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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
86406
|
Liquid Nitrogen Ice cream Melting too fast!
I am trying to make ice cream using liquid nitrogen and I am seeing that the ice cream melts very quickly. I'm using a spatula to mix the base with the liquid nitrogen in a vessel.
Initially, I thought maybe I was using too little liquid nitrogen , so I added more liquid nitrogen to the mixture to only see the base forming frozen pieces of ice cream and not in a scoopable format.The scoopable format of ice cream I get starts melting immediately after O stop mixing
I'm currently using 1 part milk,1 part fresh cream & sugar for the base.
Will using corn syrup or a stabilizer like Guar gum solve my issue?
I remember doing this in college, and we used all heavy cream for the liquid. I would think that milk would be too watery and make too many, too large ice crystals, which would make the whole thing freeze too solid at first and then probably melt really quickly when you stop pouring liquid nitrogen. But I'm not a scientist and its been a while since I've done this, so I could be wrong.
You need to keep the container cold.
I used to use a cream and condensed milk recipe to make LN ice cream. It sounds like you're not using enough LN - while you should end up with something scoopable it takes quite a bit of beating to get there.
We tended to work as a team, with one (often me) beating as someone else slowly poured in the LN. This minimised solid lumps (which then needed to be beaten back in). Getting it slightly too hard and then allowing it to soften to the desired texture seems to work well.
In this case I'm the one holding the bowl, while one person stirs and another pours.
You're also probably making it harder for yourself using milk, as the high water content means you'll form much more solid ice.
I imagine that the condensation is making it look more dangerous than it is, but that picture sets off massive alarm bells for me.
@JoshuaEngelI know what you mean. The LN was drizzling in very slowly on a hot humid day so it looks much more impressive than it is. Our cryo-gloves weren't clean enough to be around food, which is why I was holding the outside of the bowl with a towel. Splashes of LN sting a bit but that's all; I'd be more worried about my eyes
That picture alone is worth an upvote!
So i've got a stand mixer now to help me with the mixing part.
I will try using condensed milk instead of milk and try making it.
@user63740 I always fancied trying with a stand mixer. Unfortunately getting it in the same place as the LN would have meant transporting one of them on a bike so it never happened
The reason your scoopable LN2 cooled ice cream melts fast is mostly because un-aerated ice cream needs to be warmer to be scoopable. It is basically at or close to the melting temperature when you are scooping it.
Normally produced Ice cream is usually highly aerated making it softer than expected and easily scoopable at a lower temperature. The aeration also reduces the thermal conductivity of the ice cream which slows down the melting process a bit more.
You can whip some air into the ice cream mix beforehand to make it behave closer to commercially produced ice cream, though it will change the texture in the process. Adding less milk and more cream will also let you whip more air into it.
So I went and got a kitchen aid stand mixer. I can whip air into the mix by running it for sometime before adding the liquid nitrogen.
The ice cream still melts pretty darn fast
Let me try using a wire whip to mix it instead of a beater
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.720386
| 2017-12-15T08:12:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86406",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joshua Engel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63740",
"senschen",
"user3528438",
"user63740"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78542
|
sous vide vs slow cooking
I want to become more consistent in what I cook on a daily basis. One option that I've seen suggested is to prepare the ingredients in bulk and freeze meal-size amounts in ziplock bags (without yet cooking it). Then you can prepare the food by simply putting the package in the slowcooker in the morning and then eating at the end of the day for dinner.
So here are my questions. Can you put a frozen package of food into a slowcooker and can it handle cooking it without needing to defrost the food (even if there's meat will this work)? Additionally, if a slow cooker can't handle such a thing, is it possible to do so with sous vide?
Additionaly, what are the pros and cons of using a slow cooker vs using a sous vide machine?
This is more for slow cooker / crock pot.
If it is single or double meal size and you cut up the meat and other ingredients then you should be fine.
Meal for 4 frozen hard, large pieces, and you are not there to stir it is going to have the bottom more done. You are probably not going to create a food safety issue of any part between 40 F and 140 F for longer than 2 hours.
Pull it before and let it defrost all the way or at least partially in the refrigerator is a much better plan. You would want it defrosted enough that you can spread it out in the pot.
If you are only going to cook a single then get a small slow cooker. Consider two meals and then just refrigerate one - it will be good for 3 days and slow cooker meals tend to reheat nicely.
Can also go the other direction and cook four fresh. Eat one, refrigerate one, and freeze two. Most of the crock meals reheat nicely.
Slow cooker versus sous vide is a bigger question and likely a duplicate.
Can you put a frozen package of food into a slowcooker and can it handle cooking it without needing to defrost the food (even if there's meat will this work)?
I wouldn't risk putting frozen food directly in a slow-cooker. If you are cooking small portions, you could try using the HIGH setting, but it's risky nonetheless. If you choose to use a slow-cooker, I would advise you to incorporate the fridge: leave a day or two's worth of food in the fridge a day before you get cooking, put the rest in the freezer. Then, take food from the fridge rather than the freezer to slow-cook. (Just remember to restock the fridge.)
Slow-cookers generally go up to a max temperature just below boiling (~200 °F). I don't think there are any slow cooker that can't hit at least 175°F (which is roughly the bare minimum needed to soften veggies). (A warm setting will put food around 160°F, but I don't suggest using warm for cooking).
The problem is how long it takes for the slow-cooker to reach these temperatures. I'm assuming your cooker has at least HIGH and LOW settings. According to Crock-Pot, you will hit the upper limit on temperature in about 4 hours on HIGH, and double the time (about 8 hours) on LOW. That's definitely risking it for frozen foods, but for thawed foods it should be fine.
Additionally, if a slow cooker can't handle such a thing, is it possible to do so with sous vide?
Yup, you can do it with sous vide. You don't need to thaw the food beforehand if you go this route (but you could be compromising a little texture if you don't; you would have to test this yourself). The thing about sous vide is that you use water to deliver the heat to the food instead of mostly air, and water is over 20 times more thermally conductive. Furthermore, with a sous vide circulator you get the benefit of convection heating. Just remember to add at least 30 minutes extra time in sous-vide if you are going from frozen. If you want to be extra safe, pre-heat your water bath to the temp you want before putting your food in.
Additionally, what are the pros and cons of using a slow cooker vs using a sous vide machine?
There's a lot that could be said here. I'm biased towards sous vide, as it is much more versatile and precise when you need it to be. You can cook at whatever temperature you want, up to around ~90 C. It does require a bit more research though -- a slow cooker is much simpler to use and setup compared to a sous-vide circulator.
To put it simply: just about anything you can cook in a slow cooker can be cooked in sous-vide (assuming you get a quality nice circulator). The converse isn't true, however. (Not without additional programming and equipment, at least). If you plan to get into cooking I would definitely go the sous-vide route; if you want to keep things extra simple then you could get by with a fridge and crock-pot.
Another thing to note would be the power usage. Slow-cookers win here by a fairly large amount -- they use very little power compared to your standard sous-vide setup. That being said, the difference is much, much smaller if you use a well insulated container for sous-vide, like a cooler.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.720688
| 2017-02-19T19:37:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78542",
"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
}
|
99366
|
What are some methods for parcooking hamburgers?
Im trying to find a faster way to serve cheeseburgers. I was thinking maybe i could par cook 10-15 patties up to 90% done right before rush hour then store them in a steam table with beef broth, then place them back on the grill per order to finish cooking them. Does anybody have any better suggestions?
There's an older question about parcooking and freezing (not recommended), but one of the answers (other than the 'don't do it' ones), advocated for what you're suggesting : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/91723/67
also related (although dealing with fully cooked leftovers): https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/75453/67
Yea, I'm not particular fond off the cooking and freezing method. Thanks I'll check those out! :)
How thick are your patties? Burgers shouldn't take more than a couple minutes each side.
They are 3/4 inche on the edges and about a 1/2 inch in the center.
I need them done in about 5 mins compared to 10-12, most of my customers come on their 30 min lunch break.
For speed and quality this is the perfect application for sous vide cooking. You can cook burgers to varying degrees of doneness. They can hang out in the water bath, at a degree or two below the rarest burger, for up to 2 hours. Just quickly sear or grill to finish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.721077
| 2019-06-04T14:09:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99366",
"authors": [
"Christian Legge",
"Joe",
"Kristen Herring",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75795"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96568
|
Unsweetened or fruit sweetened ice cream - Replacement for sugar in ice cream?
What is the best carb or protein to replace sugar in an ice cream recipe?
I would like to remove cane sugar, artificial sweeteners, honey, maple syrup, xylitol, stevia, erythritol, etc. from my ice cream recipe.
I read in another forum about unsweetened ice cream that sugar adds “bulk” to ice cream insinuating that it is necessary to make a pleasant textured dessert.
I’m thinking banana, tapioca flour, and/or sweet potato may work well because of their thicker consistencies and starch content. Before I attempt this, I would appreciate any advice or concerns.
Cheers!
Side note: I will use an ice cream maker. I will include egg(s) to the recipe. To prevent an icy texture, I will use some vanilla extract and/or another form of alcohol.
No stevia too ?
From a bulk perspective you don't have to replace sugar with anything, you certainly don't need want to add starch to compensate as that will not do favors for your consistency and mouth feel. Sugar helps the consistency of ice cream by reducing ice crystal formation, protein does not, and starch does a bit but makes your ice cream, well, starchy rather than creamy if you add much. Vanilla extract doesn't inhibit ice crystal formation much as it's not enough alcohol unless you add way too much, straight alcohol like vodka is a better choice.
For me the solution isn't bulk, but to make up for the lack of sugar using a stabilizer like guar gum and/or carageenan. Locust bean gum is good for presenting ice crystal formation as well.
Regarding sweetness, fruit isn't a good source of sweetness because of concentration. Most of fruit is water, and to add enough sweetness and fruit flavor you have to add a lot, adding a lot of starch, cellulose and water to your ice cream which isn't good for consistency. When I add fruit for flavor I cook it down into a jam to reduce its water content, this works well for berries, but wouldn't work for starchy fruits like bananas, you might try banana chips instead. I think what without some sort of sweetener it's going to end up pretty bland though.
Excellent answer but I would nitpick a little. Starch and protein both are very effective at reducing crystals in ice cream when they are made into gels. Custards are protein gels and starch gels/pudding are also not uncommon as an ice cream base.
Two things: To prevent ice crystals I use Light Corn Syrup. In a recipe calling for wet ingredients of 2.5 cups heavy cream, 1 tsp pure vanilla extract, 1, 14 ounce can sweetened condensed milk, and 2 tablespoons molasses I used 3 tsp light corn syrup. I made it in the freezer without an ice cream maker and it was very smooth; no ice crystals anywhere.
It appears you are trying to avoid the sweeteners but I am simply trying to give you the proportions of the wet ingredients to the light corn syrup.
This was part of a recipe from Kate Merker and Taylor Murray (and it might have come from "America's Test Kitchen" but I don't remember for sure).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.721218
| 2019-02-26T09:03:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96568",
"authors": [
"Daniel E.",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73074"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125045
|
Can I convert a no-churn icecream recipe to lactose- and sugar-free?
I want to make a no-churn ice-cream for my wife, it needs to be sugar-free and lactose-free. The recipe I found calls for condensed milk and 35% cream. I can find lactose-free cream in the local supermarkets, but I was not able to find any lactose-free condensed milk (not even online). How can I make lactose-free condensed milk the easiest way?
The recipes I found online would make me boil some sweetened milk for some hours,
but they can not guarantee that the thickness at the end will be the same as for store-bought condensed milk,
and I can't really judge when to stop the boiling.
And I also find boiling the milk for hours too tedious.
So I thought about using lactase enzyme (which I guess is used in the production of lactose-free milk).
I am not sure about how to dose it?(If there are online resources available, please link them.)
I've seen this answer while writing this question, but it does not say whether to add the lactase to condensed milk or normal milk, and does not say to which amount of (condensed) milk to add the specified amount of lactase.
(Note: I know the linked recipe uses coffee liqueur, which probably contains sugars + probably the condensed milk he uses also contains sugars. I would replace them with sweetener + flavouring.)
Additional question: would the recipe work without sugar? He says that the ice-crystall formation is slowed down by the condensed milk. Not sure whether this would be the same for lactose-free sugar-free condensed milk and not using alcohol. (According to this answer, it might work, but I might need something else to tie up the water - alcohol is not an option.)
Cooking breaks down the sugars, so as condensed milk has been cooked (to condense and to can), it might not have as much lactose as you think. (But I would still try to substitute with cream of coconut (coconut cream with extra sugar) or something else)
Do you churn ice cream? I thought you churned butter?
@NeilMeyer Ice cream is normally "churned" (processed in a "scraped surface heat exchanger", for the food science folks) and indeed dairy ice cream may well come out with some butter on the blades of the churn (not ideal, but if it's churned too much while too warm that will happen, as opposed to forming lots of small ice crystals as the intent of the SSHE is.)
I don't think this recipe is suitable for you.
The reason the recipe works is that the condensed milk brings in the needed sugar. Condensed milk has 22g of sugars per 40g, which should translate to around 3g lactose and 19g added sugar. 300 g of condensed milk bring you 165g of total sugars, and 750ml cream would have another 30g of lactose. If you try to make both products lactose- and sugar-free, you'd have zero sugar in there, and no ice cream.
Sugar-free ice cream is generally made with inulin. You can go look for a inulin-based recipe. Also, you might look for "vegan ice cream" recipes - usually sorbets - to make sure it's lactose-free. Trying to concoct it on your own, especially if you don't have an ice-cream machine and are looking for no-churn recipes, will probably end up with an unpleasant crystalized texture.
Coconut cream (or milk) allows for making vegan "ice cream" (or "eye scream") that is not sorbet. Nut butters are another option depending on flavor - the coconut tends to be less of an impact on overall flavor. Sorbet is all very well but gets tedious when your milk-intolerant person really wants ice cream.
It is probably worth mentioning that inulin can have a really amazing effect on the internal gas production.
@j4nd3r53n is that what they put in the infamous gummy bears?
Inulin is used primarily as a filler to provide more body and improved texture, but it has nearly no effect on the freezing point. When calculating an ice cream recipe it accounts only for 10% for the freezing point depression of sugar (sucrose) and even less compared to mono-saccharides. The only option I would see to work completely without sugars would be to use sugar substitutes (Aspartam, Cyclamat, Xylitol, ...) for sweetness and some alcohol to get down the freezing point.
I see no reason that lactose-free condensed milk couldn’t exist, but I’ve never seen it either. I have, however, seen condensed coconut milk in various places. If you can find that and don’t mind a mild coconut taste (likely covered up by the coffee) it should work fine in that recipe
But it won’t work for your needs — and neither will that recipe — because both contain sugar. Sugar is important in ice cream recipes; if you want a lower-sugar ice cream it’s best to look for a recipe for that, rather than modifying a regular-sugar recipe. Do not replace sugar with “sweetener” when making ice cream.
There’s a product called ‘cream of coconut’ which has extra sugar added. I’ve never compared it directly to condensed milk, though
@Joe It's similar but thinner... not sure how well it would work, but it probably is the easiest thing of its sort to find.
There's also coconut cream with no sugar added, which can make navigating recipes calling for either one somewhat chancy if the recipe writer was not crystal clear which product they meant...
@Ecnerwal There's "cream of coconut", "creamed coconut", and "coconut cream". Best to infer from context, I think. Only "cream of coconut" will be available at a store that doesn't also sell fermented shrimp paste, and "creamed coconut" will likely be measured in weight, and will always be chopped or dissolved.
There is such a thing as lactose-free condensed milk - Nestle La Lechera do one {Amazon link - no endorsement just the easiest to find}
It is definitely not sugar-free and so would not help the OP, but added in case it is useful for other people.
How can I make lactose-free condensed milk the easiest way?
Just how they do it in the factory: Add lactase. It really is this simpe. YOur wife should already have lactase pills at home, crush them (first google how much you need) and add the result to the regular condensed milk. They do exactly that (well, without having their lactase pressed into pills first) in the factory where they make lactose free stuff
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.721477
| 2023-08-22T05:59:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125045",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"J. Mueller",
"Joe",
"Neil Meyer",
"Sneftel",
"htmlcoderexe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"j4nd3r53n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103436
|
How can I make my tomato-herb pasta sauce a lighter color?
I've been making a simple tomato sauce using tomato puree, basil, oregano, dried pasilla peppers, and garlic (as well as the left-over bits from cooking beef meatballs in the same pot). The flavor is good, but the sauce is visually very dark: a dark red that isn't very appetizing. I think this is because of the amount of basil I'm adding, but I'm not sure.
What techniques can I use or changes can I make to my recipe that will lighten the color closer to the red color of the tomato base, without changing the flavor too much?
how thick is your tomato purée ? are we talking passata or something else ?
How finely chopped do you add the basil and oregano? Dried or fresh? Fresh herbs are best if added at the end of cooking, and you could keep them in larger pieces to have a "green flecks in red sauce" appearance instead of a dark red
A pasta sauce, yes, so fairly thick. I've been using dried herbs; the typical name brand from a bottle type.
Store bought sauce are usually already thick (reduced( and usually only require heating up.
Maybe too much basil, depending on how much you are using. It really only takes a couple of leaves to add flavor, if you are using fresh. I would not recommend dried. You are probably also getting color from the dried pasilla pepper. You could leave that out. If you want a hit of pepper, add some to your final presentation. Cooking time will also effect the color of a tomato sauce. Try cooking for a shorter time. My basic tomato sauce cooks for 20 - 30 minutes.
If the dried herbs are the reason for the dark color: Try substituting them with fresh herbs, in larger pieces, added towards the end of cooking, which should result in a "green flecks in red sauce" appearance that you may like better.
If the reason is something else or you don't have access to fresh herbs, you could try adding a little bit of cream/cream cheese/sour cream/mascarpone to your sauce. This will lighten the color, but since you have a lot of green stuff you might not end up with a good-looking red color, so try that with a small portion of your sauce first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.722051
| 2019-11-12T22:27:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103436",
"authors": [
"Aetherfox",
"Max",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3191
|
How do cooks prepare belly pork in a restaurant?
In a similar style to the question on preparing risotto in restaurants..
When cooking belly pork, to a texture that's soft, tender and still moist, long cook times at a low temperature (around 150 degrees celsius for 3 to 4 hours) are generally required, yet when ordering it in a restaurant it obviously doesn't take that long to arrive at the table!
My question therefore is, what tricks or techniques do restaurant chefs use to serve belly pork on demand. Can it be cooled and re-heated later, or is there another "trick" that's used?
Along with the braised suggestions in another answer. Another way of pre-cooking pork belly employed by some restaurants is to confit it in lard in a similar way to how you confit duck.
This requires a couple of days notice to prepare as you need to give it an overnight cure and then after the confit process let it cool and set in the fat but once done it will keep for quite a long time and when needed can be quickly fried to crisp up and reheat (using some of it's stored in lard as the fat to fry with).
This method provides a more unctious and rich pork belly but as you can imagine is even more calorific than braised pork belly.
This site has a recipe for confit pork belly that to top off the unhealthiness finishes the meat by crisping it in a deep fat fryer. I have yet to try it but I imagine it is amazing!
Heart attack central! Will have to try this out..
Read "Modernist Cuisine", this has been proved probably false
Proved what probably false?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.722240
| 2010-07-25T18:13:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3191",
"authors": [
"Alez",
"Brian Kyckelhahn",
"Carl",
"Kevin Ji",
"Mychol",
"Preston",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"flashnode",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/719",
"nunu"
],
"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
}
|
14351
|
What is the best way to douse a charcoal grill?
When the heat of a charcoal grill gets too hot, what is the best way to douse the fire; the objective being to lower the temperature without putting the fire out completely?
How much water should be used when burning charcoal in a very primitive grill or pit without a lid or adjustable vents, and how should it be added (poured, sprayed, etc.)?
I often find it difficult to get water sprayed on the coals instead of the meat. What I do is simply putting the lid on the grill for some time. The lack of oxygen starves the fire.
Thanks @johnny. Actually-- I referred to the Weber format only to provide a sense of the size. In actual fact I'm wondering how to reduce the heat on a very primitive grill (or pit) without a lid or vents. Sorry for the confusion. I have edited the question to clarify.
Ok, then I'd use a spray can with water. Set the nozzle somewhere between mist and "solid" water (avoid ash flying around)
I'm sorry, spray can doesn't really mean what I thought. I can't find a picture either. What I suggest you use is the same as you spray water on plants and flowers with. Shower can?
Instead of dousing the coals, in a primitive setup, you would be better served to manipulate distance from heat source as your form of temperature control. It can be as simple as adding or removing bricks to space your grill from your flame, or as complicated as a pulley-based system to raise or lower your grate.
Using water will cause your coals to smolder, which can give off creosote (less likely with charcoal than wood, but still a possibility). This can impart a rather nasty flavor into your food.
If you are unable to or uncomfortable with changing your grate distance, then salt or some other dry smothering agent would be viable.
Add some coals over the hot ones and/or reduce airflow some other way (many grills have slits or vents to control airflow, play with those, close them partially).
Both should reduce heat output (adding coals of course will mean the grill will burn for longer and will eventually heat up again).
I'd not throw water or other liquids on it. Only makes a mess :)
South American style toss salt over the coals. Works well, looks sassy, but makes a big salty mess
More practically just use fully combusted cold ashes from previous fires. Gently scatter them over hot coals to reduce airflow and lower temperature for a while. Use a large tin with big holes punched in the lid to makes handling and shaking easy, or just get messy and scatter by hand
Hardwood ashes that have been quickly sifted should not be too dusty so as to make a mess with the food
Heaping some pre-soaked (apple, etc) wood atop the embers cools coals and creates steam and smoke. For more info, read up on smoking food in a barbeque.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.722427
| 2011-04-26T06:35:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14351",
"authors": [
"Zippy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5267",
"johnny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92648
|
What is the thick white substance in my pasta water?
As you can see in the pic, the water in my pasta has a thick white substance. All I did was water, pasta, salt, boil.
What is this substance?
Is it a sign of overcooking, should the well cooked pasta be in clear water only?
How do I avoid it?
how much salt? how much water? boil for how long? How much water evaporated?
It is basically a gooey starch "gravy." Boiling noodles adds water to noodles but also extracts some starch from them. So it just starch water as if you had added flour to water.
It also looks as if the pasta was boiled and left with the water in the pan and has now started to break down.
@yetanothercoder yes, I did that. However I didn't see a problem with it. I would cook, leave then reheat. Would you be able to elaborate why this practice and perhaps reheating should be avoided.
@JamesWilson If you leave the cooked pasta in the water it'll keep absorbing water and in turn become mushy. Preferably after cooking the pasta you should strain the pasta and rinse it with cold water to stop the cooking process. After that you can add some oil (though I've been told certain people will say doing this is sacrilege) to the pasta and mix it through to prevent it from sticking. Use what you need and store the rest in an airtight container after letting it cool. Alternatively if your making a sauce for the pasta you can mix the sauce in with the pasta straight away.
@JamesWilson: This probably also explains why your pasta tastes watery - as you asked in your other question. I assume you're trying to cook pasta the way rice are cooked/steamed with a limited amount of water. Pasta doesn't work the same way.
@yetanothercoder thanks for answer. Makes sense. How does one reheat the stored pasta, boil in water again? Would that make it mushy again or not as much since it wouldn't boil for as long. thanks.
Like MaxW said, it's starchy water. This happens because
Pasta is made from flour, water, and sometimes egg—that means it’s basically just starch and protein rolled out into different shapes and dried. It’s the starch molecules that are important. Once they’re heated in a moist environment—like your pot of water—the starch will absorb more and more water until it finally bursts. That sends little starch molecules into your water, resulting in white foam.
It is not a sign of overcooking. But your picture is a visible sign that there is not enough water in the pot.
To avoid it, use a bigger pot and use more water. You haven't mentioned how much water you have used for how much pasta. The Culinary Institute of America teaches one gallon of water per pound of pasta. Also, make sure you don't skip the most important step of bringing your water to "boiling" stage before you add in your pasta. Stir as soon as you add the pasta because this is when the first layer of starch is released and pasta can clump together. If there is not enough water at this stage, starchy water will look something similar to your picture. Stir your pasta often while it's boiling.
Edit:
As it is kindly pointed out by Joe in comments, you may not necessarily need to use a full gallon of water per pound of pasta according to this article. However, you still need enough to cover the pasta and then pasta swells as well, as it cooks.
It's been shown that you don't need a full gallon of water. (although, you do want it to cover the pasta, and the pasta's going to swell as it hydrates). See https://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html
@Joe but erring on the side of more water will also help in preventing the "starchy mud" issue in the question by simply dilluting it more...
@Stephie : there's another article from Keiji, in which he talks about how you want the starchy water : https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/does-pasta-water-really-make-difference.html . See the related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/77150/67
Cheaper brands of noodles tend to do this more. Durham wheat is a nice ingredient to see on a pasta label.
Durham wheat is prized for its gluten content... which of course results in an incompatibility with some humans.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.722687
| 2018-10-04T01:27:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92648",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Ess Kay",
"James Wilson",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17753
|
How to treat your saffron right?
Similar to this question, but not the same (by the way, I like Hobodave's answer).
What's the correct way to treat saffron to get most of the flavor?
I've seen the following methods:
Let the stems soak in a cup of lukewarm water.
Warm the stems in oil on a slow flame.
Wrap the stems in aluminum paper and put it close to a heat source (so it can warm up).
Fry the stems.
Soak in white wine for 20' (as per Peter Taylor's comment).
I'm talking about expensive (stem only) saffron. Should the stems be crushed (before or after soaking)?
The method I usually use is the first one.
I've heard that grinding/crushing the saffron before soaking drastically reduces the required soaking time with no ill effect on the flavor. By the way, the "stem only" saffron is really comprised of stamens, not stems.
I've also heard of letting it soak in warm milk ... mainly in Indian dishes.
I think the biggest reason to not crush it is cosmetic- so you get the little red lines in the finished product.
one Italian trick to extract as much as possible from saffron for risotto alla milanese is to fill a ladle with hot stock, add the saffron "threads" and then mash them into stock with a spoon. The stock will become a beautiful golden color. Of course stock contains water and fat...
That's what I've heard, warm, not boiling, stock.
I have seen that some of the flavours/colours in saffron are fat soluble and some water soluble, so soaking in milk should work well. I have also seen recipes that recommend crushing into wine vinegar - I haven't tried this yet but it might be worth testing.
As Joe commented, that's for Indian dishes, mostly. Very interesting, though.
The best way is that you blend your saffron by a bit of suger and then in glass cup of warm water solve then by a slow flame(indirect) warm it. I use water steam for warming, after 20 min it would be in the best color and taste.
Never heard of that, but I'll give it a try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.723047
| 2011-09-15T10:43:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17753",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"John Slade",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"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
}
|
33273
|
Why does broccoli turn brown when steaming?
I steam my broccoli until it's 'al dente' and some buds turn brown. I've done a small search, but haven't found anything.
I'm thinking maybe the steam is too hot or I'm steaming too long. What do you think?
it's from oxidation
Consider blanching rather than steaming. You can blanch in boiling water for 30 seconds to about 2 minutes, depending on desired tenderness, then ice water shock it to set the color. The color usually even survives reheating. Steaming always takes longer and almost always results in a pale or undesirable color; blanching allows the color to stay vibrant green.
@JasonTrue, next time I think I'll try blanching.
further to SAJ14SAJ's answer, what happens is the Magnesium atom in the bright green Chlorophyll is lost in acidic conditions and you end up with Pheophytin which is Olive Green.
There are other reactions at play mediated by the enzyme Chlorophyllase which can be active even in frozen storage.
The main reason for blanching (hot water part) is to stop this enzyme's activity. The ice bath is to stop the cooking process and the magnesium loss.
This short presentation from Purdue University explains this along with the molecular structure if you're interested.
The presentation states that green vegetables are blanched to end enzyme activity, to preserve the natural green colour.
Per the transcript of Alton Brown's Good Eat's episode If It Ain't Broccoli, Don't Fix It:
Inside broccoli, nice, bright green chlorophylls are kept separate
from acidic elements by cell walls. But if you overcook the broccoli,
the cell walls can collapse, and the acids can attack, turning our
nice, bright green chlorophylls into a sad, dingy gray.
This would let other pigments reveal themselves, turning making the appearance of your broccoli yellowish or brownish. Your picture shows that the individual florets seem to be most effected, which are the smallest and easiest parts to cook on the broccoli.
So it may simply be an issue of overcooking the little florets.
Later in the transcript, Brown recommends a hybrid method of cooking, giving different treatment to the stalks and florets to minimize this effect.
According to The Happy Scientist, raising the pH with baking soda will prevent the enzymes from effecting the chlorophyll, but this would be difficult to apply when steaming, and of course it also would have the unfortunate side effect of turning the broccoli mushy.
Personally, I prefer to roast broccoli rather than steam it. It is a little slower, but can be very effective, and of course, a different type of browning is somewhat expected :-)
I've also seen this when the broccoli had sprouted. The florets have bits of yellow, and it really looks ugly when cooked.
@SAJ14SAJ in your answer the statement 'lowering the pH with baking soda' is incorrect. Bakingsoda is Alkaline and has a pH of >7 (9~10), by adding baking soda to an Acidic solution (pH less than 7), you'd be raising the pH.
@MandoMando Must have been a brain moment... thanks for catching it.
well the brown is from oxidation(just about anything can be oxidized) by the exposure to water.
Yellow on the other hand is most likely from the broccoli starting to have blossoms in the florets that eventually produce seeds.
Hm, the other two answers say it's not oxidation, but rather other reactions with the chlorophyll. And if it turns yellow or yellow-brown when cooking (as in the picture), that's definitely not from blossoms - they'd have been there before. (And even if it's yellow before cooking, it likely is just the chlorophyll going; you'll see leafy greens turn yellow too, and they're obviously not flowering.)
but browning of food is likely caused by oxidation(I know this from apples turning brown as I eat them and how that is caused by oxidation and potatoes do it for the same reason) As far as the yellow for greens it is the same reason we get yellow leaves in the fall. However for broccoli not only is that a possibility but blossoming is also a possibility.
Yes, that type of browning is due to oxidation. But this isn't the same thing - it's what MandoMando described in detail. And yes, like I said, yellow before cooking is likely from chlorophyll loss (which is why leaves yellow in the fall as well). And also like I said, blossoming is a possibility but you'd notice it before cooking, not just after. (And it's also way less common than chlorophyll loss in storebought broccoli, and if you look closely is obviously different - the yellow flowers are distinct from the green parts.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.723308
| 2013-04-06T15:30:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33273",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Caters",
"Chef Banks",
"Dave Brown",
"Debbie Ball",
"GdD",
"JasonTrue",
"MandoMando",
"Nancy Bergh Zewiey",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shane Reilly",
"Susan",
"auden",
"esther",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77159",
"shani003",
"user129751",
"woodserino"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25978
|
Can I safely freeze my yogurt marinated chicken?
I marinated chicken thigh fillets 2 and a half days ago in a Turkish marinade (Yogurt, chili paste, garlic, ginger, dried mint and salt), and its been sitting in my fridge ever since. I don't think that I'll be cooking it anytime soon, but I don't want to throw it away because it's a lot of chicken. Can someone please tell me:
If yogurt or chili help it marinate and keep for longer or do they have an adverse affect.
If the chicken might still be good to cook if I was to freeze it for a couple of days and then defrost it and cook it. I know once defrosted, I will have to cook all of it.
I have been in this situation before and I did try freezing it. When I used it later on, it did taste and feel OK, but as you would expect, not the real fresh taste.
I do not think the ingredients in the marinade will have any effect while it is frozen. While thawing, the yogurt might split, leaving more than usual water, but that shouldnt alter much of the outcome. It will be still good after defrosting; I would normally defrost by leaving the item in the refrigerator overnight, rather than quick methods like microwaving or even leaving at room temperature on the kitchen counter.
Thanks for your help. Will defrost and use in a couple of days
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.723765
| 2012-09-04T09:58:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25978",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35465
|
Can I replace a food processor in this brownie recipe?
I'd like to make a "healthy" brownie recipe, but the instructions ask for a food processor, which I don't have. I thought about using a blender, but I've read it won't come out right using a blender.
Here's what the instructions say:
Combine the black beans, dates, jam, and vanilla in a food processor and process until smooth. Add the flour, cocoa powder, and salt and process again.
What can I use instead of a food processor?
Food processors are wonderful kitchen tools, but they have only existed for a relatively short while. The techniques used prior to their invention still work, but are much more labor intensive.
Use a food mill.
Use a mortar and pestle.
The results can then be forced through a sieve of chinoise if desired to get a smoother result.
You have not mentioned in your recipe whether the beans are cooked. I am guessing that they are from the other ingredients they were to be processed with. If so, the food mill should work very well.
If they are not, and you are essentially making a bean flour, the mortar and pestle would be more appropriate, although a lot of work.
I know this is a broad question, but if I were to use a food mill, how much longer (approximately) would that same step take compared to a food processor?
Depends on how much food, but probably less than 5 minutes.
No, you can use the blender. Use the slowest speed and manually do short pulses (1 second on, 2 seconds off).
You may have to use a spatula and mix it to get an even result. The pauses are so that the food doesn't get too hot (friction from the blades can actually boil things). Stop early, it's easy to make an unrecognizable paste in the blender.
The problem is that if the ingredients are wet enough to stick to the sides but not liquid enough to flow down, you'll coat the inside of the blender before you manage to blend it smooth. This might fall in that range.
@jefromi that's where immersion blenders come in. (I am aware that the OP might not have one, but if he has both, the i.b. is probably the better solution).
Even in a normal blender, you'd push down the stuff with a spatula (blender off), repeat a couple of times and you're there.
If you're going for a smooth batter, probably need a food processor. If you don't mind some chunks, very finely dice with a chef's knife. It will take longer, but you should get there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.723917
| 2013-07-22T00:57:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35465",
"authors": [
"Anita2020",
"Autumn Carroll-Holcomb",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Bangasser",
"Cjen1",
"MandoMando",
"MarkE",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82991",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69440
|
Is rice supposed to be eaten with chopsticks?
This question is about cultural norms and tradition. In Asian countries, is rice intended to be eaten with chopsticks? I heard this is a western misconception, as rice is too hard to pickup with chop sticks (though in my opinion if it's sticky rice it's manageable). Is rice supposed to be eaten with a spoon in Chinese cuisines? I'm not expert, but I noticed Chinese cuisines normally have more loose rice, compared to Japanese cuisines where the rice is often wrapped in seaweed.
It is also a matter of what variety of rice. East Asian countries tend to use short grain rice (sometimes referred to as "sticky rice") that is easier to manage with chopsticks because the clumps don't fall apart easily. Also rice is often served in a bowl can be easily held closer to your mouth, whereas in the west we generally eat from a plate on a table. In the west long grain rice is more popular, but the grains don't stick together well.
Things like chicken fried rice are rather hard to eat with chopsticks.
There are a lot of Asian countries and even more cultures, and many of them don't use chopsticks at all, like the entire Indian sub-continent as one example. It's fairly common in some countries, like Sri Lanka, for people to eat with their hands, not a fork, a spoon, or chopsticks.
This is a really broad question involving too many countries and cultures to give a good, detailed answer to.
The Chinese cultural norm is to eat rice with chopsticks. It would be very inconvenient to constantly switch back and forth between eating with chopsticks and a spoon depending upon whether you were eating rice or vegetables or meat.
To get around the loose grain problem, you can use the shovel method. You pick up your bowl and use a shoveling motion with your chopsticks to eat.
This video illustrates the shovel method as well as picking up clumps of rice.
Didn't know about the cultural norm, but when eating with chopsticks, I eat rice with them for exactly that reason: Too much of a hassle to switch. Switching also automatically makes the meal much more of a cognitive effort (do I want rice now...or something I can pick up with chop sticks) , instead of something enjoyed. And if you do it enough times, especially when you're hungry or with people to whom it's second nature, you will quickly grasp the mechanics, beauty, and efficiency of the shovel method :)
For what it's worth, in Korea, it is normal to switch back and forth between a spoon for rice and chopsticks for everything else.
In Japanese food, I would say you use chopsticks to eat white rice that comes in a rice bowl. Japanese rice is short/medium grained and sticks together so you can pick up clumps at a time. You also learn to pick up single grains, so as not to leave a single grain in the bowl at the end of the meal. This is good manners.
Someone mentioned the shovel method, which is also acceptable when eating rice in liquid, like ocha-zuke (rice in tea) or tamago-gohan (raw egg rice). Regarding eating a plain bowl rice, men, children and hungry people are often portrayed eating with the shovel method, but this isn't considered particularly fantastic manners outside of home, and especially not very ladylike for women ;)
There are exceptions, like when you eat curry and rice, or stir fried rice - generally rice that comes on a plate (and is therefore an introduced food) - you would a spoon, not chopsticks.
for the spoon case: spoons are also used for rice mixed into ramen broths and/or nabe as the texture is very much like a congee :-D
In Southeast Asia, rice is not eaten with chopsticks. A fork and spoon is used for jasmine rice, and hands are used for sticky rice.
Chopsticks are only used in these countries for noodle dishes, and not always even then.
Asia is a very large place, and both cultural norms and types of rice vary widely. Here's a quick overview, but even this is painting with pretty wide brush strokes.
Japan and China: Rice is typically short grain, and eaten with chopsticks. Some dishes where grains separate, like fried rice, are eaten with Chinese-style short porcelain spoons.
Korea: Rice is typically short grain, but eaten with a long metal spoon.
South-East Asia: Rice is typically medium grain (jasmine etc), and traditionally eaten by hand. These days, most people eat rice dishes with a spoon and fork; however, the glutinous (sticky) rice common in Laos and northern Thailand is still eaten by hand, and the Chinese diaspora maintains Chinese customs.
South Asia and the Middle East: Rice is typically long grain (basmati etc) and traditionally eaten by hand, although fork and spoon are increasingly common.
The norm is chopsticks. A couple of factors. As mentioned by others, if the rice is a stickier variety, it's easier to grab the clumps.
The bigger variety is how you use it. Observe some Asians eating rice. Usually the bowl is lifted to the mouth, and the chopsticks are used to push/shovel the rice, not pick it up.
Depends on the rice. Don't eat long-grain (e.g. basmati) or wild rices with chopsticks - it will be a waste of your time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.724288
| 2016-06-03T10:16:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69440",
"authors": [
"Celeritas",
"LMAshton",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"lambshaanxy",
"user3169",
"xuq01"
],
"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
}
|
18790
|
Is there any advantage to adding salt to onion while frying?
