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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
56786
|
Substitute peanut butter for cookie butter?
I'm trying to make mug cookies and it calls for cookie butter, which I don't have. Can I use peanut butter instead?
The cookie butter I've heard of is basically spreadable speculoos/gingersnaps (i.e. ground up cookies plus oil to make it spreadable). Is that likely to be what your recipe is talking about? (Could you just post/link to the recipe?)
The consistency is essentially the same; given the small size of most mug recipes, I think it would be worth making one to see how it turns out.
Peanut butter and cookie butter are quite different in taste: your end-result will be very different as well.
To make your own cookie butter, take 66% gingerbread cookies, 33% unsalted butter (left out of the fridge) and mix into a paste.
That being said: if you really like peanut butter and you're making this for yourself: go for it: the texture is about the same. I would add a bit of honey or jam to the peanut butter as well as cookie butter is a bit sweeter then peanut butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.754739
| 2015-04-19T00:42:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56786",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Jean Adumbrali",
"Kristi Connor",
"Ligaya Tagacay",
"Minh Nguyen",
"Spen",
"Sydney Parker",
"george mclellan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54088
|
How long should I cook a carvery shoulder of lamb, and at what temperature?
I have a carvery shoulder of lamb joint weighing 1.906 kg. How long and at what temperature should I cook it?
Your question is too broad, you need to narrow it down. Do you want a braise or roast? If a roast do you want it rare, medium, or well? Is it bone-in or boneless?
As long and as slowly as possible. In practical terms, place the shoulder in a roasting tin with some sliced onions, whole, unpeeled garlic cloves and rosemary. Cover the tin tightly with foil. Preheat your oven to its maximum temperature, place the lamb in, then turn it down to 150°C/300°F and cook for 4-5 hours. It should come out so tender that you can pull the bone out easily.
My preferred method for joints of lamb is to brown it all over in a pan, and then cook it in lamb stock in a slow cooker for at least 8 hours.
It comes out so tender that the meat just falls off the bone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.754872
| 2015-01-28T12:09:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54088",
"authors": [
"Bill B",
"Dan Mercer",
"Doreen Gilley",
"Edward Chip Fraser",
"GdD",
"Julie Taylor",
"Robin Ellison",
"Smita Kapoor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54947
|
term for the fact that's easier to mix 2 things if the amount are different
I am asking this for a friend because we cannot find the answer in google (but did learn a lot about cocaine, dj mixers, bread, concrete and ligers).
Seems like there must be a term/principle/something for this thing:
It's easier to mix cocoa powder into a tiny bit of water than a whole cup of
water.
Is it easier to blend two things of different textures or consistencies or forms when
the amounts of each type are quite different? When the wet thing is much less?
For example:
In making a tea blend that involves two main textures: powder and granules, it's easier to mix the powder with the granules when I do all the powder at once and just a small amount of granules, then add that mix to the rest of granules.
What are the words for this?
From the examples you gave, mixing cocoa powder into water and getting tea to steep, I'd say the underlying principle involved is overcoming problems with surface tension by limiting the surface area of the liquid involved. Easier to get a suspension when you don't have to chase all the floaters down. Problems like this arise when the dry ingredient doesn't dissolve - powdery starchy things like cocoa and cornstarch - small light organic steep-y things like tea. I'm leaving this as a comment rather than an answer because I don't know whether or not there is an accepted culinary term for this.
I'll just leave this here...
I don't think it's an issue with the amounts being unequal, it's that it's often easier to work in the liquid a little bit at a time. (as you might with a roux thickened sauce, so you don't have to go to the trouble of whisking furiously to avoid lumps). I've also used a similar strategy when using powdered drink mixes.
Oh ... and 'slurry' comes to mind, but that's generally used in cooking to talk specifically about thickeners mixed with a little bit of cold liquid.
To the extent that you're seeking a word consider searching or asking at [english.se]; see especially tag single-word-requests.
There exists a term in organic chemistry called miscibility which is the property of substances to mix in any and all proportions and form a homogenous substance. Now, I believe this word is a start in the right direction in our search for what seems is a highly specific and seldomly used term (if it even exists?), being it feels as it fits in the same scope.
Our instinct could now be simply to negate the word miscibility - immiscibility. But this isn't right either as it means that our substances will not mix.
I guess we could say that both of these terms are partially correct, meaning our substances are partially miscible, or better yet conditionally miscible - conditioned on the proportions used.
I realise that this isn't exactly what you were looking for, as it doesn't carry the desired connotation merely on it's own, but I believe it's as close as we can get.
This is generally called a Slurry - you mix together a small amount of the fluid and your powdered ingredients until combined, and then introduce the mixture into the rest of the fluid. This helps you avoid clumping.
Typically you would see this when preparing gravy or sauces, where lumps are very undesirable, but the principle remains the same.
The OP is asking for a term describing the principle and/or why it works. You've simply given one use case.
Just verb that noun and be on your merry way. +1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.755007
| 2015-02-20T06:50:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54947",
"authors": [
"Bobby Ivanov",
"Christopher Ian Santos",
"Dacio",
"Gittel Hochster",
"Joe",
"Krishna Dhital",
"Mick O'Leary",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Stephen Eure",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"thegirlwhocriedelectronics"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38060
|
Preparing soy milk at home
How can I prepare soy milk at home? Is it as simple as: soak soy, then blend and strain the milk, or is some centrifuge technique used?
It is basically as simple as you say (soak, blend, strain) ... just that you should also boil it (for long enough - cca. 10 minutes) to get rid of the fresh bean (grassy) flavor (mainly caused by oxidation of polyunsaturated oils in the beans), together with some other unpleasant side effects of eating uncooked beans (like the infamous gas-producing effect of some oligosaccharides).
McGee, On Food & Cooking says:
The key to minimizing the development of beany flavor is to inactivate
the beans' enzymes quickly, before they have a chance to attack the
oils. This is done by soaking the beans to speed subsequent cooking,
and then immersing them in boiling water or pressure-cooking them.
There is a vast number of soy milk preparation instructions online ... this one has always worked really well for me: http://justhungry.com/milking-soy-bean-part-1-soy-milk with all steps and techniques described in detail, and you will also find some continuing posts on how to further turn it into tofu, if you wish so.
Depending on further processing steps and your personal preferences you might choose one recipe/preparation method over another, so I will not recommend any specifics, but in general this should set you on the right track.
p.s. I found that straining/squeezing through cheesecloth/cotton muslin/nut milk bag over a colander is a winning technique ... no need to go any fancier.
+1 for the McGee quote ... I found it also a while ago and since I started using the pressure cooker I managed to completely avoid the beany flavor. And the recipe you link to is really useful. Definitely deserving upvotes.
@Martin, Thank you very much for the information given
@Martin, that site is really good, with all steps have been a clearly, with a photo shot
This is the procedure passed down to me thro my mom.
Let's say we are using two quarts of beans.
Ensuring the purity of texture and taste.
Compulsively ensure the beans are as clean as possible from impurities.
Such compulsion is especially necessary if you wish to coagulate the soy milk into soy custard. We need the texture of the milk or custard to be as smooth as possible.
My recommendation: Use whatever compulsive method you are comfortable with to rinse the beans.
I would rinse the beans first, once or twice in tap water. Then soak it for another half an hour before rinsing them again.
Double layers of muslin cloth used as strainer. Muslin cloth must be soaked in mineral/purified water to compulsively remove detergents and tap water chlorine. I would microwave the muslin cloth being soaked to about 100F, uncovered to let whatever chlorine escape.
You might even wish to use mineral water rather than chlorinated water for any of the water used in the next sections. Ensure the taste of the bottled mineral water you use has the taste that you like. Otherwise use bottled purified water.
Containers - if you don't mind plastic particles, steel flavour, aluminium flavour or bpa leaching into the beans/pulp, otherwise, be prepared to invest in large corning/pyrex ware that are totally glass/porcelain. Don't even think of using the earthen pot which you frequently used for pot roast unless you wish to have a hint of bacon flavour in the milk.
I think you should just use the cheapest container and not bother with the mineral/purified water for your first time. Or until you have gained sufficient experience to make premium soy milk.
Producing the pulp
I should soak soy beans for 24 hours. The water level should cover the beans in excess of at least half the volume of the beans. i.e., if we use two quarts of beans, the excess water level above the beans should be at least a quart. Cover the pot to keep the heat in.
But: I would soak it for 24 hours in water kept lukewarm with lowest possible heat on a stove. The idea is to keep it warm to encourage water absorption but not too warm to encourage soybeans nutrients from leaching out to the water.
OK, confession, I can't remember if soak for 24 hours or 8 hours.
You would see the beans having absorbed much of the water. Add water to ensure water level half an inch above the beans. Raise the heat to bring the water to boil. Turn the heat down to keep the water simmering. Cover the pot. Simmer the pot of beans for four hours. Check the level of the beans regularly to ensure sufficient water level above the beans.
I am thinking the next time, I would use a slow cooker for this step.
After the 4 hour simmering, drain the water. Grind the beans into a mush with a blender. Be compulsive in ensuring the mush particles are as fine as possible. I would grind no more than a third of the volume of the blender container each time.
Boil the soy pulp/mush with sufficient water. If you wish to have thick soy milk, especially if you wish coagulate into soy custard, ensure water level is no more than a quarter inch above the beans. Because we are now boiling pulp, the heat transfer of the pulp is impeded by its thick viscosity. We need to ensure the pulp at the bottom is not burnt and ensure heat is transferred to the top of the pulp by stirring. You would need to constantly add water to the pulp to balance between how thick you wish the soy milk to be vs how easy you prefer your stirring job would be.
When the pulp comes to a boil, simmer it for another half hour, by repeating the balancing act of stirring and adding sufficient water. I guess after a few times, I should be experienced enough to know how much water the pulp would absorb so that I would add all the water the pulp needed at the beginning to make my stirring job easier at first. The last time I made soy milk/custard was four years ago - so, I don't remember.
Squeezing out the milk
If you plan to make soy milk production your hobby, you would buy soy squeezing equipment. Squeezing the hot pulp by hand using the muslin cloth is the least enjoyable part of the process.
Each time scoop the pulp onto the doubled-up muslin cloth just enough so that you could fold the cloth into a cone to squeeze it.
You have to balance between how hot the pulp you could handle and how inefficient the fluid transfer is, from cold pulp - in your consideration in how cool you wish to wait for the hot pulp to cool down. You should consider using latex gloves that have been compulsively cleaned to handle the hot soy lava. Be prepared to take precautions to prevent hot fluids from being squeezed onto your face and especially the eyes or any body parts.
Two passes of squeezing
The first pass of squeezing is for thick milk you wish to make into custard.
Boil the dry pulp again under the same previous procedure, to repeat the muslin squeezing. This 2nd pass is for soy milk.
Soy custard
Making soy custard is another art altogether, techniques and timing you need to develop yourself to make firm and smooth custard.
Basically you pour the thickest fresh soy milk you have produced into a wooden container (e.g., wooden salad bowl) or corning ware and stir the right amount of coagulating salt.
Let it sit for hours. I can't remember the salt compound, but I'm sure I could google it he next time I plan on making soy custard+milk+chicken.
Soy chicken
Do not throw the residual pulp away. It is for making soy chicken.
Make a paste from tapioca flour. Blend the tapioca paste into the pulp. The amount of tapioca paste must be sufficient to make it a binding agent for the pulp.
I have poor experience in this area. The last time I made this soy custard+milk+chicken, I actually used the residue to make real chicken meat balls by blending real chicken meat and cilantro into the tapioca and soy pulp mix (what my mom would do). I guess there wasn't enough tapioca and the chicken balls were falling apart.
What I need to perfect is having tiny bits of fresh vegetable and meat content in the soy chicken balls without the balls falling apart.
Roll the blended mixture into small spheres, cigars or patties with your fingers and palms constantly covered with tapioca flour and brine (to prevent the patties from sticking to your skin).
Dump the soy balls, cigars, patties into an already hot boiling pot of water. Fish them out after a minute or two.
My apologies for the ramble. Being aspie, my trait would be noticed in many of my postings of my ability to reproduce large chunks of procedure without the innate ability and empathy to comprehend the steps needed to sieve only information needed by normal humans to make their reading pleasurable.
The last time I used a pressure cooker in making soy milk was also the first time I had ever operated a pressure cooker. The final pulp exploded all over the kitchen ceiling. It was a mess.
Good first hand experience. But I downvote cause you just share your particular recipe and there are many ... and this is not a page for sharing recipes, although it is the questions fault because it is set in a way that would attract recipes.
@Blessed Geek, I upvoted for spending your time on writing the recipe, thanks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.755342
| 2013-11-01T05:37:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38060",
"authors": [
"188betidss spam",
"Becky Dunne",
"Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin",
"BobbyZ",
"Cynthia",
"Gail C.",
"HoneyBadger",
"Jav Vix",
"Jeff",
"Jenny Fiecke",
"Mightwork",
"RastaJedi",
"Tabitha",
"The Grumpy Snail",
"Zivko",
"annieb",
"foreza",
"gvcai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89623",
"user3794648",
"user86925"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62410
|
Effect of carbonated water on the rising of the dough?
Some recipes suggest to add carbonated water instead of milk or water. Does this practice accelerate the rising of the dough and why?
What kind of dough? Yeast? Welcome to the site!
We'd also appreciate a sample recipe with carbonated water, if possible.
Related: I heard carbonated water makes a fluffy omlette. I've never tried it. Googled https://www.google.com/search?q=carbonated+water+omelette
This is rather simple. The carbon dioxide created by yeast does not generate new air bubbles in the dough - the yeast fills and enlarges existing air bubbles, that are in the dough due to the kneading, whipping of eggs etc.. If you add carbonated water to the dough, you create more air bubbles that the yeast can enlarge.
This should have no dramatic effect on the rising time; temperature and yeast amount will matter much more. But it strongly influences the final texture of the baked good, as more initial air bubbles before the rising will result in a finer and tenderer product.
Have you tested this yourself?
@Stephie No. For all food-science stuff I trust Harold McGee.
@LarsFriedrich This contradicts my understanding. The "enlarges existing bubbles part" is how chemically leavened batters function, e.g. cake batter with baking powder. But it is very normal for fermentation to create new air bubbles where there were none, in fact yeast was used to create "carbonated" beverages before pressure carbonation was invented. It is possible that the OP is asking about recipes for chemically leavened batters (many languages don't differentiate between 'dough' and 'batter'), but your answer claims it of yeast leavened doughs.
