bell peppers, but they're still sweet (or nearly sweet).
Uh, yeah, absolutely nobody makes paprika out of bell peppers.
Um. As Marti said: paprika is never ever made of anything even remotely resembling a bell pepper. Ever.
Here's what paprika is made from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Kalocsa_Paprika_M%C3%BAzeum.jpg
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paprika
They give a similar range of flavours, but in quite different proportions. They’re all made from ground roasted or dried red peppers of some kind, so all of them involve some amounts of spiciness (chilli heat), fruitiness, earthiness, and other aspects of the flavour of roasted peppers. Cayenne typically has much more of the hotter and sharper flavours among these. Paprika typically is much less hot, and more fruity and earthy (though there’s a wide range of varieties of paprika). A very wide range of different styles are sold as “chilli powder” depending where you are, but typically they’re quite hot and a bit earthy, less sweet than paprika and less sharp than cayenne.
(“Chilli powder” can also mean a spice blend from Mexican/US cooking, which besides pure chilli powder may typically contain cumin, dried onion/garlic, oregano, salt, and other herbs/spices. I’m assuming that you’re talking about pure chilli powder, not the blend.)
Since they have such closely related flavour profiles, you can usefully exchange them for each other in many recipes — it will change the result a bit, but will usually still work well. E.g. if a recipe calls for cayenne but if you or your guests don’t like too much chilli heat, you can subsitute paprika to reduce the heat without losing the other aspects of the pepper flavour.
Upvoted, great answer. I think it is worth elaborating on what one can do with the wide variation in brands/species/regions of chilli powder, as well as smoked varieties. So, it could be useful to sniff and taste a variety of products, labeling them appropriately for use in your recipes.
You do not roast peppers for making paprika. You dry them, not cook them.
I like to note that there is a different spelling in American English for this- chili (one L), which in my experience is the name of a bean-based stew, and the name given to a powdered blend of spices that usually includes, but is not completely made up of powdered capsicum that is called 'chilli' in UK English.
@JenniferS: The spelling difference is good to note, but in my experience it’s just US vs UK difference, not specifically about the stew/spice distinction. That is, in the US, chili (one L) is the most widely used spelling for everything — the stew, the spice blend, the pure ground spice, the original fruit — while similarly in the UK, chilli is the main spelling for all of them.
Chili Powder and Ground Chili Peppers are two different things. Chili Powder has other spices, and a variety of peppers in it. Ground Chili Peppers should say on the labeling what kind of peppers are used i.e. "Ground Ancho Chili", or "Ground New Mexico Chili". For a mild heat and warm-sweet flavor, I prefer the New Mexico variety.
As other answers already described, “chili powder” can mean any of a few things, not just the definition you’ve given. Make sure not to focus only on local customs!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.685665
| 2018-10-21T11:41:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93100",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"David Richerby",
"Douglas Held",
"JPmiaou",
"Jennifer S",
"Marti",
"PLL",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92807
|
I ran out of flour halfway through my recipe. Can I add more after refrigeration?
I started out making shortbread using a 1, 2, 3 recipe method:
one cup icing sugar
two cups butter
4 cups flour
Halfway through I realised I'm going to make just about 3 cups of flour. I continued, but the dough seems too soft and buttery. I refrigerated it.
Can I add another cup of flour tomorrow?
Just for clarification: does 1-2-3 mean by volume? And wouldn’t this mean three cups of flour? Or is it 1-2-4?
I used this recipe, but see the quantities bandied about often : https://www.biggerbolderbaking.com/3-ingredient-shortbread-cookies/
@crafter this is a pretty nonstandard thing. The standard American 1-2-3 flaky pie crust uses water, butter and flour by weight. There are short recipes which use sugar, not water, as the 1, but they are still by weight. Your recipe does not use a 1-2-3 ratio, not by weight and not even by volume, I guess that's why Stephie asked for clarification.
While I am not entirely certain that it will work, there is a good chance that it will be OK if you do it that way. Pie crusts are relatively unchanged after a refrigeration period. Considering the relative prices of flour and butter, and the effort you already put in, I would be more inclined towards continuing tomorrow rather than throwing it right away.