Is there any advantage to adding salt to onion while frying itself rather than adding it the last? My friends say it removes moisture from onion.
Is it true? Why is removing moisture from onion important?
It is true, in my experience. However, if your recipe does not require salt, you should not be adding it, of course. Removing moisture from onion with the aid of salt helps it reach its desired state (brown or translucent, as desired) faster.
I am most familiar with the use of onion in Indian cooking. I generally add a pinch or two of salt to onion when I start sauteing it. Onion starts sweating as soon as you add salt and start stirring.
The reason that salt draws out moisture from onion is osmotic pressure. The surface of the onion acts as a semipermeable membrane barrier. Since the solution outside the onion is more concentrated with respect to salt, water moves out of the onion to the general liquid side, to balance the osmotic pressure on either side of the onion surface.
The drawing out of water occurs when you have a salt solution on both sides of a semipermeable membrane. When you put onion, salt and oil in a pan, you don't have a salt solution on the outside of the onion. So no drawing out of water here. I am sure that your onion sweats after you put it on the hot plate and salt it, but it isn't because of the salt.
@rumtscho: I figured that the water from the sweating onions would create a thin layer of salty water on the outside.
Adding salt while frying onions has two advantages.
It helps to remove the water from onion easily (only if the water is completely removed does the onion get fried).
The salt helps increase the boiling point of water extracted from the onion, which means instead of 100°C water now boils at say 125°C. This high temp helps to cook/fry the onion faster.
Adding salt produces a small effect on boiling temperature, maybe a degree or two, it would be nowhere near 125c.
Once the onion is dry enough, though, the temperature it is getting cooked at is significantly higher.
As @Avinash said, salt helps draw water from onion. As the onion cooks in it's own juices we obtain that caramalized or translucent texture. Alternatively, small quantities of water can be added to obtain the same goal, albeit much slower.
Adding water will tend to steam or even boil the onions for a bit, which might not be what you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.724750
| 2011-11-06T14:42:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18790",
"authors": [
"Al Gallo",
"Anita churchill",
"Cascabel",
"Gloria Davies",
"Greene King BB Digital",
"Jessb",
"Kane Montreuil",
"MKHC",
"Marek Pavlovič",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"roger gann",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39870
|
Freeze friendly baked side dishes
No matter how much I love baked food, I cannot avoid a guilty feeling with the environment whenever I turn my oven on.
Normally I try baking as much as possible in one go to make a better use of the space. Recently I am wondering which type of baked food (ingredients or companions, not full dishes) are OK to freeze and reuse later as a side dish or part of other recipes?
Although I understand that the flavor will change, I am looking for food that can be baked and still be acceptable later as a side dish itself or part of one.
For example, I was planning baking a batch of bell peppers and see how they test as unfrozen side dish. I also love baked eggplant, but since it is so juicy, the taste loss will be far more dramatic.
Are you asking if you can freeze vegetables to cook with later? The answer is generally yes, but most need to be prepared or par-cooked in some way, and the outcome may be different than fresh. Still, this question is very broad and hard to answer. Can you narrow it down or make it more focused?
My question is more for home-survival than home-wanna-be-chef. I want to add some "baked" feeling to my cooking. More than just freezing vegetables, I am looking for already "baked vegetables" or side-dish-recipe that can be frozen and retain later some tiny part of the "baked" feeling. It is not intended to be used as a full dish, but as a companion of other dish. Yes, it will not be as great as fresh, but from a home-economics perspective, I want to make good use of the oven once I warm it up. This might not be very specific, but I have no idea about where to start experimenting.
Most things baked in a casserole will freeze well ... in part it's because you have a container that's got a relatively low surface to mass ratio, and only exposed to evaporation on one side.
That being said, when you say 'a guilty feeling with the environment', if you're talking about an enviromentalist type perspective, then cooking, freezing, then cooking again is not energy efficient. (your energy, sure ... but not electricity & gas ... unless it's the trips to the store that you're avoiding).
There are a fair number of cookbooks out there for what's called 'freezer cooking' or 'once a month cooking'. You should find a few websites if you search on those terms. (and we've even had a question about it before).
Stuff that's fully cooked and frozen can be defrosted and eaten cold if it's palatable that way, I suppose...
@Yamikuronue : I've been trying to think of something that might fit, and I'm not having much luck. The only thing I could think of were some custard pies, which I don't know that I'd describe as a 'side disk'. Even for savary, the only thing I can think of is quice, which I'd use as a main, not a side (and I don't know how well it freezes)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.724984
| 2013-11-29T11:44:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39870",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SystematicFrank",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"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
}
|
57298
|
Marinade with or with out sugar?
I want to marinade some meat to infuse with some flavors.
(Ribs as it happens, with liquid smoke, whiskey, orange liqueur, spices)
I was about to put in some brown sugar as well; but I was wondering if that would work against me.
Reasoning: The sugar will draw out moisture from meat. So the general flow will be out rather than into the meat.
(I am planning on adding some sugar, hoisin sauce, etc; tomorrow when I bake them (before grilling them))
However most marinades I have seen have sugar in them.
Is there some reason for that; or is it just easier to put all the flavors in, in one go?
Drawing moisture out is part of the process, you have to draw moisture out to get other things in. Meat generally has plenty of moisture to spare.
I ended up splitting up my batch in two. One I added maple syrup and brown sugar. It did make a difference. One batch was dryer and had less whiskey flavors. However I mixed up which one it was, while serving. (Doh!) So I am going to have to try again. I will advise when I have repeated the experiment a couple of times.
Yes, the sugar will temporarily draw some moisture from the meat. However, that sugar/water solution will also gradually diffuse into the meat, and the sugar will end up pulling in more water in the long-term.
In any case, the effect is usually small, and any (probably temporary) moisture loss will only be from the outermost 1/8" or so of meat, which will likely dry out in the cooking process anyway. (To see how the marinade mostly works on only the outermost layer of meat, see some of the photographs at this link.) The interior of the meat will likely not lose any moisture at all, particularly in a wet marinade.
Over many hours or days, small molecules like salt and sugar in a marinade will be able to penetrate beyond the surface layer and flavor the meat, but the process of moving beyond the surface is quite slow.
Mostly, one includes sugar in a marinade to thoroughly coat the surface of the meat with sugar, which will aid in browning reactions that enhance the flavor of cooked meat. Too much sugar can cause the surface to brown excessively or char, but a little will significantly enhance the flavor of the outer layer.
Worth noting that the orange liqueur will contain a reasonable dose of sugar, probably enough to contribute to browning quite nicely.
@logophobe There was only a couple of teaspoons, but good call. Will have to test that next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.725217
| 2015-05-08T09:57:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57298",
"authors": [
"Amie Ceesay",
"Anne Mclean",
"Chuck Duda",
"DarcyThomas",
"GdD",
"Kathy Archibald",
"Primary Care",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6518
|
Can you use a convection oven to make a Soufflé?
I separated this question from the original as there were no answers.
Yes, you can. In professional kitchens, virtually all ovens are convection, and they work just fine. You may need to reduce the heat about 25 degrees.
I lower by 25 degrees (F) with all recipes when I convert to convection. Should I not do it with some?
My Kitchenaid combination oven has a soufflé setting!
Have you made a soufflé in it? Manufacturers write all sorts of things on their products; it doesn't always mean that they're well-suited to the task.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.725440
| 2010-09-01T18:22:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6518",
"authors": [
"CAT",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75451",
"justkt"
],
"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
}
|
109930
|
What's the proper way to slice cherub tomato for sandwiches that maximizes tomato flavor?
I buy cherub tomatoes because I can use them all week in a variety of dishes and meals.
I'm looking for the best way to slice them for sandwiches to maximize the tomato flavor in a bite. I don't need to have tomato flavor in every bite, but when I do get it, I want to taste it.
I have two tomatoes of equal size. I slice one vertically in half, one horizontally in circles:
Put on bread, it looks like they take up about the same amount of surface.
It seems to me that the vertical, half slices produce more tomato flavor. Is there any cooking lore or guidance on how to slice things to get specific taste results?
i voted to reopen. As the op is asking whether a style of cut yields a better flavor release
Agreed, I'm looking for lore or guidance on how to get a specific taste result that can settle the debate. I'm happy to add a TL;DR and move my question further up in the post.
I think "how to slice things" may end up being too broad even if it is not considered too subjective. (Tomatoes have a a different composition than, say, a carrot or potato.)
@JC007B I have attempted to edit your question to hopefully be more objectively answerable. Feel free to change or undo if you are unhappy with the edit.
I would like to know how to slice them so they don't slide around so much. An issue I have when putting them on a hamburger.
The reason I closed is that the taste intensity is not all that dependent on objectively measurable criteria, and out of those which are measurable, slicing wouldn't contribute much. We could reopen and let people write answers which assume that all criteria besides the tomato slicing are being held equal, and discuss any effects which might then appear in the measurable factors - but the problem would be how to explain to people that, if such an answer finds slicing type A better than slicing type B, that this doesn't mean that people will (or should) find sandwiches with slicing type A...
... tastier than sandwiches with slicing type B. Or, said another way, we can formulate the desired question (which slicing type produces the tastier sandwich) which has no objective answer, and therefore keep it closed, or formulate a different question, let people answer it, and have everybody who reads it make the wrong assumptions that they got answers to the first question (which they wanted to have answered). This is why I would prefer to leave the quesiton closed and won't use the mod hammer to reopen - but if it gets reopened by the community or by another mod, I won't close again.
To those who are not convinced by my prevoius comments, another explanation: If you have an individual X with a firm belief that slicing longitudinally is the tastiest, then this belief will likely have a much higher influence on the final taste for X than the difference in number of flavor molecules docking onto X's taste buds. Which is one of the main reasons why I would say the objectively answerable part (which will have probably restrict itself to approximating measures such as the amount of flavor molecules released) is worse than useless, making closure preferable.
@LSchoon - your edits are fine. I did more internet digging to see if I could find an objective answer to this. I found this article where chefs talk about how the more thinly you slice tomatoes, the more aroma released. Not a direct tie to taste but we know that smell and taste are closely tied. Seems to me, the short answer is circle slices produce more aroma, therefore will have a bigger impact on perceived taste. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/11/485235765/slice-dice-chop-or-julienne-does-the-cut-change-the-flavor
@rumtscho I understand your reasoning. I was hoping that a more-or-less objective question and answer could be constructed, because I know that for alliums, the way they are processed has a huge impact on the amount of certain compounds being produced. Who knows, maybe something similar can be said for tomatoes.. Perhaps all references to sandwiches should be removed to make this work, though.
According to The Food Lab, the direction in which the onions are sliced affect the flavor. https://twitter.com/thefoodlab/status/793495929781301249?s=21 I think it’s reasonable to ask a similar question for tomatoes.
With two examples of the objective answers that can be provided, can this question be reopened?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.725537
| 2020-07-29T12:54:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109930",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"J007B",
"LSchoon",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76128",
"rumtscho",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110151
|
Can I substitute fresh tomatoes for canned?
I'm quite new to cooking. I want to make spaghetti and all the recipes I've found for spaghetti sauce so far have required multiple types of canned tomatoes. However, I only have fresh tomatoes, nothing canned. I do have the basic spices (garlic, sugar, salt, pepper, etc), just no canned tomatoes.
Should I just finely chop my fresh tomatoes and put them in a pan with the spices? Should I add water or some kind of liquid?
You can also search for "spaghetti sauce fresh tomatoes" and find a ton of recipes which have been optimized for fresh tomatoes.
You could also just try it... it's fun experimenting in the kitchen
Also consider the quality of fresh tomatoes you are using. Grocery store tomatoes in the US are typically awful. My off-the-vine tomatoes from my backyard are as delicious as any you can find but I can't find them in the middle of winter.
Recipes that call for canned tomatoes usually do so because these are picked and preserved when at peak ripeness, as well as saving you the trouble of peeling. For whole or chopped canned tomatoes, you can substitute fresh tomatoes (get the ripest ones you can) that you'll have to peel yourself. For other canned tomato products (like passata or paste), you will need to process the fresh tomatoes to get the same result.
Note that if the recipe calls for canned tomatoes and a pinch of sugar, you might want to omit or dial back the sugar. Recipes often include sugar to counteract the higher acidity of some canned tomatoes.
Yep, fresh tomatoes will work fine. You'll likely need to cook them longer than you would canned tomatoes, and you may need to use more. If you like, you can skin them first: slice a wide, shallow "X" on the bottom of each one and drop them into a pot of water at a rolling boil. After a minute or two, the skins will have peeled back at the X and can be peeled off. (Discard the water.) Then chop them. (There's no need to finely chop them: they'll break down during the long cooking.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.725917
| 2020-08-12T07:26:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110151",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95000
|
Butterscotch Pie setting
I am using a recipe taken from this Recipe for Butterscotch Pie recipe. I will post a picture below as well.
The main ingredients for the pie are 2 3.4 ounce instant butterscotch pudding mixes with 12 ounces of cool whip and 2 cups of milk. After combining the ingredients, and half of the cool whip, my butterscotch filling turns into a runny mess rather than a fluffy filling. Even after putting in the fridge for a couple of days, it does not set at all.
I was wondering how I can modify this in order to get the filling to a fluffy consistency.
Ingredients:
1 2/3 cups Graham Cracker Crumbs
1/4 Cup Sugar
6 Tablespoons butter melted
2 3.4 Ounce Boxes Instant Butterscotch Pudding Mix
2 Cups Cold Milk
12 Ounces Cool Whip Butterscotch Sundae Topping Optional
1/4 Cup Chopped Pecans optional
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.726104
| 2018-12-20T00:00:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95000",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14307
|
Food safety of meat vs. veggies and fruit with mold on them
Obviously, it's bad to eat moldy food, so I don't do so. However, the other day I was presented with both an old pot roast and asparagus in the fridge, both of which had grown mold. Of course, I tossed them both, with some regret (the roast was tasty while it lasted).
While talking to a friend, they mentioned that moldy meat is more likely to cause problems (sickness, death) than moldy fruits or veggies. Since the asparagus was only moldy on the stem end you snap off anyway, they said I could probably have eaten the rest of it (after some judicious cooking).
The question: Is moldy meat worse than moldy plants (i.e. are you less likely to get sick eating moldy asparagus than moldy steak)? Further, if it is worse, why? Is it that meat-mold can eat us, too (as humans are meat), while the plant-mold doesn't eat meaty matter as well as plant matter?
No, the mold on meat isn't especially bad. It won't eat your insides. But still, moldy meat is worse than moldy plants.
Mold itself isn't a strong health concern. It can't cause an illness, and doesn't grow in the human stomach. There are some kinds which produce metabolic byproducts poisonous for humans, and this means that you shouldn't eat moldy food, because you don't know which type of mold it has, unless you know that the type is benign, such as in a piece of Roquefort cheese. But if you see a moldy vegetable and throw away the moldy part plus a generous part of the healthy-looking tissue (mold "roots" are invisible without a microscope, what you see on the surface is only its "flowers"), you have a non-neglible risk of ingesting a small amount of mold, but the probability of it containing toxins strong enough to cause symptoms is very, very small. So it is reasonably safe to eat the healthy parts of plants which had mold growing somewhere on them.
The problem is that mold grows in the same conditions as bacteria do, only more slowly. When food is stored under improper conditions (or for too long a time under proper conditions), if a mold starts growing and reaches a stage where it is visible, in this time all the bacteria capable of growing on this food will have multiplied into unimaginable numbers (remember, bacteria grow exponentially, with a generation cyclus often as short as 20 to 30 minutes).
Both plants and meat in our food supply have some chance of contamination with pathogenic organisms like salmonella, E. coli, and something-resistant SA (it isn't only MRSA which is bad for you, a staphylococcus can be resistant to any number of antibiotics besides methicillin). But these grow on protein, not on vegetables (insofar, your logic for the mold holds). So you are reasonably safe eating a thoroughly washed vegetable - even if it does have some human pathogens, there will be only a handful of them, even after days of non-refrigerated storage, and almost everyone's immune system can cope with that. But if you eat meat which was left in microorganism-friendly conditions for long enough that mold creates visible spots, you are eating colonies of bacteria numbering in the billions, even after cutting the moldy part away. If one of these colonies happens to be a pathogen, your risk of getting ill is very high.
Actually, it was probably high enough hours or days before the mold became visible. Heating to the guidelines temperature doesn't ensure that all bacteria die, it ensures that out of a hypothetical contamination, only one in 1 000 000 is left alive. But if left in a pot full of food, these bacteria left can start multiplying and reach their previous numbers after a few generations. So be mindful of the time cooked food spends in the fridge, even if you don't see or smell any alteration. But if you see mold on meat, it means that every reasonable risk limit for eating it has long been crossed. Just throw it away, period.
such a great answer deserves a few citations.
The key here is after some judicious cooking. Assuming that you cook the meat or vegetables well (generally >= 165F is recommended; a pressure-cooker would certainly do the trick if the food was heated all the way through), so that there's nothing actually left alive in what you're eating, the question is what toxins were left behind by the mold and whatever else that was growing there. (Of course, it is worth noting that the USDA recommends discarding many things including meats and soft vegetables when moldy; the USDA's job is to give recommendations that will keep you on the safe side.)
Anyway, molds can produce mycotoxins, but these are normally produced by molds that grow on vegetables. So from the mold side, you might be better off cooking and eating the roast (edit: then again, mold on cured meats produce mycotoxins). Unfortunately, bacteria love to grow on meat and can produce things like heat stable enterotoxins. Bacteria generally don't invade meat very far (not if it's something dense like a roast), so I would guess that you would be safe enough if you cut off the outside of the roast, then cooked it heavily, and ate it.
But chances are if you do this sort of thing very many times, you'll make some mistake (touch the outside of the meat, then a handle somewhere, then cook the meat, then touch the handle again...oops...). If you're not starving, it's probably wisest to follow the USDA's recommendations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.726198
| 2011-04-24T19:00:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14307",
"authors": [
"Kortuk",
"Olle Kelderman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56880"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25428
|
Make tomato sauce from fresh tomatoes?
I'm quite new to cooking, but nonetheless I have been experimenting in the kitchen for a while to try and make some sauce from tomatoes. But all my attempts failed: I usually get just a bunch of fried tomatoes or something similar.
I have tried the following:
Chopping and just throwing on the pan, this one seems like the correct way.
Grating the tomatoes - this one sounds odd and, well, it is.
I just really need to find a simple method to generate sauce from tomatoes and I haven't found anything that worked for me. I'm obviously doing something wrong.
Also, what kind of tomatoes are you using? Have you tried making sauce from canned (whole peeled) tomatoes first to see how it goes, as those are very simple to make sauce with?
The difference between chopping and grating is only in the consistency (the sauce will be rather chunky or more smooth). Personally, I didn't see any other difference between the two along the years.
@lemontwist I use normal fresh tomato not some sort of fance italian tomato that I heard alot about. I havent tried canned tomatos because im not really sure what to type to buy.
Where are you setting your temperature control, and how long are you letting them cook?
It depends on what kind of tomato sauce you want to make. I've at times used the method of JoeFish, usually adding some wine to the mix. When I want a thick red sauce to freeze, I buy a huge box of tomatoes, blanch/peel, put them in a large stockpot and heat until they basically disintegrate into juice and add a bunch of tomato paste. Otherwise I cheat, buy a can of whole peeled tomatoes (buy store brand or Tutto Rosa if you can find it), blend, add a tbsp or so tomato paste, and heat. Add whatever you like to it as you see fit (garlic, onions, herbs). Sauce is about experimentation.
Also I ask about what kind of tomatoes you buy because the type of tomato has a lot to do with how juicy it is. Plum tomatoes are generally fleshier. Big thick heirlooms can be quite juicy, also beefsteak, etc. Buying some anemic yellow tomatoes from Florida may not yield the best sauce. Try getting a few types from a farmers market and see what you like.
I'm closing this as a recipe request, because "use a recipe" is essentially the only answer considering the vague and seemingly contrived details provided so far. If you worked from a recipe (or several) and had specific problems, please state the recipes and what went wrong, and we'll reopen the question. Otherwise, please read our [FAQ] and What types of recipe questions are allowed?.
Whenever I'm looking to make something I've never tried, I seek out recipes from a site that has reviews. I look for something that has many good reviews (not just 5 stars from one person). Then be sure to read the reviews, as they often have good suggestions and details on how the recipe worked for them.
For example, here's a tomato sauce recipe from Allrecipes.com. Seems pretty straight forward: smush up the tomatoes, throw them in a pot with oil and spices, cook until done.
Based on your description, I'd guess you're either cooking at too high a heat, cooking too long, not using enough tomato, or not using enough oil. Very hard to tell without knowing more about your process.
As for a simple method to generate sauce from tomatoes: I generally don't make that rich, heavy sauce one typically associates with Italian tomato sauces. I make a fresher, lighter sauce that goes something like:
Start some pasta cooking in well-salted boiling water.
Heat a few tablespoons of olive oil in a fry pan over medium-low heat. I generally use decent extra-virgin here, as I won't be sauteing or frying in it.
Dice some onion and add to the pan to sweat them down a bit. They should gently sizzle, not hiss and pop. If they do, turn the heat down.
Mince some garlic, add to the pan. Just cook for a minute or two to flavor the oil.
Dice the tomatoes and add to the pan. I normally dice them whole, skin on, and leave most of the pulp, juice and seeds.
Add a pinch of salt, some pepper and a small pinch of red pepper flakes (a larger pinch if my wife isn't joining me).
Cook until the tomatoes cook down and the sauce looks yummy.
Chiffonade some fresh herbs (I love fresh basil and oregano, and roll up all the small herbs in the big basil leaves to make everything easier to thinly slice) or add a pinch of dried. I like to wait until the end to keep the herbs tasting bright and fresh.
Drain the pasta, reserving some of the cooking water.
Drop the pasta into the fry pan and toss with the sauce, adding a bit of the reserved pasta water (see here for some reasons why).
Toss and cook for a minute or two to get the sauce and pasta loving each other thoroughly.
Taste, adjust seasoning to your taste.
Enjoy with a nice Chianti.
I know that looks like a lot of steps, but it's actually super-simple, and breaking it down into print is way more complicated than actually making it.
Ok, ill try out this recipe sometime next week, but the major changes ill make are more tomatoes and either smushing or dicing them.
You guessed too high heat and cooking too long, but my guess is that it might be too high heat and not long enough; I get the impression the OP wants a slow-simmered sauce, not a briefly cooked fresh sauce.
Also, another form of "too high heat" is cooking a small amount in a wide pan; if you don't want to just cook all the water out right away, you need some depth.
Both good points.
Blanch and peel the tomatoes, put into a stock pot and simmer, and kind of mash them up so they get juicy. As you cook them down the tomatoes will get juicier. It sounds like right now you are just frying them, and there really is no need to grate them. What recipe are you using?
could you explain what you mean by "mash them up"? Im not really sure what recipe but what I do is pretty similar to what everyone says to do except what I do doesnt work.
Just smoosh them with the blunt end of a spoon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.726717
| 2012-08-02T09:10:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25428",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Audiva Walsh",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Redford",
"Coral Doe",
"JSK",
"JoeFish",
"Karalee",
"Kelyn Ferguson",
"Lou",
"Prajin Romposrithong",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"lemontwist",
"m1sk",
"shoppakistan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61822
|
Precooking sweet potato fries for quick warm/serve day of party
I want to serve sweet potato fries at a party (80 guests) Is there a way to precook or partially cook them the day before, so I can just reheat them on the day of the party to serve warm and crisp?
We don't really answer questions about "health" topics. We can address whether it's possible and what method to use but whether or not it's "healthy" is outside our scope.
As user36802 noted, cooking fries normally requires blanching the fries beforehand, which will par-cook them.
You can also check out this Food Lab article; in it, Kenji Lopez suggests parboiling the fries, then drying them and frying them once, followed by cooling and freezing them overnight. His recipe continues to fry the fries a second time before serving, but you could theoretically reheat them in the oven instead. I would assume that most of the moisture has escaped the fries after the first fry, so ideally you wouldn't notice much of a texture difference between twice-fried and fried-then-baked fries, but I haven't tried that method myself.
Also good to note that his recipe is for regular-potato fries; however, the technique should work just as well for sweet potato fries (in fact, I'd assume that since sweet potato fries tend to be more moist than regular fries, any texture difference from frying then baking should be less noticeable).
I'd actually make kind of the opposite assumption for sweet potato fries; since they hang on to more moisture, I think they'd probably lose some of the initial crispness from the first frying, and would benefit more from a second round of frying immediately before serving. Looks like I'll have to make a big batch for testing. Shame.
Haha, we all appreciate your sacrifice. Let me know how the test turns out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.727466
| 2015-09-18T15:52:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61822",
"authors": [
"Angela Jennings",
"Bernice Goertzen",
"Catija",
"Debbie Alexander",
"Scott Melby",
"bgottfried91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40415",
"logophobe",
"robert Belfast"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98660
|
Does wrapping a bottle of whisky in plastic affect the taste?
I want to store a couple of whisky bottles with boxes in some idle place at our house. I'd probably sell these after 5 years. To prevent damages to the box, I'm thinking of wrapping the boxes of whisky but would it affect the quality of the whisky? Would the plastic cause the bottles to warm up?
The bottles will be stored in a location with room temparature. Not too hot nor cold. Also with no direct sunlight.
So the whisky will be in the bottles, the bottles in a wooden box which will be wrapped in plastic?
I'll buy these online. so that bottles are already wrapped in bubble wrap, then placed in a box, then I will cover with glad wrap, then I will just place it in an open shelf
Wrapping the boxes will not generate any heat (you need an energy source for this); it will however insulate what's inside, which means that changes in surrounding temperature are transmitted slower. When it gets colder in the room, the bottles will cool off slower than if they weren't wrapped; likewise, when the room gets warmer, they will heat up slower.
This is actually quite a Good Thing, fast fluctuations in temperature can cause all sorts of problems; if the glass heats faster than the cork, it will (may) expand faster which may end up in leaks, for example. Having said this, the plastic probably won't add very much insulation, unless you wrap it in a lot of thick plastic (bubble wrap, for example).
One thing to look out for when it comes to wrapping in plastic, is that moisture can make it a nice home for mold, which may affect second-hand value. Make sure there's room for breathing, or wrap in something that breaths (cloth or paper, for example).
There's more tips on https://www.singlemaltlodge.com/blog/item/how-to-store-whisky
can I say that I'm exempted with the moisture issue since I'm living in south east asia and it's always hot here? yes that totally makes sense to us cloth or paper to really get rid of moisture
Plastic isn't going to cause heating, and won't impact the quality of your whisky. Plastic wrapping is likely to trap moisture, however, which could be a concern as it could damage the labeling on the bottles. If you want to protect the boxes with plastic wrap my advice would be to make sure you have airflow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.727654
| 2019-04-24T08:16:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98660",
"authors": [
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"chip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55436
|
My gelatin didn't gel
I made two small packets, boiled 2 cups of water, then put in 8 oz of frozen pineapple filled with cold water the rest of the way to the 2 cups mark.
The Jello sat in the fridge overnight and today it wasn't set. I put in a big packet of mix and a cup of boiling water. 4 hours later it is still not set.
What can I do?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/47450/23376 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33957/23376
As the instructions on the box say, you shouldn't put fresh pineapple (or kiwi-fruit) in the Jell-O. Apparently pineapple has an enzyme called bromelain that breaks up the gelatin into its component amino acids.
You can use canned pineapple instead as the pineapple is cooked during the canning process and this denatures the bromelain.
Yep. The box very clearly says that you can't make it with pineapple.
Generally acids will inhibit the gelling process of gelatin, as I found when I tried to make a lemon jelly once and failed! Pineapple, as well as having its own particular enzymes is also fairly acidic so in your case it was probably this combination of factors. If you are using juice sometimes you can boil it to reduce before adding gelatin and cooling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.727881
| 2015-03-06T01:38:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55436",
"authors": [
"Athira Surendran",
"Catija",
"Ching Chong",
"George Young",
"Gustavo Ericta",
"Jamie Leland",
"Jonathan Morgan jayrevolv3r",
"Karen Bain",
"Steven Kwok",
"Vera Jackson",
"carol hughes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56038
|
How do I clean a pot after boiling eggs?
After boiling 8 batches of eggs, how can I clean the build up of calcium off the bottom of the pot?
You could use CLR but make sure you rinse well
BKF (Bar Keeper's Friend) is fantastic on stainless steel pots.
Put some water in the pot
Add vinegar or citric acid (whatever you can get your hands on more easily). (Sorry, I have no measurements, I always eyeball it. I guess up to 5% for vinegar is fine, or one or two teaspoons of citric acid depending on the pot-size...)
Heat to a rolling boil... (do NOT put your head over the pot to see it it works, especially when using vinegar)
After it has boiled for a minute, turn off the heat and let things cool down.
Rinse the pot
Enjoy the (hopefully) shiny pot :)
I'd add that if this does not work, you can let a mix of 30/70 vinegar/water sit in the pot for 30 minutes to an hour before scrubbing with warm water and soap.
Using a combination of egg shells and white vinegar can effectively remove dirt from the bottom of the pan after boiling eggs.
First, crush the egg shells and sprinkle them on the bottom of the pan. Egg shells contain calcium carbonate and protein, which can play a good cleaning role. Then, pour some white vinegar, white vinegar can soften the dirt, and use with the egg shell, you can get twice the result with half the effort, so that the bottom of the pot is cleaned more cleanly. Use a cloth, especially the rough side, to press down on the egg shell and wipe the bottom of the pan. This will thoroughly clean the bottom of the pan without hurting your hands. During the cleaning process, if it feels too dry, you can add some white vinegar to continue cleaning. Finally, rinse the bottom of the pan with water to remove residual egg shells and dirt, and the bottom of the pan will be refreshed.
In addition, if the dirt on the bottom of the pot is particularly stubborn, you can consider using a special bottom decontamination cream. This cream is designed to remove heavy oil, rust, yellow dirt, etc., it is very convenient to use, just apply it on the pot or gas stove, add an appropriate amount of water to dissolve, and wipe it with a sponge. This method is especially effective for dirt that is difficult to remove with regular cleaners.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.728043
| 2015-03-25T09:50:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56038",
"authors": [
"Angel Reece",
"Austin Brady",
"Bathroom And Kitchen Remodel",
"Brent Alexander",
"Huangism",
"Jeff Morgan",
"Kaylee Dunn",
"Nick T",
"Vivien Esterhuyse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"ivy law",
"jsanc623"
],
"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
}
|
56445
|
Substituting quinoa flour for wheat flour in egg pasta
If I am making an egg pasta, can I substitute quinoa flour for wheat flour (semolina, durum, all purpose, etc)? Or will the presence of the eggs not be enough to offset the absence of gluten, and I would need to add another binder (I am thinking xanthum gum or potato starch)?
You treat quinoa flour just like any nut flour. A binder will be required.
I have never tried making pasta with just quinoa flour, but use a mix of potato starch and corn flour. So my pasta contains a lot of starch.
The issue is that the pasta gets really short and need to be handled quite carefully after rolling it. I have used it to make tagliatelle, ravioli, spaghetti, lasagna and tortellini with great success (my comparison is store bought pasta, not normal pasta as I haven't eaten that in 10 years when I found out I was allergic).
I don't really have a recipe, as I never follow them. But for one person I add two egg yolks, one whole egg, ~1 tablespoon of olive oil and some random mix of the flour until it feels smooth and nice to work with. I have found the resting time of this pasta to be essential, and I always allow it to rest for at least 20 minutes.
good point about the resting, many people are not aware that resting benefits the starch too, not only the gluten.
The eggs in standard egg pasta are not enough to hold it together if made with gluten free flour. Maybe you can do it if you keep increasing the egg ratio, but it's hard to say how far you can go before ending up with something closer to pancake batter than to pasta dough.
Adding a binder should help, but I'm not certain what you can use as a binder. Neither xanthan gum nor potato starch are binders, they are both thickeners. The xanthan does give you a snotty gel, but not a truly cohesive structure the way you get with gluten.
Still, lacking a true protein based binder option, one of the snotty thickeners might be a good choice. Psyllum or chia are probably better than xanthan. They will help somewhat against crumbling, but also the thickening they contribute will allow you to use more egg, which will do the real binding work.
Another option is to start making spätzle instead of traditional Italian pasta. You will have less problems with handling a not-quite-cohesive spätzle batter than with trying to knead and roll gluten free tagliatelle or other similar shapes.
You could also try looking at molecular gastronomy recipes for pseudo noodles made from vegetable juice and a gelling agent, and see if you can adapt them by incorporating some quinoa into the liquid. But this goes quite far from your original intent, and will be noodlelike in shape only, without much resemblance in taste and texture. It will also be predominantly juice based, with little quinoa and no egg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.728275
| 2015-04-06T20:40:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56445",
"authors": [
"Fiona",
"John Kennedy",
"John Mesher",
"Kate Osterloh",
"Lydia Blaisdell",
"Michele Haddock",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Sandy Torell",
"carole cann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"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
}
|
113348
|
Can you put a bottle of whiskey in the oven
I was in the mood to give someone a bottle of whiskey, but to customize it, I wanted to decorate it with polymer clay. But to set polymer clay, you have to put it in the oven and so therefore I would have to put it on the bottle of alcohol and then put in the oven.
My question is, is it safe to keep the bottle unopened with alcohol inside or should I just pour out the alcohol and reseal it with wax?
What temperature do you need to bake the clay at, and for how long?
Also, are you assuming that the clay will stick to glass? If you haven't tried it before I would not expect that to work. A better solution is probably to make your decorations, bake them without the bottle, then stick them on with glue.
Interesting question -- may want to migrate to Arts & Crafts if it's not on topic here.
You may want to test this on a cheap bottle first.
@Mast and a cheap oven, a cheap kitchen, cheap hands and cheap eyes.
The recipient needs to know it's been decanted so they don't put it on a shelf for a year and then try to drink it.
@Mazura: What would happen otherwise?
"After opening, it should be consumed within 6–8 months for peak taste, according to industry experts."
I would just make the decorations and then hot glue them to the bottle or make a bottle cosy and put the decorations on that.
In addition to the safety concerns, wouldn't heating the whiskey also ruin, or at least alter, its taste?
@dbmag9 110-130 C (230-266 F). Fimo needs 110 C for 30 min; I would think it might just work, partly because of the heat inertia of the fluid.
If you want to get a look at just how bad this can go, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XjwVYkwB_w The title of this TV show was literally "don't try this at home", and they show the effects of cooking a champagner bottle in a microwave oven. "Don't try this at home" is an excellent advice when it comes to sealed liquid containers inside heating devices. Just imagine that poor microwave was your own oven!
Do not do this ever.
@cmaster-reinstatemonica: ok, but that has almost nothing to do with the alcohol content of champagne, just the fact that it's heavily pressurized with CO2, 4-6 atmospheres / 60-90 psi. You could get a similar explosion effect from a bottle of soda water. Also, the champagne bottle cork wrapper has metal, which will heat.
@smci Sorry, but you entirely failed to see the point: The heated water is the problem. Not the alcohol, not the CO2, just plain water. These two guys were heating water that was trapped inside a comparatively robust glass bottle way beyond 100°C, kept liquid only by the quickly rising pressure (way beyond 10bar, I'd guess) inside the bottle. At one point, the bottle simply failed to retain the pressure, and the entire water instantly turned into steam, deciding that there was not enough room inside the microwave oven either. I only talked about heating a sealed liquid container on purpose
@cmaster Well, at 110C or 120C water needs only 2 bar or so to stay fluid, that is, 1 bar over-pressure, which most bottles will likely sustain. Chances are that the fluid will not have heated up all the way anyway in 30 minutes. On the other hand it's 30% alcohol which lowers the boiling point and probably increases the pressure at 110C, so the details are murky; but all in all I'd bet a tenner that the bottle holds.
@dbmag9 If getting it to stick to glass is an issue, roughening the glass may help.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica Yes, if the temperature is only slightly above boiling point, it may go well. But I certainly wouldn't try it. Even if the force of the explosion would be much more limited than in the microwaved champagne case, those 30% alcohol would flash boil just the same and probably come into contact with the hot heating elements of the oven, producing a fiery explosion. All it takes for a fire ball to form, is that the cap on the bottle fails.
In general, you wouldn't want to put a sealed glass bottle filled with any liquid in your oven.
If you want to try and are still working on it, remove the cap, empty the alcohol into another container, bake the bottle and cap covered in clay separately leaving room to screw the cap on.
Let the bottle cool completely, then add the alcohol back in.
It's imperative that you let the bottle cool to room temperature, the shock of the oven hot bottle having liquid poured into it would probably shatter it.
In my opinion, baking a sealed, full bottle, is just asking for either a dangerous accident or a big mess.
To me, this is only opinion that, in part, repeats what the poster already stated.
It's best to be descriptive when you're answering a question.
Additionally, putting the open bottle with whiskey in it in the oven will result in you not having whiskey afterwards (you’ll have something, but it won’t be whiskey, and I wouldn’t want to drink it after it had been in an oven with setting polymer clay).
A large container of liquid is going to be a thermal sink, throwing off the curing times for your clay. Also, you’d want to make sure you’re using a clay that doesn’t shrink as it cures or it’ll peel itself off. You might try wrapping another (empty) bottle in parchment, making and curing your design, and then gluing it onto the full bottle
Let's get down to brass tacks: "baking a sealed, full bottle, is just asking"... TO EXPLODE.
Note that you may well also need to turn the oven off and let it cool completely before you open the door at all. It depends on how high the curing temperature is, but a cold draft from opening the door could potentially induce enough thermal shock to shatter the bottle. Better safe than sorry.
You may want to add this video link to your answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XjwVYkwB_w It shows the effect of cooking a bottle of champagne in a microwave oven. The explosion totally blows the oven to pieces...
It's probably worth noting that unless it's Pyrex or some other sort of glass meant for cooking, it's generally a bad idea to put glass in the oven. Polymer clay cooking temps are pretty low but the brittleness of the non-shatterproof glass used in whiskey bottles heated and then add internal pressure? Not likely to end well. I once left a glass growler bottle of fermenting cider in the fridge and it exploded; turning the maple syrup bottle (not unlike a whiskey bottle in design) next to it into a bazillion shards of razor-sharp fragments. Don't do this.
Use different modelling clay
Two-part putties such as Milliput are just as well designed for fine model-making, and set in air at room temperature.
If you start with a white putty then you can mix it with acrylic paint to colour it. It'll be weaker but this probably isn't an issue. It'll also set faster with the water in the acrylic paint though, so only mix up a small quantity at a time. Or just use plain white and paint it.