@rumtscho The yeast used for carbonating drinks is an anaerobic version, the yeast for dough is aerobic - the yeast only produces carbon dioxide while there is oxygen. Once the oxygen in the dough is depleted, it creates ethanol - the fermentation. The fermentation is what you actually don't want in the dough. It does not cause the rising, it adds flavor you don't want. Baking powder is used for batter, because batter can't hold the gas bubbles very well over time - but yeast needs time. Both processes require initial air bubbles for a satisfying end result.
See http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/28719/experiment-incorporating-air-dough-aerobic-yeast-metabolism-effects
@TFD The linked experiment is about adding more air to the dough, not carbon dioxide. The effects of the experiment will likely be not reproducible with carbon dioxide.
That doesn't make sense? Yeast are anaerobic with aerobic respiration; they either convert liquid "food" to CO2, or a source of C plus gaseous O2 to CO2. Air bubbles would be part of the latter
@TFD The carbonated water adds CO2 bubbles - nothing the yeast can use.
It simply accelerates the rising of the dough by adding more bubbles of carbon dioxide into dough.
How does it accelerate anything? For a faster rising, the yeast would have to produce more carbon dioxide in the same time. How would existing carbon dioxide bubbles make the yeast produce faster carbon dioxide?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.756180
| 2015-10-09T20:09:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62410",
"authors": [
"Babygurl t",
"Janet Davis",
"Jim Wynne",
"John Hammond",
"Paulb",
"Robert Redman",
"Robert Scoones",
"Shena Thomas",
"Stephie",
"Susan Groah",
"TFD",
"Tammy Bruce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"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
}
|
59866
|
Why did my Chiffon Cake collapse?
Recipe used:
75g flour
1/2 tsp baking powder
80g sugar + 15g sugar (for the meringue)
2 eggs (60g each)
35g oil
60g water
Instructions:
Place all ingredients except egg whites and 15g sugar in a bowl.
Beat egg whites until soft peaks. Slowly add the sugar while continuing beating to firm peaks.
Using the same beaters, mix the egg yolk mixture until just combined.
Fold the meringue into the egg yolk mixture in 3 batches.
Pour into the prepared cake pans then bake in a preheated 160°C oven for 55-60 minutes.
I've noticed that the cake sets up on the sides very early into the bake. It then continues to rise in the middle to create a dome.
Around the 40 minute mark the dome flattens.
It further flattens once cooled and un-molded. When I flip the deflated cake upside down it looks like the cake sunk in the middle.
Does anyone know what I did wrong? Could it possibly the recipe that is failing me?
Did you just use a regular cake pan?
Are these amounts correct? It seems like a very tiny volume of ingredients for a full cake. It looks like a half cake recipe.
Also, did you use regular flour? Every other recipe I've seen calls for cake flour.
hmm; also a non-stick pan or a pan that has too much oil will cause the cake to collapse. When you take the cake out; it is using the friction from sides of the pan to stay up. The hole in middle is 100% needed; either use a pyrex cup if you don't have a pan or some metal tube.
I don't have fancy pan as I HATE uni-taskers; I just use a metal tube and flip upside down on a mason jar to cool.
Chiffon cake, like it's cousin angel food cake, is mostly air. A big pile of protein bubbles stiffened with a little starch.
One very important step is not reflected in your recipe:
When the cake is completely baked the proteins have set and the starches have gelatinized but the starches are still very soft. The cake won't have its firm structure until the starches have been able to cool and set.
All recipes call for inverting the cake immediately when it comes out of the oven. The cake is allowed to cool, inverted and still in the pan, for a good hour to ensure the starches have set.
Special pans with legs or a long tube center are used for this:
Notice that in addition to the feet that it is a tube pan. This is important because the interior of these cakes is very insulated and won't be able to cook completely before the outside is overcooked.
When my angel food cake pans were packed I had good success using a pot with a mason jar in the middle. I was surprised it came out perfectly.
TL;DR -
Use a cake pan with a tube,
Invert the cake right when it comes out of the oven and let it cool completely.
*Note
Catija is correct that these amounts look way too small for a full cake. If you are trying to bake that in a full sized cake pan it could possibly be over rising and not have enough structure to support itself when it comes out.
It's very normal for a chiffon cake to contract some after baking, sometimes this leads people to think something is wrong. What's happening is that the trapped air is cooling and takes up less volume. However, if you are ending up with a very dense cake then something is definitely going wrong.
You may be underbaking it: if the cake's structure is not cooked enough to trap the air in it then the air escapes and the cake collapses. Recipe times are often wrong, so I use them as a guide and I use my ears to tell when a chiffon is done - when a chiffon is baking it sounds a bit like rice crispies in milk, lots of pops. Once the popping slows to 1-2 per second it's perfect and I get it out
Temperature too low: you say the cake starts to collapse in the oven, to me that means that the air escaped because the cake's structure was not formed quickly enough to trap it. Try turning the oven up by 10-15 degrees
Lining the pan and inverting: the point of inverting the pan is to get gravity to work for you by stretching the cake out while the starches cool and the structure fully crystallizes. This relies on the cake adhering to the bottom and sides of the pan - if you line the pan the cake will simply drop out. I have baked decent chiffon cakes this way when I didn't have a springform pan available but if you want a truly light cake you have to invert it. So use a springform pan and invert the cake if you want to get the benefits of inverting it
Hello! Thanks for the reply and help. Would half lining the bottom of a cake pan also work? As in there's enough parchment paper so that the cake doesn't stick, yet there isn't too much so the cake can adhere to the pan? Also, do you think increasing baking temperature and time to 170C and 70 minutes appropriate adjustments?
Lining the bottom at all will not work, you've got to leave it unlined if you want to invert. Regarding temperature and time I would change one thing and see what happens. Try raising the temperature first, and start checking at 50 minutes. Remember, listen to the popping noise. Once it tapers off get the cake out!
Hello again! I took your advice and baked the cake at 170C for 60 minutes. It was all fine and perfect until the 30 minute mark where it cracked at the top. Then around the 45 minute mark the dome flattened out. At this point I'm beginning to suspect that the cake is over leavened, do you think this is the case?
Oh ! One more thing, I reduced the water by a third because I thought the batter was too thin. Do you think this could've caused the cake to crack?
I suggest using a tried and tested recipe to get the amounts right, you could spend a lot of time playing around with a recipe that just doesn't work. If you use a well-known recipe and it falls then it's almost certainly oven temperature or something else, but not quantities.
So if I'm using a pan that is not non-stick and I don't line the bottom of the pan with parchment paper, so that the chiffon cake can benefit from inverting, then how do I get the cake to release from the bottom of the pan?
Pan choice is very important @pacoverflow, you have to be able to remove the side or lift the bottom out. I don't use a tube pan, I use springform pans, first I run a knife around the side then I take the side off, then I gently cut the cake from the bottom. Chiffon cake tube pans work the same way except you lift the center piece out with the cake attached. If you used a closed tube pan you'll have a heck of a time, and you may ruin it getting it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.756485
| 2015-08-13T09:02:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59866",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Eneh Nnedinma",
"GdD",
"Hannah Song",
"Jay",
"Lynne Johnstone",
"Marek Brociek",
"Pat Morales",
"cheryl christopher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"pacoverflow",
"zerobane"
],
"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
}
|
80832
|
Can you slow down the time it takes for dough to rise?
I am going to make bread sticks and I don't want them to rise too soon. It is hard to predict what time my husband will get home from work. Can I slow the dough from rising too soon? The recipe says first rise about 1 to 2 hours and then let rest for 20 minutes. Can I put them in a cool place or should I refrigerate them?
Does something bad happen if your bread finishes rising before you need it?
You can certainly prove your dough in the fridge. The only issue I've had is that it takes longer to come up to temperature than you think, so if you go from fridge to oven without the middle having a chance to warm up, cooking will be uneven. I found this out on a tray of Chelsea buns and only just got away with it.
@ChrisH just out of interest, isn't the present tense "proof" rather than "prove" when referring to dough? Yeah, I know, this isn't grammar.SE :-)
@Carl: according to the OED, both are in use (or are used). The grammar police are ever watchful...
@Carl in British English it's almost invariably prove.
Yes, you can easily slow down the rising time by lowering the temperature of the dough ("retarding" it, as the pros say). You can either put it in a cool place or refrigerate it; the colder it is, the slower it will rise. Dough can even be frozen and proofed later, though sometimes that will make it a bit wonky when it thaws.
Thank you I was thinking that but I wasn't sure.
And some say retarding the dough provides extra flavor. For more info, see this article.
My understanding is retarding the dough adds certain kinds of flavor, while keeping it warm to accelerate the rise adds other kinds. A rich dough would have both kinds and be risen over 24 hours or more. Possibly being beaten down a number of times during the process.
Careful with the freezing if you're using yeast, though.
For smaller items (rolls, typically, but I think it'd work for breadsticks), I'll let the dough proof the first time, shape it and place onto a sheet pan, cover it to prevent drying out, and then put the sheet pan in the fridge. When I come home from work, I'll pull the pan out to come up to temp some while the oven is pre-heating. (more details)
In that case, I was leaving the bread in the fridge for many hours. Likely about 8 hours, to replace your typical 1-2 hour rise. For your situation, I might put it in the fridge after 1/2 to 3/4 of the rising time, and then have your husband let you know when he's leaving work, so you can better time when it get it into the oven.
Don't try to refrigerate for the first rise, unless you're going to give it sufficient time to come up to room temperature or it's a recipe specifically designed for shaping right out of the fridge (like in that answer I linked to). If you don't, the dough can start shredding and tearing, and is very difficult to work with.
Yes you can slow things down by cooling the dough somehow but there's no real need to.
I frequently leave dough to rise for several hours when it's still in the bowl and unshaped. If I'm in, I'll knock it back and reshape it every hour or so but if not it's never been a problem. I'm not too concerned about slowing things down but if it's really warm I might put the dough in the cellar where it's cooler.
The only time I'm careful about how long I leave the dough is when it's shaped and proving. If you leave it too long in this state the gluten can collapse and the bread will lose structure. If this does happen you can rescue it by knocking it back, re-shaping it and leaving it again.
Keep you dough in refrigerator and the proving process will slow down. According to me the colder it is the slower it is the process of proving. In my case I could see that the process slowed down to almost 6 times.
That link at the end goes to your own blog which can be easily seen as spam. For obvious reasons spamming isn't allowed across the SE network of sites. You can promote your own blog from your user profile. If you link to you blog, you have to disclose it is yours and it should link to a relevant article that can support the answer. See the [help] for extra guidance.
You do not need to include a signature in your posts - your username is attached to the post already. If you wish to link to your blog, feel free to do so from your user profile, but the content of your answers should just be about answering the original question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.757058
| 2017-04-11T21:51:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80832",
"authors": [
"Basil Bourque",
"Carl Witthoft",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"GJ.Baker",
"RedSonja",
"Tim Lymington",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Tyzoid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54545",
"rene"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117090
|
Can you put a clay pot into a preheated oven?
I was making salt baked chicken last night, and I didn't have a casserole dish big enough for the bird. So, instead I used a half glazed Chinese clay pot, and put that straight into a pre-heated oven of 250C. Mine is similar to this one.
To avoid any thermal shock I placed the pot onto a wire rack instead of the baking tray. But I read in lots of places you shouldn't put clay pot into a pre-heated oven as you will crack it. Is this people's experience? I put this clay pot over the gas hob with no problems, and I find it hard to imagine that the air to clay heat transfer rate is so fast that it will crack the pot, but a gas flame doesn't.
"PS: can someone create a tag clay-pot or sand-pot for me?" Done
As a preface, understand that thermal shock (the phenomenon that causes ware to crack or even explode) isn't an all-or-nothing thing; often ceramic (and glass) cookware succumbs to thermal shock after being stressed several, or even many, times.
In your case, though, I wouldn't consider what you did a risky activity. Putting an earthenware pot onto the rack of a heated oven with a quantity cold food inside is generally considered safe. The mass of the food keeps the pot from heating too quickly. What would be risky would be either putting an empty pot in a hot oven, or putting the pot on top of a baking stone or other preheated solid surface. And even then, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to crack the first time you do it -- as you point out, the pot is designed to work on top of a direct flame (although also with food inside).
I hope the chicken turned out tasty!
(note: I am a potter who sells pottery for use in ovens)
Regarding food inside slowing down heating, this is somewhat similar to water inside your body that makes it possible touch hot, glowing coal for a short time (less than a second) without damage because the water absorbs most of the energy. Of course the head absorption capacity of the food vs skin deep water not at all similar, but the principle is.
I got a couple of new clay hot pots which the wife decided were heating up too slowly. So she replaced the chafing containers with twice the size dishes and loaded them up with chafing fluid. I heard several loud cracks as the fire got started but so far can't find where the cracks are in the pots or dishes! So, maybe that will be clearer with further use :(
Graham: good lord! Was a fire extinguisher involved?
@FuzzyChef no, just blew the flames out. But looks like the glazing on the inside bottom of the clay pot has risen up. This is the one that wasn't subjected to the extra heat https://i.imgur.com/eLoMjUR.jpg and this is the one that was https://i.imgur.com/ZzzJwhh.jpg it's a very odd appearance.
That's ... very strange. Glaze shouldn't do that. Are you sure it's not an epoxy or something? Feel free to post your own question about that.
These pots regularly get put through the rigors of heating and cooking at "clay-pot" restaurants. The cheerfully work for some time and usually suffer from customer/staff shock rather than thermal shock.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.757472
| 2021-09-04T23:05:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117090",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"FuzzyChef",
"Graham Chiu",
"Kevin",
"hlovdal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24206
|
How do I pick artichokes for deep frying?
A few years ago I was wandering around the Jewish Quarter in Rome with my sister and spotted Carciofi alla giudia (deep fried artichokes) on a menu. Intrigued, we tried them. Every since I've been trying to replicate the pure crispy deliciousness!
It's not very hard to make actually, and a few experiments back and home turned out a delicious replica of the dish: part salty crunch and part melt-in-your-mouth sweet.
The trouble is, after many attempts, my results are not consistent. Sometimes it will turn out just right and be an unforgettably yummy dish, other times they are inedibly tough or bitter (or both). I am unable to put my finger on what the difference is. Is the oil tempurature and cook time that sensitive to small variations? Is it all in the artichoke to start with? Steaming seems to turn out much more consistent results. Obviously some are better than others, but it's at least always edible.