By the way, the recipe you are using is quite unusual. European 1-2-3 shortbread cookie recipes (not to be confused with 1-2-3 flaky pie dough, or with the less buttery 1-2 cookie recipes) have a 1-2-3 ratio by weight, and are not creamed. The recipe you are using is trying to be 1-4-5 if you look at their conversion, but the conversion factor is also rather unusual, with two cups of flour more likely to be around 250 g than 300 g. Since you are measuring your flour by cups and your butter by ounces, you would most likely end up with a 1:1 ratio of butter to flour instead the classic 2:3. So add your flour, but pay attention to the dough and, if the first batch of cookies ends up with a weird consistency after baking, or melts outright in the oven, consider adding more flour, possibly a whole cup to your double batch.
Sure you can, shortbread dough can be refrigerated or frozen without any issues, there's no reason you can't add the flour a day later. Coming from the fridge it will be a bit stiff but nothing you can't work with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.686091
| 2018-10-10T20:35:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92807",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"crafter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69767",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93140
|
What is important to keep in mind when making a white sauce?
White sauce is dairy based, but what is it exactly? What are the main ingredients? Is it thickened somehow or not? How thick should it be? Should it contain herbs or oil?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4381/69382 and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66277/making-cheese-sauce
A white sauce, also known as Béchamel sauce, is butter, flour, and milk. The flour and butter are cooked together to make a roux, and that thickened base is thinned out with liquid (in this case, dairy) to make a sauce.
It can have different thicknesses depending on what you want to use it for — varying the ratio of roux to milk results in a thin, medium, or thick white sauce.
Béchamel is a "mother sauce," meaning it is the basis for many other recipes: you can add cheese, herbs, seasonings, etc., to create a variety of sauces. However, a basic white sauce just has salt and pepper (white pepper if you want to avoid dark flecks in the sauce).
Suggestions for the best way to make the sauce can be found in this related Q&A: What's the best way to make Béchamel sauce?
I would add- in the case of cajun cuisine especially- the darkness of the roux also plays a role in thickness. A darker roux has more flavor but less thickening power.
Also- I don't trust people (or cookbook authors) who are so concerned about the appearance of black pepper flecks that they are willing to tolerate the nasty, barnyard, disaster that is white pepper.
I agree -- if I'm really feeling fussy about the whiteness of my white sauce, I'd just leave out the pepper entirely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.686303
| 2018-10-22T15:53:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93140",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Ess Kay",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43685
|
What are the consequences of leaving the fridge door cracked open overnight?
My girlfriend accidentally didn't close the fridge properly and left it open 2 inches all night (more than 8 hours). I had a lot of raw chicken breast and raw salmon in there. Is it still edible? When I touched the meat, it was slightly colder than room temperature (21 C).
The back part of the meat was still a bit cold though because it was closer to the back of the fridge.
Is it edible?
When did you last clean the cooling coils on your fridge? I've had mine open a crack all night and things got nowhere near that warm. Dirty coils make a fridge inefficient and subject to thermal shutdowns.
Also beware that if the fridge has a freezer compartment, that may have warmed up, too.
If the food had reached a temperature of 21 C for an unknown amount of time, you should definitely discard it.
See:
How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
As a more general rule, there really is no way to provide a definitive answer; it depends on your specific refrigerator, the cooling power it has, how much air was able to move through the gap, and how much mass was inside the refrigerator to provide a thermal buffer
If you had a refrigerator thermometer and looked at what temperature the interior rose to, if it was below 40 F you are good.
If you don't have a thermometer, you don't know exactly what happened inside.
You must assess how much tolerance for risk you have.
Given that the meat was 21C (70F) or so, there's pretty much no way it's safe.
@Jefromi Ah, I missed that; that is what I get for late night answering!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.686717
| 2014-04-24T23:51:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43685",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"John Leggett",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tony Walton",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"stella_101",
"t3hcr",
"user102465"
],
"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
}
|
86439
|
How can I figure out cooking times for an Instant Pot?