I don't know how hot or how long your polymer clay bakes for, so you might get away with it, but in general I wouldn't risk putting a sealed container in the oven, whatever the contents.
The primary risk isn't alcohol igniting, but vapour forming in the bottle under pressure can break the bottle or more likely the cap. If the alcohol was going to ignite, it would have to get out of the bottle and mix with air anyway. Loosening the lid would relieve the pressure, but there is some chance of hot alcohol fumes igniting if there's an ignition source. This probably wouldn't be catastrophic. The large thermal mass of the contents works in your favour, but the long baking time means the drink can get quite hot.
You may also scorch the label or cap, spoiling the existing print. At the fairly low temperatures used for most polymer clay this isn't too likely,
You also won’t have whiskey afterwards if it’s open, because the alcohol and most of the aromatics that make it whiskey will evaporate pretty quickly even at low temperatures.
Quite a bit of the alcohol would go if fully open, and a fair bit of water too, but it would ruin decent whisky. If just open enough to vent the pressure, the effect would be much less (@Austin)
"Relieving the pressure" almost certainly means losing a fair bit of alcohol.
@chepner, alcohol doesn't evaporate that much faster than the water, and will take some time to heat up. So it will get a little weaker, but reduce in volume a fair bit. I was trying to stick to the safety aspect the question concentrated on,but I don't think it would be good for the whisky either
Glass is not a good thermal insulator; if the inside stays below 100 C (the point at which vapor pressure of the water will rise dramatically), will that heat sink keep the clay from getting hot enough to set? a comment indicates an oven temp of 110-130 C (230-266 F) for 30 min. With normal pottery, you'd expect the material to get close to that hot by the end, within maybe 10 or 20 degrees?
@PeterCordes glass isn't a great conductor of heat either. It's annoyingly in between. But rather then relying too heavily on the insulating properties of glass, I'm thinking of the contents taking time to heat up - of course the heat has to pass through the glass, but if you put half a litre of cold water (spirits will evaporate faster, but not by too much) in a fairly thick walled glass container, the rise won't be too bad. At least it won't boil, though the vapour pressure will rise. I'd chill it only that would increase the thermal stress on the glass
Right, that was kind of my point: the inside liquid is pulling heat away from the outsides. But you need the outside to get hot to actually cure / set / bake the clay. If the outside doesn't get hot like it's supposed to, it won't fully set. (Or you'd have to leave it in longer, and the insides would eventually get hot enough to be a problem..)
@Peter the clay will heat much faster than the contents. Glass isn't that good a conductor. I'd go as hot as the clay allows, for the shortest time, testing on something similar but scrap first.
Hotter/shorter is a good idea. Yeah, test that with a used bottle, maybe filled with an equal amount of water and the lid on tight.
It might cause an explosion and a house fire. A sealed bottle would explode without a doubt. The heat differential caused by different thicknesses of clay would stress the glass. The combination of heated alcohol vapour and the heating elements of the oven would probably blow the door off your oven and set your kitchen on fire.
If you decide to go ahead, make sure you video it and leave the room. It would make a spectacular video on social media!
Indeed. While not quite Darwin Award material, the OP's idea is certainly an exciting one.
You're making a pressure cooker.
That's a very bad idea. The pressure will escape once it builds high enough. Either will happen:
the glass and clay hold together, and the cap blows off, spraying flammable liquid into the hot oven, or
the glass and clay shatter, not only spraying flammable liquid into the hot oven but also lots of sharp, high-speed fragments everywhere.
In either case, there will be a fire in the oven, and the glass will probably break.
Bottom line: it's a Bad Idea.
It is a sweet idea for a gift. But heating closed things makes them blow up. Here is how you can get where you want to be safely.
Make a sleeve the size of your bottle. Or use an open empty bottle the same size.
Decorate sleeve with polymer clay. Or decorate empty bottle with circumferential clay decor.
Put decorated sleeve onto gift bottle with a little glue to hold in place. Or slide clay off of empty bottle (if you put it in the freezer bottle will shrink and this should not be hard) and glue pieces onto gift bottle. Curve will be correct.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.728579
| 2020-12-24T23:16:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113348",
"authors": [
"Acccumulation",
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"BobKayser",
"Chris H",
"Dan D.",
"Eric Duminil",
"Erica",
"Fattie",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"Mast",
"Mazura",
"Perkins",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Peter Cordes",
"Rob",
"RonJohn",
"TonyK",
"chepner",
"cmaster - reinstate monica",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90435",
"nick012000",
"smci"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54177
|
Help making Montgomery Pie layer properly
When it comes to "putting the pie together" before baking, the recipe handed down by my great aunt states to pour liquid in bottom of uncooked pie shell, THEN "spread" topping on top of pie.
How in the world is this possible? You cannot physically "spread" batter on top of a liquid. I've tried everything. The end result is still a "swirled" effect, when it's supposed to have a "cakey" top and "moist" bottom. I've followed the recipe to a "T", and 5 times now, same result.
I'm lost. Any takers? Yes, I would like to ask my great aunt but she passed away years ago.
Can you post the recipe you're using? Maybe it differs somehow from other recipes that are around. A quick search for the recipe shows they all use the same method you've described but, at a glance, I'd say the bottom liquid should be extremely dense as it's mostly molasses that has been further thickened with even more sugar.
Maybe your batter preparation is incorrect. If you have beaten enough air into it, it should be OK to spread over liquid, just like you can spread foam on top of water in a bathtub.
I'd never heard of Montgomery pie before your question. It looks tasty and I want to try making one now, so maybe I'll be able to help troubleshoot using a different recipe than your aunt's :)
I would spoon the batter over the top the layer (by which I mean in dollops, so you have small bits of batter all over) and lightly "spread" the dollops together.
I'd go with djmadscribbler's approach, and possibly oil or wet down whatever you're using for spreading the topping.
It may be that there is an unwritten/lost step of putting the pie in the oven for long enough to just set the liquid, before the topping is spread. That's certainly how I do lemon or lime custard pies with a topping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.729624
| 2015-01-30T01:31:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54177",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Erica",
"Georgina Niotakis",
"Joe",
"June Lai",
"Lilian Korkie",
"Rommel Virtucio",
"Woodbridge Spine",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"plastic cake",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64774
|
Can I salvage cookie dough made with whole eggs instead of yolks?
I was making the dough for cookies and was supposed to add just 2 egg yolks and I added 2 whole eggs. What was supposed to form a ball just made a really thick batter. So, do I have to start over or is there a way I can fix this?
Recipe called for 4 cups of flour, 2 cups of softened butter, 1 pint of sour cream and 2 egg yolks. I put in two whole eggs. It's in the refrigerator chilling in hopes of tightening it up.
They were supposed to be pinwheel cookies that you put a bit of jelly in the center. And then finish off with powder sugar. If there is no salvaging the consistency of the cookies to form these pinwheels, would it work if I make them into balls and then finish them off with powdered sugar so as to not waste this batch and start over to make the pinwheels with just the yolks?
If nothing else, the egg whites have added additional liquid to your dough, so maybe you can compensate by adding more flour.
Try taking a small portion of your "batter" and add a little flour to it. See if that brings it closer to the consistency you expected. If you can determine how much flour is needed to fix just a small amount of the mix, then you can apply it to the whole thing.
If it doesn't work, you'll still have your Plan-B to fall back on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.729819
| 2015-12-25T01:15:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64774",
"authors": [
"Craig Bryce",
"JOHN Dekoker",
"Sandy Schmidt",
"Sarah Baxendale",
"Steve camp",
"Tony Stratton",
"cynthia moneta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154637",
"markmclthaolcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54935
|
Packed meat unrefrigerated storage
I have a 1kg beef brisket, still in store packaging, sitting at room temp for 24 hours. Is it safe?
No it is not safe it has exceeding USDA time and temperature guidelines.
See the following for guidelines
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/danger-zone-40-f-140-f/ct_index
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.729984
| 2015-02-19T17:27:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54935",
"authors": [
"DANIEL CRUSO",
"Jack Lewis",
"Kelvin Jones",
"Michelle Manson ChelleBelle",
"Sloane Parkinson",
"beatrice franco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130480",
"suany chough"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56057
|
Mold is growing on my cheese, what is common practice?
I love cheese and I am always buying and trying new types. Because of this, my cheese stash starts to grow faster than I can eat all of it. Sometimes mold starts to grow around the outside before I get to it, particularly the cheddar.
I practice good storage techniques to no avail, still the mold eventually shows up. So when this happens, I just trim the mold off and move on, but some of my friends think this is "so gross" and I should just throw it away.
What do you think?
I cut it off also. Don't tell your friends you do it. I have heard you can freeze some cheeses, but I think it looses flavor with freezing. flavor is after all why you buy and eat cheese. have more cheese tasting parties.
+1 for cheese tasting parties to use up the cheese faster :D
I have always trimmed the moldy bits off my cheddar, and have so far survived 2.82e10 kilometers of travel around the sun without obvious cheese-related ill health.
So long as it's properly wrapped, freezing does not affect the flavor - but if you are not going to melt it, it does affect the texture in most cases. If melted, I doubt you could tell which was frozen in a true double-blind trial (ie, without clues) against unfrozen cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.730075
| 2015-03-25T18:06:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56057",
"authors": [
"Anita Thundercliffe",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"Ludwig Van Beethoven",
"Patricia Turpin",
"Thomas Clifton",
"Tisha Bristow",
"Tomoko Inage",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64888
|
Why are there white spots appearing on segments of canned tangerines?
I recently opened a tin can of tangerine segments, only to find that the segments contained little white spots throughout the segments. Can anyone tell me more in regards to what the white spots are? Are they poisonous, or known to be recognized as a food borne pathogen, disease, illness, etc.
I tossed them out before realizing I could ask Seasoned Advice, so I don't have a photo.
On the outer skin of the segments, or within the segments on the juice vesicles?
Following quote is the abstract of a 1981 article, "The nature of freeze-induced white spots on orange segment walls," Raymond D. Bennett and Roger F. Albach, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1981 29 (3), 511-514
DOI: 10.1021/jf00105a019 (full article is behind a paywall)
Emphasis mine:
Exposure of oranges to freezing conditions causes formation of white spots on the walls of the fruit segments. The spots are actually located in the tissue comprising the separation zone between segments; when two adjacent segments are pulled apart, each white spot is split in half. The chemical nature of the white spot material was previously in dispute, but it has now been shown to be microcrystalline hesperidin coating the walls of cells in the separation zone. Freezing causes damage to cell membranes, and a soluble form of hesperidin located in the cell vacuoles is thereby released and crystallizes.
Hesperidin is a flavanone glycoside (naturally occurring flavor chemical) found in citrus fruits, so according to that 1981 research, the spots are caused if the orange was frozen. It can appear on oranges or tangerines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.730224
| 2015-12-29T01:20:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64888",
"authors": [
"Amanda faith",
"Erica",
"Linda Y.",
"Richard Carlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"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
}
|
57717
|
To make a cream cheese icing, can I use cottage cheese?
Can I use cottage cheese instead of cream cheese to make a carrot cake icing?
I don't know for sure, which is why I'm commenting and not answering, but it seems to me that the higher moisture content of cottage cheese compared to cream cheese would be a problem when making icing.
It is true that you can use the cottage cheese, you could even use ricotta cheese which Italians have a Ricotta Cheese Pie and Sambucca Liqueur is used as a flavoring. It is delicious. Using cottage cheese, which I have, really does not taste good, not only in my opinion but others who have tried to cut calories. Either use less cream cheese with less powdered sugar and no butter for the frosting or just dust it with the powdered sugar. The first answer is correct, yes you can, but the taste ruins your carrot cake no matter how finely you blend it. So my answer is no, don't do it. Good Luck
I actually used cottage cheese for a pound cake frosting, because I had no cream cheese. I took the cake to church, and everyone loved it. Do not use the same amount of cottage cheese ( use 1 1/2 cups instead of 2 cups), puree the cottage cheese in a blender, then add other ingredients. I chopped strawberries and added them to the frosting, to increase the flavor.
I have also used cottage cheese in place of cream cheese. The end result was just fine. It's fine to say "use cream cheese", but when one has a milk allergy, something has to take it's place.
I'm not sure I understand how a milk allergy is addressed by replacing one milk product with another.
Of course you can BUT, your final product will suffer greatly. I'm a professional Pastry Chef and wouldn't consider doing it for any reason.
How will it suffer? Texture, flavor, both?
The texture is less solid because of the curds in the cottage cheese broken down compared to a solid mass of cream cheese so it is more runny or watery when blended and no matter how much powdered sugar you put in it to add flavor and tighten it up, it is nasty and too much sugar can happen. I then add vanilla and even pineapple chunks or crushed and it becomes a mess. Flavor, texture, presentation and most of all taste is awful. Not worth it. Also as a note, if you make it a 2 or 3 layer cake, it will not stand up, it falls down even if you put in the fridge it will not set up.
You can, yes and you use the same amount as you would cream cheese.
Refs:
http://ni.lovefoodhatewaste.com/node/1414
http://dish.allrecipes.com/common-ingredient-substitutions/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.730404
| 2015-05-23T12:52:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57717",
"authors": [
"B G battlinjack",
"Carol Moseson",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dan C",
"Darren Johnston",
"Elea McDonnell Feit",
"Gretchen Reyes",
"Jeremy Schultz",
"Katharine Yeaton",
"Lynn Marshall",
"Shawn Beesley",
"Trish 83",
"debbiie kay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"kamatchi b",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61525
|
Temperature of electric burners
I have an electric stove with two sizes of burners. What is the general temperature in Fahrenheit when the small burners are on medium?
This is an almost impossible question to ask. I suggest buying an inexpensive infrared thermometer to measure the temperature in situation. This would not be a standardized temperature, even from model to model.
Temperature rises until energy input equals energy loss (balance). So burner temperature will be lower when an object (a pan) conducts energy away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.730662
| 2015-09-05T21:56:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61525",
"authors": [
"Bogdana Mitrovic",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Jessica McCurry",
"June hokamp",
"Optionparty",
"Sharon Ziel",
"Y Q Choo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"svimi imivs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110079
|
Can I substitute vanilla powder for cocao in a quinoa cake recipe
ingedients:
2 cups quinoa
1/3/cup milk
4 lg eggs
1 tsp vanilla extract
3/4 cup butter
1 1/2/cup granulated sugar
1 cup unsweetened cocao pwdr
1 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/2/tsp salt
Hi, and welcome to SA! Have a look at the Tour and Help Center when you get a chance. Why do you want to make this substitution?
This recipe won't produce a cake - unless you mean quinoa flour. And what do you mean by "vanilla powder"? Pure synthetic vanillin, ground vanilla seeds, or something else?
the quinoa is cooked and then mixed in a blender with the wet ingredients. its 2 cups of cooked quinoa.
Typically no. You need much more cocoa powder for a chocolate cake than you need vanilla powder for a vanilla cake. Adding a cup of vanilla would be both very expensive and very overwhelming in terms of flavour. And the vanilla doesn't have the same chemical properties as cocoa. Cocoa has a bit of fat in it, so a substitute should include some fat.
i see that some vanilla powder is mixed with sugar. could i use some of that, reduce the granulated sugar and add gluten free flour to make up the volume of the cocao. not sure what to do about the fat in cocao. some applesauce maybe?
@joefromnc Here's a different question that discusses how to substitute cocoa powder: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22420/how-should-i-alter-a-chocolate-cake-recipe-to-make-plain-flavoured-cake#:~:text=You%20cannot%20simply%20replace%20the,Is%20more%20acidic
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.730757
| 2020-08-07T19:12:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110079",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87049",
"joe from nc",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110187
|
What exactly is the salt for when making oatmeal porridge?
As per the instructions on the oatmeal package, I make it like this:
I take a bowl.
I put 1 dl oatmeal into it.
I put 2 dl water on top of it.
I put 0.65 grams of salt on top of it.
I mix them together with a spoon.
I microwave it at 750 watts for 2 minutes.
I take it out and mix it with the spoon again.
I wait for a few seconds and then apply a spoon of lingonberry "jam" (the kind where you can see individual berries).
I pour some milk over this and eat it.
What exactly is the salt for? Is it purely for taste, or does it actually cause some kind of chemical reaction which makes it cook properly or something?
People also put salt on watermelon --- it adds depth to the watery sweetness and makes it taste sweeter.
There are several reasons to use salt in cooking. From that source, the UK Salt Association (yes, that is apparently a thing!), salt is used as:
Seasoning
Preservative
Binding agent (in meat products)
Color Controller (in meat products and baked goods)
Texture aid (in meat products, baked goods and cheese)
Fermentation controller (in baked products and cheese)
The only one of these that applies to your recipe, is seasoning.
Note that apart from tasting 'salty', salt is also a known flavour enhancer which can improve the taste of food and drinks without making them salty. This is why salt is often used even in sweet applications, and occasionally even in cocktails.
Salt in porridge is discussed here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/nov/10/how-to-cook-perfect-porridge. The recommendation for 'perfect porridge' is to add it 'towards the end of cooking'.
Agreed on the "end" thing - I do 2:1 water to oatmeal, microwave without even stirring, then salt and stir and give a little more time as needed.
From my experience, if I forgot the salt in baked goods (bread, drop biscuits, muffins) they taste bland and boring. But salt is also important for some of the chemical processes in cooking and baking. One example is it changes the boiling point of a pot of water (for noodles or in this case porridge).
1- salt's changing of boiling points is less dramatic than most people think, 2- if you add it at the end it doesn't have a chance to do that anyway. and 3 - when you make oatmeal in the microwave it doesn't really boil, it just gets hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.730889
| 2020-08-14T10:06:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110187",
"authors": [
"Kate Gregory",
"Mark Wildon",
"aherocalledFrog",
"dma1324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87161"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108714
|
Does a pizza lose flavor/texture from cooling down and then heating up again versus keeping it warm from the original oven until eating?
Let's suppose two (identical) pizzas have to be consumed some time after they are baked. One pizza is kept at the same temperature constantly. The second pizza cools down and is then reheated in an oven at a reasonable heat setting and on a bake plate, until it has reached the right temperature again.
Will there be a noticeable difference in taste and/or texture between the two pizzas?
Hi Arko, welcome to the site! Just to confirm: is this a hypothetical question, or is it based somehow on a personal experience? In the latter case, it would be helpful to describe the actual experience. In the former case, note that hypothetical questions tend to be discouraged here. See the help center for more information. (Not to say your question is not interesting, which I personally think it is.)
If ordering from different places, you cannot really hypothesize the same ingredients, procedure or baking. You could if both order from the same place at the same time and one delivery is colder because a car is broken and they need to use one without special additions.
@Johannes_B The question does state the two pizzas are "identical". Given the hypothetical nature of the question, I think it's fine to assume the pizzas to have seen the same ingredients, procedure and baking.
@Arko I have proposed an edit to your post, essentially completely rewriting it. If you feel this goes too far, feel free to reject the edit.
Flavour
Keeping the pizza warm for an extended period will result in some volatile compounds evaporating, thus slightly changing the flavour of the pizza. On the other hand, reheating the pizza (which will probably require the oven to be at a higher temperature than the target pizza temperature) will do the same. It is difficult to predict which one will have a bigger effect, but I expect neither method to stand out.
Texture
This is going to be a bigger issue. Keeping the pizza warm in an enclosed space for an extended period will result in condensation, and make the pizza more soggy than it originally was. Conversely, reheating the pizza in a hot(ish) oven will add an extra dose of evaporation on top of the original cooking, resulting in a pizza and toppings that are dryer than it was when fresh.
Keeping the pizza warm, rather than reheating, might also do some weird things to any cheese present, which might get rubbery rather than melty.
Food safety
Keeping the pizza warm for an extended period might land you in trouble if the temperature is below 60 °C. See this answer and references therein for more information.
How to have hot pizza long after cooking?
This is going to be opinion-based, but I do have some ideas. Ideally, eat the pizza as soon as possible after its initial cooking. Keeping the pizza warm for a short amount of time (say up to 30 minutes) is acceptable. Any longer than that, and I recommend refrigerating the pizza, then reheating it in a dry non-stick skillet over medium heat (cover and/or add a splash of water to steam the top of the pizza if necessary). Also, cold pizza is still pretty tasty.
+1 for "Also, cold pizza is still pretty tasty." My recommendation is to develop a taste for cold pizza, as long as it's been refrigerated after cooking. I've never found a reheating method that's satisfactory, mainly regarding texture.
@user3169 To me, it depends on the style of pizza. The method I describe above works wonders for thin crusts but is not ideal for thicker pies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.731110
| 2020-05-29T08:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108714",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86358
|
What's the benefit of chilling my cookie dough before baking?
I'm making some chocolate crinkle cookies, and one of the recipe steps is to refrigerate the dough at least four hours before baking.
Does this cause any changes in the dough such as something to do with gluten formation (or relaxation), or is it largely about getting a good consistency for the cookie to properly shape itself while baking? Should I be doing this with pretty much any cookie I bake? Is the four hours important, or am I looking for a temperature rather than a time limit?
Related on the resting part, not refrigerator-specific: Why should I rest gingerbread dough?, What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?. On chilling: Why do I need to put sablé dough in the fridge?, and kind of the opposite: Why must I return the chilled chocolate cookie dough to room temperature before baking?.
@Jefromi amusingly, I'm pretty sure I've used the same source in another answer here... and it's not on any of those four. :/ https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84248/peanut-butter-cookie-dough-like-gravel/84249#84249
There is one type where you don't want to chill: The macaroons family, where the eggwhites, that give them their structure would start to deflate.
Anecdotally, the difference is in the spread.
When tested, this is confirmed, along with it affecting the browning and the texture.
When you start with cold dough, the outer edges of the cookie start to firm up before the middle has warmed up a lot. This means it will start crusting (and browning) before the fat in the middle starts to spread out. The cookies are taller and have a smaller footprint and (if not overbaked) will be nicely chewy in the center.
There's a really nice guide about it on King Arthur Flour's blog.
The cookies pictured above are the same size, weight-wise. But look at the difference in spread – the cookie dough that was refrigerated spread less.
The cookie dough without refrigeration also browned less.
As you can see, there's a big difference even in only a thirty minute time in the fridge and again, a nice improvement after sixty minutes.
The author compared cookies as old as ten days but noted diminishing returns the longer they waited.
What's happening? Well, the blog states:
1. Chilling cookie dough controls spread.
Chilling cookie dough before baking solidifies the fat in the cookies. As the cookies bake, the fat in the chilled cookie dough takes longer to melt than room-temperature fat. And the longer the fat remains solid, the less cookies spread.
In addition, the sugar in the dough gradually absorbs liquid. If you bake the dough immediately, before sugar has a chance to absorb much liquid, that liquid remains “free” in the dough, and promotes spread. Think of this in terms of thin vs. thick pancake batter: the more liquid in batter, the more it spreads, right? Same with cookies.
2. Chilling cookie dough concentrates flavor.
As the dough chills, it gradually dries out, concentrating the flavors of all the ingredients. Think of watered-down lemonade, vs. lemonade with less water: dull flavor vs. bright, tangy flavor. Same with cookies.
Something else happens as the dough rests: part of the flour breaks down into its component parts, including a simple carbohydrate, sugar. Thus, since sugar is a flavor enhancer (like salt), the cookies may taste more flavorful, as well as sweeter.
3. Chilling cookie dough changes texture.
Again, it’s not really the chilling, but the dough gradually drying out, that’s responsible for texture change. The drier the dough, the more concentrated the sugar. And a higher percentage of sugar creates cookies with chewy/crisp (rather than soft/doughy) texture.
So, allowing the ingredients to rest lets them absorb some of the liquid, gives you less spread, taller, browner cookies. Now, in your case, browning probably isn't an issue, but you do want a nice chewy texture, which chilling your batter will do. Based on the article, you probably don't have to wait the full four hours but it might be interesting to give it a try and see how your cookies change after baking at different times to see if you can only wait an hour rather than four.
Note, because it's not only the chilling factor that affects your outcome, it's not only about getting the dough cold, so it probably wouldn't speed up the process with identical outcomes if you shaped the cookies before chilling the dough. If the water absorption is a big part of it, the surface area to volume ratio isn't going to affect the speed (probably).
This blog was specifically about chocolate chip cookies... your cookies pose an additional concern when it comes to spread. If the dough is really sticky, rolling the dough into a ball and into the powdered sugar will be difficult when the dough is warm. Chilling it will make the dough more manageable.
Plus, with the powdered sugar coating, you want to reduce spread so that you get the nice crevasses without them being too huge. If the cookie spreads less, you'll get narrower breaks in the powdered sugar. It may also prevent the dough from absorbing the powdered sugar so that you get the good contrast you're looking for.
This covers the results really well. The one thing I'd add to round it out is that depending on the recipe, if it's too warm, it'll be sticky and difficult to shape properly. That happens easily if the room is warm or you're doing things by hand. (And this recipe involves coating in powdered sugar, so you're likely to smooth out the balls by hand before doing that.)
Yes! Good point. The blog post is specifically about a drop cookie but a cookie that's rolled in a ball will definitely want to retain its shape more than a drop cookie making smaller crevasses in the powdered sugar and a prettier outcome, so the chilling is probably more important.
A good answer, well explained. I think 4 hours seems excessive, you probably won't get much more benefit out of 4 hours than 1, however it's not going to hurt anything.
Well, I was gonna throw 2 cents in, but I got nothin' now ;) I always figured that chilling a cookie dough was to help with portion control as chilled dough doesn't seem to stick to my big spoon as much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.731497
| 2017-12-13T23:00:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86358",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"GdD",
"Paul TIKI",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52886"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76100
|
High hydration breads end up with gummy/undercooked interior
Whenever I make bread with hydration from 80%-120% the interior is always gummy and undercooked. They have a decent hole structure, but collapse easily when pressed.
I typically use
Whole Wheat Chakki Atta or Maida
Filter Water
Instant dry yeast (1 tsp per kg of flour)
Salt
Following recipes like https://www.weekendbakery.com/posts/recipe-for-80-hydration-baguette/
Tried kneading (by hand), no knead, normal rise, refrigerator rise, varying rise/rest durations etc. all with similar results. Atta breads are gummier.
Bake to 205° F interior temperature. Excess ß-amylase enzyme can also cause gummy.
I tried this with chakki atta. Was facing the same issue. This works!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.731977
| 2016-12-03T15:19:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76100",
"authors": [
"Swayam Siddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65966"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40194
|
Is there a way to make delicious donuts with a small amount of oil?
I like donuts but I don't make them at home because for a bowl of donuts I consume a lot of oil.
The oil gets a sweet taste to it afterwards and can't reuse it for cooking something else than cakes. I also don't cook sweets very often and if I store the oil for a longer period of time it gets a somewhat of a stale taste.
The question is for a way to make delicious donuts with a small amount of oil but I'm opened to any idea: change in process, changing the dough type, different type of donuts etc.
Donuts are deep-fried by definition. You can't deep fry without using an amount of oil whose mass is much larger than that of the fried item. Are you looking for other ways to bake donut dough without frying it (which won't taste like donuts)? Or if not, what kind of solution are you looking for?
@rumtscho: I'm looking for a solution that uses less oil. Are there several types of donuts? Can I bake them instead of frying them? Does the dough need to change to change the "deep-fried" part?
I've reused oil for donuts without any negative impact on savory dishes. The opposite is a real problem: Deep frying something with onions or garlic or strong savory flavors tends to hold aromas that don't translate well with sweet fried items.
Donuts are a deep fried food. The texture of deep fried food is unique and cannot be duplicated by other methods. If you bake doughnut dough, you will get small rolls, which will have a similar aroma, but not the same combination of moist, soft inside and fat-crispy outside. You could bake it, as with any other yeast dough, only nobody will recognize it as a donut.
Assuming that you want to get actual donuts, you must fry them. And no matter what you do to them, the more oil you use to fry them, the better your donuts will turn out. The physics of deep frying include throwing pieces of food with a starchy surface (potatoes, or breaded items, or dough pieces like donuts) in oil at around 190 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the outer surface of the dough/vegetable/breading crisps immediately, preventing from any oil getting into the item and any vapor getting out of the item.
This only works when the oil in the vicinity of the fried item stays within a few degrees of the target temperature during the first ~30 seconds of the frying process. Which means that you need a stable temperature in your fryer. Now, thermodynamics tells us that, if you throw a 25 degrees piece of food into a puddle of 190 degrees hot oil, they will exchange warmth proportionally to their mass. So, if you want the oil to stay close to the correct temperature, the mass of the donut has to be very small in comparison to the mass of the oil — which means that you need lots of oil.
The options you have to do with less oil are all unsatisfactory from my point of view, you might decide to pick one of them.
Put up with the quality reduction. Use less oil in the pan, maybe even shallow frying in oil up to the half of the donut only. The donuts will lose moisture and soak up grease. The less oil you use, the worse the grease soak will be. Also, you will use up more oil, because you will have to constantly add the amount soaked up by the already fried donuts. You may consider it well used instead of wasted, because you get to eat it, but from my point of view this is the worst option.
Trade time for oil. You can use a small pot, and fry a single donut at a time. Frying 50 g donuts should go well with under 500 ml oil. You are still a bit constrained by the fact that the oil temperature will fluctuate more due to factors not related to the oil, but it should be manageable, if you have the patience. Note that if you place multiple donuts in the small pan, you are getting towards the first or third solution.
Try to manage a stable temperature in a donut-crowded small pan by using a very hot setting and letting the oil get too hot before adding a new donut. This is a very complicated thing to manage, especially seeing that you are trying to not burn the other donuts in the pan at the same time. I don't think I could manage it, and if I could, the oil wouldn't be worth the stress. There is also the extra energy to consider — not as expensive as throwing out more oil, but probably worse from an environmental point of view.
In the end, if you want good donuts, you have to use a pot/fryer where they can swim freely in oil. Any change you make to this setup reduces the quality of your donut, making it less donut-like.
This is an awesome answer!
Oil can be re-used multiple times, especially of you have a deep fryer. Alternatively, you can use an oil filter to reclaim oil after usage. I'm not sure where the "waste" you speak of is coming from.
[Edit]
While I have never noticed a particular issue with oil carrying over a 'sweet' flavor after frying doughnuts I have not done a lot of doughnuts. If I where to want to use a minimum of oil and consider that oil 'disposable' after each use the key would be a smaller pan. Of course the trade off is that you can only do one doughnut at a time. A 1/2 quart pan would probably allow you to use no more than a cup of oil for a batch of doughnuts.
A tall 2 quart sauce pan is about as small as I would go (tall sides to prevent spatter), with an inch or two of oil This would permit several donut holes to be fried at once. This is what I plan to do when I treat myself to homemade donuts...
@SAJ14SAJ, indeed you make a valid point, but as OP was wanting to minimize 'wasted oil' I suggested the smallest pan that would "do the job" safely. When I make doughnuts (or beignets) I use an electric skillet and drain off the oil to be reused later.
A half quart pan is nearly a butter warmer... :-)
Make Raised Donuts instead of Cake Donuts
The reason for this is that raised donuts don't have any sweeteners added to the dough, so will not leave any sweetness or anything on the oil. Alternately, you could make cake donuts without putting sugar in the dough, and instead glaze or powder them as normally done with raised donuts.
Use Shortening, not Oil
Besides making better tasting donuts, shortening will keep better, since it will re-congeal after use. Make sure to mark the container you put it in, so you don't accidentally use it for making something after this.
Advantages of shortening over oil:
Shortening produces less smoke than Canola oil (aka Rapeseed oil; This is the main constituent of most vegetable oil), so you lose less of it and get less soot on the donuts.
Shortening is thinner (i.e. less viscous) at deep-fry temperatures, so it will cook donuts faster, and the donuts will not retain as much shortening when removed.
Shortening is less dense than vegetable oil, so most scum will sink to the bottom, instead of floating to the top. It also heats up faster for the same reason.
Use an Electric Fondue Pot to fry your Donuts
This is probably the very cheapest way to get your own deep frier, and they have a very small volume compared to a similar-sized stovetop pot. They also simplify many other aspects of the process, like controlling the temperature, and are an excellent thing to have for parties. I have (two of) this model, and they have been very worthwhile.
Well, shortening and better taste do not combine well, at least for me... At the same time, the distinction between rasied and cake donuts is new for me, thanks.
@dezso Shortening works a hundred times better. Vegetable oil leaves oily scum and soot all over the donuts. Unlike vegetable oil, shortening is much thinner and produces no smoke at deep-fry temperatures, so it doesn't have those problems. Just try it, you will never want to go back.
Fondu pots can achieve and maintain frying temperatures? And recovery relatively quickly from the temp drop when food is added?
@SAJ14SAJ Yes, they can, or at least the model I have can. The model I link to has an adjustable thermostat (with actual temperature markings), which makes using it extremely easy.
As explained by others, you need a sufficient mass ratio oil/doughnut to do the job properly, so the quantity of oil used can't be reduced significantly unless you are willing to do your doughnuts one by one and wait in between.
However, I think the issue might be exagerated:
If you fry donuts often, keep the oil and reuse it for that purpose - not an issue
If you don't, the total quantity of oil wasted isn't that significant. It looks like you are throwing away a lot of oil each time, but if you only do it once every few months, it's not a big deal.
If your concern is environmental impact, some cities welcome cooking oil donations and have drop centers for that purpose. If your concern is purely financial, you can look into using a cheaper oil, but if this is a treat you do once in a blue moon, how much difference does it make, really?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.732091
| 2013-12-12T20:53:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40194",
"authors": [
"AJMansfield",
"András Váczi",
"Bryan",
"Cos Callis",
"D C",
"JasonTrue",
"John",
"JohnHunt",
"PC Luddite",
"Richie Bartlett",
"Rosie Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sergey",
"Spammer",
"Sylver",
"Vtqh",
"Zahid Azman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93495",
"investigator sam",
"kutayd",
"rumtscho",
"sayiarín"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40259
|
Ideas for a pescetarian Turducken (aka a fish in a fish in a fish)
I've made a Turducken every year for the past several years as part of an end-of-year gathering with friends. This year, we have a pescetarian (no meat but fish is fine) coming as well, and I'd like to do something analogous for him. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with the challenges of putting a fish in a fish in a fish.
Some of the limited suggestions I've found online propose an innermost layer of some kind of "fish mousse" or crab meat or equivalent. Not bad suggestions, but there's a certain aesthetic appeal to the profile cut and appreciating the layers of meat fish that I'd like to maintain if possible.
Does anyone have any experience with this or ideas?
===============================================================
UPDATE: I stopped by the local fish market today to talk things through with the folks there. They are willing to debone the fish for me*. I am enamored with the idea of a strictly fish-in-fish-in-fish setup (e.g. no cheating with crustacean meat), but not tied too firmly to it. Their initial suggestion was an outer layer of salmon, a middle fish of something light and white (e.g. whitefish, haddock, maybe cod), and for the innermost: butterfish. The market owner wasn't there today (Sunday), but I'm going to talk this through with him tomorrow as well.
Re cooking: I unfortunately have neither experience nor the requisite equipment for sous-vide. I concur that layering largely independently-cooked fillets may be the best means of preparing this dish. If outermost fish still has head, skin, and scales I imagine the whole dish can be assembled in a manner that hides the actual preparation (and probably spends a little time under heat as a whole assembly, to allow flavors to blend). The market owner is a chef as well, so I'm hoping that talking this through with him tomorrow will be helpful.
*General Advice for others interested: After 6 years of making turduckens, I am quite capable of deboning the birds myself but have found that having a professional do it for me is $20 very well spent.
Just a random idea I've never tried so I won't post as an answer, but for the inside fish I'd consider quickly frying and chilling quickly so you really only have to warm it back up while the outside fish is cooking. Maybe some anchovies would give a nice salty burst on the inside also. That way you could get layers of crispy skin as well.
Post a picture of the final dish!
Of course! I intend to photograph the whole process :)
@Pat If you get a chance to meet me in chat while you're still pinning this down, I'd love to continue to play :) Mousse and stuffing ideas and that kind of thing are kind of right up my alley!
@Pat - are photos published somewhere? I am curious how it ended.
Unquestionably, I'd consider the colors of the fish. It seems a natural that your outer fish should be salmon (head, tail and skin intact, scaled, gutted, with spine and rib bones removed). I'd try to present the whole thing as if it were a whole salmon. Cut through the center of the salmon for presentation, that could be a tremendous presentation. (You've got me interested, I want to try this myself! :) For the inner fish varieties, consider very clean fillets of fish of different levels of oiliness and color of cooked flesh. Maybe halibut for the middle of the 3 layers and tuna for the center? It would be a neat trick if you could somehow fully cook the outer layers but keep the inner tuna layer rare. I'd stuff the very center of the whole thing with some kind of shrimp or crab mousse. I'd spread a deeply flavored and colored compound butter on the outer surfaces of the other fish. What fun! Good luck.
EDIT: SAJ14SAJ mentions sous-vide as a good cooking method. I concur. If you do that or very carefully poach the outer two fishes in advance, then sear the tuna and assemble everything, it could be epic. The tricky thing is deboning the outer fish. Here's a video showing the technique Deboning a Whole Trout. You might even consider presenting the whole thing chilled. Chilled, I'd forgo the butter and use brightly colored mousses between the layers of fish instead.
Unlike poultry which can be boned out, and then the cavity stuffed, fish tend to break down into two basic fillets. This makes a large scale stuffing application more challenging.
For this reason, you may be better off trying to create a strata (layered dish) or a roulade (rolled dish).
If I were to peruse this idea, I would suggest a roulade as the most striking presentation.
You will want firmer fish that is harder to overcook, and that can handle the manipulation required to make your roulade or strata. You also will want fish that is best served by being cooked through, rather than something like a blue fined tuna.
Four layers such as:
Salmon (for color)
Crab mousse
Cod (contrasting color)
Breadcrumb stuffing
To cook such a thing, you probably need to gently poach it. Sous-vide methods, if you have the equipment, would almost certainly work well, as they would substantially reduce the risk of overcooking, and the bag would help retain the shape until the fish sets.
Removing the ribs and spine of a big whole fish (like salmon) is doable (I've seen it) but it would be far beyond my abilities. Masaharu Morimoto could do it blindfolded and still have time to make 5 more dishes in one hour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.732789
| 2013-12-15T05:50:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40259",
"authors": [
"Andrew Gillis",
"Corey",
"IM Forip",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kelvie Wong",
"Pat",
"PeterJ",
"Rmaxx",
"Taliah McNelly",
"bigubr",
"byronaltice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93639",
"reducing activity"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104188
|
Faulty recipes: omitted ingredient or unused ingredient
I'm looking at ways of enhancing the production of my recipes, and a couple of quality control items have come up.