I've pretty much decided it's mostly in the original produce. I generally have a wide range at the local fruit and vegetable bazaar. I can get big ones, little ones, a couple colors, long stem or short. I've tried quite an assortment now and seem to have the best luck with smaller but older more open ones. However as many as I try, the results are still inconclusive. Sometimes the tightly packed jumbo ones come out fine too.
Basically, I have no idea how to tell whether a given artichoke will deep fry well. What should I be looking for in a thistle? Or am I on the wrong track and it's actually something I can fix by doing the fry just right?
Just for the sake of completeness, the original name is "Carciofi alla giudia" (Jewish-style artichokes)
FWIW, the traditional artichoke of Rome -- the "Romanesco" is a smaller, purple variety with blunt thorns.
@FuzzyChef: Hum that is interesting and might make a significant difference.
Although they may be using a different variety of artichoke, the results shouldn't vary too drastically. Ones descending from the italian varieties are often also purple in colour and will have a similar flavour
Selecting artichokes
Squeeze the artichoke. You're looking for it to be firm and dense, indicating it is moist inside.
You actually want the centre leaves to be compacted, indicating they are freshest.
Try and break a leaf off, if it snaps satisfyingly then the artichoke is most likely fresh.
Rub the leaves and check that they squeak, another sign they are moist.
During winter, try and find ones with white blisters on its leaves as the slight bit of frost causing this improves the flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.757777
| 2012-06-04T18:30:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24206",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Chrissy",
"Dave",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gugg",
"dayhocnauan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"nico",
"risa_risa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9906
|
Where to find a crepe maker
In my childhood I have memory of a clockwork crepe maker using an alcohol burner. It was quite compact, and sat on a small side table
The glow of the burner and the whir of the clockwork mechanism was somewhat "romantic", and of course there was endless discussion of whom got the next one, and what they where going to put on it (golden syrup, currants, and lemon juice!)
It looked something like this
The large drum had a circle of steel wrapped around it, and the clockwork motor rotated it against the pickup roller in the batter tray, which transfered batter only to the circle, not the whole drum. The alcohol burner heated the drum so by the time it got to the other side it was cooked and slid into the left hand tray. The crepes were nearly transparent, and just beautiful
The machine is very similar to how I understand commercial tortillas are made?
Can you still buy these, if so where?
If not, are there modern automatic crepe makers for domestic use? Looking for something way under a grand!
I can make a perfectly good crepe on the comal, but this is not fun for a whole party load!
That's a very cool device. Unfortunately, I don't think I've ever seen something like that in the wild. Even in a production environment, I've never seen anything but a glorified circular hotplate. But then I live in the US, where crepes aren't very popular.
Looks like there are a lot of industrial-style examples of what you depicted, but most seem to run in the $4000 range and make hundreds of crepes per hour. Seems a bit much for the home cook.
That machine only cooks the crepes on one side. Wouldn't they stick together in the 'Finished' tray?
You know, I could swear that I saw something like this at one of the "high-end" cookware stores around here. Unfortunately I can't remember much more about it (other than it was more than just a comal or crepe pan) since I never make a party load... but I'll keep an eye out for it next time I'm shopping.
This is called a crepe maker drum or an automatic crepe maker.
CMCRP makes one that retails for about $5000 and can produce as much as 80m of crepes per hour (more than 1 mile / day). Probably worth it if you can afford it and need that many crepes. It is made by and can be purchased from "PastaBiz.com"
You can see a video of it on YouTube.
Another model is the ANKO CR-200, a video can be found here, and you could contact ANKO to find a local distributor.
Good Luck!
Thanks for that. Not quite under a grand, but it does make square crepes :-]
Maybe, if we all pitch in a few dollars, we can buy one of those machines and spread the joy.
Funny, I was just thinking about this the other day. In my childhood there was a restaurant called The Crepery (or something similar) at the Washington Square Mall in a suburb of Portland, Oregon. It was part of a larger complex called The Park which was the 70s version of our modern day food court. They had a very similar type of crepe maker to the one you are describing. I am not sure what they were using for a heat source. I would have guessed electric. The unit looked like a small printing press or mimeograph machine sitting on their counter top. I seem to remember the steel spot on the drum rotating through batter then stopping at the top to cook for a moment. When finished, the drum would rotate and drop the crepe on a plate, then pick up more batter. It made absolutely perfect crepes in look, texture, and taste. The Marriott Corporation used to run this restaurant complex. I have inquired over the years but have had little luck just finding anyone who remembers having operated this restaurant let alone a drum type crepe maker. Several industrial suppliers have suggested that these may have been specially produced for the companies operating them. I've seen the YouTube video of the CMCRP and was quite impressed but I think this might be overkill for what I had in mind. Let me know if you have any luck finding what you are describing. I would love to buy one myself. Until then it's back to hand made! -Fairgrove
Very appropriate to pull this back up on Pancake Day (or at least the hours after it).
Once a long time ago (1974) I went to Mexico and stopped in at a crepery run by a French lady. She made the most wonderful crepes you have ever tasted!! It was of the type that sat on the counter like the one you describe. Maybe if you enquired in Mexico, they might still sell that type. But 37 years later is a very long time I suppose to expect something like that to still be manufactured and in operation. But one never knows. Worth a look-see.
Doreen
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.758064
| 2010-12-09T08:46:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9906",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chad",
"DruidGreeneyes",
"Glo Lopez",
"Joyceyorks",
"K.M. Snaith",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"PaulR",
"ROldford",
"TFD",
"Toni Agredano",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"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
}
|
26116
|
Hand operated can sealer
Do hand operated can sealing machines work as well as commercial automatic machines in terms of seal quality and storage life?
Keen to give it a go, but can't locate any hand can sealing machines. Are there any suppliers of these that ship outside of North Amercia for order less than $1000?
It's called a dry pack canner and the hand crank's seal just as well as the motorized versions. Electric ones go faster and your arm doesn't get as tired.
They are very expensive, especially if you are wanting to seal #10 cans.
http://www.storeitfoods.com/page/drypack
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.758586
| 2012-09-12T02:35:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26116",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21905
|
Preparing Salsa Verde fast and fresh
I want to make batches of Salsa Verde* fast and fresh, 8 to 12 serves at a time
It normally requires a large amount of knife work to get everything finely chopped and crushed. How can I speed up this process?
The liquid part can be pre-measured and mixed, the egg yolk only takes a second to separate and mix in. But the fresh herbs take time to chop finely without destroying them, and the final mixing and crushing in the herbs and spices takes time
Food processors do not make a satisfactory result, it looks and tastes like baby food
* Salsa Verde - based on Italian style
Parsley, chopped
Coriander (cilantro), chopped
Oregano, chopped
Garlic, sliced and crushed
Smoked dried chillies, crushed
Salt (powdered)
Olive oil
Coriander oil (a few drops)
Egg yolk
Lemon juice
Vinegar
The thing you linked to is not using a food processor. The "Magic Bullet" appears to be basically a blender. Have you actually tried with a food processor?
@Jefromi Yes, with a variety of sizes, styles, and chopping blades
Interesting - I'm pretty sure I've seen someone successfully do something like this with a food processor, but I don't remember what sort it was.
Even for 12 servings, the total quantity of herbs is small; so, in my opinion, the best way to chop it is with knife.
Maybe you need to improve your technique.
Use a big sharp knife, on a big cutting surface.
Get all the herbs aligned and press them together with your left hand (or your right hand if you are lefty like me) in a tight pile over the surface.
Lean the side of the knife on your fingers, placing the tips of the fingers away from the cut.
Practice and you'll see that it's fast and easy and the results are the best.
My knife skills are fine, but for that many serves, and to get it fine enough to release full flavour it still takes about five minutes to produce a batch. Just trying to do this faster
TFD,
You can use a food processor for this, the trick is not to overprocess. I have some "mini-choppers" I used to keep around for exactly this kind of task. Here's the steps:
Roughly chop the herbs, into about equal-sized pieces.
Pulse them in the mini-chopper for 5s to 10s at a time. This may require mixing them around with a small spatula between pulses.
Stop when they reach "finely minced" consistency.
Don't try to pulse garlic, dried peppers, and herbs together. They chop at different rates, and you'll end up with one of the other thing being overprocessed.
If you are fast with it, a good sharp cleaver, 8" chef's knife or santoku are still going to be faster, especially when you include cleanup time. However, a lot of people don't have the knife practice, or don't have really sharp knives.
From the knife perspective, I have a hand-forged carbon steel santoku which I use for chopping, and this has pretty much eliminated the food processor for me. A long-bladed, heavy, really sharp knife makes mincing take less than half the time.
I had a mezzaluna which I tried to use for herb chopping, and found it pretty much useless.
can you add a picture or a link of the type of processor you use for this
Pre-chopping -- or even microplaning -- the garlic helps it not end up underprocessed.
TFD: something like this one: http://www.consumersearch.com/food-processors/cuisinart-mini-prep-plus-dlc-2a I have a no-name brand one which does chop small amount of herbs fairly well; not sure why the complaints about the cuisinart.
@FuzzyChef thanks, I will see if I can find one to try
For rapidly chopping herbs, a mezzaluna is a great tool. I like my single-handed version but the double-handed kind seems more common.
+1 Ahhh, forgot to mention that. Already evaluated that. And it does not seem to be that much of an improvement for a quality result. From my limited experience it tends to make an irregular chop, unless you go over it many times, and then you end up with mostly mush
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.758676
| 2012-03-02T02:10:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21905",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11377
|
How long should I cook pork for (at 100° C)?
I have a pork shoulder cooking in the oven right now at 100° C (212° F). I was planning on roasting it for 7 hours, will this be long enough to cook it safely?
I saw the FDA chart about minimum internal temperatures - but am not sure how to translate that to oven temperature/time.
I edited the temperature assuming that the C one was correct, since that one was in the title as well; if you've actually got it in there at 180° F (usually the lowest any oven will go), then that is way too low, you'll probably have to leave it in there for a whole day.
100°C for 7 hours sounds just about perfect. The meat will be meltingly tender by then. In fact I think you could go even lower on the temperature if you like, say 80°C or 90°C. Of course, if you want to be absolutely sure, check with the thermometer, but unless you know that your oven is unreliable or you happen to be in possession of the largest pig shoulder in the world I am 100% sure it will be more than done in 7 hours on 100°C. Good luck!
Thanks for the reply, after 7 hours, the meat was just beautiful! (And I checked with the thermometer jic, it registered 170, so yes, I maybe could have gone a little lower.)
100°C seems a little low. I've done a bone-in pork shoulder at 120 for 8 hours before now, I think the norm is 2 hours a pound (450 g) at that temperature.
To be safe you should really use a meat thermometer, trichinosis is not something you want to have.
I've made pulled pork (boneless) at 275° F for 4-5 hours; that's all it takes to get the meat to fall apart completely. So I'd definitely agree that 180° F is low. Your 120° C corresponds to 250° F which sounds about right to me.
Thanks for the reply, the thermometer set my mind at rest!
@lainie: The goal is always to get the meat to the correct internal temperature. Trichinosis dies instantly at a mere 63C, so don't worry about it: long as you don't like your pig rare, you're fine. You should take it to ~75C to kill other things, but again, that's not that hot.
I disagree that 100C seems too low. It might be too low to cook a large shoulder in 7 hours, but it's not too low if you're prepared to be patient and let the meat get done when it gets done. It all depends on what you want your meat to be like when you're done, I guess.
Strictly from a food safety perspective, 7 hours at 100°C will very probably get you to where you want to be.
HOWEVER... if that is your target, you will be left with a tough hunk of meat with lots of fat and connective tissue, and I'm almost certain you will not be happy with the result. To achieve tenderness, you need to go pretty far past the safety recommendation.
For slicing, you'll most likely need to hit around 77°C (170°F) internal, give or take a couple of degrees. For pulling, your internal will probably have to get upwards of 90.5°C internal (195°F), or even higher -- again give or take a couple of degrees.
To get there, I don't know if 100°C is going to cut it, especially in 7 hours. I did some pulled pork yesterday out of a Boston butt (part of a whole shoulder), and it cooked 8-9 hours at 122°C (250°F).
If I were to offer some advice, I'd say crank up your cooking temperature by about 25-30%. Also, use the thermometer as a general guideline for when to start checking for doneness, not as an absolute measure. Once you come within a few degrees of your target, use your eyes as well as the feel of the meat to determine whether you're ready or not.
Check out some barbecue forums for better, more detailed advice. Even if you're roasting your meat in the oven, the same concepts still apply (sans the smoking aspect). I recommend:
The Virtual Weber Bulletin Board
BBQ Brethren
First, the cooking time will depend on the size of the piece. For about 6lbs I would say you are looking at 10-12 hours at 200F (2h per pound is a good rough starting point). With but and other tough cuts your objective is not minimum internal temperature. You want to go higher, because connective tissue begins to fall apart at about 190F, so that is the internal temperature you are looking for.
I cook a 4 kg pork shoulder every Christmas
I set oven at 100 Celsius and cook it overnight so it’s ready in the morning, set and forget. 14 hrs seems to be perfect for all that connective tissues to fall apart. It hasn’t failed me yet
I cooked a large shoulder of pork on the bone in an Aga. it was aimed at feeding 8 people but there was a large amount of meat left over. It had one hour at 228 centigrade to get it hot and the 24 hours at 110 centigrade. It was magnificently cooked. To our surprise the centre was at 100 centigrade at the end. A problem to watch out for was the large mass of oil which overflowed the roasting tray during the night. Next time we will drain off the oil a couple of times during the cooking process.
At 200-225 degrees F, I plan for about one hour per pound on my Big Green Egg. Using an electronic probe thermometer is ESSENTIAL. It takes out all the guess work. 200 F degrees internal temp is perfect for pulled pork.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.759017
| 2011-01-23T12:30:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11377",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Fran Brown",
"Gedminas",
"Goldberg",
"KitKat",
"Mohammad Athar",
"Nicole Rae",
"Reggie Upshaw",
"Rodia",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Smasher",
"bikeboy389",
"dbacksfan68",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68844",
"kurtzmarc",
"lainie",
"user23358"
],
"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
}
|
63025
|
Closest substitute for alder wood chips when smoking?
In Finland, the tree of choice for smoking is alder (leppä), but this is difficult to find in Australia and close to impossible to import due to biosecurity restrictions. What's my best substitute? I'm particularly interested in smoking fish (salmon, trout).
Peach and Apple wood are readily available, and I use them regularly for fish.