If I want to make dal (let's say) in an Instant Pot, I google someone else's recipe and find that the pot should be at pressure for 12 minutes if you're using red lentils and 15 mins. if you're using green lentils. Is there a way to calculate that on my own (i.e., some equation or formula that people use to develop pressure cooker recipes)? Or does everyone just figure it out by trial and error?
Those things are really hard to model mathematically so a look up table or a curve would be much more practical. If someone hasn't worked out a table for you, then you would probably need to make your own.
But how are the lookup tables generated? Are those based on trial and error?
Yes pretty much, like all tables. For one data point, like one number of servings, you just take an educated guess and deviates up and down a few times in a few directions and dimensions and search for the "optimal", e.g. "more time or less time, higher or lower pressure, more or less water, slower or steeper cooling process" repeat that for all your frequent use cases.
Instant Pot has a page with cooking times for various things on it:
https://instantpot.com/instantpot-cooking-time/
However, there are also lots of good pages out there with more specifics. For example, chicken thighs (fresh, frozen, bone in vs. out, brown first vs. not):
https://paleopot.com/recipe/instant-pot-chicken-thighs/
As already noted in comments: there are no usable formulas for this. Just look it up in a table.
First, the models which deliver the formulas would have to be developed. Developing the models would be more resource consuming (requiring time and tons of expertise) than creating tables by trial and error. Also, developing the models would also need quite a few use cases based on trial and error anyway.
Second, they would have to be applied. Very few people would have the required mathematical expertise to apply them, but even the minority who would happily solve a system of differential equations in the kitchen will have no source for the required parameters to plug in.
And then, models are not perfect. And nonlinear models with a large number of assumptions are especially likely to be off. Once you get a calculation from a model, there is still a chance that it will be wrong. Which means that even with a formula, you are still doing a trial-and-error thing, it is just that the formula supplies you with a reasonable initial guess to test. But the expertise of people who have cooked vegetables before will also supply a reasonable initial guess, without the need for all of the above.
So, in the end everybody uses tables. It is both easier and more effective.
As a rough rule of thumb, the modern generation of electric pressure cookers run at 10psi, the older stovetop ones at 15psi. I've had good results adding 20-30% time to traditional cooking times, generally finding that due to no loss of pressure/steam with the later generation PC's 20% is sufficient.
A great reference for PC cooking times is Miss Vickie, but her site has not been maintained in some time so she may be cooking for the angels now. Part of her site is still available on the Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160303140415/http://missvickie.com:80/howto/times/timingframe.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.686926
| 2017-12-16T15:31:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86439",
"authors": [
"crmdgn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
71348
|
Conflicting instructions from different sources: roasting chicken
Thomas Keller recommends bringing a chicken to room temperature before roasting. Peter Meehan and the Lucky Peach gang recommend chilling a chicken before roasting, as a fan describes here. Either they're going for two different results, or one of them is wrong. What's going on here?
One is pointless, and the other is very specific.
Keller's approach - bringing the chicken out of the fridge 45 minutes before - is pointless, because there's no way in hell any significant proportion of a chicken is going to get from fridge-cold to room temperature in 45 minutes, or any other time that still allows it to be safe to eat. Point 1 in this article from the Food Lab is about steak, but that only reinforces my point. If a steak barely warms up after 1.5 hours, a chicken will do no better.
The Lucky Peach approach seems to be using the fridge mainly to dry out the skin in order to give a crispy result for that particular 'lacquered' recipe. That approach may well work for a chicken without all the lacquer as well.
Personally, I go more or less straight from the fridge and use a digital probe thermometer to ensure I don't overcook the bird, and have generally very satisfactory results.
For a steak, even having the very surface warmed probably helps with the initial sear getting formed, I'd think, which is more the purpose than warming up the meat its core. Just a thought. Your answer as it applies to the question is completely on point.
I'm not sure, but I don't think the few degrees will make an appreciable difference when the meat hits a multi-hundred degree metal surface...
I think for searing a steak, the presence of ice crystals and a resulting layer of steam is more the issue than a few degrees, but that's a vague impression/recollection I have. I can't pull out exactly where I got that from.