I've seen recipes where there's an ingredient that never gets used; and some where the instructions call for an ingredient that was never listed. There are also problems I've seen with bogus amounts (eg 7lb instead of 7oz) or amounts expressed in units that don't get used that way (eg 27 tsp of something or 1/32 cup of something).
Is anyone aware of any guidelines or software for recipe-writers to address things like this? I have seen a page at https://diannej.com/2010/7-more-most-common-recipe-writing-errors/ which identifies some editorial problems, but I'm looking at more concrete technical approaches.
To enhance the quality of your recipes, you need to have someone proof read them and execute the recipe; the second part, you should be there and record everything the testers do or not with your recipe.
To pick up errors and typos in existing recipe, you just need to proof read the recipe and apply whatever experience you have to fix them (for example if a cake recipe seems off with 25 cups of sugar, maybe by looking at the other ingredients it is actually 2.5 cups.
Same kind of analysis for either missing or wrong ingredients; if a cake recipe lists lemon zests but is not in the recipe steps, you need to decide with your own experience one way or the other it it should be used or not.
Anecdotal, there was a TV show (usa or canadian) a while back where they tested recipes from recipe books just by "executing" the recipes literally (no adjustment, no "maybe if we changed that")
There were tons of typos in quantities or missing ingredients or even oven settings (for example recipe forgot to say to turn on the oven) that a novice cook would not see, but a seasoned cook would pick up and adjust automatically.
Your first paragraph, is that something you have direct experience of, have heard of being done by food writers... We're not always big on backing things up on this Stack, but that seems like something which you should be clear if it is an established practice or your own idea.
Proofing and testing isn't the problem. Family and friends make excellent guinea-pigs :-) What I am doing is writing code to check ingredients against mentions in the method, and to check order of mention. I just wanted to know if anyone else has ever done this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.733486
| 2019-12-18T21:27:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104188",
"authors": [
"Peter Flynn",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80080"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104644
|
Should I mix vanilla sugar with wet or dry ingredients?
I could not find vanilla extract in my town. There is vanilla sugar instead in markets.In my cake recipe, there is vanilla extract and it is whipped with egg, sugar and oil. But I am not sure with vanilla sugar.
On my first attempt I mixed it with dry ingredients, but the cake I made had too much crystallization. I wasn't sure if that was the reason.
Should I mix it with my dry ingredients like flour, baking powder and etc or with egg and sugar in the first step. ?
Thanks.
You should use it as the sugar the recipe calls for. In this case, whip it with the eggs and oil. The vanilla in vanilla sugar is for flavoring and does not really alter the sugar.
Assuming that you ask about the dry product that usually consists of mostly sugar plus vanillin (or if really posh, genuine vanilla), the recommendation is to treat it like sugar and add it together with the other sugar in the recipe.
The total amount is small(ish), so unless you are making something very sensitive and finicky, adding it to the flour won’t make much of a difference, but it’s better and customary to treat it as sugar. If your recipe separates the sugar and uses some in a creaming step and some with beaten egg whites, add it to the former. You don’t want anything to interfere with the whites. (Again: small risk, but better safe than sorry.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.733727
| 2020-01-09T20:25:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104644",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3949
|
Pasta: is simmering equivalent to roiling boil?
I recently got into a surprisingly heated argument with a friend about what level of boil you should cook your pasta at. He (an engineer) argued that the heat transfer would remain the same regardless of the level of the boil and that anything above a simmer would be a waste of energy. I looked at it less from a heat transfer point of view and argued that a higher boil would increase agitation and cause the noodles to stick less to each other.
So what is it? Is a higher boil actually a waste of (a minuscule amount of) energy?
You should boil noodles. Simmering is not the same as boiling. Boiling water is 212 ℉ (100 ℃). Simmering water is in the range of 185 ℉ to 200 ℉ (85 ℃ to 93 ℃).
Your engineer friend is under the mistaken assumption that simmering is somehow a weaker boil than a rolling boil, but still 212 ℉. It's not.
You are correct in your assumption that the more vigorous rolling boil will agitate pasta and help prevent sticking.
And I would add...boil them in abundant water!
roux has linked to an article debunking these claims (I've repeated the experiment). What are your references?
lol. what claims? I stated the temperature at which water simmers and boils. That's hardly a claim, that's called a fact. The claim that vigorous boiling agitates pasta and prevents sticking? That certainly isn't debunked by that article. It provides an alternative. Just because I show you how to use an elevator doesn't mean stairs are invalid.
Sure enough, simmering and boiling is not the same, but the question is, do we need to boil, and why? I thought the article linked to from daniel's post (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3949/pasta-simmering-water-or-rolling-boil/3965#3965) sounds really solid. I'll try for myself and see.
@Hanno: That's actually not the question at all.
Neglecting the agitation, the result should be ~ the same, provided you simmer noodles for a specific lapse (longer than it would take to cook them in boiling water). The energy required by simple chemical reactions is independent of the time over which you apply it. Below the phase transition temp., higher stove power will provide that required energy faster, as it increases the water temp. Higher power when cooking at the phase transition just invests more energy in evaporating water, wasting this energy excess. Conclusion: if boiling, keep the minimum power required to maintain transition.
While either one will cook the pasta, the more convection movement of the water by the rapid boiling will keep the pasta agitated and minimize the chance of sticking.
A large ratio of water to pasta combined with vigorous boiling is your best bet against pasta sticking together. The higher volume of water helps reduce the concentration of starch that is released from the pasta.
Oil added to the water simply forms a grease slick on top.
I wonder if that's a double-edged sword, though, since the agitation from a boil increases starch release as well. I bet the optimal is inbetween, at 212 but no more roiling than necessary.
I understand the theory and practice discussed, I boil with plenty of water and then use some of the pasta water to help in thickening the sauce going with the pasta. This is traditional Italian method taught by my Mother in Law from Sicily. I have noticed my sauce does thicken more and it clings to the pasta better when I do this. This also works when I make a cheese sauce for pasta. Let me know what you try.
We were actually also interested in this idea. Can you give a little more detail as to how you do this? When do you add the water? How much water?
I'm a chemical engineer - in full support of SMH's answer. A gentle boil is sufficient to cook anything. The convection from the gentle boil helps prevent sticking, and provides ample distribution of heat necessary to cook the item in question.
Water boils at 100C at standard atmospheric pressure; a vigorous boiling doesn't raise the temperature above this threshold. The difference between a gentle boil and a vigorous boil requires a huge, unnecessary amount of additional, wasted energy.
An excess amount of water is wasteful from an energy standpoint as well; a water level a little above the level of the noodles is sufficient, with a tad more to accommodate the expansion in volume of the noodles. Covering the pot (leaving the lid slightly cracked to vent), and occasional stirring both holds in heat and helps prevent noodles from sticking.
Americans would stand to save huge amounts of energy by appropriately modifying cooking techniques, not to mention modifying behavior in general where resource use is considered.
I've started a rigorous boil many times then, after dumping noodles in (works both with elbow for macaroni or spaghetti), move to a simmer and they turn out perfect. I do simmer with a lid on to keep a boil going. The idea you have to have a boil is false. I'm basing my comment off experience.
See the reference in daniel's top-rated answer (not the selected one) for experimental details. Your experience is correct.
However (10 years after the question was asked) the latest is... add some chicken broth to a pre-made sauce for the expansion of the dry spaghetti noodles but, you don't boil the noodles or you'll surely be splattered!
https://www.tastingtable.com/1057806/why-it-pays-to-cook-pasta-directly-in-the-sauce-rather-than-water/
Welcome! Could you please add the relevant bits from your linked source right in the post? Web links have a tendency to go bad after a while so future readers may be unable to follow your link. For an instruction on how to properly mark content from other places, see How to reference material written by others. The [tour] and the [help] is always recommended for new users.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
I keep it rolling boil for the whole time. To prevent spaghetti to stick, you have three helping procedures.
The first is: you break them in the middle. This is heresy in Italy, but I find it a good solution to prevent clumping and to fit the spaghetti completely into the water from minute one.
The second trick is to clump the spaghetti together using the index and the thumb of each hand, in the center of the spaghetti, shaping the fingers in a ring. Then you rotate these rings in opposite directions. the spaghetti open in a sort of double cone (here is an example of the shape you should obtain before throwing them in), and the spread prevent them to clump. Then you throw them in the boiling water. This way, they open in a circle, with minimum contact area.
Third, you actually continue mixing them for the whole six minutes.
Regarding energy, the heat you "waste" actually goes into your house, so you are actually heating yourself, and in winter is good. In summer, I personally tend to eat something different.
If you need to break them to fit them into the pot, then your pot is too small.
I do it regardless of the size. However, you are right, I tend to use small pots. Takes less time to boil water.
212F is 212F. I simmer. I'm a Development Engineer. Always solving problems. Small water to cover pasta and use a lid. Lid keeps environment moist and boils in 75% of the time. Stir at the beginning and shake/stir the pasta a bit every few minutes. Use water with much more starch in your sauce. Yummy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.733907
| 2010-08-01T19:25:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3949",
"authors": [
"Andrestand",
"Aurora",
"Chris",
"ChrisGuy",
"Community",
"Hanno Fietz",
"JJJ",
"Katie Piotrowski",
"Kriem",
"Mohsen",
"Ocaasi",
"Ray Butterworth",
"Stefano Borini",
"Stephie",
"Valamas",
"anita thomas",
"avpaderno",
"daxelrod",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/961",
"iwein",
"stephenbayer",
"zoza0503"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81288
|
What does North American mixed dried fruit contain?
I have a recipe for a fruit cake that uses 2lb of mixed fruit plus 11oz currants and 15oz raisins
In the UK, mixed dried fruit is usually a mixture of sultanas, raisins, currants, and chopped candied peel, with little variation. If it is the same in America then I don't understand the addition of more currants and raisins, which would work only to halve the proportion of candied peel and sultanas
Is mixed dried fruit composed differently in the US?
You are probably aware of the difference, but just in case: Most of the fruit cakes I have had in the USA have been quite different from fruit cakes from Ireland/UK. A common perspective in the US is that a fruit cake is something of a perpetual gift.
Just for fun, Alton Brown's recipe for fruitcake has almost perfect reviews and the fruits are very different from the mix in my answer.
A generic product would be sold by dozens of brands with various different compositions.
From a Google search, I found several brands of mixed dry fruits available in the US. Some do contain raisins and/or currants, but not most. Typically, they contain apricots, apples, peaches, plums, pears and sometimes nectarines. Like This
I never thought of searching the stores. That's excellent, thank you. I can't buy anything like that in the UK, but all those fruits are available separately and I can just make up the mixture myself.
Nice thing about doing it that way is that you can use more of your favorites, and less of what you don't like as much. For fruit cake, I'd also consider dried pineapple.
That almost sounds more like snacks that you'd take on a hike ... not at all what I'd think of as a fruitcake blend.
@Joe Most of what I have seen in the US sold as mixed dried fruits is indeed what you would use for a trail mix base, often with carob, chocolate and/or nuts added. Most of the perpetual gift fruit cakes I have ever seen use those strange concoctions candied fruits like dyed green cherries, and very different product, however recipes that use dried fruits seem to be becoming much more frequent, more of a very tasty treat and far less of a joke item.
@dlb : You know that the red cherries are dyed, too, right? https://www.thespruce.com/the-truth-about-maraschino-cherries-759977 . I guess in the US, they tend to be more 'candied' fruit, rather than just 'dried' fruit.
Even UK recipes do this. See for example the Christmas cake recipe in Fast cakes by Mary Berry. And UK mixed dried fruit is quite variable (the cheapest is mostly currants, peel is optional and listed on the front of the packet, you get more exotic fruit like pineapple and papaya in the more expensive packs).
The reason for mixed fruit plus raisins (or currants) is to make a mix that's mainly raisins whatever the mixed fruit is. I don't tend to use currants but always have raisins on the go, so would replace the currants with raisins without a thought. I also go for the correct total of dried fruit with a minimum of open packets at the end. Small changes in the proportions don't make a big difference to the end result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.734681
| 2017-04-28T23:36:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81288",
"authors": [
"Borodin",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"copper.hat",
"curiousdannii",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43309
|
Can I substitute vanilla extract for cocoa powder in a cupcake recipe?
I found this recipe online for a chocolate cupcake recipe and I want to make it into a vanilla cupcake recipe. I know what you may be thinking "why doesn't she just find a vanilla cupcake recipe?" This one is vegan and it is the first one that I have seen that is even remotely basic with the ingredients and I am trying to make it as simple as possible for myself. If you could help me that would be lovely.
This is the recipe I am trying to change:
1 1/2 cups cake flour (not self-rising)
3/4 cup sugar
1/4 cup cocoa powder
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
5 tablespoons vegetable oil
1 tablespoon white vinegar
1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
1 1/4 cups water
I know this may seem simple but I am not the most experienced baker ever.
The reason why most recipes for vegan cupcakes don't use basic ingredients is that there is no basic ingredient which can substitute well for an egg. You can bake the above recipe, but it won't be very cakelike in texture.
Actually, that's a recipe called "crazy cake" or "wacky cake" and the texture is quite good.
Now I'm curious. Will try it soon to see what it's like.
The recipe you've found looks like "crazy cake" or "wacky cake" (or "depression cake"), which is a fairly common egg-free cake. I've made it a number of times for a friend with an egg allergy and it's a very good vegan cake.
To make a vanilla version, leave out the cocoa powder and increase the vanilla extract slightly (1.5 teaspoons). There are a wide array of variations on this blog -- chocolate is the "original" (and most common version that I have seen), but vanilla, spice, lemon, and more all seem to be possibilities.
I would definitely try that, just by increasing the flour or decreasing the water to 1 cup to compensate for the 1/4 cup of cocoa you're not putting in. I make a recipe very similar to this (1 cup sugar, 1/3 cocoa, 1 cup water, 1/2 cup oil, whatever flour, whatever vinegar, the rest the same) about twice a week, and the cupcakes/muffins come out great. So great my father, who's a baker, kept commenting on how good the chocolate cake was (I used it to make a cake).
Rather than a substitution what you really need to ask is what changes you need to make if you leave the cocoa powder out. Vanilla extract is a very concentrated liquid and the recipe already calls for 1 teaspoon of it, so adding more vanilla may not even be necessary depending on the result you are trying to get. Maybe an extra 1/2 tsp.
Cocoa powder is dry, leaving it out means you need to reduce the liquid a bit. How much is a good question, I'd take out 2tbsp of water and see if you get a good result.
One thing I'd definitely consider is taking the vinegar out. You need acid to react with the baking soda in order to get a rise, however white vinegar is a very strong flavor which won't work with the vanilla. In fact, I wouldn't use it even if I was making chocolate muffins. I'd substitute 1 and 1/2 tsp of baking powder (it's vegan) for the baking soda and vinegar. Baking powder is a mix of soda (sodium bicarbinate) and cream of tartar, which is a powdered potassium salt derived from wine making byproducts. Cream of tartar will add the acidity without much flavor. It will also give you a more consistent result as vinegars differ in acidity.
Rather than trying to adjust the liquid, the OP should substitute additional flour for the cocoa powder, and if removing the vinegar, use twice the volume of baking powder as the original recipe calls for in soda--this will already be acid balanced without trying to fuss with cream of tartar or another acidic element. Without any eggs or xantham gum or anything, I don't anticipate a stellar result from this recipe in its original or modified versions.
The baking soda and vinegar reaction is what leavens the cake, creating bubbles and "fluffiness." Would a non-liquid acid (e.g. cream of tartar) react the same way?
@Erica cream of tartar will react the same way, because both will dissolve in the water. You are right that acid-base reactions need to happen in a water solution, but acids always dissolve in water. It is also how baking powder works - the simpler type is just a mix of baking soda and cream of tartar in the correct ratio.
I like this recipe enough that it would be worth experimenting with cream of tartar to see how well it works. I imagine the vinegar was just a simpler go-to acid (while I do have cream of tartar in my well-stocked pantry, white vinegar is probably much more common). Thanks for the tip and info :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.734964
| 2014-04-06T07:02:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43309",
"authors": [
"Donna Cook",
"Eddie EMERY",
"Erica",
"Garry Papagno",
"JORGE BA",
"Patricia Denny",
"Patrick Fotografo",
"Rakesh Haluman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Telappliant Ltd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"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
}
|
67883
|
Why is rice parboiled? And how does parboiling change rice?
I have recently been using raw rice at my home. I have noticed that the non-parboiled rice sticks to each other while parboiled rice does not given the same amount of cooking time.
My questions:
Why is rice parboiled?
How does parboiling change rice chemically?
Is it possible to get (unprocessed) cooked rice not stick with each other when cooked?
The following excerpt answers questions 1 and 2. Additionally it reduces the cooking time for the parboiled rice.
Also known as converted rice, parboiled rice has been pressure-steamed
and then dried in its natural outer husk (which is later removed).
This process hardens the starch in the grains so they remain firmer,
less sticky, and separate when cooked. It also forces the vitamins and
minerals from the outer layer of the grains into the endosperm, which
is the part we eat. This makes parboiled rice a more nutritious option
than regular (unenriched) white rice, which doesn't retain any of the
goodness of the nutrient-rich husk.
There are several techniques you can use to prevent unprocessed cooked rice from sticking to each other:
Use medium to long grain rice.
Rinse the rice until the rinsing water is completely clear.
Use the Boil and Steam method to cook the rice. In this method boil the rice for 5-10 minutes. Then pour off the excess water and steam the rice for an additional 10 minutes. This method of cooking the rice reduces the most starch on the outside of the rice which is what causes the sticking.
Source:
The Science of Cooking Rice
lol yes, I meant raw rice when cooked, not raw rice as such. Thanks for the clarification and the excellent answer!
Yeah, no. 1 tip is rinse before cooking. I put mine in a tub of water and agitate it quite roughly giving the grains get a nice polish, then rinse till clear. I only really use Basmati rice now, it never turns out sticky. I only use absorption method though, and microwave cooking makes it quick and simple.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.735335
| 2016-03-30T12:15:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67883",
"authors": [
"Chris A",
"One Face",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64241
|
Kneading Bread After Rising
Why should bread be kneaded before rising?
If I knead bread after the first rise what difference will it make?
Have you checked this, and this?
@Stephie thanks for the link. I did this using Mobile which did not show similar questions. Sorry for that.
You can knead the dough after bulk fermentation. In fact by mixing it you will allow the yeast to access more of the sugars. Of course allow some time to rise between the last kneading and the baking.
The purpose of kneading is to develop gluten in the dough. Gluten is made of long strands of protein — it makes the dough stretchy, so it can contain the bubbles created by the yeast or sourdough culture, enabling the dough to rise. Therefore, you need to knead before rising.
If you knead the dough again after its first rise, you'll destroy many of the bubbles and your dough will become flat and dense. Most recipes call for a "forming" step after the first rise — this should be done gently, so as to keep as many of those bubbles in the dough as possible. This will keep your bread light, with a nice open crumb.
Thanks for the answer. So kneading after rising will not leave enough sugar for yeast to act on and release enough gas for a thorough second rise?
There's two different actions happening here. Again, kneading creates the gluten that enables the dough to contain gas bubbles. Without gluten, the dough would act like a porous paper towel - you can blow air right through it. With gluten, the dough acts like a rubber balloon - adding air will cause it to inflate. So, you want to create all the gluten at the very beginning. — It's not that a second kneading will deplete the sugar, it's just that the dough can only rise so much in total. You don't want to destroy everything it accomplished in that first rise by kneading away all the bubbles.
You can try an experiment and do it both ways. Mix up a batch of dough and after kneading, separate it into two pieces. After the first rise, very gently fold and form one piece into a loaf. Knead the second piece of dough to your heart's desire, and then form it into a loaf. Let the two loaves rise a second time, and bake them. See what happens.
" I like kneading. It makes my hands nice and clean! "
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.735521
| 2015-12-09T07:03:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64241",
"authors": [
"Carol Nemeth",
"Christine Wallace",
"ElmerCat",
"Ian Marson",
"Jules",
"One Face",
"Peter Kilipati",
"Sally Turner",
"Stephie",
"Thomas Ahle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6305"
],
"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
}
|
62603
|
Xanthan Gum for Cinnamon Rolls
Are there any guidelines to the ratio of brown sugar to cinnamon to xanthan gum to get that gooey texture in cinnamon rolls? I'm trying to make cinnamon rolls and want the perfect filling. :)
Perhaps a stupid question, but what would you need the xanthan gum for? I usually brush the dough with butter and sprinkle with sugar and cinnamon...
@Stephie Looks like xanthan gum is used for gluten free baking: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/blog/2015/08/05/xanthan-gum/ Recipe 5 should interest CookingNewbie.
@WayfaringStranger Yet OP explicitly asks for the filling...? Will bookmark the link nevertheless, thanks!
Maybe the xanthan confusing is from here:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/28893/need-help-cinnamon-rolls
@Stephie - the xantham gum is to make the filling ooey gooey. Helps prevent the filling from falling to the bottom of the pan.
I'm with Stephie here. Gums and stabilizers aren't necessary. Butter and brown sugar turn into caramel in the oven- as gooey as you could want. I'm afraid the answer to your question is a ratio of 1 part sugar to 0 parts xanthan gum.
Do you have a recipe that includes xanthan gum that isn't working quite how you want, or you've starting from scratch and want to know how much would be appropriate to add to a recipe that doesn't have xanthan gum?
Is the bounty because you just don't want any answers that don't use xanthan gum? You know you don't actually need it, right?
Cinnabon uses gum. Trying to do a copy of theirs.
A lot of the ingredients used by a place like Cinnabon aren't necessary to recreate the product, they're processing aids that help when making in quantity, freezing, etc. Further, their ingredient statement doesn't seem to include xanthan gum. but it does include modified food starch and invert sugar, both of which are gooey.
I have been making cinnamon rolls professionally for 10 years. I have done both traditional cinnamon rolls and gluten-free cinnamon rolls, and the only time xanthan gum was included was in the dough for the gluten-free rolls. Normally the inside is gooey because the butter and sugar (and some moisture that the sugar pulls out of the dough) combine and form what is basically a heavy syrup inside the roll (cinnamon also contains/releases some gums of its own, but their effect is probably negligible due to the short cooking time). Xanthan gum would function to make sort of a sauce of your smear, but there really shouldn't even be enough moisture there for the gum to absorb.
If you're having trouble with the smear sinking out of the roll as they cook, you can try using less butter in your smear, or just using sugar and cinnamon and only brushing the exterior with butter. Butter melting will cause separation between the layers, whereas the sugar cooking will stick them together. A far out option would be to include some powdered sugar to help soak up the extra moisture (but again, just don't include extra moisture!). Xanthan gum shouldn't be necessary at all unless you're making a recipe specifically to be frozen raw or trying to make a separate caramel sauce (which still shouldn't need it!)
Since the question now appears to be specifically about Cinnabon cinnamon rolls, according to one of their spokespeople, they don't include xanthan gum. They do include both invert sugar, which helps to keep sugar syrups smooth and is very gooey on it's own, and modified corn starch, which is a thickener and gelling agent. A lot of ingredients in a commercial product, like Cinnabon, are only there for ease of handling such large quantities and to help ensure consistency in freezing, thawing, shipping, etc. For instance, if you were going to mass produce dough and freeze it, you'd need azodicarbonamide to keep your dough supple. Making dough at home or in a restaurant, there would be no advantage to using it. As such, the usage level is usually between .25% and .5% for most gums, but the usage would be based more on how long the dough is frozen, how quickly it's frozen, etc rather than a ratio with other ingredients.
Classic cinnamon roll recipes do not include xanthan gum or other extra stabilizers in the filling recipe. As SourDoh relates, they primarily rely on the caramelization of the sugar as a binding agent and to a lesser extent the gelling action of the cinnamon itself.
This doesn't make it wrong to add xanthan gum to the filling, but it does mean that it is less common, and there is no single classic ratio to rely on. There are several modern recipes circulating which do use xanthan gum in the filling (and some that include cornstarch), in particular, Cinnabon clone recipes.
Reading through a heckuvalotta recipes, I'd recommend that you do not want more than 2 tsp xanthan gum or 1 Tbsp cornstarch for a filling with about 1/2 c butter or margarine and about 1 c brown sugar. Some recipes use less xanthan gum, some use more cornstarch. I think more than this amount will make it more gluey and less gooey, and might start to affect the flavor. You could very easily use half of that.
I haven't tried this method myself, though. This is just a survey of reading a lot of recipes and the comments from users on those recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.735765
| 2015-10-17T22:46:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62603",
"authors": [
"C Bow",
"Carol Van Tuinen",
"Cascabel",
"CookingNewbie",
"Donna Baumoehl",
"Elizabeth Weiss",
"Erica",
"Kevin Eckhardt",
"Lionel Shockley",
"Pam Lippert",
"Sabina Dandavino",
"Salena Watson",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"Tim Meh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"arkon",
"dave colwell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"soegaard",
"tim cooley"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45853
|
Why to remove skin and seeds of tomatoes when we puree them?
I tried a couple of recipes which demanded tomato puree which was eventually cooked as part of the gravy. The gravy turned sour even after cooking it covered for more than 15 minutes. Is that because I didn't get rid of the skin and the seeds? Is that why they remove skin and seeds after boiling them for making puree? I wonder if it's just for texture or for taste too. Also, recipes like butter chicken require ripe tomatoes. But even after using somewhat ripe tomatoes (directly blended in a mixer), the gravy stays sour. What exactly goes wrong here? I've seen a couple of recipes of butter chicken from decent sources that use a large number of tomatoes (e.g. this recipe uses 12 tomatoes for 400 gm boneless chicken), I just wonder why the heck it doesn't turn sour in their case? I know they add honey and cream, but still.
Too many questions I guess in one go, but they are closely related according to me.
Edit - At least the red-looking tomatoes that we get here in India have sour/tangy taste. But they are still eatable when raw. But a large quantity of tomatoes should make the gravy sour, shouldn't they? I wonder why they don't when chefs follow those recipes. Not sure if any of you guys have experienced this issue before.
Also, the reason I ask about tomatoes and sour gravies in the same question is that, is it just about ripeness of tomatoes or the way of cooking/pureeing them which makes difference to the sourness of the gravy.
How do the tomatoes taste if you just eat them fresh? Is it actually getting more sour as you cook it?
Also, yes, this is too many questions. I would strongly suggest splitting the "why remove skin and seeds?" from "why is my gravy sour?"
@Jefromi I agree to some extent, but I would like to get views around significance of ripe tomatoes and the ways of cooking/pureeing them while preparing gravies. Hence, the combined question :)
It is true that the gel surrounding the seeds is sourer than the rest of the tomato. That might have some effect. However, the rest of the tomato is also somewhat sour. So is canned puréed tomato. I have to say, though, that I think there is nothing wrong with an acidic twang to gravy; why do you feel there is anything wrong with that?
The problem is when it's too sour. And recipes like butter chicken are not supposed to taste sour (the way I've tasted in restaurants) at all. I've started wondering if cooking diced tomatoes, then blending and straining the seeds and skin will help me out. Am gonna try that in my next attempt. I hope I'm gonna be patient, few more times.
@Swapnil Are you familiar with peeling and seeding raw tomatoes? It's not hard to do.
@Swapnil: I think most of the acid is in the transparent gel surrounding the seeds. You won't get that out by straining.
@Jolenealaska Yes, I'm. Just trying to understand whether that is going to make any difference.
A little slaked lime works wonders for an overly tart tomato sauce: http://www.tarladalal.com/glossary-slaked-lime-1047i
@Swapnil You might reconsider separating your questions. So far you have two answers, both of which are just about seeding and skinning (unsurprising, you made it the title), not the sour part. They're really different issues. I know you thought maybe they might be related, but a sour tomato is sour with or without the seeds and skin.
@Jefromi a sour tomato is sour with or without the seeds and skin. I guess that answers my question.
@Swapnil Well, not the "why skin and seed?" and not the "how do I make it not sour?" questions, which seem much more interesting.
"how do I make it not sour" is more important for me in this question. skin/seeds was what I thought of as one of the answers, but it isn't it seems. If you could just post that as an answer, I'll be glad to accept it (rather than me writing it and accepting it).
@Swapnil : in many Italian tomato sauce recipes, you add a pinch or two of sugar to help mask overly sour tomatos. Personally, I find the seeds more bitter than sour.
For whatever reason, the brand of tinned tomatoes I used to buy regularly had somewhat bitter-tasting seeds; the flavour was definitely present in pureed soups / sauces.
I used to squeeze them all out by hand, but some still made it into my precious San Marzano tomato sauces.
Then I found the perfect tool for skinning and seeding larger quantities of tomatoes: the food mill.
For the next several years, I dutifully used my mill to remove seeds from my favorite brand of (already skinned) tinned tomatoes - boring, yes, but the bitterness was gone.
Sometime during this period, I switched to a different brand of tomatoes. Then I got bored of the food mill, and pureed them whole again... with no bitterness.
The moral of the story? Eat some of the seeds! If they're bitter, get rid of them before you puree. If you don't really notice, then don't bother.
My food mill still makes great mashed potatoes. Or are they milled potatoes?
Great story! Welcome to the site, Ben.
It is possible that the tomatoes you are using are under ripe, however could I suggest another possibility, are you using an aluminium pan? Tomatoes are acidic, and they can react with the metal in an aluminium cooking pot to change the flavour in a way that might taste unpleasant or metalic.
http://noshon.it/tips/tomatoes-and-aluminu/
If it is not the pan, then you should concider the variety of tomato you are using, if available try using smaller cherry tomatoes which are sweeter, or if using bigger beef tomatoes try adding a pinch of granulated sugar whilst cooking.
Thanks for the tip. I've been using non-stick pan, so that's not a possibility. I guess it has to do with the variety of tomatoes then!
Sorry, this is chemically impossible. Tomatoes in aluminium will become less acidic, not more - their acid will react to metal salts. These are unpleasant tasting by themselves, but the resulting taste won't be described as sour, and the pH will go up, not down.
@rumtscho - edited, meant to say metalic, not acidic. Ty for highlighting that.
@MartinJevon OK, I reversed the downvote because you removed the incorrect claim. I still think it's not so applicable to suggest a source of metalic taste to somebody experiencing a problem with sour taste, but sometimes people do have trouble with correct descriptions.
From a soup/sauce perspective, the reasons you may want to remove the seeds and skin:
They taste bad/different to you.
You don't like the texture they add.
You are trying to impress someone. I think a smoother product is nicer.
If none of these bother you, don't bother. There's no reason you should't eat all of a tomato.
Note
To remove the skin, cut a cross in the bottom of the tomato and blanche them. The skin should come off readily.
To get rid of the seeds, I would suggest cutting the top and bottom off of the tomato. So you have a barrel shape. Cut enough off so that you can see the seeds from both ends. Now you can cut around the cluster of seeds in the middle. Save the seeds for a stock.
for removing the skin ... more detail at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/804/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.736360
| 2014-07-24T17:18:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45853",
"authors": [
"5im",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin Jevon",
"Swapnil",
"Toni Aucoin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109225
|
Firming up Neapolitan Pizza Crust
We cooked some pizza last night and had a good time. However, the crust was limp. I was expecting to tap the bottom and hear the tap tap tap sound but it was too soft.
We have an Alphaforni 5 Minuti Wood fire oven running at 500°F. The temperature was measured using the built in thermometer. I had preheated the oven for over an hour.
The dough was sitting out of the fridge for about 2.5 hrs before we got it into the oven.
How can I get the bottom crispier?
What would cause such a soft bottom?
Depending on your oven design, one hour may not be long enough to fully preheat.
500F is low, and was that the air temperature or the oven base temperature? How did you measure it?
500F is not really that hot, in terms of Neapolitan pizza. Traditionally, they are baked for 2 minutes or less, at 700F - 900F (371 - 482C). So, this could be a temperature, and/or a cooking surface issue. What type of oven are you using? On what type of surface is your pizza cooking?
The "official" recipe for Neapolitan pizza calls for 900F.
and no more than 90 seconds.
we have an Alphaforni 5 Minuti. I thought the temp may be low
I've heard that Neapolitan pizza is traditionally served with a soggy base in the middle. I've never been to Naples so I can't confirm that this is true, but you might just be cooking a "classic" Neopolitan pizza :)
That said, I prefer a crispy base like you! I can think of a few possible explanations for a crispy crust and a soggy base/bottom:
Trapped steam. Try resting your pizza for a minute on a wire rack to let steam escape from the base before serving.
The pizza was taken out prematurely, which prevented the pizza from developing a hearty base/crust. If you have a thick pizza, you can even end up with pizza that's doughy in the middle.
Wet ingredients can cause the crust to absorb all the moisture from the sauce and ingredients (use low-moisture mozzarella!)
Cooking on a non-conductive surface. Unlike most indoor ovens, most of the heat in an outdoor oven doesn't come from below the pizza -- it usually comes from the wood, which is lit and placed next to the cooking area. If the cooking surface isn't conductive for some reason, you might end up with a soggy bottom. Preheating a pizza stone or cooking your pizza in a cast iron pan could help transfer the heat from your oven to the base of your pizza.
I have been to Naples, and they don't serve with a soggy bottom. The base of any thin crust pizza gets soggy if you leave it enough.
Anecdotally - I used to have a friend [British/Italian] whose job it was to go round pizza restaurants teaching them how to get the base right, from dough method to cook. His bases would be just slightly too soft to lift a whole slice easily, the end [last inch in the middle] would just turn down; but they were to die for. Perfect crust, perfect char. [I never did learn the secret, otherwise I'd be typing an answer instead of this comment ;)
@Tetsujin: Could you convince your friend to join :) ?
I wish - I haven't seen him in 30 years, since I moved to the other end of the country.
The crust Tetsujin perfectly describes the pizza I had (and loved!) in Naples! Not soggy, but definitively soft in the middle. You definitely couldn't tap on it and get any sound off it - more chewy than crispy!
An authentic Neapolitan Pizza usually has a rim that is fluffy and soft in the inside and comes with a delicate eggshell crust (cornicione) and when cutting a slice of it, it is expected to bend at the tip.
So if you are aiming for a crunchy crust you probably don´t want a Neapolitana. To reach this goal you can tweak some parameters:
Lower the hydration to less than 50%*, official Neapolitana calls for 55-62% and hydrations of 70% and above are common. The reason for this is that the water 'explodes' to steam faster at the 900°F than the dough cooks creating the big, fluffy alveoli in the rim.
According to this lower temperatures will also help create a crunchier crust because the water evaporates slower leading to a more compact and thus stiffer result. Your 500°F should already be a good choice and I would not recommend to go even lower.
Add 4-8% oil to your dough, this will give the texture more crunchiness as 'fries' the dough a bit. Neapolitan doug does not contain oil at all.
Increasing the amount of salt (e.g. by 0.5%) also might help a little as it strengthens the gluten network. (For this reason doughs used for pizza acrobatics contain much more salt than doughs for baking.)
* All percentages are bakers percents.
How do you measure hydration?
Its also measured in bakers percentages. The reference is always the amount of flour used. So when using 1Kg of flour 50% hydration mean 500g of water, 60% 600g.
The advantage of using bakers percents is not only better scalabilty but also that it requires to measure all ingredients by weight what is usually more precise than to measure by volume.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.736972
| 2020-06-22T21:36:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109225",
"authors": [
"Brig",
"GdD",
"J. Mueller",
"Matthieu M.",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"bracco23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"mfox"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1936
|
Fondue without Gruyere cheese
Can you give me some good tips how to prepare Fondue without Gruyere/Raclete cheese? What are possible substitutes, and what should I pay attention to when substituting?
It's not a true Fondue but I've done something very similar by taking a white sauce base made with 50 / 50 wine and milk. You then melt in lots and lots of cheese and you get something very nice and similar to a fondue. You can pretty much use any reasonably melting cheese you like although a strong cheddar is very nice. For something really interesting add some Mozzerella and slowly melt it down and you get a wonderful stringy finish.
Vacherin, Comté or Emmental,
I wouldn't go for Gouda, it's not cheese from the fondue regions. But it's maybe worth an experiment ;)
Don't forget you can mix cheeses, 1/2 Gruyere and 1/2 Emmental for example,
+1 In Switzerland we have death penalty on putting Gouda, Cheddar an the likes in a fondue!
Gouda gives a creamy flavour to Fondue. Don't be dogmatic. :-)
I've had good fondue with gouda and/or cheddar. Gouda is more an 'additive' than a fondue base, though (imho).
In New Zealand we made fondue moitié-moitié with mild white Cheddar and Gouda. Very creamy. I think you can make fondue with almost any meltable pure and good cheese, if the original ingredients are unobtainable. More important is the dry wine, a little starch, garlic and pepper. A shot of a good hard liquor also adds flavor. Kirsch (cherry schnapps) is best, but good whisky or cognac also works.
If the wine is not dry enough, give a spoon of lemon juice or even vinegar (!). The acid helps the blending. If the cheese separates, dissolve a tea-spoon starch in the liquor and reheat carefully stirring continuously.
Gouda and Cheddar also work for Raclette.
NB: we are Swiss and not dogmatic at all! :-)
Two more tips for good fondue's I've made without gruyere:
Spicy fondue with ginger
Blue cheese fondue (generally made a but softer with mascarpone) & white wine. Excellent for dipping dark brown bread and grapes.
Try fontina and truffles for an Italian Alpine fondue.
You can also take the standard Swiss fondue recipe moitié-moitié and use all Emmental instead of 1/2 Gruyere and 1/2 Emmental. This came in handy when looking for a way to make fondue for a person who needs to avoid all dairy products from cow and goat milk. In Switzerland, I was lucky enough to find sheep Emmental. I'm not Swiss but I was happy with the result :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.737422
| 2010-07-19T09:44:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1936",
"authors": [
"Henry van Megen",
"Jesse Beder",
"Mark Richman",
"Mike",
"Rain",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Vinz",
"Yodan Tauber",
"groovingandi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"meiryo",
"nalply",
"razlebe",
"wlangstroth"
],
"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
}
|
90695
|
Home-made Burger buns food safety
How can I make burger buns that I can keep for a long time?
I have tried making some, but fungus starts growing on them after just two days...
Could you please edit your question and add, how you prepared and stored your burger buns? And how long do you plan to keep them?
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Thanks! Missed that one! :-)
I am not entirely sure what you are asking, but the closest interpretation sounds like a duplicate of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7804/is-there-anything-i-can-add-to-homemade-bread-to-preserve-it.