You may find that since the wood is in fact considered treated, you may find it is in fact available...
Try here: http://www.smokedandcured.com.au/alder-wood-chips-350gm/
Most fruit producing trees produce a nice smoke for fish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.759459
| 2015-11-01T09:22:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63025",
"authors": [
"Bernard Monaghan",
"Cheryl Maeda",
"Coryanne Hicks",
"Dina Graham",
"Jennifer Loudin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161653",
"ruth sanchez"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127903
|
Why are some Chinese rice noodles cooked starting from cold water?
The vast majority of dry pasta/noodles are prepared by boiling water first and then adding them to the already boiling water. However, the instructions on some types of Chinese rice noodles (eg. 南昌拌粉 Nánchāng bànfěn) say to place them in a pot of cold water, bring the water to boil, and then cook for X minutes.
Is there a culinary reason for this? Or is this just a shortcut for soaking before cooking?
in fact, you can boil all pasta like this. no need for large amounts of rolling boiling water, that is a myth, at least for dry noodles.
I don’t know about this particular noodle, but there was a website years ago that recommended soaking gluten free to hydrate before you boil them. It both lets you get an al dente texture (not usually wanted in Chinese recipes) but also keeps leftovers from congealing into a weird blob. If I had the noodles, I would personally just do a side by side test and see what happens
This is not a complete answer, but: bear in mind that rice noodles (and mung bean noodles, etc) do not have gluten. They are held together by amylose, a form of starch. Starch absorbs water readily and can fall apart easily. My guess is that rice noodles need more delicate handling for this reason. Potatoes, which are also made of amylose, are best if started in cold water. You can put potatoes directly into boiling water, but the outer layer comes away, whereas when started in cold water the potato stays together. Harold McGee has more info on this topic.
hope this little bit helps!
Who is "Harold McGee"; and why should we know where to look for this "more info"; and why not cite it?
Sorry. I took it for granted that people asking about food science would know McGee. My bad! Harold McGee wrote On Food and Cooking which is probably the best book on the subject. My own copy is in tatters. Its an absolute joy to read McGee.
When cooking thinner rice noodles, due to their delicate nature, adding them to already boiling water can cause over softening. Starting from cold allows the process to be more gradual and keep them from overcooking.
Thicker ones, would not require this.
These noodles are not particularly thin though, the diameter is around the same as spaghetti.
@lambshaanxy Spaghetti is made of semolina which is not at all delicate. Nánchāng bànfěn is made from rice, and is a lot more delicate.
It's not particularly delicate as far as rice noodles go, there are much thinner rice noodles like 米粉 mífěn.
In addition to the overcooking or uneven cooking issue, starting noodles in cold water also prevents them from sticking or clumping together. Similar but related conversation over here. That said, in my experience, rinsing in cold water after cooking also washes away the starch, which prevents sticking, but doesn't solve the potential uneven cooking issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.759565
| 2024-03-19T03:53:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127903",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"John Meyers",
"Karl Knechtel",
"ben svenssohn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98975",
"lambshaanxy",
"ths"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122111
|
What is this Laotian mystery leaf?
In Luang Prabang, Laos, I was served this mystery herb on the side of a dish of green papaya salad (ຕຳຫມາກຫຸ່ງ tam mak hung, aka som tam on the Thai side of the border).
What exactly is this? The flavor was quite strong and rather bitter. Google Lens thinks it's either khat or asparagus, both of which are quite definitely wrong.
Leaves bring to mind legumes to me, but hard to say without an opened out version. Might also get a better answer if migrated to Biology SE.
Looks a bit like chamberbitter, but I'd be surprised if that's really what it is as it's somewhat toxic.
@bob1 looks like it is indeed a legume (at least according to Wikipedia).
I think that is Neptunia oleracea (Water Mimosa).
The leaves are normally fanned out but collapse in when touched.
It is a vegetable "commonly eaten raw or stir-fried in Thailand"
https://www.tarladalal.com/glossary-water-mimosa-1481i
You can see the leaves aligning more here:
https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3334636150
Apparently the roots are also used medicinally in Malaysia and Thailand for things such as headaches, earaches, and skin wounds.
https://pondinformer.com/water-mimosa-neptunia-oleracea/
https://www.canstockphoto.com/water-mimosa-36364232.html supposedly a stock photo of water mimosa in a salad. It looks exactly like the original photo except for the color. Nice find!
Bingo, I think you've found it! The Lao name is the same as Thai: ຜັກກະເສດ phak kachet.
Good answer. I knew I had seen leaves looking like that before, but was failing to bring to mind where/when - it was on Mimosa pudica ("sensitive plant") after touching the leaves and seeing them collapse, results in almost exactly the same pattern and coiled shape.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.760091
| 2022-10-26T05:20:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122111",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"barbecue",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"lambshaanxy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54674
|
Vegemite beyond expiry date?
We've got a small jar of Vegemite that the kids are slowly nibbling away at, and I just realized it has a best-before date of three months ago. At the current rate of consumption, there's another six months to go before it's gone. We're keeping it in the fridge, and it shows no visible signs of going bad so far.
How long is it safe to keep, and how do we know it's gone bad? Bear in mind this is pretty funky-smelling stuff in the first place.
Also, just how bad an idea is it to reuse a knife that's previously been used to spread butter to scoop out Vegemite?
Update: On further inspection, the date on the bottom of the jar is just a date, it's not labeled as "best before" or "use by" anywhere on the jar. Definitely not the date of manufacture though, and the official Vegemite FAQ implies it's a best-before date.
Also, this somewhat amusing Metafilter thread about whether somebody should eat seven-year-old Vegemite, the general consensus being "it's probably OK".
Not sure of a way to check if it's OK but many people keep it in the cupboard (just checked and it doesn't say to refrigerate after opening on the jar) so you've probably bought yourself a bit of extra time there.
But I'd not reuse the knife - neither butter nor breadcrumbs extend the shelf life...
Well if it's any consolation I've been eating a pea sized amount of vegemite out of my jar for about 3 years now every so often and just now got to the bottom of the jar and checked the date and realized it expired 2 years ago, I haven't felt sick or anything ... not saying it's a good idea just saying I survived haha
Best-before dates aren't the same as use-by dates. Whilst you shouldn't consume a product after it's use-by date, best-before dates are more about quality than safety. Basically, after the best-before date, the product may start to deteriorate in terms of flavour, but that doesn't mean you can't still eat it.
I'd expect that the salt content of Vegemite would keep it sound for a long time. I've certainly had half-eaten jars of Marmite (sorry, I'm a Marmite guy, not Vegemite) kicking around in the pantry for way longer than they ought, and they've been just fine.
Butter and breadcrumbs from the knife may well develop mould if they're left in the jar for a while, but that would normally just be on the surface and easily removed. Much better to remove crumbs before they get to that stage - or, easier, just use a clean knife.
In 2019 I'm still consuming Vegemite from a 2lb jar that has a Best Before (yes, it says that) date of Nov 1997. It has never been refrigerated. It tastes as good as it ever did, though it's a little thicker than it used to be.
Lol. Made my day. A 22 year old jar of Vegemite! Now I know I'm not alone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.760267
| 2015-02-13T02:43:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54674",
"authors": [
"Albert Renshaw",
"Jillian Deen",
"Lou Sedivy",
"Paulb",
"PeterJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Thomas Clark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51877",
"peggy smith"
],
"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
}
|
41160
|
Is Microwaving considered dry heat or moist heat and why?
I am wondering if microwaving food is considered dry heat or moist heat.
It has a similarity to frying in oil as it doesn't heat it in water. And I know frying in oil is dry heat.
But if I put bread in the microwave it goes soggy, not brown (no Maillard reaction), so that suggests it's moist heat. I understand the reason it doesn't brown is because the food surface temperature is low, unless a "browning pan" is used in the microwave.
Are the terms dry heat vs. moist heat dependent on whether the surface temperature of the food is such that browning occurs? Or is it based on whether or not there is water/steam surrounding the food?
Does your stove cook with moist heat or dry heat? What about your oven? Nonsensical questions, right? Same goes for your microwave: it's not the appliance that determines moist vs. dry, it's the ingredients.
It is not inherently either, but most often it performs similarly to moist heat.
Microwaves work by directly exciting polar molecules within the food, usually water or fats.
If the food contains significant quantities of water (like most fruits, vegetables, meats and so on) then microwaving usually acts very much akin to steaming, which is a moist heat method.
In some fringe cases, most particularly bacon, where there is a significant amount of fat that can be directly excited to temperatures higher than water can obtain without evaporating, you can essentially fry by microwave... and of course, frying is a dry heat method.
apparently the definition of frying doesn't include cooking meat in its own fat(like, with no fat around it). From wikipedia "Frying is the cooking of food in oil or another fat...Chemically, oils and fats are the same, differing only in melting point, but the distinction is only made when needed... Frying techniques vary in the amount of fat required[the examples are suggestive that frying requires immersion in fat]"
@barlop Bah....
And if you're heating food in a pan with no oil, and the thing you're heating, like chicken, has fat and water, then is it dry heat or moist heat?
@barlop I somehow have the feeling that you are giving the distinction dry vs. moist heat more importance than it deserves. It is a convenient shorthand for throwing a few common cooking techniques together, but not very precise. If you need precision in your expression, you should be using other terms, and probably not bundling techniques at all. But to answer your comment, it is not the content of the food that counts (so the fat and water inside the chicken don't matter). If you heat chicken on a hot teflon pan without oil, it is the pan which transfers heat to the chicken, so it is dry.
I would say that microwaving is neither.
Heating with conventional methods works through heat coming outside of the food. Conduction and radiation will heat solid foods immersed in a gas or a liquid. "Moist heat" means that the liquid is water, "dry heat" that you are using another fluid to transfer heat. The distinction is useful, because with water, you 1) can't get above 100 C (even in a steamer, the steam just condenses on the food), 2) you can hydrate starches and gums, and 3) taste-carrying components are "leached" into the water by dissolving. You don't get these with air or oil.
But a microwave does not use a fluid to transfer heat. It uses pure radiation, but not in the non-penetrating infrared range the way a fire does, but in the microwave range. So it technically does not function neither like moist nor like dry heat. And in practice, the implications of neither dry nor moist heat cooking are present when you have cooked something in a microwave.
It is like trying to decide if meat is fruit or vegetable. It is neither, and microwave cooking is neither dry nor moist. If you have a source which claims that "dry" vs "moist" is an exhaustive categorization of cooking methods, it is probably older than microwave ovens, or too elitist to consider them worthy of kitchen use.
Added your very useful comments to your answer
"I somehow have the feeling that you are giving the distinction dry vs. moist heat more importance than it deserves. It is a convenient shorthand for throwing a few common cooking techniques together, but not very precise. If you need precision in your expression, you should be using other terms, and probably not bundling techniques at all. But to answer your comment, it is not the content of the food that counts (so the fat and water inside the chicken don't matter). If you heat chicken on a hot teflon pan without oil, it is the pan which transfers heat to the chicken, so it is dry."
and
"The air in a broiling appliance is still relevant. But I said that in dry heat, you get heat from outside from both convection and infrared radiation, and in a broiling oven, you just have a higher infrared-to-convection ratio of heat sources. It is still dry heat just like any other oven. And still different from a microwave, where the radiation penetrates deep into the food before starting to warm it."
You write ""dry heat" that you are using another fluid to transfer heat. " So I suppose cooking something in an oven with no water, is dry heat because the fluid is air? But what if one is cooking food in a broiling appliance the air is not that relevant, it could even in theory have no air at all, then there's no fluid. But it'd still be dry wouldn't it?
The air in a broiling appliance is still relevant. But I said that in dry heat, you get heat from outside from both convection and infrared radiation, and in a broiling oven, you just have a higher infrared-to-convection ratio of heat sources. It is still dry heat just like any other oven. And still different from a microwave, where the radiation penetrates deep into the food before starting to warm it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.760521
| 2014-01-14T17:24:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41160",
"authors": [
"Big Day Production",
"Constructionsussex spam",
"David",
"Helen Maria",
"MMDU spam",
"Marti",
"Rushy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"barlop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95919",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45290
|
Does anybody recognize this Finnish dill sauce?
My husband brought back a homemade sour cream dill sauce from Finland. It was thick, perhaps with a puréed vegetable, but I couldn't taste cucumber or the like. There is definitely some texture there. Any suggestions?
Was it mustardy?
Hello Rhonda, and welcome to the site! We are here specifically to provide answers on cooking techniques, and swapping recipes is off topic. I would have had to close the question if it was a pure recipe request. But it is clear that you can't search for a recipe somewhere else if you don't know what food you are searching for, so I modified it to be a request for the name. If somebody can identify it as a standard sauce (rather than something created by the cook's whim), you will have enough information to look for it in a recipe database.
A very common fish condiment in Sweden is "dillsås", dill sauce.
10 oz gräddfil. A light sour cream. (yoghurt?)
A few tablespoons of mayo
A generous amount of chopped dill.
Season with salt and white pepper to taste.
You can add some mustard and lemon if the mayo is bland.
The taste is smooth and quite neutral with the dill as the lead actor.
A note on the sour cream. It can't be a thick, heavy consistency. It should be quite light and slightly uneven in texture (whisking makes it smooth). It is almost yoghurt like and contains about 10% fat. I have seen suggestions that low fat sour cream can be quite similar. I get the impression IKEA stocks it globally.
It should look something like
Image from http://chezsofia.bloggsida.se/2009/08/dillsas-till-saftiga-grillspett/.
Finn here. Tillikastike (dill sauce) is almost always prepared with kermaviili, a type of viili (vaguely yoghurt-like fermented milk product) which is unfortunately basically unknown outside Scandinavia. Gräddfil, mentioned in Captain Giraffe's answer, is the Swedish version of this.
Sour cream is the closest substitute, but it's much heavier, creamier and more sour than the real thing (40-70% fat, vs only 12% or so in kermaviili), whereas crème fraîche is also too fatty but not sour enough. Fatty unsweetened yoghurt or quark mixed with a bit of water will also do in a pinch.
If you can get your hands on some of the real thing, the recipe is simplicity itself: just mix with chopped dill, chill, and serve. Adding mayo would be unheard of in Finland, but a squirt of lemon or a dash of mustard would be common, particularly if this is to be served with fish.
Maybe it's dill herb, not cucumber.