There isn't an especially right or wrong answer on this, there's benefits to both approaches. When I did the research to write the roasting planner for my meat app I found that there is a notable difference in cooking time when you leave the chicken out for 45 minutes to an hour ahead of time, the chicken left out cooks faster. I can't remember exactly the figure I used, it was dependent on chicken size, but it's definitely shorter. I tested my algorithm several times and found it was pretty accurate, and the user feedback agreed. So, by taking the chicken out and letting it warm up some you can reduce cooking time. This can be an advantage sometimes, for example when you need the oven for many different things, but otherwise it's not particularly useful. I have found no flavor or texture differences between the two methods.
I have found that letting the chicken warm up some is very helpful in determining the right place for your meat thermometer as the temperature differential lets you determine the coldest part of the chicken. The coldest part of the chicken is going to take the longest to cook. Personally I find it very hard to guess the right placement without this trick.
Keeping the bird in the fridge does have advantages in getting crispy skin. Think about what happens when you put a cold drink in a warm environment - you get moisture condensing on the surface. A chicken taken out of the fridge will have the same thing happen, and moisture on the skin makes the skin less crispy. I've found that absorbing moisture from your chicken skin using paper towels just before baking does a better job than the fridge for getting crispy skin.
Bringing meat to room temperature by leaving it out is a bit of an old wives' tale. Kenji Lopez-Alt definitively disproves it in this article. And that's about an inch-thick steak, so it's even more true for a large chicken.
On the other hand, leaving a chicken uncovered in a refrigerator accomplishes two important things:
It dries out the skin (especially on water-chilled birds), making it easier to render off fat and thus create a crispy skin; and
When transferred to an oven directly, it keeps the meat cold for longer when the chicken is in the oven, giving more time for the skin to crisp before the (breast) meat gets overcooked.
Let us continue this discussion in chat. (about how to link to your own content)
That's also the advice Cook's Illustrated gives for roasting a chicken after brining it. +1 for the helpful tip
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.687226
| 2016-07-11T12:25:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71348",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53450
|
How to substitute in baking so the result is both egg- and gluten-free?
What is a good substitute for egg and wheat flour in baking?
I have a friend who is allergic to eggs and I would like to be able to bake for her.
I have another friend who is gluten free.
Can these allergies have combined substitutes?
Tough question. Eggs can serve different purposes: binder, leavening agent, or for moisture. So it depends on what you're baking exactly before you know what the appropriate substitute should be.
If it's a common recipe, some Googling might turn up someone else who's done it successfully.
As for the "gluten-free" person: that sounds like a whole other minefield. I'd just bake something separate rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out a magic combination.
Egg whites and egg yolks contain different allergens, so many (but not all) people who are allergic to eggs are only allergic to one part but can safely eat the other. You might want to ask your friend if he or she is able to eat whites or yolks alone. You could then choose a recipe that only requires that part of the egg.
In general, it is easier to try to find a recipe that is already egg and/or gluten free than to adapt an existing one. Unless you have a recipe that you absolutely love and are willing to spend a few months trying to adapt, I suggest using the power of Google to find new recipes.
Roughly a duplicate of the gluten part of the question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/47791/1672
Hello Jean! Both the substitutions for eggs and for gluten have been asked here before, so if you are asking for them separately, it's practically a duplicate of two other questions. The answers show it too. I will edit it to ask only for a substitutions which work for both allergies at once, because else I'd have to close it as a duplicate. But asking for both at once is an interesting problem which merits its own question - each substitution is hard to pull off by itself, and achieving something which has both at once is much, much harder, so it makes sense to address it.
AFAIK, (which isn't much) there is no one good substitute for eggs in baking. This is because the egg can be there for one or more of several reasons. This includes as a flavorant, emulsifier, moisturizer and leavener. So, I'll address each of these separately.
Flavor - I have yet to find an ingredient or ester I can easily produce to replicate the very eggy taste of eggs. You're best bet is likely a commercial substitute (which also may solve the other issues below).
Emulsification - (Soy) Lecithin. Period. Probably about a tablespoon per egg yolk replaced. If this leaves your recipe too dry...
Moisturizer - Applesauce. Period. The high pectin is an emulsifier as well, and it will moisturize without imparting strong flavor. Alternatively, add more liquid (which see below for gluten notes).