Best way to keep bread for a long time, more than 1 day, especially burger buns, which are more fragile than regular bread is to freeze them.
Slice them open and freeze them as quickly as possible, but in a freeze bag.
(edit)
If your buns start having fungus after just a couple of days, maybe there is something wrong with your recipe; could you share the recipe?
I've also been making burger buns for more than a year now, including with egg wash and sesame on top (tip).
Best solution is to freeze them to keep them for more than a couple days.
You can also keep them a couple days, up to a week, without freezing using the following methods:
Add a preservative. This may sound 'unnatural' but a very common preservative is E300, which is Vitamine C. Lemon juice!
Store it in a paper bag, which will allow water vapor to escape and not create a too humid environment around the bread. Humid environments will cause fungus.
Good luck
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.737653
| 2018-06-30T14:49:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90695",
"authors": [
"Arsak",
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54896",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19382
|
Is it safe to store batter/dough that contains eggs?
I sometimes like to make a large batch of pancake butter or cornbread dough, and fry/bake it whenever I want some freshly made pancakes or cornbread. Both these liquids contain eggs. Is is safe to store them in the fridge, so long as they eventually get cooked? Nothing is being consumed raw here.
If so, how long can I reasonably store the batter/dough before things get iffy? I'm wondering about salmonella in particular.
Also, keep in mind that the leaveners may lose the effectiveness over time. That may actually ruin your batter before spoilage.
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer
Of course you can store them in the fridge. When things start to smell bad, you should toss it. From what I remember off hand, every pancake or cornbread batter recipe I've read says about a week is safe.
Personally I've kept pancake batter in the fridge for 3-4 days, because I only make 1-2 pancakes at a time for myself in the morning before classes. I've never had a problem with it, other than a loss of rise. If you are worried about salmonella, I would say just make sure the pancakes are cooked all the way through. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/20080611/salmonella-frequently-asked-questions
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.737796
| 2011-12-05T02:32:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19382",
"authors": [
"Dan Nissenbaum",
"Dosjetka",
"Mahmood Haeri",
"TJ Sherrill",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51689",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21307
|
How to thin chocolate for dipping
How do you make chocolate thin enough to dip strawberries?
If I make it thin enough to dip (with butter) will that affect allowing it to set-up and harden?
I saw another question about the thickness but nothing about hardening.
How do you make chocolate thin enough to dip strawberries?
Melt it. I'm not trying to be funny here -- you should have no problem dipping strawberries or pretty much anything else (that's solid) in melted chocolate. When candy makers coat things in chocolate, that's all they're using -- they don't add anything to make the chocolate thinner. If you're really having trouble in this respect, then perhaps your chocolate isn't fully melted, or perhaps it's something other than real chocolate.
If you want the chocolate to be "tempered" when it hardens/dries/crystalizes, you're going to have to read up on tempering and be pretty careful with the temperature (but you'll end up with a superior product if you do).
If I make it thin enough to dip (with butter) will that affect
allowing it to set-up and harden?
Yes, that will definitely affect the way the chocolate sets up. When chocolate hardens, the cocoa butter contained in the chocolate forms crystals. The crystals can actually take several different forms, and only one of those forms makes for the best appearance and hardness. That's why you temper chocolate, btw. Adding other substances, particularly another fat, will affect or prevent that crystallization process.
I assume I'm not using real chocolate. I didn't think to add that to my question. in fact it is beanut butter/chocolate mix. thanks for the tips!
I would like to add that sometimes chocolate for dipping does have additional cocoa butter added to help the texture when it's melted. This will solidify at the same temperature as regular chocolate (and it's a component of chocolate, so it's not adding anything that's not already present).
Caleb has great answer that pretty much covers it.
The only thing I would add is this: If you want to lower the melting point of your chocolate (or keep it liquid longer), I add cream.
The cream stops it from solidifying quickly, which is great if you have fondue set which is warmed with a candle.
It also doesn't affect the flavour (much).
Be careful though, adding too much can stop it from solidifying at all.
adding just a little melted wax works fine for me, and helps it set up when it cools. I do this particularly for dark chocolate, which is really too thick for dipping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.737946
| 2012-02-13T05:32:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21307",
"authors": [
"Brad Nesom",
"Manu3l0us",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62473",
"john cox"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12382
|
Storing Baking Soda
How can I store baking soda outside of the box it comes in? I buy baking soda in the orange box all the time however, I don't use it that often but hate leaving it in that box. Is there a proper way to store baking soda?
I don't want to store it in the open box in the fridge because it tends to absorb flavor and I want to make sure I don't store it in an improper container either.
Can I ask if you really mean baking POWDER? Because the orange box is almost always baking SODA, which is not the same thing. If it's baking soda, then the answer from GeneratorHalf is fine, but if it's actually baking powder then I'd go with TMarshall.
Son of a...you're right, bikeboy389. :( I can't believe I did that!
You could always keep it in the box, but place the box in a large resealable plastic bag. That should keep it from coming in contact with off aromas or anything.
Let me admit that I am answering this more from the position of a former Chemistry teacher than a cook. I never encountered this type of question as a professional cook, but I certainly did as a chemist. So please forgive the somewhat scientific answer.
The primary concerns in storing baking powder are keeping it dry and cool. Exposure to air in itself is not a big concern, but it's best to keep it in a reasonably air-tight container to prevent moisture in the air from effecting the baking powder.
The way baking powder works, is (primarily) by a reaction between the main ingredient (Sodium Bicarbonate), and a secondary ingredient which is some kind of acidic salt (often Sodium Aluminum Sulfate) when they combine with water and heat. A lot of fancy chemical "stuff" happens that you probably don't care about, that ultimately produces a byproduct of carbon dioxide - a gas. The gas causes tiny bubbles in the batter or dough and gives it a softer texture.
So if you want to store baking powder for a long time, you must protect it from water and heat. If you are ever in doubt about the viability of your baking powder, I'll suggest a simple test. Add a small amount of baking powder (1ts/5ml) to a small amount (2oz/50ml) of hot water. If the baking powder is still viable, it should become effervescent and produce small bubbles or fizz in the water. This tells you it will do the same in whatever you are baking.
I'm so sorry I screwed up and you typed such a long answer that contains a lot of good information. I've voted you up and I hope others do the same.
Ha ha! Not a problem. I wondered about the "orange box" when I wrote my answer, but figured it fit the question so it might be helpful to someone. in any case, my answer would not have been much different for baking soda since it is sodium bicarbonate - the primary ingredient in baking powder. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.738140
| 2011-02-19T18:18:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12382",
"authors": [
"Buildstarted",
"Dmitri",
"Eccles19",
"KJT",
"NForkMossback",
"Nicolas",
"TMarshall",
"akikara",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4940",
"kan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35175
|
What could cause a sudden loss of sour flavor?
Background
During the weekend, my mother made a plum cake and put slices of plum on top. She gave me a piece to try and it was sweet and good for ~1.5 seconds before my face puckered from how sour it was. I can usually take sour thing (I like to eat lemons/limes with salt and keep dipping into a bottle of citric acid), but I was surprised by how a cake could be so sour, even with a small slice of plum.
She took the slice of plum off of another piece and gave it to one of her neighbors who also puckered from how sour it was.
“Problem” / Mystery
The next morning, she had another piece and was surprised to find that it was not sour whatsoever. She gave me a piece later in the day to confirm that it was not just her tongue that was broken and sure enough, it was not sour in the slightest. All traces of sourness had completely gone, literally, overnight. In fact, she made two of them and they both gave the same results (really sour, then suddenly not).
Question
I know that in the culinary field, some kinds of food molecules can break down under certain circumstances, but I have never heard of anything that could explain this.
Now we are both baffled by this mystery. What the heck could cause a homemade cake that was shockingly sour to lose every last bit of sourness in less than a day? Nothing had changed (she did not cook or freeze it); she left it on the counter, covered in a mesh overnight.
Have you considered it may have been an effect of something else you had been eating on the first occasion?
I observed something similar years ago with sour-coated candy (sweet gummy confections coated with a citric acid powder). Intensely sour at first, but noticeably less after a few days in storage and merely tangy after a few weeks. I have no good explanation for this though.
@SAJ14SAJ, no, it was definitely the plum. Besides, at least three different people confirmed how tart it was, including her neighbor.
It may have been the act of leaving the plums on top of the cake, covered overnight at room-temperature. This might have concentrated the natural ethylene produced by the plum enough to cause it to ripen by breaking down the starches and turning it into sugars.
Even if this were true, how would it affect the amount of acid?
@SAJ14SAJ sugar wont affect the amount of acid but it will reduce how sour it tastes.
Interesting theory. I never heard of sliced fruit ripening, but I guess this could happen. What makes me doubt it is that even on the tree, under best conditions, one night of ripening won't turn a very sour plum into a sweet one.
My mom's Pflaumkuchen (plum cake), similarly sounding to the OP's, had the same results quite often. If slightly underripe plums are used to top the cake, they may retain some tartness immediately after baking but would mellow to just a nice sweet flavor by the 2nd day. I don't know the cause, I just experienced it almost every time.
Interesting theory. The next time she makes it, I’ll suggest putting some slices of both ripe and unripe plums on different sides to test it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.738404
| 2013-07-09T01:58:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35175",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Kristina Lopez",
"LCarvalho",
"Pranshu Gupta",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shog9",
"Synetech",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43698
|
Why are my cookies falling apart?
I tried making this recipe: Nutella Cookie Crisps.
Since I am not in the USA, I had to convert cups to grams. It ended up being about 300g Nutella, 200g soft brown sugar, and the 6 tablespoons of flour came out to 62g. I used 1 tsp bicarbonate of soda, 1 large egg and about 120g of chocolate chips, as the recipe indicates.
The recipe said that the dough would be sticky and wet, because of the Nutella, but mine wasn't. It was dry, difficult to mix the chocolate chips into it because they wouldn't "stick" in and kept falling apart. I initially used 280g Nutella, but seeing this consistency problem I added another 20g. This seemed to make it worse, and make the dough even more crumbly.
When baked for 10 minutes at 180C, after cooling and setting, the cookies taste overwhelmingly of raw brown sugar and just fall apart. I was aiming for the cookies to be crisp on the outside, with a chewy, toffee-like consistency in the middle. They're slightly crisp outside, but the inside is soft and crumbly and just tastes of sugar. I know that 200g of brown sugar certainly isn't more than 1 cup, so I have no idea what's gone wrong.
I tried baking one of the cookies for a further 5 minutes, but it hasn't made any difference. I still have half the dough in the fridge, so if someone could help me salvage it, I'd be very grateful!
Thank you everyone! I also re-read the Serious Eats article on cookies (http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html) and saw it specifically says that it's the dissolved sugar that gives the caramel taste, which is what my cookies were missing, in addition to the insufficiently hydrated flour. I hope that by dissolving the sugar in the eggs thoroughly beforehand & using the corrected conversion for flour, I'll achieve the hardened caramely effect I was hoping for.
I think your main issue was unit conversion, particularly for the flour (you had too much) and the chocolate chips (too little).
1 cup Nutella 300 grams[1]
1 cup brown sugar 200 grams
1 tsp baking soda
1 large egg
6 tablespoons flour 45 grams flour
1 cup semisweet chocolate chips Appx 150-175 grams depending on reference site
[1] How much does a cup of Nutella weigh?
I base the flour calculation on (6 / 16 tablespoons / cup) * 4.25 oz canonical cup for US recipes * 28.3 grams / ounce. The cup weight for flour can vary but I find 4.25 oz is a good value for recipes that don't otherwise specify.
Given that you have too much flour, probably insufficiently hydrated (the egg yolk and nutella are the only sources of water in the recipe, and I don't know how much water is in nutella), you can try adding a little more egg yolk or water to see if it helps, but your best bet would be to start a fresh batch.
Thanks! I thought I was safe with the flour because I actually used a teaspoon (levelled) for it. Could the flour being insufficiently hydrated be responsible for the cookies tasting overpoweringly of brown sugar? I'll try adding egg yolk to the remaining mixture, just in case.
Although it sounds silly, I think all of the brown sugar is the reason for the brown sugar flavor. :-)
"cup weight for can vary" - no kidding, ATK says it's 5oz. But really, cookie recipes can be very sensitive, so when you're dealing with a recipe from someone's blog, even if you do everything right by their recipe, it still might not come out right. (Maybe their flour was less packed, maybe they're lazy in their measurements...)
Aha, yes I guess that might be why it tastes sugary. Thank you both, and thank you for so much information SAJ14SAJ. I'll try adding some egg to what's in the fridge, if only to experiment with it before throwing it out. I kinda hate US recipes that use volume measurements :( I will have another go with the corrected conversions though.
I think there is a better explanation than the flour conversion. First, 4.25oz is on the low side as a conversion factor, Cookwise uses a factor of somewhere over 5oz. Second, we are talking about a recipe which started out as "flourless" and the author put in just enough flour to keep them from turning into puddles. I doubt that a bit more flour will ruin them, seeing that the initial amount was so low.
Since you mention that you are from Europe, I think you have used the wrong sugar. The brown colored sugar sold in Europe is frequently just "raw sugar" or similar, which is the same as white sugar, but with somewhat darker color. It is completely dry, and melts a bit worse than white sugar. Both the falling apart and the "sugar taste" sound like you ended up crunching on this kind of crystals.
When Americans bake with "brown sugar", they use gooey stuff where there are still lots of melasses clinging to the crystals. This stuff is wet, and sticks together. You can sometimes get it from specialty stores which import foreign products (UK shops will have it too). In many recipes, it is also an option to "make your own" by using a mix of white sugar and some syrup - melasses if you can get them, some other liquid "sugar" if you can't (beet syrup, agave syrup, golden syrup, etc.) This works well in other doughs where the sugar is added for taste. I am a bit more skeptical here, where it's not just the ratio of moisture that matters, but the wet sugar is a major structural component. Maybe you can mix it and leave it for a day or two before baking.
Cookwise is an extreme outlier with a 5.00 ounce cup. Even King Arthur uses a 4.5 ounce cup. 4.25 approximates the dip and sweep method. Lower values are possible with the sift and sweep method. But 4.25 to 4.5 is a very good guess for recipes that don't specify; 5.00 would be too high. Brown sugar is not gooey, or even wet. It is at best, damp, although it feels fairly dry to the touch and has discrete sugar crystals. It has, at most, 3-6 percent molasses added, not all of which is water. Moisture balance may still be at issue, but brown sugar is not an overwhelming source.
I think you are thinking of golden caster sugar or Demerara sugar, but it's possible that I did use the wrong sugar as we have 5-6 kinds of brown sugar in the UK. This is a reasonable list: http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/glossary/sugar I used soft Light Brown Sugar, which doesn't in any way taste like regular white (caster) sugar, golden caster sugar or Demerara sugar, it has a rich, golden syrupy taste. But I will do some research and see if there's a definitive answer for what UK sugar most closely resembles US brown sugar.
Then you might have used the right one. I live in Germany, and here, and also in other countries in continental Europe, I have seen only one type of "brown" sugar. See my old question for details, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20615/do-i-need-hard-or-soft-brown-sugar-for-brownies. Whatever you used, I suspect that the darkest and wettest brown sugar you can find will work best to solve your problem.
Ah, that looks like Demerara, which is really the only coarse granulated brown sugar we have. The darkest would be muscovado, so I will try a batch with that as well. I was also thinking maybe if I start with the egg and add the sugar, I can dissolve the sugar in the egg, which might help? And correct the flour & chocolate chips amounts ofc.
@Anastasia dissolving it is certainly a good idea. Maybe also adding the nutella before the flour. And yes, do the correction with the flour too. (The chocolate chips are unlikely to be the problem, just add as much as you like).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.738778
| 2014-04-25T23:15:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43698",
"authors": [
"Anastasia",
"Angaj Sharma",
"Cascabel",
"RobertD",
"S T",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108779
|
Does my Kimchi need to ferment longer?
I made my first batch of Kimchi, it has fermented for about a week & the bubbling seems to have slowed down. Can I eat it now or does it need to ferment longer in the refrigerator?
Also, the liquid level seems to have dropped during fermentation such that the kimchi at the top of the jars is no longer under the liquid. Should I add more liquid or just leave it be? The kimchi tastes quite salty, if I add more liquid should I add salted or unsalted water?
You never want to add water to kimchi. The only juice that you will need comes directly from the cabbage/radish, and adding water will cause the kimchi to spoil.
You can eat kimchi at any point. More fermentation/time simply means more funk. It is more likely that things are floating, your only risk is mold forming on the surface. You can add a weight of some sort to keep the exposed ingredients under the liquid, but if you are going to keep them sealed like that, mold formation is less likely, unless you remove kimchi with fingers or non-sanitary utensils. You can also add brine, but I don't think that is as common in a kinchi situation, as it is in other pickling situations.
I have encountered recommendations to top up the 'natural' liquid of lactic acid fermentations with some salt water brine if it was not enough to cover the product otherwise. Only at the start of a ferment, though, never at the end.
Agreed. If you add liquid, you should add a brine solution (preferably boiled and cooled). I typically open all my containers and press the kimchi back down before putting into cold storage. I've never had to add brine, actually. It usually presses down a lot.
Hi, one of the jars has in fact gone moldy on the top, I removed the mold & put it in the fridge but would you say that that jar is now spoiled? I have pressed down the kimchi a few times, I'm thinking this is how the mold got in, but there is still not enough liquid to cover it.. I'm thinking adding more brine may be the way to go?
Very difficult to give advice about mold online. If it was a few spots of white mold, I usually scrape off the top. Any other color, or any fuzzy mold...or if you think you pushed it down into the ferment is not good. Again, hard to know without knowing the exact circumstances. Always better safe than sorry. If unsure, discard. You really should not need more brine, and, if you are refrigerating, that should help with mold, but dramatically slow fermentation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.739327
| 2020-06-01T10:37:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108779",
"authors": [
"Andrew Stone",
"Android Won Kenobi",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93646",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109054
|
how to extract Glycyrrhizin from liquorice root?
I recently learned that Glycyrrhizin, which is naturally present in liquorice root, is a strong sweetener (30-50x stronger than sugar depending on sources).
Some traditional recipes call for infusing liquorice for tea, but besides this I could not find much information about how to use liquorice as a sugar substitute.
So my question: How can I extract glycyrrhizin from liquorice to substitute for sugar in recipes?
Should I grate / slice / blend my roots before putting them in water?
Shall I boil for 10 minutes (more / less?) or leave it in cold water overnight?
I'm assuming the last step would be to filter the water / liquid and use this 'syrup' as my sweetener, but is this assumption correct?
Assuming that you have Glycyrrhiza glabra, the glycyrrhizin content should be somewhere less than 25% of the content - which is plenty for an extraction, and means you won't need a whole bunch of root and specialist techniques to extract it.
A quick google search leads me to believe that the procedures for extraction of the glycyrrhizin are fairly simple - maceration (literally chewing, but in this context meaning mashing/grinding/blending) followed by steeping for about 4 hours at room temperature (see also here). It looks like water alone is a pretty good solvent for it, but a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% water is better.
From Wikipedia, it looks like the solubility is about 10 mg/ml (milligram/milliliter) in water. This is assuming that you can get a saturated solution from a pure compound. You will likely not get this sort of concentration, at least not without a bunch of other compounds coming across and giving you a strong liquorice flavour. Note that the average detection limit for sugar/sucrose is about 12 millimol/litre or about 4 mg/ml by my calculation - so with something 50x sweeter, you should have no problem sweetening things to a similar level as sugar using a solution with as little as 0.08 mg/ml. Your major problem with attempting this process is going to be how to measure how sweet your extracts are - you can do it by taste, but that will be very subjective.
Also note that many recipes for things like cookies call for crystalline sugar to provide structure in the batter rather than purely for sweetness, so you will need to substitute some of the liquid for your liquid sweetener and work out something to add to maintain the structure. I am sure that there this is a well worked out solution for this already for people wanting cookies without the sugar, so I will leave it to you to research.
thanks a lot ! fully understood and agreed about the difference in terms of sugar cannot always be replaced. In my case my first attempt is for cooking with Rheum so i feel now confident to start with your insights !
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.739537
| 2020-06-15T08:10:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109054",
"authors": [
"Auberon Vacher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109683
|
How to predict and adjust the spice level of dal?
I have made countless recipes from popular Indian books and when I taste the end result, I always feel like the dish needs more spice. For example, I tried a recipe for Sri Lankan Dal with coconut found below and thought it could use more spice and it's usually too late by the time everything has been cooked since the dal needs to simmer with the spices. How can someone gauge the needed spice level of a recipe before hand? And how can someone amend the spice level after the dal has been cooked? Fry the spices in some oil and add it back to the dal?
Recipe:
450g red lentils
3 cardamom pods
coconut oil
1 cinnamon stick
3 whole cloves
2 brown onions, thinly sliced
4 cloves of garlic, crushed
2cm ginger, peeled and grated
2 green finger chillies, finely sliced
⅓ teaspoon ground turmeric
250g kale
200ml tinned coconut milk
salt
½ teaspoon mustard seeds
2 tablespoons desiccated or fresh grated coconut
juice of 1 lime
Recipe taken from Fresh India: 130 Quick, Easy and Delicious Vegetarian Recipes for Every Day by Meera Sodha.
That recipe is paywalled, you have to have a New York Times subscription to read it. Please post a recipe, not a link we can't open.
@GdD - I'm not seeing a paywall from the UK. tbh though a) dal is usually pretty bland anyway b) if you want it spicier add more spice [if you get it wrong the first time you'll know for the 2nd] & c) comments underneath the recipe are not entirely complimentary.
e.g "This was delicious! Followed the recommendations from others to double all of the spices, otherwise followed recipe exactly."
Hahahaha @Tetsujin, exactly what I say in my answer.
@GdD - as I'm scrolling down the comments, that's the general gist - "This was disappointing--so bland. I even doubled the spices as other cooks suggested."
@Tetsujin I tried it from the book and then looked at the recipe online, hahah, clearly they agreed with me. Even though when I looked at the book recipe, I increased the spices but not double as the comments say. But, it's something that always happens with me, even in Madhur's Indian cookbook.
@GdD Done, I originally got the recipe from the book and then checked for it online.
If you want that 'Sri Lankan' hint, that's what the coconut is doing. As to the rest of the recipe, it's really missing a lot of the basics I'd put in a 'standard chana dal'. You could pretty much point it in the right direction with a good spoonful or 2 of supermarket standard 'indian curry powder', + optional methi &/or asafoetida, which I'd always add.
@Tetsujin I think I am going to do that, but then its like how different is it going to taste you always use the same curry. And how in the world is this supposed to be served with rice and yogurt that will dilute the flavor even more! With Chinese food, it's always over-seasoned to compensate for the rice.
I'd nail a 'basic dal' first, then you will be aware of the tweaks to make it 'sri lankan' - coconut, more mustard seed, probably curry leaves too if you're going all-out. This is what I'd call 'basic' - https://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/chana-dal-recipe-chana-dal/
I always taste the liquid (water+salt+spices) in which the Dal is cooking: if that tastes bland, your Dal is probably going to turn out bland. Practice tasting a few times and compare with the end result, and you should have a pretty good idea of how salty+spicy the cooking liquid should be.
@Dhara I don't usually salt the dal before its nearly done, tasting diluted salty water is not a good assessment of how much salt it needs. To taste for spice, it might not be very accurate since it takes time to absorb the flavor from the whole spice and disperse it into the liquid. It would work better for powdered spices.
@user29568 If you cook the dal in a closed container (instantpot or pressure cooker) like I do, pretty much all the water is absorbed by the dal, so I find it is a good measure. It also takes some trial and error... If on the other hand most of your water is going to evaporate, it is indeed not a great method.
@Dhara This isn't a discussion about pressure cookers affecting flavor, though that would make for an interesting question. I guess that is another possible point worth mentioning, but I don't have much evidence to support the idea that pressure cooked dals have more flavor.
Firstly, it has to be said - the way you learn to judge quantities is … practise.
However, there are several factors at play here…
"Indians" [sorry, I'm generalising a whole continent into one word for convenience] don't eat mouth-stingingly-hot food at every meal.
Some food is mild, some is 'go-for-it'. Some is rich, some is bland, some has heat, some has aromatics.
There is a North/South divide on 'spiciness' or 'heat' with the Southern continent going for hotter examples, Northern more dependant on aromatics.
Western "Indian" restaurants have tainted our view of what "Indian" food is.
Dal can be pretty bland anyway.
Your recipe is towards the bland end of the spectrum of possible dal recipes. The 'Sri Lankan-ness' in it is really only the coconut & perhaps the mustard seed.
So, that done with, in a broad sweeping generalisation kind of way, to your issue.
The recipe as written is missing a lot of what I would consider a 'basic' dal.
For a whistle-stop basic chana dal…
Boil dal with turmeric for half an hour
Fry cumin, garlic, onions
Add tomato, ginger, green chilli
Add chilli powder, turmeric, garam masala [or supermarket 'curry powder' depending on availability], asafoetida, coriander powder, dried methi
Add to dal mixture
Simmer until happy.
If you want to trick this up to feel more Southern or Sri Lankan, substitute coconut milk for some of the lentil boiling liquid, sub coconut oil for the ghee, add curry leaves & black mustard seed. Chillies, fresh green or ground red to taste.
Some of the ingredients you can add more later. Chilli powder, garam masala or 'curry powder' if you want a quick boost.
Other aromatics such as cardamom & clove, if you cheat & use them in powdered form, you can boost at any point. They're not as potent as whole, but they're a quick fix.
Another cheat is garlic powder, which is used by many restaurants rather than fresh - again, not the same as fresh, but can be used as a pep-up at any time [watch it doesn't go lumpy, make a thick slurry with water first to be safe.]
I think points 2 and 3 are the best explanation of the situation. It wasn't exactly bland even though I did add one more cardamom and a few more cloves, I just had this expectation that it would pack a stronger punch. Like you said not every dish has to be strong flavored, there is a definitely a subtlety of flavor in the original recipe.
Hing (asafoetid), I'd say, should go into the hot oil as one of the last items to be tempered - you shouldn't add it raw after liquids like tomato and onion have been added. It should be cumin and mustard seed in the oil, then fresh chilli, ginger garlic paste and hing. It burns in the oil, so it must be done quickly. Definitely agreed it also needs curry leaves for authentic Sri Lankan or Keralan flavour - also tempered around the same time as the fresh chilli.
@J… - I see recipes suggesting both methods. Personally, I've always dropped it late. I'll give it a shot dropping with the bhogar next time I make it [which is actually tomorrow, next curry night] Thanks for the tip.
@Tetsujin I think you'll notice the difference. It can go in before the ginger garlic paste, even, but you need the oil temperature under control - if it burns you have to start over. I usually use the ginger/garlic paste to quench the temper - if you have enough oil and add the ginger/garlic/hing together it makes the temperature control a bit more forgiving.
Spot on saying that South Asian dal isn't necessarily meant to be 'hot' (I'm aware some Indian dals have a lot more chilli packed into them than your average Sri Lankan dal though). Sri Lankan dal is almost like the mild, creamy accompaniment to all the other spicy curries you might have beside it. My (Sri Lankan) mother & grandmother's go-to dal recipe relies simply on curry leaves, pandan leaves, cumin, turmeric, garlic, and coconut - and it is packed with flavour (though no heat, at all). Also there's no frying of anything, it just simmers together, quite different from Indian dal!
There's a few factors that may be at work here:
Quality of spices: how good your spices are to begin with, as in how much flavor they impart to food is an important factor in the result. Better quality means more flavor. Where you are in the world and where you shop can make a difference
Freshness of spices: If you have spices that have been sitting for awhile you may have to use more to get the same flavor
Personal taste: the recipe may be underspiced according to your taste, but fine to other people's taste. Keep in mind New York Times recipes are catering to an American sense of how heavily flavored food should be
You need to develop a sense of how much it takes of the spices you buy to produce the amount of flavor you want, and adjust the amounts upward. If it's bland, add 50% more or double and see how that works. It helps to take notes of how much of each spice you use each time. You can then use that information to customize future recipes.
Like you said I think its a trial and error process, which is a bit annoying because when I do other cuisine recipes the dish tastes perfect. But, with Indian recipes, I always want to add more and it depends on the spice, like I wouldn't put 6 cardamom pods that's way too much. So frustrating! But, like you said I believe its catered to the American sense of flavor, which typically is bland so anything more than that is impressive.
I'd put 6 cardamom pods in some dishes, in fact I'd put a dozen depending on what I'm making @user29568. It depends on the pods, partly.
Most of the dals I know are made by boiling the lentils (with or without vegetables, tomatoes, salt, green chillies, turmeric, even whole peppercorns) and then frying spices and/or aromatics separately and adding them to the dal. There are some exceptions, but in any case you can always get away with frying an extra pinch of chilli flakes/powder in oil and throwing it in at the last minute if you want to add some heat. Other spices that are commonly added that way are mustard seeds, cumin, curry leaves and hing (asafoetida).
The key thing is, you need to fry the spices well enough to release their flavour into the dish (if you must avoid oil, dry roasting and grinding works too). Boiling spices just doesn't do that well - you end up with something bland and bitter that only tastes good after a day or so in the fridge for the spice oils to diffuse.
Another tip to bring out some extra flavour - add some souring agent like lemon juice, tamarind or amchur (unripe mango powder). But this only works if you fried the spices properly!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.739781
| 2020-07-15T16:09:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109683",
"authors": [
"Dhara",
"GdD",
"J...",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84999",
"mfox",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12456
|
Making Tomato Sauce from Tomato Paste
I've been trying, on-and-off when I have time, to make tomato sauce from a 5 1/2 oz can of tomato paste, but haven't figured out the right proportions of ingredients.
I've been combining a can of tomato paste with about 16 oz of water and some sugar to cut the acidity, and reducing it a little, but all I end up with is watery tomato paste.
It's more likely that I am missing a key ingredient (like a can of diced tomatoes) than a critical preparation step, but I'm curious about other people's experience.
Edit
By "tomato sauce", I mean something functionally equivalent to a store-bought jar of pasta sauce.
Why would anyone want to do this? I honestly have no good reason. It is mere curiosity on my part. Is it possible to get edible results? Or is it guaranteed to be a complete waste of time, not worth even experimenting with?
Are you looking for something like plain canned tomato sauce, or do you mean a sauce like marinara?
I was wondering the same thing myself - it's not clear whether you're trying to basically reconstitute tomato puree from tomato paste, or if you're trying to use the tomato paste as the base for a finished tomato sauce (e.g. a marinara sauce).
To clarify, are you looking for something using tomato paste as opposed to crushed or diced tomatoes? Or are you just looking for tips about making tomato sauce?
I'm really looking for tips on making sauce using tomato paste. The recipes look great, but I've already determined I get much better results using diced tomatoes than tomato paste.
I can give you the Italian answer - first of all, normally we don't use tomato paste to make sauce, but rather to add a tomato "kick" to recipes. Tomato paste is simply tomato puree that has been cooked down to a high degree of concentration.
A basic tomato sauce is made by
making a soffritto with onion, carrot and celery (plus other flavors)
adding tomato puree, or "pelati", more rarely fresh tomato
cooking the sauce down until the taste and thickness is what you want
If you want to use paste instead of puree, the third step has to be omitted or greatly reduced in duration. Keep in mind that tomato paste has its own taste, and that taste will remain in the final sauce.
Is there a reason you need to be using 5.5 oz of tomato paste? Canned diced or crushed tomatoes work so much better, and you're just asking for blandness if you add water.
I cook garlic in a little olive oil until it's yellowish and then add two 16oz or one 32oz can of diced or crushed tomatoes. If you have them, add some basil and a couple of bay leaves. Heat until bubbling and then lower and simmer covered. You can cook it anywhere from half an hour to an hour or longer, depending on when you need it by and how much time you have, but longer usually means better sauce. It makes more than enough for one pound of pasta or enough for two pounds if you don't like a lot of sauce.
You don't use any onion? Blasphemy!
No good reason. Just trying to stick to my stubborn and excruciatingly cheap roots!
I am not sure why most of the comments are negative about tomato paste. It is just condensed tomato sauce. I got my recipe from my mother, who is Italian. She used tomato paste, tomato sauce and water. The sauce was delicious. She did saute the tomato paste in olive oil and added a little sugar to cut the acidity and bitterness. Tomato paste, if used correctly, can result in a rich tasting sauce. I have experimented with my mother's recipe through the years. I sometimes add red wine. If you read online opinions about spaghetti sauce, on the internet, you will get many varied opinions about what is good. I think it depends on what you are used to. I like a variety of sauces. You may have to experiment and find what you like.
Nice one, Debbie. Do you also have some suggestion for proportion of ingredients for the OP?
Sauté in oil does seem to make the sauce less "pasty", thanks!
I feel for your dilemma. I never use tomato paste alone to make a sauce. Pastene canned tomatoes works much better. But I have been stuck with just one small can of tomato paste and left with the DAUNTING talk of trying to turn into an edible sauce, on it's own.
I've never been able to do it. I'm also Italian and I know that we don't use tomato paste for this purpose either, it's too dense. Has a strange taste and it's not kept on hand to make sauce.
So, your answer, dear friend, is "beats the heck out of me." Some say it can be done with great results, but I have doubts.
Better off to take the pasta and make a soup of it using chicken broth instead of water to boil the pasta. Don't drain it afterward, but add a good handful of parmesan cheese and a good shake of black pepper. It's incredible easy, uses all pantry ingredients, and it's really good. You could add a tablespoon of tomato paste with some garlic and basil to it just to give it a bit of a that taste, but it's what I do if I don't have crushed tomatoes. People like it because it's very difficult to dislike in it's so straightforward! :)
The recipe is called (sp?) "Pastina."
Kirk-like redefinition of the problem to provide a workable alternative. +1
This is technically not a straight answer and got flagged, but as the OP agreed that it was helpful for their case, I will leave it as it is.
I use a 16 oz. can of italian style plum tomatoes (contadina or rienzi), a small chopped onion, some basil and salt and pepper and it comes out great. no water, just the juices from the canned tomatoes.
I assume diced tomatoes ... I don't think I've ever seen whole peeled or crushed in 16 oz cans ... but I'd agree, you can make a pretty good quick sauce with just a can ... you can even find ones with garlic, oregano and basil.
yeah, diced. and of course add garlic or any other herbs and spices that you like.
@Joe: Here in the UK, 14oz cans of peeled plum or chopped tomatoes are the standard format tinned tomatoes come in.
@Orbling : whole tomatoes in a 14oz can? They must be tiny for them to get any sort of efficient packing to occur. Or it's just one tomato taking up the whole can.
@Joe: I'll have to count next time I open a can, they are quite small, like plums. Somewhere between 5-8 minimum I think, but it is hard to recall.
If he wants the consistency of store bought sauce, it should be pureed at some point!
This is a really old post, so you might nit even see my answer, but to go off what eatstatic said, Ive seen recipes online that say 1 cup water : 3/4 cup tomato paste. Eatstatic just did it the other way around, 1 cup tomato paste : 1 1/3 cup water. These recipes almost always start with sautéing onions and garlic in olive oil, and adding an optional cup of red wine along with basil, oregano and a little Romano/Parmesan. A lot of red sauces made by Italians will actually have the meatballs or sausage cooking in the sauce simultaneously, so substituting some or all the water for meat (your choice, but I prefer beef) stock for more authentic flavor is desirable to some. Red sauce is about what you like, experiment to find what tastes the way you want it. When I'm in a lazy mood and want sauce and have most of the ingredients, just not my normal contadina tomato puree and crushed tomatoes, I usually do it this way. I never serve this to anyone other than family though, it's too hard to get the acidity flavor out if you make a batch bigger than 3 - 4 servings.
It is possible to do, many "instant pasta meals" do so, e.g. http://www.germandeli.com/krmispmitto1.html. The one in the link is also quite edible. From the the ingredients list is seems they use 100ml of water for 50g of paste.
You probably need more herbs and spices than you currently use to get a good taste. As a minimum I would add onion, garlic, and salt. Basil and Oregano also don't hurt.
Yes, definitely more spices. I'm really looking for a base I can modify depending on my mood.
Yes. You can make a 'purely tomato paste' sauce. I do the blasphemous alla vodka sauce with only using tomato paste (no canned/crushed tomatoes). I render diced bacon, then diced shallot and minced garlic. Cook until fragrant and add your tomato paste, a good amount, because that will be the base of your sauce. Then I add the vodka, a couple ounces and thin out the sauce with pasta water. Let it come to the consistency you want, then add your favourite cooked pasta to the pan and toss. Add a bit of pasta water to adjust the consistency again if too thick. Turn off the heat, add some grated cheese like Pecorino and serve immediately.
The benefit of making a sauce with only paste is that you get a very rich tomato flavour which definitely works in some cases.
This post is super old, you may not see my answer, but here ya go anyways:
Sixteen ounces of water is far too much. You should do equal parts of water and paste. I usually put just a little bit more than the full can of water and after seasoning, its perfect! May as well have come out of a prego jar!
I see. It sounds a little intense, but I may try it sometime. Thanks.
@JamesMcLeod
The trouble is, like most bottled sauces, Prego is just plain awful because it's sickly sweet. The third ingredient is sugar, which is nuts. If sugar is in a tomato sauce at all, it should be one of the least ingredients.
Agreed - maybe a little aguave nectar or caramelized onions to cut the acidity of the tomato paste.
Couldn't agree more that I'm not sure why you would use tomato paste unless it is one of those challenges that you can't give up on.
I think the equal amount of fresh with tinned tomato with the usual of onion, garlic, butter, sugar with vinegar to create a gastrics to mask acidity, seasoning is just as easy and the perfect consistency you require for most cooking uses.
I have experimented much and have found that using a 12 ounce can of tomato paste results in an acidic quality to the sauce, which is undesirable(at least when cooking in standard size pot). The following combination results in a good sauce: two 14.5 ounce cans of crushed tomatoes, one 6-ounce can of tomato paste, 1 heaping teaspoon of sugar, 1 tablespoon each of dried basil, oregano, parsley, 1/3 cup red wine, 1/3 cup white wine. First, fry 1/2 a chopped onion in olive oil until translucent, then add 2 cloves garlic (chopped, do not burn garlic), then add all the ingredients listed above and cook for 1.5 hours. Option: You can add sliced green peppers with the onion if desired, and diced eggplant as well. Chicken parts or pork may be added to the sauce as well.
2 cans of crushed tomatoes
garlic
onions (chopped finely)
olive oil
Heat up olive oil, add garlic and onions, let them cook for about 45 seconds. Don't let them brown - just cook them enough until they smell really good, you will know.