The word 'dill' is in the question title. I would be surprised if that possibility has been overlooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.761034
| 2014-07-03T04:48:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45290",
"authors": [
"Bart",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Lunsford",
"M. Bedi",
"Randy Dennison",
"Razia Latif",
"Sbeautyhair bester Friseu spam",
"Spammer",
"VapeCenterPro",
"bongdatructiepxoilac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"numeralpotatochips",
"rptbobo",
"rumtscho",
"shellwhale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56844
|
Food Identification: Restaurant outside Batu Caves in Malaysia, what did we eat?
I had a meal in one of the restaurants at the base of the Batu Caves in Malaysia that served a dish that I quite liked, but I failed to record what I ordered. I'm looking on Google Maps and I believe the restaurant is called "Dhivya’s Cafe".
The food was vegetables, at least potatoes if I recall correctly, served in a yellow curry-like sauce. There were pods in the curry that I think may have been mustard seed but could be wrong. It was served with bread.
Any ideas? Thanks.
Edit: Based on a comment I looked at the picture again and suspect it must have been the restaurant over. I've edited my question.
Also, here is a picture of the bread they served with it: https://pinoyfamilytravels.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/pinoyfamilytravels20120916-0001dhivyascafe.jpg
Hello Robert and welcome to the site! Admittedly, wer are quite a widespread bunch, but IMHO that is a bit too vague. You'd need someone that knows the restaurant and recognizes the dish -based on a rather vague description... I also doubt that potatoes would be served as Jain food.
This crepe-like dish looks like an Indian dosa (sometimes spelled dosai), and the probably coconut chutney in the center sort of matches that theory. Could be a touch of sambar on the upper right?
What you have on your plate is the most eaten pancake in the world - Dosa. This is a South Indian dish and since there are many South Indians living in Malayasia, I don't think finding this there is an extreme coincidence. There are many varieties of Dosa and the one on your plate definitely looks like Rava Dosa(a variety of Dosa cooked with more semolina in the regular Dosa batter).
For more insight into Dosa, you can have a look at this Wiki page:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosa
Dosa is served usually with Sambhar(the liquid yellow thing on your plate) which is like a lentil stew made with some vegetables and seasoned with mustard seeds and other Indian spices, coconut chutney(the white sauce) and takkali chutney(the orange sauce). Takkali in tamil means tomato so this chutney has tomato as its base seasoned with roasted lentils, onion and spices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.761289
| 2015-04-21T20:04:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56844",
"authors": [
"Dorji Wangchuk",
"Jace Veitia",
"Janet Hilton",
"JasonTrue",
"Katrina Jansen",
"Kristian Willie",
"Rabea Baloch",
"Stephie",
"bob frisbee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126567
|
What is the English name for Burmese Black Tea?
I reside part time in Bangkok where there is vibrant Burmese community operating Burmese restaurants and shops especially in Phra Khanong (พระโขนง) area.
Often when I sit to rest in Burmese restaurants for a snack or for a meanl there are teapots with what I can name as "Black tea" which for me is very strong in its caffeinerig effect, like drinking 5 cups of green tea or 5 cups of weak coffee, perhaps.
This Black Tea beverage is served hot.
What is the English name of it? Is it made of Camellia sinensis in general or a particular cultivar or a totally different plant?
From all the reading I have done and from checking and comparing images I figure that this tea is Assam Tea or Camellia sinesis var. assamica (Masters) dried leafs.
Assam tea comes from the Assam region of India, not from Burma/Myanmar. Burmese tea doesn't seem to be readily available in North America, but from what I can see, it's just called "Burmese tea," though I agree that it does seem to be var. assamica.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.761506
| 2024-02-03T23:11:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126567",
"authors": [
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122121
|
What is the correct way to use fermented (and unfermented) soybean paste?
One easy way to make boiled or stir-fried vegetables more exciting is to drizzle soy sauce and sesame oil.
To diversify the flavor, and while still taking inspiration from Korean and Japanese kitchens, I have attempted to dissolve/dilute a bit of:
Korean, light-colored, fermented soybean paste,
Korean, dark-colored, fermented soybean paste, and
Japanese soybean (miso) paste
in some water and add to various dishes such as:
boiled vegetables,
stir-fried vegetables, and
vegetable broth and (largely unseasoned) homemade chicken broth
but the outcome is far from exciting. It doesn't come close to the flavors of even the basic dishes served at Korean and Japanese restaurants.
What is the correct way to use fermented (and unfermented) soybean paste?
(Hint: a little of any of these goes a long way; beware of buying too much too soon and being unable to use it before expiration.)
Try Miso sauce for vegetables in your search engine of choice, perhaps.
What type of miso did you get? There are many types (white, red, yellow) that have different flavors. Also age and other factors affect the final flavor
@Joe I wouldn't say it was yellow—beige perhaps. Red would signal more heat; is that the right impression? What about white?
Red miso is not "hot" - the color does not come from chili unless you are adding hot sauce to white/yellow miso.
It is unusual to have one "correct" way of using ingredients. Have you tried searching for recipes for the kind of dish you want to make? Or to go to a database that allows search by ingredient, and search for recipes with miso, or soybean paste, etc.? Once you have enriched your repertoire by recipes that use these ingredients, you will be able to improvise with them well.
I'd highly recommend looking more into Korean and Japanese cooking videos featuring these products - lambshaanxy specified the names for easier searching. I tend to use Korean chunjang as a sub for Chinese black bean sauce as well when I'm too lazy to make my own, so that might be another option. I learned a lot from Maangchi, Cooking with Dog, and most recently Chinese Cooking Demystified if you need a place to start!
@kitukwfyer Valuable hints. Thank you. But I'm wondering: Korean chunjang is completely a paste. It has no bits and pieces of actual black beans. When you use it as a substitute for Chinese black bean sauce, is it then necessary to add black beans (roughly mashed, perhaps), or does the flavor remain reasonably good with just the paste?
Chunjang is also made of fermented black soybeans. Chinese black bean paste starts with the same (douchi), pounded with of garlic/allium and seasoned with soy sauce, oyster sauce, sugar and/or aged tangerine peel. You can pound (or puree) to the consistency you like. The storebought stuff I've tried is much saltier, bitter in a blunt way, and generally lacks any hint of citrus/acidity. Chunjang seems to lack garlic, but has amore chocolatey bitterness along with some acidity. So instead of more douchi, it might want some garlic.
"Expiration"? In my experience, these sort of pastes do not "expire". I have stored miso in the fridge for literally years, and it does not go bad.
@kreemoweet In the past I used to wince after finding that some items (tomato cans, in particular) have coded expiration dates. This meant that I had to note the date of purchase and estimate myself the date by which I needed to consume the item. It's good to hear that the regulators are working in the opposite direction; requiring an expiration date to be printed even when one is not necessary.
As regards your hint, the best-by date is a bit of a myth with this stuff, and not, in any case, an expiration date. It has its own set of microbes in residence and rarely actually "spoils." It does darken more with age, but that's not spoilage. I'm working on a 3-kilo tub very similar to your first two images. This producer states that there is no expiration date, and they have kept it as long as 20 years, without refrigeration, and it's still good. They do advise using your nose and common sense.
The inner cover over the product on my Korean package, which unlike yours has English translations, says (verbatim)
"The longer you leave it, the darker its color gets. It results in
fermentation, so you can consume it without doubts about its quality"
I spread it on toast or crackers, thinly, often with other things. I add it to cooked rice. I've put it in peanut sauce. I do not "dilute it with water" unless trying to make miso soup (to which it should, AIUI be added after heating and before serving, not before heating.)
Thus far, I don't concern myself overly much with "proper" usage, other than the "don't cook it" aspect. I'm constantly trying to find lower salt versions, as I find it overly salty in general. That, of course, informs an approach to using it, which is to use it to supply the salt (and additional flavor) in anything you'd otherwise add salt to that seems like it would play well with the added flavor.
As far as I understand, Miso is also fermented - the lighter colored stuff is less aged, the darker colored is more aged, but it's not "unfermented" in either case. Your brand's info here. They even have recipes.
I have to wonder if you are using it so sparingly and diluting it so much that it's not able to contribute much flavor...
Dang! I had just earlier discarded the contents of all three and rinsed in preparation of recycling—determined to arm myself with usage scenarios before getting even one more.
Argh! That last container indeed didn't have an expiry date. I thought to myself that it's just sloppy practice throughout the chain from the factory, to the importer, to my local store. I applied the same duration for it as the other ones.
(pardon any confusion, I notice that they make many other versions so I needed to specify, and too late to edit comment, so I deleted and re-posted) Ouch. Live and learn. The Japanese organic stuff I've gotten as "claiming to be less salt" (Mitoku Hatcha, just a happy customer when I can find it) doesn't even have a best-by date on it. In general, the darker, long-aged stuff should have more developed flavor
First of all, the Korean middle one is not soybean paste at all, but chunjang (춘장), a black bean paste. This is used as a condiment for stir-fries, in particular the noodle dish jjajangmyeon (as shown on the package); it's not suitable for soups.
The leftmost one is Korean soybean paste aka doenjang (된장, you can spot the characters in the top left corner). Unlike miso, doenjang is not "diluted" with rice, so it tastes stronger. The most popular way to eat this (and also my favorite) is as the base for doenjang-jjigae, a tasty stew.
Finally, the Japanese one on the right is a "nothing added" (無添加 mutenka) plain miso, which means it's missing the other key ingredient for miso soup: dashi stock, which adds salt and umami flavors. Dashi can be made from bonito (katsuo) or kelp and is easily purchased in "instant" powder form, just add a pinch (quarter tsp or so per bowl, it's strong stuff!) to the boiling water and mix in before adding the miso. Many commercial brands of miso have dashi premixed (出汁入り dashi-iri), which eliminates this step.
I can’t comment on the Korean pastes (which I use, but I don’t know enough about the cuisine to know if there’s a ‘correct’ way to use it.
For Japanese miso, traditionally you don’t want to boil it. You add it at the last minute, after whatever vegetables have been cooked. If using it in soup, you place some miso in a ladle or large spoon (held in your non dominant hand), dip it in the soup to get a little broth, then stir with chopsticks to thin it out and eliminate lumps, then stir the thinned miso into the soup.
You can also use a small strainer instead of a ladle, dip it into the broth, and then a spoon to stir the miso in to thin it.
Miso can also be mixed with Mayo or similar, sometimes with honey, garlic, hot peppers, or other flavorings to make a dip for vegetables
A couple of clarifications: 1- Can you add miso simply to boiling water, or would you normally add it to chicken soup, vegetable stock, etc? and 2- Could you recommend a rough ratio to start with—might one tablespoon for each 1 litre/quart be a good starting ratio?
Traditional (or "normal" if you like) Miso soup is based on dashi, which is a stock made from water, seaweed, and bonito flakes (with the solids strained out.) e.g. https://www.seriouseats.com/basic-japanese-dashi-recipe
@Sam: it’s difficult, because most Japanese broths aren’t simply miso + water, so the proportions vary depending on what other salty ingredients you might be using, and how much vegetables you have so there’s a good balance. NHK’s Dining with the Chef has a recipe index if you want to see their various miso soup recipes: https://www.nhk.or.jp/dwc/recipes/
@Sam I'd go with at least one teaspoon per cup. Some people like theirs stronger, but it can get quite salty if you put too much. As noted in my answer, dashi is critical, and only add the miso at the very end: it's not meant to be boiled for long periods of time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.761640
| 2022-10-26T21:44:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122121",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Sam7919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94239",
"kitukwfyer",
"kreemoweet",
"lambshaanxy",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95504
|
Equipment: Intense candle for nabemono. What is it?
I went to a Japanese Nabemono (Chankonabe?) place, in Tokyo. The meal was basically a hot pot. But instead of the typical small candle or small methanol pot/gel I've seen used elsewhere, they had a sort of gel that came wrapped in a foil. Unwrapped, it stood on small metal legs.
Once lit, it burned like crazy. Scary even. Nothing like the run-of-the mill methanol burners for fondue. Brought the pot from refrigerator cold to boiling in under 15 minutes. It also happened to stop burning just at the right moment, so I figured it was sized accordingly to the pot. I'm looking for the name or description of this burnable material. Search engines don't seem to bring up anything with this level of power output. I can only find the usual candles or small gels I've seen used in North America.
Anyone familiar with these? I feel really bad now for not having taken a picture.
(I tagged the question fondue, but the level of power would definitely be too high for cheese fondue. This is something for water-based hot pots)
Are you sure it wasn't a small gas cooker that has foil to keep the heat directed at the pot?
Yeah, server took it out of a pocket and lit it with a match after unwrapping it.
Googling "hottest chafing fuel" got me this https://blazeproducts.com/blaze-products/blaze-ethanol-chafing-dish-fuel/ but it sounds like this isn't what you're talking about. Was the stand part of the fuel canister? Is it possible it was just a stand that was a separate piece?
Everytime I've had Nabe (in US or Japan), it's been on a butane or propane burner, so no idea.
Sounds like they were using タブレット型固形燃料 taburetto-gata kokeinenryou, literally "tablet-shaped solid fuel":
(courtesy メシ通)
The market leader is a company called Nitinen, who offer a wide range of different sizes and shapes. The primary ingredients are methanol and alcohol, blended with fat in much the same way as soap.
Solid fuel! You can use tin foil or a metal plate to burn it on, but put a trivet underneath to protect the tablet because they burn insanely hot. These come in little cheap tablets so you can use one or a lot depending on the size of the pot. Solid fuel tablets are very popular in the ultralight backpacking community. Easiest place to find them is on Amazon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.762369
| 2019-01-09T21:14:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95504",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Jeffrey",
"User1000547",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79319
|
What type of rice vinegar is more often used in Asian dishes?
I occasionally come across recipes that call for rice vinegar, but they don't specify which of the many varieties they mean.
Is there a "standard" or implied type of rice vinegar that should be used when a recipe simply calls for rice vinegar? Or is it assumed that the chef will be familiar with the flavor profiles of the dish they are trying to make and will be able to choose an appropriate rice vinegar by their own knowledge and discretion?
Some example recipes:
http://www.lecremedelacrumb.com/slow-cooker-general-tsos-chicken/
http://onadimeandoutoftime.com/sweet-and-sour-chicken/
http://www.iwashyoudry.com/2015/07/27/asian-chicken-lettuce-wrap-spring-rolls/
https://food52.com/recipes/3869-chinese-roast-pork
http://carlsbadcravings.com/asian-sweet-chili-sesame-chicken/
http://www.howsweeteats.com/2012/06/thai-crunch-chicken-salad/
I only have white rice vinegar and dark rice vinegar (Chinkiang vinegar).