Leavening - Baking powder may do the job here. You may also want to use buttermilk alongside it. If that doesn't work, Xanthan Gum may be worth trying alongside the BP or buttermilk. Use VERY LITTLE XG, it will thicken it up nicely. However...
Gluten. Its what makes bread so bready. As long as what you're making isn't bread (if you need to sub egg out for a whole egg in bread, I got nothin') you can substitute out any flour that's not wheat, rye, or barley based. If you're friend has Celiac Disease, simply not using those flours or any byproducts in a from-scratch recipe should be fine. If your friend has IBS and it's a FODMAP issue, there's quite a few more landmines to avoid, and I recommend asking a nutritionist for specific advice/check a recipe. If it's an allergy to wheat, ask for a list of known allergens from your friend. Best thing to do is have your friend forward the specific diagnosis that their doctor/nutritionist gave them; I'm sure they wouldn't mind so that you can safely cook for them.
It's not quite as easy as just using a different flour though. You'll probably want to use less flour overall, and a mix of different flours to go toward a specific taste and feel.
TLDR; Substitutions are hard. Use rice flour and applesauce, I guess.
Experiment! You can report back with your findings...
It depends on what you're trying to bake.
For cookies and brownies, I've had good luck using ground flax seed plus water. This won't work for items where you need to whip egg whites separately.
As for the gluten, there are plenty of 'gluten free flour replacements' available commercially, but some are better than others for specific items (breads vs. cookies, etc.). See my answer in What are good references for Gluten free baking? . If you're going to be doing this a lot, it may be more cost effective to mix your own, but for the one-off use, go with the mixes.
Note that if you don't use the whole mix, you want to bag it or put it inside some other container, then store it away from your flour. Also, find out if the person has Celiacs, or is gluten sensitive ... if they have Celiacs, just cooking in a kitchen that had flour in it and wasn't fully sanitized might set them off. (eg, do you have an open container or hanging rack with utensils in it? They might have traces of flour on them. As might things in drawers or cabinets, if you went to grab measuring spoons or a pan when you had flour on you)
Easiest thing to do: Google "Egg Free Gluten Free" and pick something. There's a lot.
When substituting eggs for moisture another good substitute is mashed banana. It works similarly to the applesauce.
Rice flour is my favorite glutren-free flour replacement because it's easy to get and cheap from any Asian market/Asian aisle at any big boxed store. Just be careful of this, I have read some people with celiac have trouble with this rice flour as it has a tinnyyy bit of wheat in it and upsets their stomach. But anyone who has just chosen to be gluten free will most likely not mind that the rice flour may have been processed in the same building as wheat.
Oats are my second go to gluten-free thing for baking, but again like the rice flour most of it is cross contaminated with wheat. But you can get gluten free oats fairly cheap, too. I know Bob's Red Mill has some for sure but it will usually say on the box. You can stick oats in a blender/food processor to make them fine before baking.
Somehow I've attracted a lot of people with allergies in my life! Sometimes it's easier to just cook different things for everyone.
For recipes where you don't want to use apples or bananas, I suggest plain yogurt. After baking it is essentially tasteless in cookies or brownies. It will add a slight taste to bread, making it taste a bit like sourdough. Best of all, yogurt serves most of the purposes that eggs do: it adds moisture, acts as a binder, and makes the dough/batter less acidic.
In any recipe, use about 1/3 regular (not fat-free) plain yogurt for each egg.
Most yogurt is gluten-free, but some (especially Greek yogurt) is not. Check the labels or search the name of the brand online.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.687721
| 2015-01-09T17:23:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53450",
"authors": [
"Anna Wark",
"Blaze Wraith",
"Bob Smith",
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Ecoahan",
"Gabriel Rothenberg",
"Jason Schock",
"Johnny Lima",
"Kate Barlow",
"Kimberly Kerrigan",
"Lynn Libron",
"Mariah Eisman",
"Mary Brauer",
"Peter Howse",
"Sairam Obili",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53522
|
Can I replace flour in a soup recipe with a 1 to 1 gluten free flour?