Add tomatoes. Add sugar to taste. Stir. Reduce fire and simmer covered for 45 minutes, stirring from time to time.
That's the basic recipe. Play around with the cooking times and amount of garlic and onions. You can add basil, mint leaves, and other spices if you like.
Just remember sugar is optional. I usually just add some sweet chilli sauce.
From your description, the "thing missing" that jumped out at me was salt.
Also, spices and herbs help give a better, more familiar taste.
I've made basic sauce from tomato paste, since it's easy to keep and store - and once I have the can open, I would rather use it than wait for it to go bad while I open a separate tomato sauce. Salt for me is usually the catalytic that makes it go from watery paste to sauce-flavored, for me - and it takes a bit before the result stops tasting watery.
Usually, I'm making just a little bit at a time, maybe a half a cup or so (for tortilla pizzas or the like). I usually mix about equal parts paste and water, add a half teaspoon or so of salt, and some dried herbs, whatever I have on hand (italian mix, garlic or onion powder, basil, whatever). I mix well, let it sit for a while to hydrate the herbs, then taste to get a rough idea - usually I end up adding a bit more salt, sometimes more herbs (depending on how flavorful I want it), adjust the thickness with paste or water. I'm pretty handwavy about exact proportions, but that should hopefully get you within taste-and-adjust distance of your desired sauce.
I don't usually cook the sauce by itself, because for my use it will cook in the dish - but if you're making it by itself, in larger quantities (say for pasta), you should probably cook for a bit on stove-top to let the herbs and spices cook into the sauce and let the flavors meld.
If you wanted, you could add other ingredients to your sauce to get the flavors you're looking for - garlic, onion, carrot, and celery, sugar, olive oil, fresh herbs, anything you want. But if you're looking for a basic sauce of tomato paste, water, and sugar... just add salt and keep adding till it starts tasting like sauce.
I've done it many times. I like a thinner sauce, so I use at least 2 cans of water to one can of tomato paste and maybe thrown in a can of petite diced tomatoes, plus seasonings to your liking. (garlic cloves, oregano, parsley, basil...what you prefer. A dash of wine won't hurt either. There is no recipe, no right or wrong way. Whatever you like is correct.
My mother makes the best Sunday meat gravy, consisting of meat balls, ( hamburg and ground pork) sausages, and country style ribs, seared on both sides, all meats slightly under cooked, when the ribs fall off the bone, sauce is done. She uses ONL red.pack tomatoe paste 8 small cans, water for each can. 1 28 ounce tomatoe sauce. Ive had sauce every where, its my little perk to try others meat ball and sauce (gravy). If it doesnt cook all day,.to me its a quickie, or Mariner. Lots of garlic, easy on the spices, red pepper, little basil, no Oregano period....
Huge meat balls cooked on the outside to a crunch,almost raw on the inside,cookin finishes in thr sauce. If not Red pack dont bother!
1.333x water as tomato paste = unseasoned tomato sauce
Have you a source for this information? Or did you derive it empirically (which is also okay)?
According to About.com Frugal Living, a substitute for a small can of tomato sauce in a recipe is to use equal parts of tomato paste and water. I think I would personally tend to use a wee bit more tomato paste than water because I love the taste of tomato paste! That's my interpretation of the question you asked...you didn't have canned tomato sauce and wanted to know a suitable substitution.
That was my original question, but the general consensus seems to be that this is not an acceptable substitute!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.740921
| 2011-02-22T01:39:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12456",
"authors": [
"Annie Main",
"Apparao Jampani",
"Barfieldmv",
"Bob",
"Carey Gregory",
"Dave",
"Dayna Barrett",
"Doug",
"Hannah Weniez",
"Harri West",
"James McLeod",
"Joanne Wilson",
"Joe",
"Mitch",
"Orbling",
"Sandy Brown",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Vinnie Testeverde",
"benstraw",
"chaostheory",
"derobert",
"equant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99644",
"jitu semar spam",
"matt wilkie",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"tim",
"timmyp",
"user25752",
"user83011"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54292
|
How can I prevent strawberries from discolouring cream?
When I put strawberries onto a sponge covered in cream, how can I prevent the strawberries from discolouring the surrounding cream?
I'd suggest 'sealing' the cut side of the strawberries by dipping them in gelatin (or a vegetarian alternative. Or you could use white chocolate.
When you cut a strawberry its moisture starts to seep out, you either seal the strawberries or you absorb the moisture. You could seal them as @ElendilTheTall suggests, which should work. Alternatively you could absorb the moisture by putting the cut strawberries on a towel and gently squeezing them a bit, and/or coating them with some powdered sugar.
GdD, absorbing the moisture could work, but I think the sugar could draw out more the strawberry juice
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.742120
| 2015-02-02T11:24:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54292",
"authors": [
"Howard Wong",
"Jami Kropp",
"Rita Wilcox",
"Stu Rose",
"Tammy Castillo",
"charlena goodman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28762",
"raymond king",
"user28762"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73369
|
How smooth is peanut butter?
I want to make 'cookie butter' (cookies, oil, powdered sugar, Xmas spices).
My food processor doesn't grind the cookies fine enough. It still feels gritty on the tongue. So I am looking at buying a grinder, but I want to make sure it will do the job.
What is the mesh size or size in microns of the particles in smooth peanut butter?
Bonus question: does any one have a chart of size vs mouth feel of various foods?
Madehow.com discusses the entire process of making peanut butter.
Peanut butter is usually made by two grinding operations. The first reduces the nuts to a medium grind and the second to a fine, smooth texture. For fine grinding, clearance between plates is about .032 inch (.08 centimeter). The second milling uses a very high-speed comminutor that has a combination cutting-shearing and attrition action and operates at 9600 rpm. This milling produces a very fine particle with a maximum size of less than 0.01 inch (.025 centimeter).
(Emphasis mine)
However, creating the correct emulsion of fat and particles may have a greater impact. As with ice cream, the fat coats the tongue and helps prevent a grainy texture.
EDIT:
This report from Micromeritics, a rheological analysis firm, shows the particle sizes of three (unnamed) chocolate bars. However, it has a useful graph of particle diameters. For the smoothest chocolate bar, approximately 50% of particles are smaller than 5 nanometers, and nearly 80% are less than 10. The lowest quality bar has only 25% of particles smaller than 5 nanometers, and only 45% are less than 10.
I assume this is the super-smooth mass-produced kind of peanut butter, with no visible grains? The smooth-but-not-perfect kind (common in "natural" brands, and peanut butter ground in the store) has visible grains but still doesn't really seem gritty. Might be further evidence that it's not just about particle size.
0.01 inch (.025 centimeter) is pretty large. But that is only the max size. I wonder what the average size was? (I will read linked page properly later)
Smooth and creamy ice cream requires the majority of ice crystals to be small, around 10 to 20 µm in size. If many crystals are larger than this, the ice cream will be perceived as being coarse or icy - from http://icecreamscience.com/formation-of-ice-crystals/
My searches didn't find any home grinders that could achieve this texture though - you may be better off with a high power food processor
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.742241
| 2016-08-23T21:40:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73369",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"DarcyThomas",
"Jon Takagi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39534"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21741
|
Is it safe to defrost cooked meat and eat it (without reheating)
Say for example I had some marinated cooked chicken that I put in the freezer. Would it be safe to defrost this cooked chicken and put it in a sandwich without reheating it through first?
I know it's safe to eat cake out of the freezer, but I was wondering whether meat was different.
My question to you is: Why? Why would you want to do such a thing?
There is no mention on the fact sheet of needing to recook previously cooked, frozen chicken. However, be mindful of proper defrosting techniques, as not doing so may open the food up to contamination.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Factsheets/Big_Thaw/index.asp says that you can refreeze w/o cooking if you thaw in the fridge, you should be fine eating it too.
Iceland sell frozen pre-cooked chicken drumsticks that you just defrost and eat and do NOT require cooking according to their instructions. They wouldn't be allowed to do that if it wasn't safe.
It's safer than eating cooked meat than has been stored in the refrigerator. More bacteria grows in the refrigerator than the freezer.
You can eat it without any food safety concern with proper defrosting/thawing of course.
Hello StevenXavier and welcome! Your post does not add any information that has not already been posted in other answers. Please refrain from posting duplicate information unless you can add to or expand on it. As you are a fairly new user, you may benefit from our Tour and Help pages. Both can be found under the 'help' dropdown at the top of the page.
I wouldn't. Freezing does not kill everything that lives on food and cooking food to a minimum internal temperature kills most microbes (but not all).
You're better off keeping raw chicken and marinade separate then combining as and when you require it.
Taken from US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service fact sheet:
Is Frozen Food Safe?
...Freezing keeps food safe by slowing the movement of molecules, causing microbes to enter a dormant stage...
...Once thawed, however, these microbes can again become active, multiplying under the right conditions to levels that can lead to foodborne illness.
Taken from FoodSafety.gov Safe Minimum Cooking Temperatures:
Use this chart and a food thermometer to ensure that meat, poultry, seafood, and other cooked foods reach a safe minimum internal temperature.
Poultry: 165F / 74C
I never thought I'd find myself saying this here, but this is actually going too far in terms of food safety. Cooked food will be safer having been frozen and properly defrosted than just sitting in the fridge - and refrigerated cooked meat is also considered safe. The USDA warning simply states that frozen food is not sterilized and that leaving it in the temperature danger zone for > 2 hours (cumulative from when cooking stopped to when the temperature went above 4° C) is just as unsafe for previously-frozen foods as it is for refrigerated.
research shows that it is safe to eat cold chicken if it is cooked and stored in the freezer and then defrosted
What research in particular?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.742482
| 2012-02-26T10:40:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21741",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barbara H.",
"Cindy",
"Eric Cher",
"George curtis",
"Ice Queen",
"Jolenealaska",
"Margot Hall",
"Shaneannigans",
"Vivienne Clark",
"derobert",
"dotnetengineer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9218",
"nbren12",
"teddy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65679
|
Breadmaker bread not remaining fresh long enough
I have an issue with the bread we make in our bread maker. My wife claims it is not fresh enough to eat if it is more than 1 day old; however, she will eat shop brought bread that is 2 days old. This leads to the birds in our garden getting fat!
Is there a way to make (or keep) the bread so it is perceived by my wife to be fresh so we can use it on a 2nd day?
How are you storing it? In the fridge? on the counter uncovered?
@renesis, it is uncovered on a rack to cool overnight, then put in a "freezer" bag in the morning.
@Optionparty, my wife says "stale" and "dry", but I think it is still ok :-)
I assume you're trying to extend shelf life for a couple of days, not weeks. One possibility is dough enhancers, many of which improve shelf life. Most can be very easily incorporated into an existing bread machine recipe.
There are a variety of possibilities, and you can also buy commercially available dough enhancers that combine various helpful additives for you. I'd personally buy a dough enhancer formulation first, see if it made a difference in how my spouse liked the results, and then start experimenting with other (less expensive!) additives such as lecithin, gluten, powdered ginger, potato flakes, buttermilk, or more.
Searching for "dough enhancer recipe" brings up lot of suggestions which I can't personally vouch for, so I won't include one here :)
Changing the storage method can also help improve the longevity of a loaf. This is covered in another question; suggestions include covering the cut end (moisture escapes more easily there than from the crust), and pre-slicing and freezing the portion you know you won't get to.
Thanks, we just use a bit of vitamin c at present, as our yeast does not contain it.
My favorite dough enhancer is pectin. I add one tablespoon of bread pectin to 4 cups of flour and it works wonders. Bread pectin doesn't have any added acid, so it doesn't taste tart like the pectins usually sold for making jams and jellies. Also, it's a high methoxyl pectin, which works much better for bread than low methoxyl pectins. There aren't many suppliers for it. I like Pacific Pectin (pacificpectin.com). If you call them, they'll be glad to send you a sample, which should last you a while. I wish they sold it in smaller quantities (minimum order is ten pounds).
I emailed Pacific Pectin to see if they sell a smaller size (10 pounds is the smallest size listed on their website). They said they also sell a 5 pound box. It has a shelf life of two years.
Some notes on ascorbic acid
Why put things in bread that do not belong there, if you can do the same by just letting it rest?
"AA is an unnecessary artificial additive, which can weaken the gluten in longer-fermented doughs". You are really destroying the texture and diminishing the taste of your bread.
http://www.sustainweb.org/realbread/ascorbic_acid/
Leaving the bread out uncovered overnight is likely one of the larger issues with staling.
All bread will start to stale immediately after it's come out of the oven -- commercial bread simply has other ingredients to help slow this effect. (and I know we've had a question on this topic) They also package the bread in plastic to hold moisture near the loaf to slow the staling.
You might want to consider how you're storing it. If you're in a dry area where bread stales (rather than going moldy), consider getting a bread box, or bagging the bread before you leave it out overnight. At the very least, wrap it loosely or place in a paper bag to allow steam to continue to escape, but still keep moisture near the loaf.
And before you throw the bread to the birds, you can either revive it by placing it a damp paper bag in a medium low oven, or make it into any number of things:
french toast
bread pudding / strata
Panzanella salad
fondue
stuffing / dressing
panade for meatballs or meatloaf
bread crumbs
Do you use any fats in your mix? On this page there is the suggestion that adding some fat -- say, 50g of butter or oil -- can extend shelf life.
Fats (butter, oils, milk, eggs). Fats enrich and flavor the bread. They also soften the dough and preserve it: whereas a fat-free loaf of bread like a French bread goes stale after only a few hours, a loaf of bread with a small amount of olive oil or butter (like a sandwich bread) retains moisture and will stay fresh longer.
Fats increase the bulk of your bread. Rarely do you get the kind of large, irregular holes inside an enriched bread as you do in a fat-free bread.
We use about 25ml of olive oil
A few options:
Add a bit (or a bit more) sugar to the dough.
Use a sourdough starter instead of yeast. The ideas in Sourdough in Bread Maker? might be helpful.
Add lupin flour, as mentioned in "Why add lupin flour to white bread?"
Store in a paper bag.
If you're not using a breadmaker, leaving the dough overnight to have the yeast really do their job would also help.
How can (2) or (3) be done with a bread-maker?
Leave it overnight in your breadmaker or in bowl
put a sourdough starter in the machine instead of yeast
Not all breadmakers have a dough cycle, and not all breadmakers will bake prepared dough without mixing first.
@MarcLuxen, the point of using a break maker is that you just put everything in it, press 1 button and then remove the bread when it is made and baked. So getting nicer/cheaper bread then from the shops without having to spend time making the bread by hand.
Now, for the nicer/cheaper bread: I dont think you can make bread with a breadmaker that can compete with a professional baker. It is very hard to make good bread, and bread makers may be easy, but they dont really do a good job. The process of making great bread is far too sensitive and takes great skill, not to mention an professional oven. That is why all societies used professional bakers from the start. But yes, baking better bread than supermarket white sliced bread is surely possible (but then again, you cannot really call that bread, can you?)!
As it stands it's not clear how all of your suggestions would apply to the question as asked. Specifically your post needs more details on how your suggestions would be followed when using a bread maker.
I edited a bit more aggressively than I usually would in an attempt to help you address people's concerns in the comments here. I think it's a pretty big improvement, but if you don't like it, feel free to roll back.
I would like to share some tips for crispy bread and keep it for a long time
Letting a few slices of sliced apples or a few slices of potatoes together with a loaf of bread will help keep the bread longer than usual.
To get inside a plastic bag containing one to two stems of vegetables, tighten the mouth of the bag. To do this, 2 to 3 days of preserved bread is still delicious.
Pack the bread in a covered nylon bag and put it in the freezer of the refrigerator. Keeping this way can leave bread all month long.
Want to save bread for a long time but still soft, should use oil paper or nylon bag, tightly packed inside to have a lump of sugar and then to cool.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.742816
| 2016-01-21T14:33:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65679",
"authors": [
"Amber Hammack",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine RGolini",
"Dean Swift",
"Don Wiggins",
"Erica",
"Ian",
"Joseph Compton",
"Lynn Hoffman",
"Marc Luxen",
"Naaz Khairatkar",
"Rachel Barnett",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sherry Butler",
"Wendy Wildman",
"Zarko Ilic",
"annmarie eldridge",
"becca h",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"mrog",
"ray peters",
"renesis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101216
|
Cabbage rolls question
Can I make cabbage rolls (I use ground beef, rice, seasons, egg and sour cream as the filling) the night before I am going to cook them at 11 the next morning. Will it be safe?
As long as you chill them quickly and properly you should be ok.
If I remember correctly, the fill must be at least at room temperature when you roll it in the cabbage leaves; and the leaves themselves will also be at room temperature.
So that will cool down nicely in the fridge without stay in the "danger zone" too long.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.743522
| 2019-09-07T02:50:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101216",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18781
|
What can be done with bitter carrots?
I've got a bunch of two week old carrots (kept in the fridge), peeled, and they tasted bitter (raw).
Is it normal that carrots turn bitter?
Is there a way to prevent it from happening?
Will the taste improve after cooking? (I'll cook and taste anyway)
I've looked at this question, but the peel is said to be bitter, while these are peeled already.
Were they bitter from picking up odors (perhaps stored improperly), or did they have any kind of liquid or other accumulation that washing did not address?
I normally store carrots in cling-film, peel the skin and wash before anything else. Raw, they taste bitter.
I ask because even in small quantities, ethylene gas can cause the bitterness in the carrot if store with certain other foods
Great, I found this link.
When you say bitter, do you mean bitter like hops in a beer or sour like a lemon? If it's the former then cutting the core out will help as they can be quite high in calcium, which has a bitter taste.
@Stefano Bitter bitter. Not sour.
To decrease the bitterness, bring out the sweetness in the carrots by cooking for longer. The best technique I've found to do this with carrots is frying and steaming them at a low temperature.
Make glazed carrots: per 200g of carrot, peel, cut into ~2cm thick diagonal cuts and add 40g butter, a half teaspoon of sugar and season with salt and black pepper. In a large lidded pan over a low heat, spread the carrots out in a single layer, add the lid and cook for 25-35 minutes. Shake the pan occasionally. Push the cooking time as long as you can without letting the carrots become overly soft. This should give deliciously sweet fragrant carrot.
Another thing to keep in mind is that salt is better than sugar to reduce bitterness so add as much as you can without oversalting the carrots.
Make cole slaw with them, and some zucchini and parsnips, then dress with mayo, red wine vinegar and apple cidar vinegar. Gradually add some white sugar to take the edge off of any remaining bitterness.
This palate will balance out the bitter and play it up with the sharpness of the parsnips. Zucchini, when shredded finely and left in a mayo/vinegar dressing will soften to an almost shredded cheese texture and turn into the median flavor distracting from over bitter carrots.
I had a large bag of zucchini that was on its way out recently, and some carrots that had since passed the point of just being white and were no longer right enough to eat raw anymore. This extended their (fridge) shelf lives in one swoop.
Fermenting will also thoroughly overwhelm and modify the bitter flavor, IMO. I'm glad someone else suggested something pickle-y.
Some varieties are naturally high in terpenoids, which make the carrots taste bitter. Because terpenoids develop earlier than sugars, a carrot that is harvested too young might taste bitter. if you're growing them yourself make sure you wait a little longer before harvesting. And if you're buying them you'll have to cook them. I love myself some raw carrots but end up throwing out bags sometimes because they're bitter.
Goodluck.
Whatever you do, you should cook the carrots.
Carrots usually become sweeter when cooked. And you can alter the flavor slightly by cooking in a broth, sauce, roasting with other ingredients, etc.
I'm thinking stock or compost.
:)
Stock is not the place to hide weird tasting vegetables. Stock is used for flavoring other things (soups), and if you put garbage in it, your whole refined dish will taste like garbage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.743622
| 2011-11-06T00:17:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18781",
"authors": [
"Aleta Martinez",
"BaffledCook",
"Carla",
"Redmer",
"Robert Eller",
"Stefano",
"ccpizza",
"dustinocortez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"iDoVooDoo",
"kitukwfyer",
"littlemartha2401",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"user1757654"
],
"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
}
|
17656
|
The Mother Dough Blues
I wanted to expand my answer to this question by adding info about the color blue.
Both mother and sour doughs are very stable, but can be 'invaded' by a bacteria that'll give it a bluish taint. I'd throw that dough in the bin (actually, I did once), but I can't find any information confirming that.
So, there's the question: how do you recognize the mother is spoiled?
Is the blueish tint in the sourdough itself, or just on top of it? It makes a big difference.
@FuzzyChef, I'm not sure, it was some time ago. I guess it was more on the top.
@FuzzyChef, it's just the top.
See answer below.
The sour dough (including the 'mother') should be considered spoiled when:
It smells very bad (like voimit or feces). The natural sour dough smell may be not very pleasant to some, but spoiled dough smells really afwul
It grows hair. That means mold. And even if it is visible only on the surface, whole dough is spoiled.
It gets strange colour. Generally the dough should be white/gray/brownish, maybe with some darker spots when whole grain flour is used. When it becomes black, red or blue – it is bad.
It doesn't work. Good sour dough will raise when fed and put it warm place. When it is spoiled it usually won't work any more. Good bacteria and yeast are usually mostly dead when bad bacteria or mold took over the dough.
Based on your comments, your sourdough is probably OK.
It is not uncommon for an older sourdough to get a blue-grey, sludgy mold in the water on top of the sourdough, especially if you're not splitting the dough often enough. This is not fatal. The steps to remedy it are:
Pour off all the water on top of the sourdough.
Scrape off the mold around the sides of the jar and the very top layer of the sourdough.
Spoon out the sourdough, trying to let at little of it swipe against the sides of the jar as possible.
Split the sourdough as normal. Yes, you can use the other half to make stuff, it's completely safe.
Put the culture you're saving back in a new, clean jar.
Clean the old jar and run it through the dishwasher.
I've recovered my sourdough from blue mold several times this way. Actually, I make it a practice to swap jars every time I split it; that helps a lot.
Jacek is correct that if the sourdough smells fecal, or if it's fuzzy, then it's not salvagable. Red or yellow molds are also bad news.
OK, I'll swap next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.743949
| 2011-09-11T19:36:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17656",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"BaffledCook",
"FuzzyChef",
"Noni",
"Paige",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109259
|
What is this brown deposit at the bottom of my Oil can?
We use Filtered groundnut oil for cooking at home. However, we recently changed the brand due to non-availability during COVID-19 lock-down. While pouring the last bit of oil I saw this at the bottom. The brown coloration was stuck to the walls of the can and some of it was floating in the leftover oil (not clearly visible here). It looked flaky.
Was the oil impure/adulterated/unhealthy? Or is this normal for filtered groundnut oil?
This is just fine material from the grinding process that got through the filters and settled over time. It's pretty normal, it just means this company's filtering process isn't as effective as your previous brand. There shouldn't be any food safety considerations with that, my only consideration would be that suspended fine particles will lower the burn temperature of the oil some. There doesn't seem to be that much in there, if you are having no problems using the oil then you look good to go.
Would there not be a food safety concern for anyone with a peanut allergy? Highly refined peanut oils are apparently safe for people with allergies only because the proteins have been filtered out.
I don't know anyone with a peanut allergy who would touch peanut oil no matter how refined @bdsl!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.744160
| 2020-06-24T04:42:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109259",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21161
|
Why put a stone in the soup?
I was surprised by the added stone in the soup of this question:
"Also, for irony, a large (cleaned) stone is always left in the pot"
What would be the reason for this? For the minerals in the stone? As far as I know, minerals do not infuse water directly out of a stone.
In Denmark we have a fairy tale/folklore telling the story of a woman being fooled by a salesman showing how to cook soup on a stone. My guess is that - it is - for the irony.
I guess it's customary and of no nutritional value, unless you're a lithovore
possibly to keep the stability of the pot when it is near empty so it won't easily move or tip over? Also stone does release "gases" as it heats up.
Your education must have been lacking, the story of the stone soup is one the many classics young children are meant to have read to them by their parents so as to understand life. It appears in most cultures. A quick internet search will enlighten you!
The 'for irony' bit suggests it's tradition, based on the children's story Henrik Hansen mentions.
I wonder why somebody would vote to close the question. Oh, well.
I've often wondered whether the stone was supposed to add saltiness as, historically, salt was quite a commodity. I could see it being helpful for even heat distribution if the stone was heated up first.
The answer is in the text of your question -- "for irony."
@BaffledCook Close because it's trivial on Google! Did you try?
@TFD, not until now, and guess what: "stone in soup for irony" has the Amazon book first and my question here second as search result. So, I don't think the question is trivial. Especially as the reference is to a specific book.
Everyone should try to include a healthy dose of irony in their diet. It helps fight anemia :P
Alas, whatever the meaning, it's not ironic ... though it may be iron-y.
There's an old children's story about making Stone Soup. In it, a penniless begger offers to teach people how to make his favorite recipe: soup, made from a stone! He boils some water and drops a stone in, and while it's "cooking", keeps mentioning offhand things like "It'd go great with some carrots" or "Celery would be lovely in this". The townspeople rush off and get celery, carrots, potatoes, onions, and the like to add to the soup, until eventually, they've made proper soup in his pot along with the stone. So basically, the whole "stone soup" thing was a clever con game by which the begger can eat for free (or, in kinder versions than the one I recall, to trick the townspeople into learning a lesson about sharing).
The stone adds nothing to the soup.
I didn't know the story, so it's clear now.
Here is a Jim Hansen version of the same story: (It's only part 1 I figure you can find the rest on your own) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF8VgHb_HkI
There is a similar story in Russian / Romanian culture, but it's about a soldier who makes soup of an axe.
-1 Your summary is VERY wrong, it is not about a clever con, it about sharing and caring
@TFD There are apparently many versions of the story.
"The stone adds nothing to the soup." Unless it's rock salt!
I also heard this story - but in that version the beggar only visited one house, eating soup, then selling the stone for its great soup-making properties and moving along. (So yes, it's definitely about a clever con. TFD is VERY wrong. :P )
@TFD many old stories used to be about life is harsh watch out for badness, you get what you sow. They are being softened into stories about sharing.
The version of the story that many Americans know comes from the book Stone Soup, in which three weary soldiers enter a village and convince the suspicious villagers to share their supplies by showing them how to make soup from stones. A big pot, some water, and three smooth stones is all you need for the soup, but it's much better if you add vegetables, meat, some milk, salt and pepper, etc. In the book, the villagers end up putting on a great feast and having a wonderful time, and the implied lesson for children is that it's more fun to share what you have for everybody's benefit than to keep your cabbages and barley hidden in the cellar.
I learned this trick from an old friend of my Grandmother more than 50 years ago. She put three rounded stones in the pot when cooking soup so they would move about and stop the vegetables and grains from settling and burning on the bottom of the pot. Molly did all of her cooking on a wood/coal fired oven. Many people of my Mother's generation used to put glass marbles in the pan when making Jams or conserves for the same reason.
I've heard of people heating stones to put into the soup to heat the water. Thanks for the input Jerome.
+1 for the only practical answer that doesn't involve a parable.
but isn't it also so you can hear it is boiling? (like the thing you put in milk)
There is also a french dish called "potée" that take a stone in the pot, this is suppose to mash ingredients with the boiling movement and provide a particular texture. So maybe it's the original mixer
During the depression, they used to put a porous stone in the pot when they made soup. The stone would hold the flavor of the soup. Then, when soup ingredients were hard to find, they would boil water with the soup stone in it. Pulling the flavor from the stone into the water. My father who is 83 still has one. As kids, we would lick it and you can still taste the flavors from the soups.
Thanks. I found an interesting link based on your story. Kudos, and welcome to this site.
I grew up being told a stone was used in the soup or stew while the food was being cooked. This was a method used to keep the food in the pot hot for a while longer.
I came to the question from trying to find the best kinds of soup stones to add minerals to stews etc. I know that Italians have a tradition of putting marble into their wells to add minerals to the water, and I know that cooking vegetables releases acids from the old habit of putting bicarbonate of soda in with peas etc. I have observed the disintegration of bones used to add body to stews. It is plausible that sea shells would perform this function, and I know that granite dust is used to provide trace elements in agriculture. So stones may do more than tell you when your pot has gone dry.
Have you ever heard of the trick to cook a potato faster by pushing a nail into the center of it before placing it in the oven? The nail gets hot and so the potato gets cooked from the inside while also being cooked from the outside..
I've never heard of using stones in soup, but it immediately reminded me of the nail trick so my reaction was "ohh, that's a really good idea." Lol.
Some stones (maybe all stones?) retain heat very very well. In fact, I once ate at a restaurant called"The Stone Grill" who's signature dish was bringing you a hot flat stone slab along with raw steak \ chicken \ pork and you would cook your own meat on the rock. I was full after I finished eating all the steak and pork so I threw my raw chicken on the stone to cook so I could take it home, and even after 40 minutes the stone was hot enough to cook the chicken..
Soo yes, old wives tales and stories aside, stones cooked in soup would most certainly keep the soup hot long after it was removed from the stove. And might even help it cook slightly faster..
Cool story. It will cook slightly slower as the mass of the stones will have to be brought up to temperature as well, but it will remain hot longer for the reason you indicated... Thanks for your answer and welcome to this site, Ant.
Interesting.. I didn't even consider the fact that the rocks would steal the heat at first. I was only thinking about the extra heated surface area the rocks introduced, so I was thinking more hot surface area equals faster cooking. Thanks BaffledCook
In Utah sometimes in elementary school teachers encourage students to bring stones for a soup. The teacher then shows the children how to identify what kinds they brought and adds all the stones that have a high mineral content. The result is a drink which is warm and tastes more like the water you get from the mountain springs and the teacher explains that the reason the mountain springs taste the way they do is the minerals from underground stones.
However I don't think this kind of stone soup is common elsewhere.
It could also be a way of raising the soup's temperature, like in Steinbier (stone beer): you heat the stones in a fire, then put them in the beer (or soup). This was used when you couldn't directly heat the beer (or soup) vessel, e.g., for wooden tubs.
I’d guess that a stone, being so much heavier than any other items in the pot, would somehow manage the heat burning and scorching the pot base, potentially preventing burning...? It’s possible, right guys?
Sorry, but it's better to keep answers short and to the point, and avoid asking more questions, would you mind [edit]ing it to remove the first paragraph entirely? Check [answer] to learn more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.744339
| 2012-02-08T08:59:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21161",
"authors": [
"Ant",
"BaffledCook",
"Brian",
"Carey Gregory",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FreeCandies",
"Henrik Hansen",
"KMC",
"Larry",
"Luciano",
"Mallow",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Sean Hart",
"Spice Sherpa",
"TFD",
"WendyG",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9068",
"ver",
"zoned post meridiem",
"zzzzBov"
],
"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
}
|
27938
|
Can you make popcorn in a pressure cooker?
Will the temperature become too high and will the popcorn burn? Can anything bad happen?
Edit: Picture tells the tale.
On the left, 5 minutes under pressure. On the right 3,5 minutes without pressure. The pressurized popcorn was less fluffy and a bit burned (I just didn't hear them pop).
Interesting question. Personally I would be more worried about the steam released by the popped kernels not escaping and turning the popped corn to mush.
Please explain what you mean? You could certainly use the bottom of a pressure cooker as a pan, like you would a dutch oven... But are you asking if you can do it, with the pressure cooker under pressure?
@derobert, yes, with the cooker under pressure :-)
See also http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/6589736#6589736 and the following messages
Not a direct answer to your question, but given that a consensus is forming that pressure cooker is not a good vessel for popping corn, I will offer you a link to 'the best' [IMHO] option for popping corn: a whirley pop
Any old pan with fitting lid. Lightly oil base of pan. Add a one kernel high layer of popcorn (or less). Heat on med-high with lid on. Shake pan (horizontal on stove) every 30 seconds. When first pops heard tilt lid slightly to allow steam to escape. DO NOT REMOVE LID. Keep lid tilted and shake every 5 seconds until popping stops. You can pour off popped corn halfway through this if pan overflows. It's that simple
I recall a MythBusters episode about popping corn (I think they were testing the final scene from Real Genius). They measured the explosive force of a kernel, and it's ability to expand. Turns out, popcorn won't pop if there's not available space. I'd expect higher external pressure to create the same problem. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282009_season%29#Popcorn_Pandemonium
ATK recommends warming the oil until three test kernels pop to let you know it's up to temp, then adding the rest of kernels off the heat and waiting ~30 seconds for all of the kernels to come to the same temp, then resume cooking.
I never tried it, but I don't think it is a good idea.
The point of popcorn popping is that you cook the inside of the kernel within its hard shell until the internal pressure increases so much that it breaks the shell, releasing the starchy liquid inside as a foam. You need a pressure gradient, with higher pressure inside the kernel than on the outside. So, introducing high pressure outside the kernel is counterproductive. It will certainly result in more duds. I don't know if some kernels will be able to pop, but if yes, I expect them to take longer to pop, and create a denser foam, not light and airy popcorn. So, while I guess you could experiment with it if you don't have anything better to do, theory predicts that the experiment outcome won't be good.
Why did you want to try it at all? Popcorn doesn't take long to pop.
Because it's taking too long to pop. Maybe I should use a higher temp on the stove instead. Maybe it's because my wife adds too much oil to the corn.
I'll do the experiment, time it and post a result.
Hang on. If the ambient pressure in the cooker is elevated, doesn’t that just mean the kernels won’t pop until an equally elevated pressure? At which point it makes no difference. For that matter, if pressure somehow had built up (and I don’t see how it would) wouldn’t the kernels expand further once it was released, leading to less dense foam? (Modulo the fact that the starch gel Is a lot colder than at the moment of popping, ofc)
The reason someone might investigate popping popcorn in a pressure cooker is because of the awesome potential to pop it all at once upon releasing the pressure. If you can keep the popcorn from popping with the pressure and bring all the kernels up to a popping temperature then theoretically you could perfectly pop them all at once by releasing the pressure. But like other people have mentioned there are big risks. I looked into it more and I don't think a pressure cooker can handle a high enough pressure for it to work. The other thing making it impossible is there is no way to know when the correct temperature is reached. Lets let mythbusters handle this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDO2vtga_XQ
Same video in much, much better quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQT0pwvXKQ
A pressure cooker with the lid closed and sealed would be a VERY bad idea, even dangerous?
A pressure cooker is made for water (it is sealed with some kind of rubber/silicon seals), if you where to cook with oil with it sealed the temperature would be MUCH higher than what the cooker would be made for using water. The water/steam inside a fully pressurized pressure cooker is somewhere in the 120C (250F) range. Oil boils at a much higher than that even without pressure, 175 and 190 °C (345–375 °F) so with pressure the temperature would probably be more than double that what the cooker is made for.
The seals would probably melt? And you could get all sorts of 'funny' effects. Do not try this at home folks!!!!
But if you close but not seal the lid it should be OK.
That may be so for other applications, but the amount of corn and oil is too small to really impact the pressure. I've tried this and there's no harm done. The result is as predicted by rumtscho; less fluffy. This would surely be dangerous for deep frying.
A pressure cooker with the valve open apparently makes good popcorn, see here. As for with the valve closed I do not know. I wouldn't expect anything bad to happen, but I would not expect the results to be very good as the pressure would likely damage the consistency. I'd love to hear about it if you do it though!
The only thing I'd worry about is the oil, if that came out super-heated it would be dangerous. That, and this site warns about too much oil damaging your pressure cooker.
That eHow article you link to is really just using the pressure cooker as heavy-bottomed (it also mentions using the lid from another pot) - the fact that it's a pressure cooker doesn't matter at all. I'm not really sure why you'd bother writing that article at all... but I gues it's eHow.
@Jefromi, A pressure-cooker is an ideal shape, and the tight fitting lid makes it easier to shake around without it all coming out.
Most large pots will work just fine too. (A pressure cooker isn't a terribly unique shape.) To see what I mean about eHow, just search for [site:ehow.com popcorn pot] on Google, and see how many variations of the article there are.
@Jefromi, as I said the lid clamping on is very useful, you can just shake the pot instead of having to hold the lid down.
Pressure cooker popcorn is the best.
Did you ever pop popcorn in your pressure cooker? It’s delicious. Just leave the steam vent open so the steam can escape. In my 4-quart cooker, I use 2 tablespoons of oil and 1/3 cup popcorn. —Bernadine
Lots of subjectivity but a quick google on the science, as I was also thinking the same question, says NO...
The critical temperature for popcorn is 180C, a pressure cooker can achieve temperatures of 130C, much higher than a standard pan with water but nowhere near popcorn critical temperature.
There are popcorn pressure cooker which you can buy online from countries without health and safety legislation but they are not an Instapot / ninja
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.745152
| 2012-10-22T15:23:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27938",
"authors": [
"Anna Mercken",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Cherry",
"Cos Callis",
"D O",
"Daniel Alfonsetti",
"Dominic Malenfant",
"GISjaclyn",
"GdD",
"Grimxn",
"JamesCW",
"Mike Nakis",
"Ragbier Singh",
"Scivitri",
"Sneftel",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"UKJayadev",
"Veronica Sands",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93808",
"warren miller",
"wolf"
],
"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
}
|
22385
|
Salt 'n pizza (how much salt should be in the dough)
I've made a pizza today and thought the dough could use a little more salt. I've looked at this answer and have a question about the salt ratio. How is it calculated? The percentage of flour, or the percentage of dough?
My pizza recipe calls for 300 g flour, 150 ml water and 3 g salt. That is 1% of the flour weight, but less of the total weight. If 3% is the recommended salt level for bread, I should be using 9 gr for the flour, or 13,5 g for total weight. That is a huge difference.
Edit: The recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of salt, 1 bag of dry yeast (but I use my own mother dough), and 60 ml oil.
Edit: I believe I measured one tablespoon to be 3g :-(
A tablespoon of salt is not 3g -- are you sure you're not using a teaspoon instead of a tablespoon? A tablespoon is 15ml, and granular salt has a density maybe 60% that of water, so a tablespoon of it would be 9g.
When you have a (good) bread recipe, the weight ratio is always given as percentage of the flour. This tradition is known as a baker's percentage. It may sound counterintuitive at first, but when you are measuring, or scaling, ingredients (which add to the total weight by themselves) you soon notice how convenient it is.
So, if you recipe calls for 300 g flour and 3% salt, it needs 9g salt. The water at 150 ml is 50% - a rather low hydration, don't do this with bread flour unless you have another liquid in the recipe you didn't mention (eggs, oil, or additional water for a poolish). It will be stiff with AP flour, but I like it that way, while other people find it too hard. It is up to personal preference, I guess. Also measure the other ingredients (yeast) as a percentage of the flour weight. And if you are given a recipe for fresh yeast, don't forget to convert it to instant dry if you are using it, or vice versa - the conversion factor is 3:1.