Something you might find interesting: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65396/substitute-for-chinkiang-vinager
All of your example recipes seem to be written from a Western POV. That being the case, all of those recipes seem to be calling for white or light, unseasoned rice vinegar, not Chinkiang AKA Chinese black vinegar. Someone writing a recipe for an American or British audience would not expect you to even know what Chinkiang is, and would ask for it specifically if it were expected.
The other type of rice vinegar that you might commonly see in a bottle on a typical Western shelf is one seasoned with sugar and salt, most particularly for use on rice for making sushi rice. These recipes are not asking for that either, just use your regular white rice vinegar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.762598
| 2017-03-22T04:14:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79319",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"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
}
|
66830
|
Is the un-moldy part of tomato paste still safe to eat?
Today when I was making Bolognese sauce, I removed the moldy part of the tomato paste and use the non-moldy part in the sauce. After searching on the internet, I found out that I can get sick from it. But I already added the tomato paste in my sauce, and it's a huge waste to throw the sauce away. Because the sauce has to cook for about an hour, is it possible to destroy the mold effects under high temperature?
Many times you would be absolutely fine if you boil the hell out of it. The other times could be rather unpleasant, or dangerous especially if you're not in the best of health. Even if the sauce boils hard, not all bacterial toxins are destroyed by booking. How much clean paste you removed under the mould may also make a difference.
You can find a pretty in-depth answer for how to deal with mold here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/34671/34394
For future reference, there are companies that make tomato paste in a tube that lasts a LONG time. I actually have a tube on it that says on the side "Lasts Indefinitely".
@Chris H raises a good point about health. My young children and I can beat back just about any virus/bacteria. But if you have immunosuppressed people (Seniors, those from major surgery, AIDS/HIV etc... ) who may consume... throw it out.
I was set to say : "Only if you are living in the Zombie Apocalypse. Even then, not really." Then, I stumbled on this. I'm still not sure. "Most of the molds are benign and not likely to hurt you..." Whelp, up to you, I guess.
I would take caution before consuming the sauce. It is possible that you may have killed mold however there could still be toxins. There are a lot of variables in these types of situations, such as whether or not those who are consuming the sauce have an allergy to mold. That is why a typical response is when in doubt, throw it out. I would say if you insist on keeping it taking a very small taste and give it about 30 minutes and see if you start developing a rash, throat starts feeling itchy / funny. But this can be extremely unsafe and I would advise against it.
It is also worth noting that a lot of the toxins produced by mold are carcinogenic, i.e. you may not feel any immediate bad effects, but they can be damaging in the long run.
or they can destroy your kidneys or liver. And in finland there is a study going on if childhood diabetes could be triggered by mold toxins.
and as with most fungi , the visible part of mold is only the part producing spore, the rest of the food can be contaminated by the remote "roots" of the mold.
This forum discusses a bit about tomatoes left in the fridge for way too long, multiple people say that botulism can only occur while in the can (stay away from bulging cans), and that after you open it, molding can happen, but that is not that big of a deal.
This website says that it is usually totally fine, and that if you scrape off the mold, the only problem might be a slight undesired taste.
Then there's the tons of people that say your going to die if you eat any form of tomato that has gone bad in the least degree. (but don't give any reason)
If you really don't want to throw it out, just eat it and take the risk. Chances are you won't die.
Confused: your second link does not say it's totally fine; the conclusion there is "While the molds might not hurt you, I myself would not risk it."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.762773
| 2016-02-25T14:57:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66830",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Christine Singleton",
"D Hydar",
"Dennis Mcdonagh",
"Duncan",
"Gary Hill",
"Glenda Philpott",
"Janet Glover",
"Joseph Pradel",
"MBSH MSPH",
"Markus Mikkolainen",
"Michael Lamb",
"Paul Davison",
"Paulb",
"carolyn cloke",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95529",
"kelnos"
],
"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
}
|
107182
|
Does my "bagel flour" need malt powder added?
I purchased some "super bagel flour" that lists these ingredients:
Bleached Wheat Flour Enriched
Malted Barley Flour
Potassium Bromate
Is "malted barley flour" in this "super bagel flour" in essence a substitute for the traditional malt syrup or malt powder in bagels? Or is this something else, and I should still treat this flour just like "bread flour" that is commonly called for in bagel recipes and continue adding malt syrup/powder?
Malted syrup is a form of sugar (maltose). Malted barley flour is flour that has been partially germinated (sprouted) which increases your dough's ability to convert starch into sugar (maltose), making your bagel softer and more moist. Both will increase maltose levels in your bagels: one directly and one indirectly. I would probably try reducing some of the malted syrup in your recipe but would not eliminate it (unless you have a recipe specifically for this flour which does not include malted syrup). Also, the flour you are using is high-gluten flour which should also give your bagels the traditional chewiness.
Excellent. That's my goal. I tried the epicurious Peter Reinhart bagel recipe with regular AP flour and got flat, bready results. I've acquired some "bread flour" in addition to this "bagel flour", as well as some "vital wheat gluten". I'm going to try all options in upping the amount of gluten and see if I can achieve chewy heaven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.763250
| 2020-03-31T15:22:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107182",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45071",
"jimmy0x52"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63673
|
How do I properly breadcrumb meat?
I have always breadcrumbed meat in a certain way (cordon bleus, schnitzels). But the crumbs on the food are nowhere near a standard that I would make this for guests.
The crumbs always come off, whether in the pan (while turning), or when we eat it and the whole crust just comes off as one big piece.
Method:
I use 4 bowls.
Milk
Cake flour
egg yolk
Bread crumbs
I dip the meat in the same order as above and as properly as I can. Then it’s over to the pan on medium heat and a small layer of oil.
Where I am going wrong?
@user23614 please don't answer in comments. Even if you haven't tried yet what you suggest, post it as an answer and indicate so.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/53390/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/30113/67
The problem that most people make when doing a breading is that they try to put on too thick of a coating of any given layer.
Breading sticks because wet sticks to dry, and visa-versa. As such, you need to give the item a good shake after it leaves each dry station, and a moment or so to drip (and a little bit of shaking here helps, too) after it leaves a wet station.
I've also seen recommendations to let the breaded item sit for a while before cooking -- I can only assume that this is to allow moisture to migrate into the dry breading, or for the egg to set up some before it turns to steam (which could result in that layer separating).
So, some suggestions to fix your recipe:
Don't use the milk, but also don't dry your meat.
Use whole eggs, but make sure they're well beaten (the color will go to a pale yellow). The whites act as more of a 'glue' while the yolks only serve to wet things down.
Make sure to shake the item after it's gone in the flour.
If the eggs layer is going on too thickly, thin it with a bit of water before you do the next item.
Really press the crumbs in on the final station. Shake the container to get a good distribution, then set the item in there. Spoon the crumbs from the side on top of the item 'til you can't see it, then press the crumbs into the item.
Shake the item as it comes out of the breadcrumb station, or leave it to set for a few minutes on a sheet tray or wire rack, or both.
The thing about resting or not - seems to be one of absolutely necessary vs. under no circumstances cases. Sources vary wildly. I usually wing it and usually am ok. Good answer, nevertheless!
Followed your advice. And wala, its perfect now. Thanks
I would suggest not dipping in the milk first, just flour the meat. Dip in the egg, then press hard into the breadcrumbs.
Use more than a thin layer of oil as well - around a 1 cm layer of oil would be about right.
The heat of the pan can make a difference too. Try medium high. I find that breaded / battered materials stay crunchier when cooked on higher heats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.763383
| 2015-11-20T12:38:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63673",
"authors": [
"Christy Edwards",
"Cor Bogers",
"Drew Mcdougall",
"Imran Jan",
"Janet Davey",
"Joe",
"Judy M",
"Karen Gale",
"Pork Chop",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rosemarie foran",
"rumtscho",
"vaibhav desai"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64309
|
What is the best temperature and method to cook bacon in a grill pan?
Weekend mornings is always a breakfast feast in our house. When it comes to the bacon it's a war zone in the kitchen with hot fat drops shooting everywhere, and sometimes I get hit.
The texture of the bacon is never the same from soft to crispy, probably because I play with the heat so much that its never consistent. I am only doing that because I am trying to eliminate the hot fat drops.
I use a cast iron grill pan to cook the bacon on medium heat (most of the time) on a gas stove. I do preheat the pan, and use about 3 teaspoons of olive oil per 300g of bacon.
I presume I am missing a trick here or my heat is wrong. SO: What is the best temperature and method too cook bacon in a grill pan?
Please help me bring back the peace to my kitchen. :)
A grill pan seems like a bad place to start for bacon. You'll usually end up with less-cooked bits where the fat is chewy, and there is nothing to contain the splatter. A regular pan will contain the splatter better and cook more evenly, but my preferred method is in the microwave on a plate with an inverted plate covering it. This contains all the splatter and cooks the bacon much more evenly. Also, I can't think why you would need oil to cook bacon on ANY surface. It's got plenty of fat by itself.
Agreed w/ James ... if your problem is uneven cooking, stop using a grill pan. Either bake, microwave, or cook on a flat surface.
@James That sounds like an answer to me...
@logophobe I don't consider it an answer because the question asks very specifically about the best method to use for a grill pan, but I'll add it anyway
@James That's perfectly acceptable for answers as long as you can back up the reason you're suggesting alternatives. If someone is using the wrong tool for the job, it's perfectly valid to suggest a different method. See here: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8891/is-dont-do-it-a-valid-answer?rq=1
@logophobe, I hadn't seen that meta post. Good to know. Thanks!
Cast iron is great for bacon, but not a grill pan. The bacon really needs to be floating on its own grease for nice even heating.
The best bacon is cooked slowly. Preheat the pan so it is an evenly heated cooking surface, then slide you bacon on to the hot pan. By slide, I mean move it around on the pan before you drop it so the pan gets a coat of grease before dropping the bacon and getting it stuck on the hot pan.
Let it cook at medium low heat, it will take longer but you'll get less splatter, the bacon won't burn, and it won't dry out either, you also have a larger window of opportunity to pick up the bacon while it's "just right" whatever that is for you.
I like starting bacon in a cold pan. Even if I take my time arranging the slices in the pan, they still all get done at the same time. And I've never had bacon stick to the pan when it starts out cold.
I use two methods for bacon, depending on how much I am trying to make:
For small batches, I use a cast iron pan. I place the bacon on the pan cold, and cook over medium heat, turning and swapping strips around as necessary to cook evenly. I find it easier to control sticking with the cold pan over a preheated one. I do not add oil because there is so much fat in the bacon already.
For large batches, I prefer the oven where you can cook more at once. I place the bacon in a single layer on a large pan(s), and cook at 300F for approximately 30 minutes.
I find people can be very particular in their bacon preferences for fatty, crispy, and degrees in between. This may change your cooking time substantially.
+1 for #2, low and slow in the oven is the way to go.
For the oven method, I like either a broiler pan or a wire rack on a sheet pan, so the fat drips away. (which I save for other cooking ... but it means that I don't have to deal with as much blotting to get the fat off the bacon)
I know that you are specifically asking about using a grill pan, but a grill pan seems like a bad place to start for bacon. You'll usually end up with less-cooked bits where the fat is chewy, and there is nothing to contain the splatter.
A regular pan will contain the splatter better and cook more evenly, but my preferred method is in the microwave on a plate with an inverted plate covering it. This contains all the splatter and cooks the bacon much more evenly. Also, I can't think why you would need oil to cook bacon on ANY surface. It's got plenty of fat by itself.
There exist grill pans w/ sides on them, but I'm not a fan ... haven't really found anything it's better at than other pans. (closest case is starting sausages in a little bit of water, so they cook through and then can get some grill marks on 'em ... but I don't care that much about grill marks)
Agreed, but there is flavor in the grill marks. It's not just appearance. When I make Italian sausage I start it in the cast iron pan to get a good sear on either side, then I dump it into the sauce and let it finish in the sauce at a simmer for another 35 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.763679
| 2015-12-11T13:58:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64309",
"authors": [
"Anthony Doornbos",
"BiggyB",
"Dan C",
"Escoce",
"Gary Liske",
"Hilbilly Fredo",
"James",
"Joe",
"Khairin Iskandar",
"Mariana Vernescu",
"Patricia Estelle",
"William Romantic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67051
|
What is the correct procedure for cooling and reheating leftovers?
After a night's meal I have the tendency to always make more than enough food. Most of the time there are 2 – 3 portions of leftovers after everyone’s had enough to eat. I always throw them away, being scared of them going bad in 12 hours before eating for lunch the next day.
Being paranoid about getting food poisoning with leftovers, I just had to ask:
What is the correct procedure for cooling and reheating leftovers?
From a food safety perspective, the most important thing is that you get your leftovers cooled as quickly as possible, so that they don't spend too long in the temperature "danger zone". This can be tricky, because you essentially have to move from cooking temperatures to refrigerated temperatures within two hours (generally less because the time is cumulative, and includes time that the ingredients spent in the danger zone before you cooked them).
Here's what I do at home:
Separate into smaller portions. For me, this usually means individual servings, but you can package 2-3 servings together; the point is to avoid having a single large mass of food. I do this for a couple of reasons. First, it makes reheating convenient; rather than heating up more portions than you're going to be eating, or scooping out a single portion for separate reheating (dirtying some extra dishware in the process) you can simply grab as many portions as desired and go. Second, by separating the portions you are increasing their surface area to volume ratio, and therefore how quickly they will cool (another reason I like individual servings is that it maximizes this effect). This is a basic trick from my restaurant days; experienced professional cooks will know that to cool a large batch of soup safely, you need to either get the whole thing into an ice bath, or break it down into smaller portions.(A thrifty tip here: you can use dedicated plastic or Pyrex food storage containers, but commercial containers are cheap and effective as well. There are all kinds of "deli" and "disposable" containers intended for food service that are microwave-safe and which can be safely cleaned in the dishwasher. You'll often have to buy them in bulk, but per piece they're very inexpensive, they tend to stack very well, and if you're lucky you can find a decent local takeaway or delivery place that uses them instead of styrofoam. Save whatever you get, wash them, and reuse. It's possible to ruin these with excessive heat, but they're so cheap that it's not too much of a loss.)
Allow to cool on the counter, uncovered, for 10-20 minutes. The goal here is simply to let steam escape; water carries a lot of thermal energy with it (which is why you can easily burn yourself over a pot of boiling water) and letting it get away will cool your food rapidly. The portions don't need to cool completely at this point; if they're warm but no longer actively steaming, that's fine.