I have celiac disease and must eat a gluten free diet.
I saw a recipe for creamy chicken and mushroom soup, and it looked delicious! However, it called for 1/4 cup all-purpose flour. Would it be better to use a 1 for 1 gluten free all purpose flour or use corn starch instead? If I used corn starch instead, I'm assuming I wouldn't use 1/4 cup....but how much SHOULD I use?
Hello Lisa, welcome and thank you for the question. Our goal is to have questions on specific problems posted here, and people who know the answer provide it, so everybody coming afterwards can learn the solution. This is why we don't allow users for asking for solutions to be sent to them via e-mail or other private channels. We also don't use signatures or "thank you", in order to make the whole more like an easily read reference source than a social occasion. This is why I removed your mail address and greetings.
Can you post the recipe for us? There's a couple different ways to fix your problem, and knowing what else is going into the pot will help us figure-out the best method.
Also, what sort of gluten free flour are you using?
The thickening power of flour comes from the starch and not the protein, so from a food science standpoint this should be fine. Now what they did to remove the protein from the flour may alter the starch in such a way that some undesirable side effects may occur such as clumping/poor flavor, etc. If you want something with a good flavor and great thickening power, try oat flour (not all oat flour is gluten free, though, even though oats do not contain gluten.)
Off-beat suggestions: Many "creamy" soups work fine if you base them on as-is rich coconut milk, without needing a thickener (or just with the slight thickening effect from potatoes in the soup. Never use cornstarch with coconut milk until you really know what you're doing) - look at the various tom kha variants or keralan vegetable stew :). If the soup can bear a tomato base - use the thickening effect of tomato concentrate.
My step daughter also has celiacs/coeliacs disease. We often use all-purpose gluten free flour for soups, cheese sauce and roux etc. I can honestly say there is no noticeable difference. The only thing I would recommend is if the recipe asks you to make a roux don't try and cook out the flour as it will turn lumpy. Instead just melt the butter, add the flour mix it in then go straight in with the milk/cream (all of it, don't do a little at a time, as again it'll go lumpy) I'd stick to the same ratio (1:1) this time and then alter to your liking for next time.
You could by all means use just corn flour but if you want a thick soup and this is the only thickener you may end up with gloop instead. If you do use corn flour it's best to stir it in at the end, mix it with cold water then just add a table spoon of the mixture at a time until it's the right consistency.
There seems to be no clear definition for what "gluten free all purpose flour" is.
If you look at two popular brand you will find that one of them is using rice flour, the other a legume flour as their main ingredient. These two ingredients behave very very differently - rice flour is a starchy affair that is good at making things crisp, legume flours are extremely protein heavy flours which often have strong enough binding properties to make them good egg substitutes. The rest of the mixtures... kind of look like a "broadband thickening" approach, like when you know you want something thickened but not which thickeners will work so you throw a tablespoon of every thickener within a five mile radius in the mixing bowl...
Such mixtures will not all behave the same when used out of their intended application, so unless we are talking a specific brand and product, results are not reliably predictable.
My go-to after cornstarch is potato starch, in the same measures as the recipe would use for cornstarch. Dissolve it first with twice the starch's volume of cold water.
If you don't mind the soup not being clear, oat flour is also a wonderful thickener, and it adds a hint of almost nutty flavor. Use in the same proportion as you would regular flours.
As it's a creamy soup anyway, you might be able to use a trick for thickening stews -- just grate a potato straight into the pot, and let it cook down.
You can also use xanthan gum in soups as a thickener (but not 1:1 in substitution of flour). We use that in our keto diet.
Bob's Mill simple desciption
Wikipedia
Personally I would not use a whole 1/4 cup of flour to thicken a soup. I would use heavy cream and/or blend a portion of the soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.688301
| 2015-01-11T20:19:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53522",
"authors": [
"Amber Tokay",
"Barbara",
"DJ Jameson",
"Dom Glabus",
"Joe",
"John Kerr",
"Kim Gayler",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"S.shankar",
"Therry Neilsen-Steinhardt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"john3103",
"lauren Bailey",
"patrick Molinaro",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.