So if the recipe calls for 10g dry yeast, it should be 30g mother dough? I'll look the recipe up and write it down here exactly. Later...
It should be 30g fresh yeast (the one sold in pressed cubes in the refrigerated aisle). You can't freely exchange between yeast and sourdough, if this is what you mean, you have to make bigger changes to the recipe. And if you do go for sourdough, you will need much more than 10 g for even a small loaf.
Sourdough starter is usually somewhere between ¼ and ½ of the dough. Depends on how sour you want it, and how strong your starter is. So, if you're going for ~470g of dough, you'd want at least ~120g to be sourdough starter.
@derobert - You can get away with much, much less depending on the intent of the starter. If you're looking to just use natural leavening, then you can use a fraction of that and an extended rise.
Ratios are always by weight. In bread-making, percentages are made from the amount of flour (if you see a 70% hydration bread, the weight of the water is 70% of that from the flour). So it was meant to say "3% of the flour weight". So it should be 9 grams in your recipe for pizza dough.
This is my recipe I translated from Italian website. So for 1 pound of flour (1/2kg), I use one tbsp (11 gram) of salt. Try and let us know.
1/2 kg unbleached all purpose flour
4g dry yeast, half sachet, or 12g normal.
1tsp sugar
11g sea salt, 1tbsp
300 ml Warm water
3tbsp Olive oil
I usually use 1 tablespoon of salt for 1Kg of flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.745792
| 2012-03-19T13:18:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22385",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"BaffledCook",
"Davd Ghobril",
"Drew",
"Jesse4113",
"Mike Scott",
"Tomand Dana Cummings",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96442",
"mycoding id",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23279
|
Exploding or alcoholic soda
Well, I tried to follow a very simple recipe from "Cooking for Geeks" for Ginger Lemon Soda.
I made a simple ginger syrup by cooking ~200g of chopped ginger together with 2 cups of sugar, then I used half of that syrup together with 1/2 a teaspoon of yeast (from the local home-brew store), and topped off with 900 ml of water.
The recipe says: Let rest at room temperature for two days, then refrigerate and drink.
Well, for the first batch, I had so much pressure that when I opened it, it came out like champagne and I lost half of the soda.
For the second batch, I put it in the fridge after one day. Now the level of carbonation is just right, but it's still a bit alcoholic. I had half a glass and I can definitely tell that there was some alcohol involved.
I wonder: What is the way to go to get nice sparkling soda that isn't also high in alcohol?
That recipe sounds fairly faulty to me. Sugar + Yeast = alcohol, 100% of the time. What did they tell you were doing?
Well, the official name of the recipe is "Ginger Lemon Soda" and it doesn't say anything about alcohol.
@FuzzyChef Sugar + Yeast = vinegar if you let too much air get to the mash. That's usually an unhappy outcome.
This recipe is listed under the section for fermentation, together with beer, wine and mead. The section starts with the sentence "Wine, beer and traditional sodas all depend on yeast to ferment sugar into alcohol and generate carbonation".
I don't know enough about the history of soda to know if early sodas were alcoholic. Or rather, I am quite sure that there were alcoholic, fermented, carbonated drinks long before what we call "soda" today existed, but I don't know if they were called soda.
Whatever the language problem is, this recipe is definitely intended to produce a low-alcohol beverage, comparable to beer. If you want carbonated syrup, you should buy a carbonating machine. These take a bullet full of CO2 and press it into the drink base you have selected.
As for the too-strong carbonation, this is probably due to the vague term "room temperature". Yeast growth speed depends on temperature. Because it is an exponential growth, even small changes in temperature can lead to vastly different results. If you want to repeat the experiment despite the alcohol production, try better controlling for the temperature. As I don't brew, I can't tell you the temperature for optimal carbonation after two days, you will have to find it out by yourself.
Based on http://etymonline.com/?term=soda and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonated_water#History it seems likely that "soda" came into use for non-alcoholic sparkling drinks.
Maybe the book author was mistaken about the origin of soda. I have the book and he does indeed call the recipe "soda", but it is a recipe for a fermented drink, which automatically means alcohol - I haven't seen a fermented drink below 1.5% alcohol, and this is for drinks with low sugar availability (boza, kvas, must). Actually, even bread contains alcohol (although less so than carbonated drinks, because it ferments for a shorter time and contains less yeast, and then part of it evaporates in baking). There is no yeast fermentation without alcohol.
Okay, so it just was a misconception of my part. Well, I don't mind, it's still very tasty. :)
"Early Sodas" include root BEER and ginger ALE... I'm thinking that says something.
I think @CosCallis has hit the nail on its head: traditional root beer and ginger ale were, indeed, brewed drinks, and thus contained alcohol. Nowadays, both are made the same way sodas are, i.e. by adding carbon dioxide directly, no yeast involved. Thus, modern ginger ale/root beer can be properly called "soda". But this doesn't mean that something brewed the traditional way automagically becomes "soda" just because ginger is involved.
@CosCallis- I thought they were named that because they were originally marketed as alternatives to beers and ales. The alcohol content would have been intentionally much lower than beer.
@Sobachatina, How?
@CosCallis- beer ferments much longer. I'm no beer expert but beers primary fermentation period is 5 days to two weeks. This leaves relatively little sugar. Often some sugar is added when bottling to add carbonation. Sodas like this should ferment 1 or 2 days depending on the temp- just until carbonated.
@Sobachatina: ginger ales and root beers have been around much longer than the concept of marketing. Some of them go back to times when plain water wasn't considered safe to drink, and so everyone — from little kids on up — drank beer.
@Sobachatina in addition to what Marti said, I would point out that root beer and ginger ale both come from a time when carbonation from a CO2 cylinder was out of the question and refrigeration was rare at best. Filtration was not anything approaching modern standards. I just have a hard time imagining a pre-industrial technique that could have stopped the fermentation process prior to the alcohol content reaching septic levels (@12%).
@cos callis no, you don't get such alcohol percentage in beer normally. I don't know what part of the process prevents it, but 4-6% is quite normal for traditionally made beer. You have to use tricks to get beer up to 12%.
@rumtscho, actually that is part of the process I am certain about. Brewer's yeast tolerate up to about 5% alcohol. Beyond this alcohol level the yeast cannot continue fermentation. Wine yeast on the other hand tolerates up to about 12% alcohol. The level of alcohol tolerance by yeast varies from 5% to about 21% depending on yeast strain and environmental conditions. This is from: http://www.yobrew.co.uk/fermentation.php. If they were using a traditional 'brewer's yeast' then 5% would have been about the top range as the that is the tolerance of the yeast.
@Marti- You and I are talking about different things then. I agree that in the 1300s beverages would have had more alcohol. I am talking about when the actual drink called "Root Beer" was popularized in the 1800s (and yes it was marketed as such). It was based on native american beverages and European "small beers" that were fermented only briefly so that they stayed sweet. http://gourmetrootbeer.com/history.html
Typically, beer is brewed in several stages. All but the last stage produce a flat alcoholic barley wine, and the final stage is carbonation and fermentation.
For a home brewer, two teaspoons of sugar is added to each bottle (350 - 500 ml) so for your purposes, I'd add 4 teaspoons for the 900 ml bottle. (It may take a bit longer for it to reach the drinking stage.) There will be some alcohol, but well below 1%.
This means that you've now got an unsweetened ginger beer, with low alcohol. Now you need to figure out a way to sweeten it up. Obviously, one way would be to add some syrup at serving time. Another way would be to add a non-fermentable sugar such as sucralose (Splenda) at the syrup making stage.
I believe lactose is standard to use as a non-fermenting sugar. Sucralose is an artificial sweetener, not a form of sugar.
Pick up a Carbonater and a CO2 setup (CO2 tank, Regulator, Hose, Ball lock connector. This will let you force carbonate a 2 liter bottle. You will also have to add a preservative of some sort to prevent fermentation.
It sounds to me like you may want to try using less yeast and possibly less sugar. I recently made my own Root Beer and the portions I went with were 1-liter water : 1/2-tablespoon Rootbeer flavoring : 1/2-Cup of Sugar : 1/8 teaspoon of yeast. I'm not sure of the alcohol content (mostly because I was already tired when I finally sat down to try the 1st batch), but by the numbers I have read of what to expect this recipe should but you at about 0.1% to 0.05% abv. Alcoholic beer is generally 6% to 8%, and as low as 3%. Near-beer is generally 1%, I think.
It seems like yeast is the wild beast to reign in on carbonation: For instance, I saw two recipes that were only supposed to take 1-4 days to carbonate, one was for 2-liters (1/2 gallon) of liquid and 1-cup of sugar, the other was for 1 gallon (4-liters) and used 2 cups of sugar, but both recipes called for 1/4 teaspoon of yeast and 1-4 days for carbonation. I saw a 3rd recipe that used only 7-grains of yeast per 20oz[US] (about 1/2 liter), however it took nearly a full week to carbonate.
So, yeast is not a direct proportion and I would say that 1/2 teaspoon for just under 1-liter is why you are getting so much alcohol (and CO2) production. I would scale it back. Sugar, maybe yes, maybe no....ginger is spicy enough, it may actually require the 2 cups of sugar you are using in order to be palatable. But even then, you would be trying to retain more sugar and use less yeast to process less of it.
I'd like to use natural ingredients instead of flavoring, but I'm trying to do my homework on the possibility of Methanol production from roots. Methanol can make you blind. Ethanol can make you drunk. Ethanol can counter Methanol poisoning (if caught soon enough!)
forgot to mention, 1-liter H2O : 1/2-Cup sugar : 1/8 tsp yeast carbonated anywhere for 1 to 2 days for me on all bottles prepared, however the yeast was only a week old from being bought and I used Dry, Active Yeast.
As others have said- anything with yeast contains alcohol.
However, the alcohol content should be negligible at 0.25%-0.5%.
Refrigeration is necessary for stopping the fermentation. The bottles should only be fermented until they are firm or else you risk explosion as you discovered. I would say that your second batch was handled correctly.
Another common alternative to the yeast carbonation approach is to add some dry ice to a partially sealed cooler.
But how do I get it to stay that low? I definitely had more than 0.5% in my brew...
@Lagerbaer- You get it to stay low by stopping the fermentation early by refrigeration. As soon as the bottles are firm it is done and can be chilled and consumed.
Okay... that was after, like, one night at "room" temperature. The exploding bottle had two days, the non-exploding yet alcoholic bottle had one day. Makes sense :)
Use yogurt way instead about 2 tsp to 2 liters , or half a assiduous tablet. Presto None alcoholic bubbles.
Now what I do is only foment with half as much water so bottles half empty. Chill it then open let out some gas careful. Then add water rechill. If you want it more fizzy leave it out a bit. The idea that they used Yeast in the ye old days is not true.
They used Kefir, Ginger Plant or Yogurt Way. These yeast soda recipes are written by idiots. Bc it will Ruin the Flavor and produce a alcoholic beverage unfit for children,that turns to vinegar left open. Using Kefir, Ginger Plant or Yogurt Way you get a probiotic that got good flavor very healthy.. to get yogurt Way just strain yogurt from the curt with clean cloth the liquids Way, last 6 month in fridge!
add more flavor or sweetener before second chilling as you like.
They have definitely had yeast since the old days. Ancient Egyptians were even making beer! What you are describing is a totally different form of fermentation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.746225
| 2012-04-24T03:58:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23279",
"authors": [
"Allan",
"Clarice Hughes",
"Cos Callis",
"Frank",
"FuzzyChef",
"Heidi Waldmann",
"Jaci",
"John Robbie",
"Jonathan wint",
"Lagerbaer",
"Marti",
"Mary",
"Matt",
"Pamela Fogleson",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"finny",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84759",
"neilb",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13357
|
Why does a microwave rotate the food being cooked? And is there ever a time when it shouldn't rotate?
Most microwaves I've used have a plate at the bottom that rotates when the microwave is running. I presume that rotating helps more evenly heat the food.
Interestingly, my microwave rotates by default but has a button you can press to disable the rotation. Under what circumstances or scenarios would you want to stop the microwave from rotating the food?
If you press stop and start again some modles rotate the opposite direction. Because microwaves cook from the insjde out moving plate helps distrbute the heat
Some models restart in a pseudo random direction.
Microwave ovens have a turntable because the microwaves themselves form what are known as 'standing waves'. This means there are essentially static columns of microwave energy inside the cabinet itself.
You can see this for yourself - spread a tray or plate with grated cheese, take the turntable out (or press that button), and zap it for a couple of minutes. You should see bands of melted cheese interleaved with unmelted cheese. Thus, the food is rotated to ensure even heating.
By measuring the distance between the melted spots of cheese, you can work out the speed of light!
Yes you can. Or you can just remember that it's 299,792,458m/s, using 'We guarantee certainty, clearly referring to this light mnemonic' (the number of letters in the words match the figures) :) This of course the speed of light in a vacuum. Halve it for diamonds!
@Skizz Actually, since the size of a meter is now defined in terms of the speed of light (that is, the speed of light is defined to be precisely 299,792,458m/s, and the length of a second is defined in terms of the speed of a certain excitation change in Cesium, which means the size of a meter is a function of those two definitions), you can really only use this to either check how much slower light travels in air, or alternatively (if you suck all the air out of your microwave before performing the test), you could use it to check the accuracy of your ruler.
...and obviously, the time when you want the microwave to stop rotating your food, is when you want to measure the speed of light!
You stop the turntable when there's not room for your dishes to rotate - think large rectangular dish, or two plates fitting into the corners. At best, the turntable will strain and do nothing, and at worst, it'll make a mess.
Otherwise, it does help to get your food heated evenly. It can't fix everything, of course. The center point is always in the center, and even if your food is small enough to avoid the center, not all distances from the center will get quite the same heating even as they sweep out a circle. And no matter where your food is, the middle is always going to take a while to heat up. But it's a lot better than fixed hot and cold spots without a turntable.
About the last paragraph; that's why you put your food as far away from the center of the platter as possible.
[center] Why is you put your food on one or both sides of the turntable.
If the turntable is straining, you can often replace the heavy glass with a smaller, lighter plate.I use an 8" Corel, and it runs on the wheels better than the original spinner, which met a dire fate upon hitting the floor at a couple meters per second. The solution was far cheaper than buying a new microwave, or digging up an old plate somewhere.
There are at least 2 types of units, one with the turntable and one without. The turntable rotates to more evenly distribute the RF waves from the magnitron. The units without a turntable use a rotating reflector just under the magnitron to distribute the RF waves more evenly. Neither are perfect, as there are always hot spots. Microwaves have come down in price a lot since their introduction because they now make a magnitron not used in the radar industry. The magnitron use to be half of the price along with their power supply. Now they are just more throw-away crap like most electronic devices.
Some models have both the turntable and the rotating reflector. That adds an extra little bit of randomness to the heating process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.747412
| 2011-03-22T03:27:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13357",
"authors": [
"Beyond Ramen",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joshua",
"Patissier Magazine",
"SF.",
"Skizz",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"user57430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19430
|
How to get ants out of bread loaves?
So, yesterday I forgot bread loaves on a table and in the evening found tiny red ants crawling on the loaves all over.
I tried to dust them off, but some of them went into hiding in pits of the bread.
Is there some practical method to get the ants out of the bread loaves?
Extra protein, more nutritious... :-)
One of the best ways I've found to remove ants from the bread is to put it into the oven at a light temperature. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
You said: Out of the frying pan and into the fire. What does that mean? What has that to do with oven?
@AnishaKaul: It's a North American expression, although it does seem oddly out of context here.
Sorry the expression in this context is that. The ants will leave the bread if there is heat and die in the oven. So it should be out of the bread and into the oven if you will.
This is an old trick I used to use in Africa after buying my baguettes from a street merchant.
I assume that this is a bread loaf with one side cut open and in addition, you dusted off all ants that you could see from outside. Ants cannot go too far into a bread loaf through the open end. You can cut another piece off from the open end and use the remaining loaf. (If you do not mind using the piece where ants were, then you could remove the ants easily from the cut piece now. I would not mind eating it as this is what typically happens in tropical regions.)
As a solution to not letting ants get on the bread in the first place,
(1) you could place it in a plastic bag and form a knot so that ants cannot get through. or
(2) Place the bread on top of a cylindrical object (for example, a used powdered milk container) and place the object (and the bread) in a (big enough) bowl (a wok) with water. Make sure that no parts of the cylindrical object are touching the lateral surface of the bowl.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.747798
| 2011-12-06T05:05:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19430",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Evan",
"JumpingJezza",
"Sanjoy sarkar",
"Tolure",
"aafkedowney",
"doreen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"sdg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27713
|
How to properly sauté mushrooms so that they don't release water?
Every time I try to sauté mushrooms, they release so much water I end up with a puddle. This, from what I gather, is not the intended effect - they should be slightly browned but dry. Any tips on how to avoid this happening? I tried a bit of everything - I heat up my frying pan for quite a bit first to ensure it's very hot, I use lots of olive oil, but all to no avail.
Maybe I'm cooking too many at a time, i.e., should I cook them in small batches instead? Am I cooking them for too long?
How are you prepping the mushrooms for cooking? E.g., are you doing something like soaking them (possibly to clean them)?
I wash them under running water and slice them. I don't soak them, so they are fairly dry when I add them to the pan.
It's a bit beside the point, but olive oil is probably not what you want to use in a very hot pan. (See for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27415/is-this-video-showing-an-exception-of-the-common-wisdom-that-you-shouldnt-cook )
Are you really interested in not releasing water from the mushrooms or are you trying to avoid having the puddle that occurs when water is released? I have always enjoyed sauteeing folowed by reduction and augmentation with other ingredients. I haven't thought about doing it without releasing water at all. Please clarify. (I might want to try it myself!)
lots of oil to gloss the entire pan or so much that the shrooms are swimming? moderate amount of oil, no stirring until some browning, and a heavy pan over right burner size
There's a great experiment on Cooking Issues that deals with this very problem. The general advice is to not crowd the pan because of the concomitant release of water; however, the guys found that doing this is actually beneficial because, although a lot of water is initially released, by the time the liquid has eventually evaporated the mushrooms have collapsed and cook far better in the oil that's left. Here's the full explanation:
To make the test really severe, I decided to cook the soaked mushrooms in one batch in an extremely crowded pan, and the dry mushrooms in 3 batches with plenty of room. We weighed out identical amounts of salt and oil (this is the crucial part) and began cooking.
As we expected, the soaked crowded mushrooms formed a soupy mess in the pan. The dry mushrooms didn’t stew and cooked quickly. Here is where it got weird. The dry mushrooms ended up absorbing all the oil. In fact, I had underestimated the amount of oil they needed. They wanted more. I couldn’t add any more oil, however, because it would have ruined the experiment. When the soaked and crowded mushrooms had finally evaporated all their extra water and stated to sauté, they didn’t absorb all the oil. When they were finished, a significant amount of oil was left in the pan. They looked as good and tasted better and less oily than their dry cousins –by a lot.
Our explanation: While the mushrooms are boiling off their water, they aren’t absorbing oil. By the time the boiling stops they have already collapsed, so they aren’t as porous as a raw mushroom and don’t want to absorb oil. The dry mushrooms start absorbing oil from the get-go.
What I do now is this:
Add the all the chopped mushrooms to a pan over a medium heat with some salt
and water and cover.
The mushrooms steam and release and ton of their own water: allow to cook
for a good 5-10 minutes.
Drain the mushrooms - reserving the released mushroom water - and
dry the pan before returning it to a high heat.
When the pan is very hot, add a few tablespoons of oil (depending on
the volume of cooked mushrooms) and throw in the mushrooms.
When they are nicely browned, deglaze the pan with the mushroom water
The reason for the two stage process is that I found if you wait for the water to evaporate naturally the residue from the dissolved solids in the water can stick to the pan and burn while the mushrooms are frying. By covering the pan initially, the water doesn't evaporate and can be siphoned off with any dissolved solids (that now can't get stuck to the bottom of the pan) and then reintroduced right at the end. As the pan is so hot it only takes a minute or two for all the water to evaporate and any new fond created by actually sauteeing the mushrooms gets used as well.
another two process option i've used is to bake the mushrooms first
Mushrooms contain a lot of water, so you'll never be able to avoid it completely. However, you can reduce it by:
Frying in smaller batches, which prevents too much water being released at once, which prevents efficient evaporation.
Not stirring the mushrooms too vigorously, especially early on in the process. The tendency is to add the mushrooms to the pan then poke them around. In my experience it's better to just leave them for a bit before stirring and turning them over.
Use the widest pan you can to maximize evaporation while you fry them, also, you can put them in a very low oven for an hour to draw some of the moisture out. Don't crowd the pan, make sure each one has some space.
Also, don't wash them in water before cooking! Mushrooms are sponges, they absorb liquids. Wipe them with a dry cloth or paper towel instead to clean them if they have dirt on them.
Washing mushrooms, even soaking, doesn't appreciably increase their water content.
@JoshCaswell: If the mushrooms are open, the gills can hold a lot of water.
Elendil's suggestions are good, but I question your use of "lots of olive oil". You say that you heat up the pan to ensure it is very hot and (then?) use a lot of olive oil. Pouring lots of cold oil in a very hot pan will of course cool it down a lot as well.
My experience is that it's much better to fry mushrooms in small batches in a dry (ungreased), hot non-stick pan, so that the released moisture can evaporate easily. If the moisture is released in hot oil, the oil will probably squirt around and make a terrible mess.
I've read many of these suggestions before, and I never have had enough time to follow any of them. We eat a lot of mushrooms at our house, and I've experimented for years. Here's my current process:
Rinse the mushrooms in a colander over cold water. Check carefully for stems with dirt, mold, rocks, etc. (I've found all of them.) Shake the colander to knock off as much water as you can.
Heat a non-stick pan over medium-high heat and put a thin layer of olive oil in the bottom.
Why not use canola oil? I'm in a hurry, and there's a bottle of olive oil next to my stove.
Why not add butter to the oil? I do sometimes (for company), but it takes time and adds saturated fat that just seems unnecessary.
When the olive oil glistens, pour all of the mushrooms in. STAND BACK--you're pouring a damp thing into hot oil. (Honestly, there's not much water left on the mushrooms, so it shouldn't be too bad.)
Do not salt the mushrooms! Add no seasoning--yet.
Saute for about five minutes until the inevitable "puddle" appears. Since you're not trying to boil the mushrooms, you need to get that water out of the pan. So, using the lid of the pan, pour off the water into a bowl.
Drizzle a little more olive oil in and keep moving the mushrooms around until they are golden brown and delicious. (If you're really doing a lot of mushrooms, you may need to pour off any liquid again.)
About a minute or two before they're done, season liberally with Kosher salt, black pepper, and (sometimes) a pinch or two of dried thyme. You could even add a drop or two of truffle oil if you want to up the "mushroom" flavor.
That's it! And as a pleasant by-product, you have a bowl of mushroom stock. If you're doing a dish with a sauce, be sure to add some of that fantastic stock to it. Otherwise, just pitch it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.748022
| 2012-10-10T15:22:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27713",
"authors": [
"Arthur",
"Benjamin Glick",
"Bryanna Gomez",
"CAROLYN FORD",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Fara",
"Guest",
"Jim",
"Joe Real",
"Naveed",
"Orphevs",
"Pat Sommer",
"Stephen",
"TheBroKoders",
"bigtoe",
"cooper goodwin",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jk.",
"jscs",
"moberemk",
"user442635"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76214
|
Should I brown meat for a stew before freezing it?
I bought some meat to make a stew sometime in the future. Is it best to brown the meat before I freeze it, or should I freeze it raw?
If you brown it first, you've eliminated some options. What if you change your mind and decide to do kebabs instead of a stew?
It might save you a few minutes when you decide to use it. Meat that has been frozen takes a bit longer to brown, since it will exude a bit more moisture.
But it's probably not worth it. Browning meat, then cooling it to freeze, is a huge hassle. Plus, you'll lose the fond on the bottom of your pan (unless you de-glaze and save that too.) That's a huge amount of flavor loss. You might as well just make the stew and freeze that (which is also good).
If you're going to freeze the meat, freeze it in the form that you got it. Defrost carefully (in the fridge, not the counter) and dry it thoroughly (e.g. paper towels) before browning.
Cooling to freeze is not huge hassle.
I guess compared to the hassle of browning meat at all, it's not. But it's yet another thing you have to do: take the meat, put it on a plate, let it sit out for at least 15 minutes, then put it in a container.
I suppose you don't even have to do that: as long as it's not an enormous amount it'll get cool-enough-fast-enough in the freezer. But that does strike me as a way to get more freezer burn, as well as potential harm to the other things in the freezer.
A single portion is not really worth it but a few possible advantages
You don't want to take the time to brown when it comes time to make
the stew
Browned you would not need to wait for it to fully thaw before adding to the stew.
You are prepping multiple stews. Put each batch in a freezer bag and reuse the pan. You only have to clean the pan once.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.748803
| 2016-12-07T19:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76214",
"authors": [
"John Feltz",
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44206
|
Nonsoggy spinich pie with frozen spinach
The base recipe for my spinach pie (rough recipe I don't have a book) is
500g spinach
250g Feta cheese
250g Cheddar cheese
1 bunch of spring onions
1.5 - 3 eggs (for binding)
Baked into 2 large pies, made with filo pastry. Cooked at 180-200C.
Originally I would make this by using cooking fresh spinach in water,
then carefully drying it with paper towel,
and combining that with fried spring onion.
However the fresh spinach was too expensive, so I refined it.
Changing to frozen, which I would put in the microwave,
then while it was defrosting, I chop up the spring onions and put them into the microwave with it.
I would not drain this or anything just combine with the other ingredients (in the same bowl I microwaved it in even!)
This was great it made delicious pie and was low effort.
You couldn't taste the difference.
However I wanted to make it more filling.
so I tried adding potato, it was good and very filling. However, my family thought it was less full of spinach and feta goodness.
So my next approach was to double the amount of spinach and cheese.
It is delicious and as expected each slice is twice as filling.
I've tried that twice now and both times it has ended up soggy on the bottom.
What can I do about this?
Is it a matter of squeezing the water out of the defrosted spinach?
Or is there some other trick, like cutting a hole in the top of the pastry to let the steam out while it cooks.
This looks to be relevant if squeezing the water out is the way forward: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6471/what-is-the-most-efficient-way-to-squeeze-water-out-of-cooked-spinach?rq=1
More egg will bind more of the spinach-water. Tapioca starch (flour) gels at around 60°C, so might bind your excess liquid nicely without overcooked egg or floury flavor.
Ahh, I knew asking here was a good idea. I had been cutting down on the eggs to try and decrease the liquid.
Letting the spinach drain thoroughly will help; you should also increase the amount of egg in proportion to bind the additional ingredients. That will keep the ratio of binder to water in balance.
You could probably also place your filling into the bottom of a casserole dish and layer with filo/phyllo, with a layer of dough to top the whole thing, assuming your goal is minimal effort.
With more spinach you need to wring the hell out of it, whether you start with fresh or frozen. Cook the spinach a bit so it starts to release its liquid, then squeeze it out with your hands doing small batches at a time. When you're done with that, put it in a clean tea towel, wrap it up and twist and wring. You'll get even more liquid. I'm surprised actually that you say that you didn't wring the spinach originally but didn't have a problem with sogginess. Spinach contains a boatload of water.
{edit upon further reflection}
I would even go further than wringing the spinach. To protect against sogginess, I would briefly sauté the spinach after wringing it. That would be a great opportunity to incorporate other complementary stuff like onions or garlic too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.748987
| 2014-05-18T01:33:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44206",
"authors": [
"DONG BES",
"Elaine M",
"Frames Catherine White",
"James Indellicati",
"Joseph Wacht",
"Michael Kosten",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Win",
"boulder_ruby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"sina mashaiee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2923
|
Is it safe to eat raw fish?
Raw chicken is generally considered not safe to eat. A lot of people eat sushi/sashimi though, and they are made from raw fish. So, how come that's safe (if it is)?
Edited to reflect that sushi is not raw fish
Sushi (寿司, 鮨, or 鮓?) is a Japanese dish consisting of cooked vinegared rice, which may or may not include any raw fish.
If it does, is it safe to eat?
FYI: I once saw an email go around about a Japanese man that got worms in his brain from eating sushi. This story was completely made-up: somebody made something that looked like a cut-open brain with maggots in it (not tapeworms, as the story said - tapeworms are string-like) and invented a story to go with it to email around to gross people out. Lots of... let's just say people who don't think before they forward emails... didn't stop to wonder how millions of Japanese people eat sashimi regularly and don't have brain worms (and are the healthiest nation on Earth). So it spread pretty far.
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76455/in-the-usa-does-fish-being-served-raw-need-to-be-frozen-first
I discussed a similar subject in this question: What exactly is "Sushi Grade" fish?
Raw fish isn't safe to eat if it's just been sitting around. However, the raw fish used in sushi/sashimi has been frozen (typically flash-frozen) in order to kill any parasites, making it as safe as any other food.
Most distributors of sashimi also have their own methods and internal regulations to ensure food safety, but specifics are understandably hard to come by. Suffice it to say, it's far safer to eat properly-prepared nigiri or sashimi than it is to eat an undercooked hamburger.
As mentioned in this question about raw chicken - some people and cultures do indeed eat raw chicken.
Notwithstanding that, to answer your question more directly, the main problem with eating raw meat, fish, or anything else, are bacteria, parasites and other pathogens.
A healthy animal, however, butchered appropriately, should have no specific issues. As such, we make beef tartare, sashimi (sushi refers to the rice, not the raw fish) and just enjoy!
Sushi isn't 100% safe, but it's reasonably safe (I eat it all the time).
Different animals can harbor different diseases. Chicken are known to carry salmonella, which is pretty harmful to humans. Compare this to most types of sushi grade fish, which don't carry diseases as harmful.
This is also a matter of preparation. "Sushi Grade" fish is prepared very carefully with raw consumption in mind. If a chicken is raised guaranteed free of salmonella, or care is taken to make sure the muscle meat never came into contact with organs or feathers, it would be safe to eat raw. However, the fact is that almost no chicken meets that criteria as there seems to be no demand for raw chicken.
I once watched a TV program in which a parasitologist was interviewed. Many kinds of meat and fish contain parasites that can cause harm to humans, and fish is no exception.
She said that the worms found in fish were easy to spot, to the trained eye, and that a good sushi chef would see them and not serve those pieces.
At the end of the interview, she was asked if there was any kind of food she would always avoid. She said she wouldn't eat sushi from a source she didn't trust fully.
Me, I love sushi too much to ever turn down the chance to eat it :D
In the USA, almost all types of fish that are to be served raw are required to be frozen to kill some of the most common worm parasites.
The general idea that all fish have worms that are dangerous to humans isn't necessarily so, however.
Parasites are not universal to all forms of fish. Freshwater fish seem to have more issues than others (which is why salmon, which spends time in both fresh and saltwater, has these issues), and among saltwater fish, the kinds of parasites that show up in halibut, cod, grouper do not appear in some of species of other fish that are common for sushi and sashimi.
Wahoo, for example, has a stomach parasite that is almost universal, but we don't eat the stomach. If you were to use a fresh, raw, locally caught wahoo for sushi or sashimi, your risk of parasitic infection would be minimal. Same is true for most varieties of tuna, hamachi (Japanese Amberjack, which is not the same kind of amberjack caught in North Carolina, for example, that commonly has a worm infection but even that is not harmful to humans).
So, really, the safety of raw fish depends on how the fish is handled, stored, and the species of the fish. There is no generalization that covers all scenarios, but it can be very safe.
Eating raw fish, shrimp, lobster, & other can give you worms. A problem were I live. So all should be froze at 0f for 3 days or more or treated on the boat. But fresh is best. Firm soiled nice fresh smell to it. Best sliced & ate while the gills are still moving. But in the islands children 1st threw 6th are wormed at school. It is not a big problem but does happen. Not just from fish but ground raised pork. I think in America all fish sold are treated. Not fresh caught.
The key to sushi is the quality and the freshness. The fresher, the better.
Much the same rational as steak tartare. To quote Anthony Bourdain, "The key to a successful steak tartare is fresh beef, freshly hand-chopped at the very last minute and mixed table-side"
Note that sushi is saltwater fish. Eating raw freshwater fish is not a good idea.
While fresher fish obviously tastes better, this actually has nothing to with the safety of sushi/sashimi fish.
Thanks for the answer! Is eating freshwater fish a bad idea because they might contain more mercury and stuff? But that stuff is still there after it's been cooked though, right?
As a general rule, freshwater fish species are not safe to eat raw, because they often contain parasites which can only be eliminated by cooking.
As indicated in the accepted answer - fresh fish is NOT safe. It should be frozen for several hours/days (depending on temperature).
Raw fish meat and chicken can cause intestinal worms wich create in your stomach in order to eat all undisposed fish meat or chicken that your body has not fully gotten rid of . They help by eating these leftover subjects but are pretty wierd to think about having and can start eating the body itself it's best to never eat raw fish chicken or meat of any kind and also to make sure it's fully cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.749292
| 2010-07-23T01:35:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2923",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"David Neale",
"Geovana Escalante",
"Jim Dagg",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin Panko",
"Lars Andren",
"MGOwen",
"Pollyanna",
"Popup",
"Puru",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"rbrayb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109541
|
What is leftover in the pulp after making oat milk and how can you use it?
I've been making oat milk and looking for recipes which can utilise the pulp which is left after making the oat milk. I tried cookies and pancakes but they end up wet and soft.
Is this because all of the starch is taken out of the oats when they're mixed with water? Is the leftover pulp mainly just fibre with only a little bit of starch?
If I made flour with the leftover pulp after it has been dried, should it have to be treated differently from regular oat flour?
The pulp from making soy milk is called okara, and is suitable for savory stir fries or to bulk-out baking recipes. I'm not sure how much oat pulp varies from soy in texture and flavor, but it might be worth trying it in an okara recipe like this vegetable and okara stir fry.
And before people complain that they're asking for recipes for an item -- back in the early days of this site, there was a specific exemption for asking about how to use something that would typically be considered waste. (many of those distinctions, such as restaurant mimicry seemed to have disappeared when it was split into separate pages for 'what's on topic' and 'what's not allowed')
Yes, most of the fat, starch and flavour of the oats ends up in the milk, so what you have left is mostly fibre. Dough or batter made from it won't gelatinize much if at all, so will not hold together when cooked like regular oat flour.
Sometimes I add the residue to baked goods (along with wheat flour) in small quantities. It seems to work OK in cakes and soda bread (where a soft texture is desirable), but I need more oil than usual to get a good taste.
I also make quick raw snack balls out of it. I grind 1 part of it with 1-2 parts nuts and/or seeds (usually almonds, walnuts, sunflower seeds) and then I either add dried fruits and/or sugar and sweet flavourings like vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg, cardamom or dry ginger, OR I add salt, chilli powder and herbs for savoury snacks.
I have also successfully tried mixing it with oats (using about 1 part residue to 3 parts oats) for making oatmeal/porridge or flapjack. I add some desiccated coconut to these dishes to compensate for the lower fat content and blandness of the oat residue.
To be honest, I feel it's not much use as anything but a bulking agent since most of the nutrients and tastiness have been extracted.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.749803
| 2020-07-08T15:34:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109541",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110277
|
Modifications to a sourdough recipe
I'm using this recipe, with the following ingredients:
450 grams Strong White Bread Flour
300 grams Warm Water
150 grams* Active Sourdough Starter
12 grams Sea Salt
*This amount is can be adjusted to 50 grams for a longer 12 hour bulk ferment.
I want to take the option to reduce the starter from 150g to 50g in exchange for a longer bulk proof period. Should I replace the lost 100g of starter with an extra 50g flour and 50g water during the initial steps?
Hi, and welcome to SA! Have a look at the Tour and Help Center when you get a chance. In general, it is a good idea to have your post contain all necessary information, which is why I edited it to add the list of ingredients from your recipe.
Good question! Yes, if you use a 50/50 mix to feed your starter then your approach will give you the same balance and you will get the same hydration, providing you use the same flour blend as when you feed your starter. If you use a different ratio to feed your starter then stick to whatever ratio that is.
This approach will slow down your proofing for sure, maybe more than you intend. It's not linear, as in you want to slow down your proofing by 2/3 so you remove 2/3 of your starter, so do this when you have lots of time to study it. Take detailed notes and see how you get.
Another approach to slowing fermentation is to control for temperature, i.e. to put it in the refrigerator. I'd prefer this approach to reducing the starter as I'll be starting with a good batch of yeasts and giving them more time to work. Reducing the yeast at the start will mean it takes longer to get going, but also a lot longer to see the benefits of that culture.
I didn't say this in my initial question, but part of my problem is that my starter usually peaks and begins to deflate after about 6 to 8 hours, rather than the ~12 that I see on many websites. Last week it was 32C (~90F) in The Netherlands and my starter would peak in ~4 hours. It has a fast metabolism. Currently I feed it at a 1/2/2 ratio. And while the recipe calls for an 8 hour bulk rise, I'm having more success with 6. Hence my desire for a longer bulk rise. I don't like waking in the middle of the night to shape and then fridge my doughs.
Keep in mind you can refrigerate your bulk fermentation too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.750020
| 2020-08-18T19:37:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110277",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"LSchoon",
"Michael",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87219"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108643
|
Sour dough using unbleached all purpose flour is very wet during the preshaping
My wife created her own sour dough starter. She’s been feeding it unbleached white flour. It’s doing great.
When she is making her dough during the first step she is using a recipe that calls for bread flour and whole wheat flour. However we don’t have bread flour so we are using all purpose flour.
She’s rested the dough a few times and when she is trying to work it in the preshaping step the dough is really wet and doesn’t seem to have good surface tension. She keeps adding flour to try to dry it out.
The dough basically is just flat on the counter...
What are we doing wrong? Do we need to adjust the recipe for the all purpose flour? Or work the dough differently?
update
I did more research and Cook’s Illustrated suggested holding the salt temporarily for 15 minutes. Salt hinders autolyse. They found that delaying salt hastened gluten development by an hour.
ratios/recipe
400 g warm water
100 g sour dough starter
400 g bread flour (which we don’t have)
100 g whole wheat flour
Rest for 60 min
add 10g salt and 10g water
Repeat following 3x:
Then stretch and fold, etc.
Rest 60 min
After this the dough was as described in my post.
Don't add flour. Use wet hands.