Put the portions in the refrigerator. As @Jefromi notes in comments, there's no real risk from putting hot/warm food into the fridge, and a lower external temperature will help your portions cool quickly and safely. Where possible, it's ideal to leave these uncovered and spread out into a single layer so that they will cool quickly. Quite honestly, this isn't always practical, so if you need to cover and stack the portions due to space constraints, cool them a little longer on the counter before putting them into the fridge.
Freeze the portions if you'll be storing them for more than a couple of days. Cooked dishes will generally keep safely in the fridge for 3-4 days; if you need to keep them beyond that, the freezer is your friend. This doesn't work well for everything, but hearty foods like pastas will often freeze reasonably well.
Reheat thoroughly in the microwave. For all that serious cooks might discount the microwave, it's a very effective and efficient reheating device. (Especially if you follow my advice about using microwave-safe plastic containers; if you use something like Pyrex that's oven-safe, you could certainly use that too.) Make sure you heat everything so that it's evenly hot; this may mean stirring a couple of times.
Overall, it's most definitely possible to safely store leftovers, so long as you cool them quickly and reheat them thoroughly. Not only that, but I heartily endorse the practice. Leftovers can be practical, tasty, and a serious time saver. There's no reason to be paranoid about them if you embrace a few simple rules.
I wonder if there's a slightly better summary than "individual portions." As far as safety and correct procedure goes, "separate into smaller portions if necessary" is more my take; a few portions worth is plenty small to let it cool fast enough. Whether it's more convenient to have 3 individual portions or all three together is much more debatable. The individual ones take up more fridge space, and you're dirtying an extra container per portion instead of a plate per reheated meal, so different people can reasonably make different choices.
@Jefromi: Fair point, so I made a couple minor updates. Personally, I'd still advocate for individual servings because I see it as the most flexible solution (and it fits how I'm typically reheating them) but of course there's room for flexibility. I don't think you'd want to package more than about 4 servings together or you start to lose the benefits of separation.
If you are going to have them for lunch tomorrow, usually putting the dish in the fridge overnight. Depending on the dish, cover with cling film/tin foil or place in a sealed container (e.g. Tupperware).
Reheating depends on the dish whether you microwave, oven or stove top your meal all you have to do is make sure the whole lot is piping hot.
If you are having leftovers later in the week, freeze them immediately. Be careful in cases where you are taking something from the freezer to put in a preheated oven - not for the food's sake but for the container. A pyrex (glass) casserole dish can be frozen and oven baked but it is not advised that you bake immediately from the freezer, allow the container to warm up to room temperature first.
Edit: In light of new information (to me at least) this answer has been updated, thank you Jefromi.
You might want to look at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34670/1672 (leaving things out too long is a safety issue, so "until it is cool" may be a bad idea) and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/29857/1672 (putting things in the fridge hot is fine).
In case it wasn't clear: it's fine to let things cool some, of course, but a broad "until it is cool" may be too long in a lot of cases.
You got some excellent answers from others. Some additional comments:
I like to use ziplock bags, because that way I know it's a santiary container from the start. I also manipulate excess air out them, that quickens cooling.
If you will have long-term leftovers destined for the freezer, consider investing in a vacuum bag sealer.
Continue on the leftover journey. Many dishes taste better on round 2. Leftovers are my favorite food group.
No need to be paranoid, UNLESS, someone in your house immunosuppressed. My opinion is immunosuppressed people should not consumer leftovers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.764084
| 2016-03-03T06:34:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67051",
"authors": [
"Anne maria Huntington",
"Betty Norman",
"Bobby Walker",
"Cascabel",
"Diana Shellenberger",
"Don Walker",
"Emma Benham",
"Julie Webster",
"Lorraine Smith",
"Neil Holland",
"Nev Coates",
"PAUL CURRIE",
"Sally",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"suzette corette"
],
"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
}
|
86553
|
Using half-eaten bones to make stock -- sanitary?
Is it safe use half-eaten bones from a family dinner meal to make stock? Or is this unsanitary, and it's better to just obtain bones through filleting and deboning while raw or after slow or pressure cooking?
Do you mean the bohes have actually been gnawed on (like ribs or chicken drumsticks), or just the meat carved off them? The latter is common, even ideal (better than raw for many purposes).
If you have a pressure cooker, use it for making the stock. It'll destroy more things (bacteria & toxins) than heat alone.
Asking for clarification or providing related information is fine, but if you want to speculate as to the answer, please write an answer. We've already deleted multiple unsupported half-answers in comments here.
If the bones were in someone's mouth the human saliva has over 600 beacteria that create the enzymes needed to start breaking down food. You don't want that.
It's not sanitary, in the sense of following the health rules. Especially since it's unlikely that you're following the two-hour guidelines: the gnawed bones have been in the danger zone enough to potentially pick up an enterobacter that produced heat-stable toxins. Boiling will not fix that. And having been in somebody's mouth increases the chance that such bacteria is one that infects humans.
Consider it this way: even if you're not squicked out by the basic concept, how would you feel if the bones had been left out on the plate for a day? A week?
As for whether it's safe, the short answer is "no".
The odds it being actually dangerous are pretty low. The food safety rules are designed to keep the most at-risk people safe: small children, people with compromised immune systems, etc. Given how many other opportunities there are for food-borne infections to be picked up, I'd consider something that I picked up and simmered for many hours to be about as free from pathogens as anything I got out of the dirt, i.e. vegetables, which we often eat raw.
So I'll admit to having done it, but I wouldn't feed it to anybody except myself.
I've done it myself, too (for personal consumption) ... but more often, I'll cook a chicken w/ bones in, but take it off the bones when serving it up, and reserving those for stock (so I'm not using utensils that have been in my mouth, or gnawing on the bones).
Your write, "well the odds of that are pretty low"...do you mean the odds of it being safe or the odds of it being unsafe...your later comments make it appears as if you mean the odds of it being unsafe are pretty low. I would still like to know, more specifically, what kinds of pathogens might be transmitted to gnawed on bones, which would not be rendered safe in the re-cooking process. Let's say we were within the limits of the danger zone.
Thank you; I've clarified my answer. Yes, I consider it wildly unlikely that a set of well-boiled bones could possibly transmit anything. I just can't rule it out.
The problems with the gnawed-on-ness are the same as if they'd handled ingredients with unwashed hands. There are heat-stable toxins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-stable_enterotoxin) produced by E. coli. The time limits are set for the bugs that naturally inhabit the food and the air; your hands can potentially transfer more, faster.
Over time, questions and answers here often accumulate thousands or tends of thousands of views, sometimes even hundreds of thousands. So things that are wildly unlikely are still probably going to happen to some readers, and I would be reluctant to conflate "low odds of it being actually dangerous" with "safe".
The difficulty comes, I'd say, when the odds become so low that it would be practically impossible to trace an actual instance of a negative health outcome to a poor practice. Things go wrong even in kitchens with perfect procedures. The guidelines are only to reduce the odds below some tolerable level. When "wildly unlikely" things are significantly below that level, and impossible to distinguish from the other wildly unlikely things that happen in kitchens... as I said, it's definitely not sanitary, and I wouldn't say "safe", but vocabulary itself begins to fail.
My main suggestion is just to avoid saying "safe" when you're actually saying "low risk but high enough that it violates food safety guidelines" - I would call that "unsafe". It's almost always impossible to trace, but we still know some good practices to achieve tolerable risk by somewhat arbitrary standards (from a food safety agency, generally), and I'm pretty sure this idea is not okay by those standards.
I've edited it to emphasize that.
@Joshua Engel covers the safety and sanitary aspect very well.
But if you are keen to give it a go, perhaps you can roast the bone remains first...
Boiling won't kill all the germs, neither will roasting - but it will kill more than boiling.
If you have good heat in the oven (180 - 200C) for a good 30 minutes or so (longer if you turn the heat down so they don't burn), they will probably develop a better taste when boiled for stock afterwards.
Throw in some veges for the last 20 minutes, and also add them to your stock
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.764676
| 2017-12-19T17:29:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86553",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Joshua Engel",
"Stephen Inoue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22788
|
How can I fortify homemade soy milk?
Commercial soy milk is fortified with lots of different vitamins. Is it possible to add these vitamins to homemade soy milk? If so how would you do it?
I'm not sure if we absorb the vitamins or if they are important or whatever, but just curious about how this would be done in a home kitchen.
Edit:
Found some links, neither of which gives a great answer considering both only really cover calcium, and state its a matter of mixing in a powder and shaking before drinking to keep dissolved:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/362920-how-to-fortify-homemade-soy-milk/
http://www.makesoyamilk.com/soya-milk-benefits/should-you-fortify-your-soy-milk
But commercial soymilk can include a ton of others (A, C, D, E, K, B6, Iron, Riboflavin, Folate, Phosphorous, Magnesium, Zinc, Selenium...). Wondering if it's also just a matter of mixing in a powder (like ground up multivitamins) and keeping suspending by shaking or the edition of additives like emulsifiers.
You won't be adding any ascorbic acid or such -would curdle the milk- but an oil based vitamin such as found inside a vitamin E gel-cap would mix in fine. Would only be as absorbable or bio-available as the original vitamin product.
The idea of fortifying soya comes from the notion that we get a large amount of our nutrients from cows milk and without it, must substitute. The answer in general as to 'how important' is to eat a wide variety of whole foods instead of relying on fortified foods.
Thanks. I'm curious about how all those vitamins get added into the beverage and I haven't found many resources on the web about this. I realize that the idea may be flawed from the 'how important' standpoint, but that's why I was trying to clarify the question and make it clear that I'm not asking about how important it is. I know it's better to get vitamins from whole foods, not from pills, powders, fortified foods, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.765092
| 2012-04-04T17:14:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22788",
"authors": [
"Michelle Corbett",
"Raja Panda",
"Robert Smith",
"Squiddy",
"bd2357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"paul"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23392
|
What are some vegan thickeners for beverages?
I need a vegan thickener that dissolves well and doesn't have any flavor. I tried tapioca flour the other day and it didn't dissolve very well and left a powdery mouthfeel. Cornstach is not bad. Arrowroot seems to work like cornstarch but it seems like you need more arrowroot to do the same job as cornstarch.
I'm specifically looking for answers involving personal experience with hot and cold beverages - not a list of thickeners I can find online. Hot chocolate and chai are two drinks that I've been doing with non-dairy milk but I would like a creamier, thicker mouthfeel like you'd get from whole milk or cream.
I'm aware of xanthan gum, agar agar and carrageenan, but they're all relatively expensive so I have not personally tried any of them. Personal experience with those would be cool. I really like this Bolthouse Farms cold chai protein drink, which is vegan and lists carrageenan as an ingredient, so I was thinking about trying to get some of that. Also guar gum? Cellulose gum?
Are you sure that you want a thickener? Yes, the texture is thicker, but what makes dairy cream taste so creamy is the fat, the viscosity has much less influence.
Yes, the effect I'm looking for can be achieved without much fat, as in the Bolthouse Farms product which is quite low in fat (3.5g per 8oz, much lower that dairy cream). Also I looked at McDonald's shakes ingredients and they have a lot of guar gum as well as carrageenan of cellulose gum. In smoothies, bananas can give the effect, but they wouldn't work for this application because they have flavor. On the other hand peanut butter, which is fatty, contributes more oiliness than smooth thickness like a shake. However emulsifier and stabilizers may be used instead or in additon to thickeners.
Xanthan gum may be more expensive than you like, but consider that you so VERY LITTLE of it that it will last a long, long time. There's a reason why it's used in industrial production so much, I think -- it's very cost effective.
Yes, you will use only a little of it - but it won't give you a creamy mouthfeel. Xanthan gum produces a cohesive, gooey texture, similar to gluten.
If you are talking about the Bolthouse Farms Vanilla Chai Tea, the problem you are running into is that its actually a blend of a plain chai tea and a lightly vanilla flavored soy protein blend. I have tried a few times myself to duplicate it and i came up with this...
I would make a good hot chai and mix it with vanilla soy protein powder and whisk it smooth. It was cheapest, tasted closest and i could adjust protein levels upwards without making it chalky. (also gave the desired mouthfeel you were describing)
Other than that:
Testing Vegan Thickeners(Pumpkin pie)
Arrowroot
This was my choice in the end. Arrowroot created the texture closest to a traditional pumpkin pie and had no discernible aftertaste or other negative effects. It's more expensive than egg replacer if you buy it with the other prepackaged bottles of spices, but go somewhere that has a bulk spice area, and it is totally cheap. If you like having the specially labeled 'Arrowroot' bottle (which I do) you can also buy the pricey bottle the first time and then just refill it from the bulk section in the future.
'Natural Desserts' Unflavored Jel
Wins 'Most custardy', with a crust around the edges, but not firm enough to remain intact when served. Still yummy and the smoothest choice. It would be better for a pumpkin pudding than pie. This is also the least common, and most expensive option. So it is not recommended, but I thought I'd still mention it as it was part of the process.
Egg Replacer
I've had some bad egg replacer baking experiences but this was not one of them! The texture was somewhere in between the arrowroot and Jel, so it could hold it's shape when served, but just barely. I think using any more than 2 eggs worth would leave an egg-replacey taste. Not sure how else to describe it, but if you've baked with it, you may know what I mean.
Best Binders and thickeners in a raw diet
Agar Agar
A gelatinous substance derived from red algae and is used in desserts throughout Asia.It can be used as a thickener in soups jellies and ice cream.
Coconut Oil
Made from cold pressed coconut meat.It is a raw naturally saturated fat containing medium chain fatty acids which the body can easily metabolize.
It is used often in desserts but also as a skin moisturizer.
Cacao butter
Replaces butter in sweets and is also used in white chocolate desserts.
Dates
Great for use as a binding agent such as Christmas pudding in place of eggs.Blended with water they will both bind and sweeten.
Soy lecithin
Will act as a binder in sweets and cakes.
Flax seeds
Are rich in Omega 3 so are a good alternative to fish and can be used in soups and dressings as a thickener, or as a binder in cakes and burgers.
edited to include vegan binding agents
Hot Chocolate is lovely Mexican style: thickened with fine corn meal -masa harina. Velvety texture without the fat
Masa is also easy to stir in as it doesn't clump as badly as flour. Thickens below the boiling point.