I think the ideal way to compare some of the suggested solutions would be to make two different ratios at the same time and see how they turn out at the end. The bread that my wife made which led to this post actually tuned out pretty good. She baked it in a small cast iron so the bread could not flatten out during baking. :)
(I am assuming your starter is at 100% hydration, i.e., that it is half water, half flour. I am also assuming you have no/little experience in baking bread. Please correct me if wrong.)
Looking at your ratios, you have a total of 460g water (400g as water, 50g in the starter, 10g with the salt) to a total of 550g flour (including 50g from the starter). This gives you an overall hydration of just over 83%, which is definitely a wetter dough. Handling wet dough is not easy. I think there might not be anything wrong with your dough itself (although see below), and you just need to get more experience working with wetter doughs.
One thing that may make the dough wetter than the recipe assumes: both bread flour and (especially) whole wheat flour absorb more water than AP flour. Substituting AP flour for the bread flour is not going to make a huge difference, but still might make the dough wetter than is expected.
My advice: lower the hydration to somewhere in the 65%-70% range (i.e., replace the 400g water with 297g-325g). Learn to handle this dough (this might take a few trials), then start increasing the hydration.
None of the grocery stores in my area are carrying bread flour so I have resorted to using AP. My dough is definitely wetter and I cut back on the water for that reason.
You don't state how you are handling the dough from the autolyse through the pre-shaping. It sounds to me like you are lacking in gluten strength. So, after the autolyse, what is your kneading regimen? When I make sour dough, especially with high hydration formulas, the initial kneading serves an important role. So, whether you are using a mechanical mixer, or doing slap and fold, a solid 8 - 10 minutes is necessary. It is often a sticky mess at the beginning, but as the gluten develops things get easier. Then, 30 minute rest, followed by a set of slap and folds, followed by a 30 minute rest. This usually happens 4 times. Avoid the urge to add more flour in these steps. Let the process, and time, do the work. Then, rest for the remainder of bulk fermentation. The suggestion of trying a slightly lower hydration until you get the feel for things is a good one. However, given your description, I think an important improvement to make is the development of the gluten structure in your dough. It should work just fine with AP flour.
OP states they perform a 60 minute autolyse, followed by three "stretch and folds", which sounds like they are following a 'no knead' method. Even with high hydration doughs, such a method can work fine.
@LSchoon thanks for pointing that out, but it doesn't address the initial kneading or stretch and fold step as I describe it, which I have found especially helpful with high hydration dough.
My point is that you do not need to go through 10 minutes of kneading or slap and folds several times to develop enough gluten for the dough to hold together.
@LSchoon ...just sharing my experience. I have found it extremely useful, especially in high hydration dough. I feel even more strongly about it given the lack of high protein flour, and the description of the issue the OP is facing in this situation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.750232
| 2020-05-27T04:49:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108643",
"authors": [
"J...",
"LSchoon",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"milesmeow",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92622
|
What type of flour is ideal for sourdough?
I have found a recipe for sourdough starter culture that calls for 50 grams of flour with 50 ml of water, but the recipe does not state what specific type of flour you should use. Can you use any type of flour for the sourdough starter or are there types of flour that will give a better result?
EDIT: I'm especially curious if Self-Raising flour would be suitable?
Self-rising flour uses baking powder, not yeast. Different types of leavening.
Tartine Bread by Chad Roberts (which is a wonderful book, by the way, and the bread is fantastic), recommends using a 50/50 mix of white and whole wheat bread flour. He also says all-purpose flour is fine for a starter as well.
Self-raising flour would definitely not be appropriate, since it has baking powder in it.
For the starter, the main concern is getting the culture the nutrients to live, thrive and multiply, so there would be no need for OP to use a higher-gluten, bread flour (not contradicting anything in the answer, just a bit of elaboration). I've never used whole wheat in mine..... seems like maybe I should start a second culture..... +1
How important is the fact that the flour is not bleached?
@NeilMeyer - bleaching is largely one of convenience (flour naturally "bleaches" as it ages, so the companies are just speeding up the process of whitening the flour when they use bleaching chemicals), but the bleached flour doesn't carry any kind chemicals with it, or, at least, not enough to make a difference. It would make a difference, overall, in the texture of a baked product, but I don't think it makes any difference for your starter.
@PoloHoleSet I suppose he recommends that for a similar reason to that in brewing, where, if you make a yeast starter, you want the yeast to acclimatize to an environment as close as possible to the one that they will eventually be doing their "work" in.
I agree, bleaching vs. not won't matter for the starter, for exactly the reasons stated.
@ChrisMacksey Yes, that is his stated reason which I am too lazy to walk the three feet to my book case to look up and quote.
What about Odlums Cream Plain Flour (Irish brand) https://www.odlums.ie/products/odlums-cream-plain-flour/ Ingredients: Wheat Flour, Raising Agents (Sodium Bicarbonate, Acid Calcium Phosphate, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate). My sourdough is not really raising much after my 4-5 try using 100% of that. Would using 50% whole wheat or strong wheat flour help?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.750624
| 2018-10-03T11:32:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92622",
"authors": [
"Chris Macksey",
"Gianfranco P",
"Luciano",
"Neil Meyer",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53096"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56720
|
How to make fluffy (not crunchy) quinoa?
Here is what I did:
Heated 1 cup quinoa in olive oil for 1 minute after rinsing it.
Added 2 cups water till it boiled.
I set the heat to the lowest setting and closed it with a lid.
After 15 minutes, the quinoa is still crunchy and the water has gone. If I let it stand for a few more minutes it gets burnt. I've tried this a few times and get same result - the quinoa is half cooked and inedible. What am I doing wrong?
Note: I'm very new to cooking. About 3 weeks since I entered the kitchen.
It sounds like it needs more water -- even though 1:2 is the correct ratio, another quarter or half cup may get you to the amount of liquid you need.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2164/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20800/67
As Sobachatina said, it's cooked like many grains, and behaves very similar to rice.
You could try continuing the steaming method, and if it does not get done by the time all the water has turned to steam, start it with a bit more water. Sobachatina's suggestion of a tight lid is also worth considering, but pay attention to the pot then, so you don't get it boiling over.
An alternative is to use a boiling method. With or without toasting it first, add 3.5 parts of water to 1 part quinoa. Cook until soft, and put through a sieve to discard the superfluous water. The upside is that, unless you are using too high a temperature, there is no way to burn it.
Quinoa is cooked exactly like rice. In fact- if you have a rice cooker you can use that and not worry about it.
Your procedure is ok. This is the way I make my quinoa.
Toasting grains in oil before steaming them is delicious and results in grains that are more nutty and more individual. Rice is nice this way so there is less risk of making rice paste.
If you are having trouble with your grain not rehydrating properly, the first thing to try would be to skip the oil step. It isn't required.
If you find that your water is evaporating before the quinoa is steamed then it is likely that your lid isn't tight enough.
Yes, I was going to suggest skipping the oil. I have never made quinoa with oil in this way, and mine always comes out fluffy. Using a rice cooker is a great idea, too!
Cook uncovered the entire time. When all the water is soaked up, take it off the heat and then cover it. That’s when it opens up the kernels and gets fluffy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.750843
| 2015-04-16T15:03:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56720",
"authors": [
"Deirdre McManus",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Lynne Fabricant",
"Marcy",
"Solar Flare",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"steve mackenzie"
],
"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
}
|
50344
|
Are these chestnuts safe to eat?
I bought some chestnuts last week. The package date said December 4th and I want to cook them. It's the 5th today. I kept them out on kitchen counter all week. Are they safe to cook and eat still?
If the chestnuts are safe to eat, how long do I keep them in oven to cook them? I have never cooked chestnuts before so I have no way to compare notes to how I cook chestnuts.
Would you please clarify what kind of chestnuts you bought? Fresh or pre-cooked and sealed?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.751176
| 2014-12-05T12:08:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50344",
"authors": [
"Dennis",
"Elaine Banks",
"G Nee",
"Pat Perry",
"Scott Pulling",
"Stephie",
"breon berry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114411
|
How do I best cut florentines from a finished (baked) baking tray?
I have baked a tray of florentine pastry, and I have spread chocolate on it (dark and milk). It's about 35 x 35 cm. Now I'd like to make cookies out of it.
I know recipes say to cut the pastry when it's still warm, but it was just far too thin and fluid to do so: it would basically have amounted to pushing a knife into almond flakes which are floating in a sauce; it didn't seem realistic at all.
The pastry is nice and crisp and thin now (as thin as I could get it, maybe 3–5 mm), as it should be. The consistency is a bit like semi-hard caramel. but of course with almond flakes over the entire surface (so much less hard, easier to break/cut). How can I best cut (square-shaped) cookies out of it?
I don't think breaking is an option, so it has to be cutting or sawing? I see no option but to use a large kitchen knife. Should I press it down until it snaps? Or should I move it along the length of the desired cut ('sawing')? Should I use a smooth knife or a serrated knife (probably not)? Or is there anything else you can recommend?
I'm afraid I might break the pastry into irregular shards and bits if I do it wrong, but I haven't tried yet without asking you!
P.S. It doesn't stick to the baking-paper much, so that won't be an issue.
P.P.S. You see the orange in the picture which I grated for the zest.
Epilogue: I ended up cutting them with a non-serrated knife, which I put in a pan of very hot water between 'cuttings', to partly melt the cut (wipe with paper towels in between). I cut by moving the knife up and down the length of the cut ('sawing'), but I did also exert some downward pressure. It worked well enough, except for some breaking at the edges which were not flat at the bottom (because of the uneven baking tray).
Florentines are tricky, I've found it easier to make individual sized ones rather than trying to cut them later, but if you do want to make them as a sheet let them cool just a bit to harden up and then cut them as quickly as you can, the window is short.
@GdD: Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe I missed the right window.
Those look pretty tasty @Cerberus, shape notwithstanding!
@GdD: Merci! These are actually the worst one, qua shape.The large majority turned out as nice squares or diamonds.
I find that it's easiest to cut fragile, hard things with a serrated knife. I would go with a bread knife and slowly saw though it. In the future, I would recommend waiting until they're slightly set but still warm and cut then instead of waiting until it's completely cooled.
Thanks for the idea! I think maybe a very finely serrated knife might work, but I only had a large one with large teeth. I couldn't muster the courage. Up until the pastry was hard, it didn't seem possible to do anything with it at all; but perhaps I should be looking for the right window more closely next time... sawing with a hot knife worked well enough, though.
I'm not sure how brittle your recipe is, but if it has a little bit of plasticity, I would try scissors. They will likely produce better cuts. If it is not scissor friendly, a sharp pizza wheel might also do better than a knife.
If you do use a knife, sawing should be better than pressing, less chance of it spluttering under the knife.
Thanks for your suggestion! I tried cutting with scissors, but it was too aplastic, it broke. Pizza wheel might be nice, if I had one. I sawed with a plain knife, which worked well enough where the bottom was flat (because one does need to exert some pressure). I used a hot knife (put in a pan of water between cuts).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.751283
| 2021-02-20T04:06:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114411",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54444
|
Do Asian groceries carry vital wheat gluten?
I want to buy vital wheat gluten for bread baking but I've only had luck finding it at health food stores where it's quite expensive. I know seitan is made from vital wheat gluten so I was wondering if the powder is something that is commonly found at Asian groceries? If so, what would be the name for it?
Can you order from Amazon?
I'm in Australia, so it wouldn't be worth it because of shipping. The gluten isn't really that expensive. It was $7.50AUD for 500 grams, I believe, but I'm guessing it would last a long time. In any case, I'm sure Asian places would stock it cheaper if they did stock such a product.
"I know seitan is made from vital wheat gluten" ... that is the modern approach. The old-school approach is to start with a high-gluten flour, kneading it to form the gluten, and iteratively washing out the (highly water soluble) starch from the (effectively insoluble) gluten fibre. More work, and harder to incorporate seasonings and texture altering ingredients. BTW, maybe someone chinese could comment on how commonly/uncommonly either of these methods are employed in households?
Some Asian stores do carry it as it is used to make seitan. However, there isn't a blanket yes or no answer as it is up to the individual stores. The only thing you can do is to check the stores you can get to.
It may also be called gluten flour but, if you see this, be sure to read the label to ensure that it has 75% or more protein.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.751572
| 2015-02-06T05:57:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54444",
"authors": [
"Donna Leonard",
"Drake Miller",
"Eunice",
"Jolenealaska",
"NRaf",
"Paraschos Lianos",
"Stonebriar Moving Services",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"nikita virani",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89052
|
Can one use SOS pad on Gotham frying pan?
Stains remaining in frying pan after cooking meat that sticks to the pan. I have tried SOS pads, is that okay?
SOS pads are steel wool with a ton of soap. That means they are an abrasive cleaner, and except on the very hardest surfaces, will scratch away the surface. This makes them very effective so removing a microscopic portion of a stainless steel pan or a slightly less microscopic portion of an aluminum pan (or cookie sheet) is sometimes worth it.
I believe those pans are coated with some form of porcelain, which is a very hard surface. So you're probably removing very little of that surface, but if that's the way you clean it every time — you will eventually destroy the pan.
You may want to consider plain stainless, high-carbon steel, or cast iron. The later two are seasoned with oil and become non-stick. Also... minor stains (on any type of pan) can often just be ignored.
Why do you think "those pans are coated with some form of porcelain" ?
@LyndonWhite their site says ceramic, not sure why I said porcelain (a particular type of ceramic).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.751734
| 2018-04-11T22:02:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89052",
"authors": [
"Frames Catherine White",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61827
|
Using beef jerky cuts for stir fry?
I have some cuts of beef intended to be used for beef jerky.
I have not yet dried them -- the meat is still fresh.
I don't know what cut of meat was used. Can I use it for stir fry?
Jerky as in "dried" or as in "fresh, had planned to dry it"? Welcome to the site!
The jerky is fresh.
Just my own opinion but I think if the cuts are made across the grain rather than with the grain it should be fine. With the grain might be tough to chew. There are 2 camps on cutting jerky meats so it really depends on how it was cut.
That's what I thought. Since it doesn't have fat on it, I thought it best to cut cross grain and stir fry for a short time.
The meat was cut for beef jerky, not made into beef jerky.
Look for authentic recipes for machaca con huevos, Chihuahua-style. Not quite stir fry, pounded or shredded jerky cooked in a skillet with eggs and tomatoes, but it's getting there. It is common at Mexican restaurants on the US West Coast but usually made with fresh roasted or braised brisket, although I occasionally see the jerky version and a few other jerky dishes on menus. I also see the jerky in Mexican markets but I can't remember what they call it or any of the other dishes except machaca.
Good luck!
If it's cut thin enough, and if a visual inspection shows little in the way of sinew and connective tissue, I'd say you should be fine.
Interestingly, I have been doing the opposite recently. I have a lot of beef cut for stir fry / schnitzel, etc... that I've instead used for Beef Jerky. It's been working well.
Well speaking of that, you could pound out the jerky cuts to soften them up too
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.751864
| 2015-09-18T17:59:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61827",
"authors": [
"DONNA KENT",
"Davina McCreary",
"Escoce",
"Jan07",
"Mike Morrasy",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Pete S",
"Richard Longbottom",
"Scott Perry",
"Stephie",
"Trudie Almond",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39382",
"jordan king"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47338
|
Low-fat quark plus blended blueberries -- texture changes over night?
I tried to prepare my own blueberry quark by
blending (about 200g) of (European) blueberries and
gently mixing the result with 500g of low-fat quark.
Season to taste with sugar.
The result is nice -- but not after a night in the fridge! The next day, not only had a watery phase separated (I kind of expected that) but the whole mix had also attained a crumbly texture. No matter of stirring returned the original creamy texture.
Now, another day later, it has also become quite bitter, but that I would attribute to more bitters dissolving from the blueberries (their skin?).
What is happening with the texture of my quark? Can I prevent it from happening?
What you describe are definitely symptoms of coagulating protein. Not all proteins in quark are coagulated, else it wouldn't be creamy but rubbery like mozzarella (actually, more like cottage cheese, because it would still be grainy). My first guess is that the blueberry acid curdles the protein.
Blueberries are also known to act a bit strangely due to their high pectin content, I once left blueberry-banana puree in the fridge with the intention to freeze it to sorbet when I come back from work, only to find it gelled too hard to go through the machine. But I doubt that this was the culprit in your case, if anything, hydrating pectin would have bound the water and prevented the proteins from the curdling. Setting pectin would have created a mass which is firm, but not grainy, and without a separate watery phase.
As for the bitter taste, many fruits will create an unpleasant taste when exposed to dairy for a long time. Kiwis are especially bad offenders, but some melon cultivars are just as bad. I haven't noticed it in blueberries, but I don't know if I have ever mixed them. Also, there are different plants known as "blueberry", most of them just different cultivars, but the American and European variety are distinct species. It is possible that only some of them have this problem.
If you want to prevent the curdling problem, you can add stuff which will get in the way of the proteins looking for a buddy to curdle with. Fat and sugar are very good in this respect - this is why you can make lemon tarts pretty well, you don't curdle the custard despite the acid lemon juice just because the sugar content is so high. If you are trying to create a low-calorie snack, you can try gelling agents instead, which will not only reduce the curdling rate, but also sponge up the water when a bit of curdling occurs, leaving the final texture more pleasant. But it will also change the texture a lot, making it less creamier (the one creamy binding, starch, can't be used without cooking) and more like a jelly. Also you might get weird synergies between the natural pectin and the new binding agent, ending up with surprisingly firm food.
In short, the best option is to just eat it right away. Everything else has drawbacks, and is not a complete solution in the sense that it probably won't stop the curdling completely.
Thanks for the elaborate explanation! Too bad; seems like I will have to prepare such snacks in-time. I definitely don't want to add much fat or sugar but using regular quark might work for desserts (which are allowed to be indulgent). As an alternative, quark with bananas worked quite well (more fat and sugar, less acid -- fits). Maybe freezing works if I have to prepare it the day before; I know I did not like the texture of banana quark "ice cream" very much (slimy) but this mix may behave differently.
@Raphael Maybe just blend the blueberries but leave them separate from the quark? They might gel a bit in the fridge but will probably still mix in okay.
@Jefromi True enough. Assuming I will eat all of it in one sitting, carrying two containers may be worth it.
Which gelling agent would you prefer? Agar-agar seems to be the most promising to me after reading some Wikipedia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.752048
| 2014-09-22T20:37:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47338",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Kelly Magee",
"Ken Huntington",
"Melissa Steele",
"Raphael",
"Sean Raee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"michael yadgard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41700
|
What is the enzyme that makes apples's pectin heat resistant? And can it be added to other fruits to achieve similar results?
In some recipes for apple and cherry pie, it is suggested to pre-cook the filling at low temperature in order to make pectin heat resistant and so preserve the shape and structure of the fruit.
This is explained in McGee's "On Food and Cooking" at page 283 as:
Firm-able vegetables and fruits have an enzyme in their cell walls that becomes activated at around 120F/ 50C (and inactivated above 160F/70C), and alters the cell-wall pectins so that they’re more easily cross-linked by calcium ions
Now my question is, what is this enzyme? Is this enzyme available for purchase? And if so, if I were to add it to a, say, strawberry pie filling, would it help maintain its structure?
I don't know for sure if it is the same enzyme naturally that naturally occurs in apples, but there is a commercial product called NovoShape that serves this purpose. It is a pectin esterase. You can find it in small quantities at Modernist Pantry: http://www.modernistpantry.com/novoshape.html
Thanks! Will test next month! It does seem to inactivate at lower temperatures though, so it's probably a substitute rather than the real thing. Oh well, I won't complain!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.752378
| 2014-02-02T23:40:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41700",
"authors": [
"4schitzngrins",
"Alexander Berger - Der Lockens",
"CarrKnight",
"Phil Hitchings",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97299"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109446
|
Does adding vinegar to rice while while boiling reduce stickyness or improve hardness?
I'm trying to make chinese fried rice, for which I chose long grain basmati rice.
I wash the rice thoroughly before cooking.
I'm able to get separate grains (non-mushy) .
But when I stir-fry or cook the rice, the grains tend to break easily, are probably too delicate and at times tend to get lumpy when I add tiny quantities of vinegar, soy etc while tossing.
I absolutely avoid sprinkling water onto the rice even though some recipes recommend it.
I was suggested adding vinegar while boiling the rice. Does it really help?
I think your problem is the choice of rice. Basmati is a great all-rounder but it's more delicate than your standard long-grain rice.
"I was suggested adding vinegar while boiling the rice. Does it really help ?" -- what happened when you tried it? There are a lot of variables to cooking rice and to making fried rice, and you haven't shared any of the specifics about how you are doing either of these. Your choice of basmati for fried rice is suspect, but beyond that your question itself does not seem answerable by anyone but you yourself. At the very least, you should try the suggested technique, and if you have some specific trouble then ask about that.
I will try to get better rice. What type would you suggest ?
No, it does not.
I was pretty sure from the theory of it that it won't help. Acid makes cell walls harder, so you can use it e.g. when you are cooking potatoes. But in rice kernels, you have basically no cell walls to harden, everything is starch granules. So I saw no reason why it would work.
Theory is nice, but not always enough for writing answers. There can always be an effect I don't know about - just because the mechanism I am thinking of doesn't apply here, it doesn't mean there isn't a different one. But it so happens that I recently bought a package of rice from a new brand, and I hate it. It always cooks up mushy. So today, I decided to give it a try. I simply used the rice cooking program of the instant pot with the usually-mushy jasmine rice, and added citric acid. The rice had an obvious sour taste to it, but it was as soft and mushy as ever. I didn't see any difference in texture. Even though it's a single data point, I still feel confident enough to write the answer - you will not get any more hardness, and you will confuse the eaters with sour rice.
I am a Chinese. You said that you want to make Chinese fried rice. To cook fried rice in China, you need to use the steamed rice the day before. The steamed rice the day before is placed in the refrigerator. . And don’t put too much water when steaming the rice, so the rice is hard, the rice grains will not be damaged during the fried rice, and each grain is not sticky, and each grain of rice has a salty taste, which is very delicious
Hi hibagss , thanks for your answer. I asked this same question to a friend who works in the hospitality industry. He suggested the use of a variety called "Sella long grain rice" which is hard and doesnt break easily, and you can use freshly cooked as well !! Im going to try that today and will let you know :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.752535
| 2020-07-03T19:14:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109446",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Peter Duniho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85458",
"user1354825"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41221
|
I had delicious Udon soup at a Japanese restaurant, and my attempts to recreate have failed. what am I missing?
I recently fell in love with Udon soup. I've had it at 2 different restaurants in Austin TX, and I find the broth clean and delicious. My favorite includes cucumber, carrot, a few shrimp, green onion, a and lil of tempura bits. Usually I love spicy soups, but the broth tastes so well balanced that i wouldn't really dare adding any chili, etc. I have tried to recreate it at home but the broth is not remotely similar.
I've tried making dashi broth a couple times. The second time was after a lot of internet research. I added about 4 2"x4" strips of Kombu to bout 5 cups water cold water, and brought it to near-boil over 30 minutes. I tasted and really noticed the umami flavor. But still, it tasted quite watery. I added 2 handfuls of bonito flakes (they reached boil for maybe a second) and removed from heat. Steeped 10 minutes. I could taste more fishyness now. I slowly started adding salt and it really started bringing out the fishyness, too much. I added soy a little at a time.. maybe a tablespoon all told and it was quite 'soy' tasting. not really the golden-rays-of-sunshine broth i had at the restaurant. I added a bit of mirin, maybe a tablespoon. At this point the stock tastes discordant: too fishy, too soy-like, and too salty, too sweet, and too watery.
Am I messing something up, or are these restaurants using some kind of chicken stock? I feel like I'm not in the ballpark. fwiw, I'm using light soy and sushi-chef mirin.
Any guidance/suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
UPDATE:
I wrote the restaurant asking what was in the broth, and if they used dashi. Here is there response: "Our soup broth is made with chicken bone, beef marrow, and assortment of vegetables that is simmered for several hours"
It sounds like you might be missing fish sauce. Follow the link under the heading "Japanese" for Nabermono
Thank you for your comment. I have some good thai fish sauce here, should I add that to the dashi? I haven't read that in any of my research. My hunch is that it would add savoriness, but also more fishiness.
Strangely, fish sauce isn't always "fishy", it is salty and savory and easily overdone. Unfortunately, I can't help much with Japanese vs Thai varieties. For that, I'd recommend your local Asian market.
Perhaps, you missed the part about Ajinomoto, which people won't tell you about.
@BlessedGeek, are you referring to MSG?
And it is unlikely a lack of MSG/umami, not with that massive amount of kombu.
For ramen, udon, and soba, it is not uncommon for Japanese restaurants to use multiple broths for layered flavors.
My friend is from Yamagata in Japan and several of her favorite Udon places will make a sturdy broth with dashi as well as pork and chicken stocks. When I make noodles at home, I almost always start with dashi and fortify with chicken or pork stock. While the aroma of a good dashi is strong, often times it isn't solid enough to feel full-bodied. Try adding other stocks/broths and see where that gets you. Use neckbones and feet if you make your own pork stock.
Thanks Joshie. I made some rich Japanese chicken stock last night from the recipe in Takashi's noodles. Combined with dashi, a little sake, soy, and sugar there it is! Now I can have udon at home, for cheap!
Joshie, I wrote the restaurant and their response confirms your anwser. I asked what the broth was and here is there answer: "Our soup broth is made with chicken bone, beef marrow, and assortment of vegetables that is simmered for several hours". Interestingly, I asked specifically if they used dashi and based on their response I don't think they use dashi at all (although kombu could fall under "assortment of vegetables").
I didn't think soba/udon stock had any animal (as opposed to fish) products in it, normally. (Unlike ramen.)
This answer is based on the answer here: http://allabout.co.jp/gm/gc/216899/ (Japanese), which I found searching for a professional udon stock recipe.
Traditionally the stock is konbu-based in Western-Japan, or katsuo-bushi (dried bonito flake) based in Eastern Japan. That recipe suggests using both, as well as dried sardines, and to play with the balance until you find your favourite.
For 2 litres of water:
Soak a 10cm x 10cm amount of konbu in cold water for a few hours. (In the fridge is fine)
Then about 20 sardines (remove the heads first, or a bitter taste will be introduced.); soak for 30 minutes, then heat, allow it to bubble for about 5 minutes. Then add 100g of katsuo-bushi, and heat for another 15 minutes. Strain. Add about 200cc of mild soy sauce, then leave to cool, then put in the fridge.
Add more soy sauce, or a pinch of salt, to get the exact colour and taste you desire.
If I've understood the article correctly, it says instead of using 200cc soy sauce you could use "udon-gaeshi", which is a mix of: 500cc mild soy sauce, 50g sugar, 60cc mirin and 50cc of sake. Heat the mirin and sake to allow the alcohol to evaporate off, then dissolve in the sugar, add the soy sauce, and turn off the heat once it starts to bubble.
There appears to be a difference between "udon-gaeshi" and "soba-gaeshi", but I'm not able to work out what it is.
I've seen recipes that are very similar to this also calling for dried shitake mushrooms to add even more umami flavor.
Darren, see my comment to JoshieSimmons answer above. I wrote the restaurant and they confirmed that it was seasoned chicken broth. I have pretty much been able to nail it at home using home-made chicken stock with sake soy sauce onion garlic, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.752792
| 2014-01-17T07:16:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41221",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"FreezeIt",
"Jolenealaska",
"Magmatic",
"Niko Lulkoski",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tom Barry",
"Vanessa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96416",
"rackandboneman",
"telecasterrok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41781
|
I'm Making Chicken stock. How can I keep the chicken meat/bones from rising above the water line?
I'm using chicken wings to make a stock, but they want to float up to the top above the water line. Any kitchen hacks to keep them submerged??
Place a plate on it.
I'll try that now.
@Optionparty, that works thanks! If you post that in an answer then I can give you credit.
The plate works, but it is not really necessary. Assuming you stir your stock very occasionally over its long simmer, everything will get fully extracted--especially since the content tends to shrink over the duration.
Besides, the chicken will sink on its own after a while.
I never worry about this. As your stock simmers, the joints, muscle and connective tissue break down and eventually they'll sink in. Sometimes adding a bit of vinegar to your stock first helps with this. Until then, just stir the stock and move the bones around occasionally.
Also make sure that you are keeping the temperature at a very gentle simmer. If you cook at too high of a temperature (at a rolling boil, for example) that will push the meat and bones upwards.
Hello John, I am sorry I have to delete a second answer of yours even though I see that you are genuinely trying to make good contributions :( But we are not a discussion forum, and we take the questions very literally; answers should address the exact problem in the question and not other problems which might arise in the same context. Your answer is not related to the problem itself, and I guess this is why it got downvoted, even though it is generally good advice when making stock. When you get a bit of reputation, you will be able to leave comments, which are not so strictly moderated.
thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware that you are talking about a connection between simmering and rising. The downvote is not mine, so I can't remove it, but I undeleted.
If you have a steamer basket, or a colander that fits in your pot, you can place that upside-down on top and place a weight on it to hold everything down.
I use a drop lid, in a lot of Japanese cooking, the use of a wooden lid which is a smaller diameter than the cooking pot is used to keep foods submerged. But a plate works just a well, it's just hard to fish out of the hot liquid sometimes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.753570
| 2014-02-05T02:33:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41781",
"authors": [
"Ageless Beauty Ph",
"Alan Bronskiy",
"Carey Gregory",
"Charles Anderson",
"First Division Plumbing",
"Julie217",
"Kayla Perrymeant",
"MehSomeBloke",
"Nachtwandler",
"Optionparty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheldo",
"Some Guy",
"Spammer",
"hosen tagvae",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97867",
"rumtscho",
"telecasterrok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50289
|
Using gas cooker now having problem cooking food
I have a new world gas cooker bur I am finding following recipes cooking guidelines results in undercooked bases of i.e. scones, fruit pies, or Xmas fruit loaf. When baking blind, the top of food looks cooked but the bottom is soggy and uncooked. I tried changing position of shelves and cooking longer on lower heat, but my normally good baking is no longer.
On many gas ovens, the calibration of oven temperature is fairly slack - the manual for mine says it can be off be 30 degrees either up or down. Invest in an oven thermometer, preheat your oven until it shows the desired temperature, and see if this gives you better results.
This is good advice for any kind of oven, let alone gas.
I have a new world gas cooker and have found the same problem. I did what James McLeod recommended and bought an oven thermometer and did find the results quite surprising. If I set the gas mark 4 from the off, it took half an hour or more to heat up - and higher temperatures even longer. I now set it to gas mark 9 until it has reached the desired temperature and then turn it to the required setting and it retains its temperature as it should. Obviously all models are going to act differently but I've moved the thermometer around the oven and it seems to heat quite evenly too.
Don't quite see why someone has down voted you? Anyway...
Strange that your tops are cooking while your bottoms are raw? Is it top heated?
I've had a similar issue but the other way round trying to cook scones, Yorkshire puddings and shortbread in a gas oven. The bottoms would burn while the tops were raw. I found the best fix for me was to put an empty tray on the bottom shelf and then cook directly above the tray on the upper shelf. My idea was the bottom tray would stop the direct heat hitting the bottom of my cooking trays. Resulting in a more controlled heat all over my produce instead of it being directed right at the bottom.
In your case it might be worth putting a tray on the shelf above your food.
Also it is worth noting where the thermostat is in your oven. If I remember correctly the thermostat in the oven I was using was in the top where all the heat was coming from the bottom. This meant if I had placed my trays near the edge the heat wasn't getting close to the thermostat meaning the oven would keep blasting heat out obviously over doing the bottoms. If you are inhibiting heat getting to your thermostat in any way this could also be causing you issues.
Good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.753811
| 2014-12-03T07:36:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50289",
"authors": [
"DNK Health Hospice Consulting",
"Denise Berry",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Grant Lowe",
"Kelly Kautz",
"Tina Nussbaumer",
"Vincent Schmandt",
"Wyatt Joanna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"shelley harris"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52295
|
Flat Thai Panaeng Curry
Help! I have tried making Panang Curry several times at home with the canned pre-made paste (forgot the brand name) and it just doesn't taste like the restaurant versions I've had.
I fried the curry paste in the coconut cream off the top of the can, Chakoh brand, for a few minutes until the oil started to separate, added my beef, carrots, and additional coconut milk and simmered it until the beef cooked. Seasoned with kaffir lime leaves, salt and palm sugar.
I tasted the curry as it was cooking and the flavor was decent, but after serving it over the rice, the curry flavor was flat or muted. Also, what was a nice creamy sauce with the beads of orange oil floating on top became dry and stuck to the rice, it seems like the sauce of the curry just dried up (and the rice wasn't undercooked).
What am I doing wrong? I'm aware that making my own curry paste is an option, but until I can master the process of cooking a decent curry with premade paste, I don't want to invest time and effort in homemade pastes. Thanks!
if the rice is sucking up all of the sauve, maybe you need to cook the rice further, or serve less rice? Also, muted flavors are a typical complaint about jarred sauces, of any type. (or that they're overly salty).
I think what people often don't realize about many Thai curry pastes is what is not in them and this applies particularly to the main brands of imported Thai sauces like Mae Ploy for example. Let's take the Panang paste, this should have quite a pronounced peanut taste but if you check the label you will will search in vain for peanuts; fish sauce so essential to a Thai curry also missing. Why? The answer lies in the way these pastes are prepared on the production line. The ingredients are mixed and ground but then instead of being cooked in the conventional sense of the word they are instead pasteurized. This is a fast convenient process. The problem lies in the fact that there are certain ingredients that you can't use this process on, peanuts and fish sauce being among them. They use salt (a lot of it) to try to replace the saltiness of fish sauce but this lacks the aromatic factor that fish sauce provides. This can make it difficult for the cook to add fish sauce to the dish as it is already quite salty. Also although you may see shrimp paste on the label they are being a little disingenuous here; it is not Thai shrimp paste as we think of it but rather shrimp powder, I suppose if you mix it with some of the ingredients you can get away with calling it a shrimp paste. A poor imitation of the real thing though.
So onto the fact that your Panang curry doesn't taste like a Panang curry you eat in your local Thai restaurant. Well you might be surprised to learn they probably use the same paste as you do! What, you think they make their own pastes? Almost never. Yes there are exceptions, Pok Pok restaurants in the US being a good example with chef Andy Rikker describing the commercial pastes as "horrible" but for the most part many Thai restaurants will use them.
When you see a Thai person pushing their trolley around an Asian cash n' carry that is loaded up with industrial sized tubs of curry paste you can be reasonably sure they are not just stocking up their home pantry in case of a coming Armageddon.
They then customize the sauce for use in the restaurant, in this case maybe ground peanuts or often peanut butter, a lot of sugar so they can then add Thai fish sauce without it tasting overwhelmingly salty. Maybe chop some coriander stems in to disguise the fact that only coriander seed is used in the commercial paste instead of coriander root.Depends on the restaurant, they all have their own methods.
There are also some supermarket brand pastes that may well use peanuts as they use a method more akin to pressure canning, these are generally rather insipid concoctions though and best avoided.
So if you want to try making your curry taste more like one you had in a restaurant that is how you do it if you can't get the fresh ingredients to do it yourself. Also if you google "mythaicurry" you can buy pastes online that are cooked by more traditional methods and are far more authentic and will most likely surpass anything you have ever had in a Thai restaurant. They also have a good section on how to cook with coconut milk.
I'm a chef and worked in the development kitchens of some major food producers hence my knowledge of the techniques and limitations of commercial food production.
Thanks, very informative. (and now I'm wishing that I had saved the roots from the coriander that bolted in my hydroponics system).
It's hard to say without knowing the brand of paste you used (and more detail in general), but I did notice that you said you seasoned with salt instead of fish sauce.
The anchovies in fish sauce and beef have one of those "magical" food pairings, and making a panaeng curry without fish sauce would seem to me a possible cause of the problem. Next time, try replacing the salt with fish sauce instead (I can't give you an amount, because I don't know how much curry you were making, or how salty your pre-bought paste was).
As for the dry-sauciness issue, if your rice wasn't undercooked, I'd just suggest making more sauce, or less rice.
I also agree with Joe, in that jarred sauces are either under-flavoured or over-salted, or both, so that may also have been an issue.
You might want to try making a panaeng curry paste, just to see - it's not that hard especially if you do it in a food processor :-)
I looked at several recipes, and I agree it doesn't look hard at all. Two things though, in the US, do NOT buy those those spices in the spice aisle, you'd spend a fortune on bottles. Buy what spices you can at places that do it by weight - just what you need. Also, unfortunately, some of those ingredients might be hard to find in more rural areas (coriander root, galangal, kaffir lime leaves, shrimp paste). It does look good though. Not terribly expensive in time and effort, but perhaps extremely expensive to buy the ingredients.
I agree that in more rural areas, coming by some of the ingredients might be tough.
A good trip to an Asian grocery in a nearby city should net you everything (or nearly everything). You can often get fresh galangal and kaffir lime leaves in the freezer section; buy a decent amount and keep them in the freezer.
While most if not all of the suggestions I've read here make a lot of sense, perhaps the solution is as simple as not serving the curry over the rice, but on the side? Afaik, for most Thai curry dishes, this is the 'proper' way to serve them - although that shouldn't stop you from doing things differently, of course.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.754070
| 2015-01-05T15:46:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52295",
"authors": [
"Achilles Sitras",
"Becca Vigent",
"Chris Macksey",
"D T L",
"Jessie Graver",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mary J",
"Sandra Solomon",
"blonde太阳花",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"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
}
|
54678
|
Why is glucose not used in many cake recipes?
Glucose is used in some recipes to make a cake soft and fluffy (for example, this Strawberry Shortcake recipe video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6F_dLJo8o).
What is the reason glucose is not widely used in other cake recipes?
It's not commonly available in everyday grocery stores in the US, and an awfully large fraction of recipes come from the US. Are you asking for a reason beyond that (i.e. why it hasn't caught on here)?
Yes. Since Glucose is something that can make cakes more better. Why?
We call it 'corn syrup' in the US. What's sold as 'glucose syrup' is typically made from rice, and it'ss a royal pain to work with. (it's so viscous it's like tar)
@Joe Ah, I thought corn syrup had more non-glucose sugars than glucose syrup, thanks.
Glucose is very expensive, unlike caster sugar (sucrose, also commonly called "table sugar") which does the job, and is much easier to work with. Glucose in the modern kitchen is only really used in meringues.
What about corn syrup?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.754602
| 2015-02-13T02:59:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54678",
"authors": [
"Adriana Camarinha Harris",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Josh Eynon",
"Maureen Lock",
"Michele Hernandez",
"Sara Stinson",
"Yuri",
"eugene creighton griffiths",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"skyline food products"
],
"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.