I am currently using Psyllium powder to thicken vegan milkshakes. It does not substitute for the fat in dairy milk and milk based ice cream. However, it does thicken the shakes even though there still remains an icy less thick milkshake than a dairy milkshake. I would recommend you trying it out as it doesn't affect the flavor as far as I can tell. 1 teaspoon per 16oz milkshake is recommended to start.
This will need to be tested, but what about ground chia seeds? If you put whole chia in water (or juice/smoothie) the seed coats plump up and are a tad gelatinous. They do not alter the flavor of drinks in my opinion.
Thanks for the advice. I eat chia often mixed into drinks, but they don't completely dissolve into a smooth consistency. I'm looking for something smoother. I'm experimenting with guar gum now.
I like using Irish moss (the plant that carrageenan is made from) to thicken cold beverages. It is a bit expensive to buy, but you need very little, so the cost per use is quite low. To use it, you soak a piece of the plant in water overnight, then puree it in a blender until it's as smooth as you can get it. Strain out any bits that are left, and the liquid (which will become a gel as it sits) is your thickener. The liquid/gel is used as is. Just blend it into a liquid to thicken it, no heating required.
I like using this as a thickener for beverages because the mouthfeel is "creamy", so when used in homemade nut/rice/soy milks, it just makes them feel richer without adding any off flavors or odd textures.
Further information can be found here.
This is actually a very common ingredient in homebrewing beer, used as a clarifying agent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.765394
| 2012-04-27T01:23:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23392",
"authors": [
"BruceWayne",
"Cody Gray",
"JesseW",
"Linda",
"Morgen",
"Shaz",
"Slightly Higher Average User",
"happy2btxn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69388",
"nostockings",
"paracetamol",
"paul",
"rumtscho",
"user52936"
],
"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
}
|
86015
|
Shan Tofu not jelly-like but rather crumbly
I tried making Shan tofu. Unfortunately, my version does not have the slight jelly-like consistency and texture that Shan tofu in Myanmar had. It is firm, but a bit on the crumbly side.
This was my 3rd attempt, but it finally came up respectable. The first two attempts used locally-sourced "chickpea flour". It ended up tasting like unflavored humus. This time I used "besan flour" and the results were more along the lines I was expecting.
I used the recipe from http://www.marystestkitchen.com/burmese-tofu-the-easy-vegan-soy-free-tofu/. I compared this to other recipes, and there is not much difference.
Can you suggest things to try to make it more jelly-like?
If it is crumbly you are probably using not only a little too much flour, but also have a problem with hard water, which means lots of calcium dissolved in the water. One way I remove calcium is to boil the water for about 5 minutes, let it cool down for an hour and then pass through a coffee filter. Otherwise try cooking with a non-fortified artesian spring water.
I will probably get a lot of hate for the following recommendation, but in extreme cases, I sometimes use distilled water in cooking. It probably isn’t healthy to drink pure every day, but it’s really magic when you are making sauces or pressure cooking vegetables.
You could also add agar agar to gel it up.
I'll give these suggestions a try. We have a water softener in the house, so that should not be a problem. However, I can give distilled water a try as well, just in case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.765956
| 2017-11-30T10:50:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86015",
"authors": [
"Krystian Cybulski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63307"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116253
|
What is this Myanmar legume flour?
What is this Myanmar legume flour? It reminded me of Chickpea flour in behavior but was clearly different, it might be Pigeon Pea flour. What is it actually?
Welcome to SA! It might also help if you can show a picture of the flour, or describe why/how you got it.
Hello @FuzzyChef I finished all that flour ; I don't recognize how I got it matters to an answerer.
I don't know if this is what you've got, but one famous Myanmar dish is "tofu" made from chickpea flour. If this flour looks like chickpea flour, it's a good bet that's what it is.
@puertoportopoio Because knowing how you got it might rule some possibilities out or help give someone an idea of how to research the topic.
@dbmag9 For me, it feels like a waste of time.
@puertoportopoio You really wouldn't enjoy the information they ask you to give when you want something identified over at SciFi, then https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9335/how-to-ask-a-good-story-id-question I hope you get what you're looking for.
Here it's a matter of someone who can read Burmese, as we all don't hopefully someone here can or can ask a relative.
This appears to be some kind of chickpea flour. According to Google Translate, the Burmese word for chickpea is ကုလားပဲ, which matches the label. Here is a similar product, “roasted chickpea flour”, for label comparison for sale:
Thanks, what you say feels true for me also because in the Burmese cuisine, it is common to roast and fry legumes, more than in any cuisine I have ever known. Thanks,
A similar flour is called sattu or saatu in South Asia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.766109
| 2021-06-29T15:02:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116253",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"The Photon",
"Wodin Tiw",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94513",
"puertoportopoio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65744
|
Reducing sweetness of packaged cookie mix
I have a Betty Crocker cookie mix and I find it too sweet. Is there a way to adapt it and make it less sweet?
I'm not an experienced baker so I don't know if simply adding more flour will work.
What flavor of mix is it? It's possible that you might be able to take some of my suggestions for adding lime flavor to a cake to counter the sweet w/ tartness. (even the curd suggestion -- make the cookies into a sandwich w/ a reduced sugar lemon or lime curd in between) ... but that might not work for all cookie flavors.
It's chocolate chip.
Unfortunately, the classic citrus pairing w/ chocolate is orange ... which is pretty sweet on its own. You might be able to make a filling (to sandwich them) or coating made from bitter-sweet chocolate to help temper the sweetness.
Balancing the sweetness with something that adds textural or flavor depth can mitigate the cloying, one-note sweet sensation.
Try adding ground nuts - not too much, otherwise you will mess with the recipe chemistry.
Try sour (or perceived sour) flavorings like citrus zest or mahlep. Amchur or Anardana could work too, given they are solid sour flavorings, have not tested. Sodium acetate, the vinegar flavour used for potato crisps, would probably too... vinegary. Careful with sour liquids, there is probably baking soda in the mix that you might prematurely activate that way ;)
Try the classic baking spices (cardamom, nutmeg/mace, allspice, anise; cloves and cinnamon could work but could also make it appear even more sweet).
Try hot spices - ginger or even (little!) chili pepper or black pepper.
Gingerbread, for example, can be rather sweet and uses both baking (all of the above ;) and hot spices - ginger and not infrequently black/white pepper.
Try adding unsweetened chocolate.
Probably there is no such way, at least not one that's worthwhile.
First, there is the problem that designing a recipe well is a skill which very few people have. Experienced bakers can progress to it, but inexperienced ones can make 100 trials but won't understand what went wrong with any of them. Unless you're in it for the fun of it, it's easier to find another recipe which works for you (you might have to bake through 4-5 failures to find a good one) than to redesign an existing one (might have to bake through 25-30 failures to make a good one).
Second, you're not starting from a recipe, but from a mix. With standard ingredients, you know what went in, and can change the ratio easily. With a mix, you have no idea how it works and how changing something will tip the balance. A simple addition of one more ingredient (e.g. flour) will certainly not cut it. If you add enough to make a change in sweetness, you won't like the change in texture, which, for flour, will be rock-hard cookies.
And this brings us to the third problem. Sugar is not a sweetener in cookies. It is a bulk ingredient which gives them a cookielike texture, and the sweetness is a side effect. If you combine the same ingredients but with less sugar, you'll end up with tiny cakes instead of cookies.
Proposed course of action: forget these cookies. You don't like the taste, and you can't keep the texture while changing the taste. Baking cookies from scratch is not much harder than baking from mix. Go to a good recipe site, find a well-reviewed recipe for the type of cookies you prefer, and bake away!
Btw, food additives that directly reduce perceived sweetness do exist (lactisole etc.), but they don't seem to be available to the general public yet...
I've deleted everything here that ended up posted in a separate answer.
I dunno,..rackandboneman had some pretty good suggestions that I (an experienced baker) would consider trying if I already owned the mix and really had nothing to lose. I agree that the idea of just adding flour is a bad one, though!
@KristinaLopez my gut feeling is that rackandboneman's suggestions won't be good enough to rescue an oversweet cookie (except for the acid, which helps, but I don't know if it will make a good cookie), but different people react differently to such things. I stand by my own answer - if the other one works for the OP or other people willing to try it, I'm glad for them. That's exactly why "many answers to a question" is one of the positive features of StackExchange.
Yeah, @rumtscho, probably the final product wouldn't be great but I'd throw something like nuts or dark chocolate at the mix because I'm cheap and hate waste. lol!
"Thinking out loud" here. Wonder what a tablespoon or two of almond flour might do? I always sprinkle the top of brownie batter very lightly with coarse ground salt. The whisper of salt with the chocolate is really delicious. I wouldn't be afraid to add 1/8 tsp cayenne pepper to the batter while mixing either.
I have a Ghiardelli brownie mix I found too sweet. I removed 1/4c of the mix and replaced it with 1/4c cocoa powder. I also replaced the called for 1/3c of water with the same amt of coffee. Turned out very good for me!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.766536
| 2016-01-23T17:10:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65744",
"authors": [
"Beverly Bower",
"Cascabel",
"Chinelo",
"Clementine Grace Dengler",
"Douglas Prokipchuk",
"Gayle",
"Helen Mullison",
"James Freeman",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Linda Negendank",
"Sandra B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66260
|
Refreeze ground hamburger as hamburgers after thawing?
Can I thaw ground hamburger, make hamburger patties, and then refreeze them? I am thawing then on the counter in their original packaging. It is from a half cow that I bought.
For the food safety aspect: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/how-dangerous-is-it-to-refreeze-meat-that-has-been-thawed?rq=1
As a note, you should avoid defrosting meat on the counter. It will take longer but it is much safer to do it in the fridge or under cold running water.
Never re-freeze raw meat. I have run 2 commercial food establishments and had to be qualified in food safety so this is what I know...
The freezing process arrests any of the bacteria in the meat from causing putrefaction but as soon as the meat defrosts these bacteria start their work again at an accelerated rate, re-freezing will cause a repeat action and food poisoning will ensue. And ground or minced meat usually has a higher bacteria level due to the extra handling, increased actual surface area due to many smaller bits and the fact that those tiny pieces warm quicker.
If you want to freeze individual hamburgers, make them up as soon as you get the mince and freeze what you don't want to use straight away.
I hope this helps
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.766954
| 2016-02-06T18:35:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66260",
"authors": [
"Barry Morris",
"Caitlin Visser KahFauna",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"John Joe Mack",
"Karen Adams",
"Peter Condon",
"Poornimaa Nagesswaren",
"Vera Barnes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"nelli tepponen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67024
|
Pomegranate juice ceviche
I want to make a ceviche and although the 'traditional' acids are lemon and lime, I have a desire to use pomegranate juice but I'm concerned that the pH is too low to denature the proteins in the fish. Does anyone know if pomegranate juice just isn't acidic enough or should I just marinade for longer? I haven't been able to find any recipes using it, is this a sign?
Pomegranate pH 2.93 - 3.20
Lime pH 2.00 - 2.80
Lemon Juice pH 2.00 - 2.60
pH Source
Could you use a combination of pomegranate juice and lemon juice?
A recipe on the POM web site uses grapefruit juice with pomegranate juice.
A quick search reveals that most (all) ceviches that use pomegranate juice also use another acid (lemon, lime, grapefruit).
If it were me, I'd try using only pomegranate juice only on a small batch of fish a check how it goes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.767113
| 2016-03-02T13:06:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67024",
"authors": [
"Annette Croudson",
"Bill Pipe",
"Hamish Aitkenhead",
"Oznur Tegin Eroglu",
"Yvonne Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160736"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87098
|
Reheating a cooked meat pie
What is the best way to reheat a meat pie without causing the pastry to burn and go hard?
Wrapping in foil means it won't cook properly. Is it best to put inside a glass pie dish with a lid on?
Welcome to the site @David. Your question is not clear, do you want to reheat a cooked meat pie, or cook it from raw? You're either reheating it or cooking it, which is it?
What do you mean about the foil? A tinfoil hat would slow down the reheating of the bits most likely to burn while not steaming it (unlike the closed dish)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.767216
| 2018-01-15T14:55:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87098",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92722
|
Should vacuum sealed food be exposed to air when thawing?
Must food packaged and vacuum sealed be exposed to air while thawing?
I seal chicken or fish in a vacuum bag. I freeze the same. I transfer to the refrigerator to thaw with the expectation of cooking sous vide. Should I cut the vacuum bag while thawing and then reseal after thawed?
My fish monger's policy always is to thaw so the product is exposed to air, saying that salmonella grows only in a vacuum.
Please show a citation that salmonella grows only in a vacuum.
You can actually sous vide frozen food in the vacuum sealed bag, if you wish. If that is your intended cooking method, no thawing is required.
@paparazzo the OP does not need to show a citation. They don't know if it is true or not, they are asking us. We are the ones who have to find evidence for or against it.
@rumtscho We are requested. We are not required to find anything.
Members of the Genus Salmonella are facultative anaerobes. That means they'll grow in both air and in what you bag sealer calls a vacuum.*
I'd just leave the bag sealed, unless you want to check it for smell before cooking. That could be informative.
*Not putting down your bag sealer. They just don't pull a lot of vacuum. You've probably got half a psi or more in the bag when its done, plus air diffuses into even 5mil freezer bags over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.767292
| 2018-10-07T21:16:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92722",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57923
|
How should I prepare the coffee to be used in my tiramisu?
I'm making tiramisu. Coffee is a large component of the recipe, so I imagine that the choice and preparation of the coffee used will have a big impact on the final taste.
Or will it? I'm not a coffee expert; perhaps all the sugar and other ingredients will overwhelm it to the degree that you can't taste the difference. If that's so, using fancy coffee would just be a waste.
Will there be a noticeable taste difference if I just use instant coffee to soak the ladyfingers in, or is it worth using something of higher quality? If the latter, how should I prepare the coffee that is to be used?
This does depend substantially on your standards: how sensitive are you to subtle flavors? It also depends on the exact recipe: how much coffee liqueur, how much cocoa powder, and so on.
The difference between instant and real espresso is pretty large, enough that I'd expect the nice flavor notes of real espresso to come through. And you'll certainly notice the difference between coffee and the concentrated flavor of espresso. But noticing details of those flavors, with everything else going on in tiramisu, will probably be tough. The coffee liqueur especially is going to make it hard to notice details; you'll essentially be tasting the combination of its coffee flavor and your espresso as a single thing.
So my very rough answer would be that it's definitely worth using real espresso if you can, but it's most likely not worth obsessing too much over the quality, and definitely not worth obsessing about the exact method of preparation. Keep in mind that tiramisu calls specifically for espresso, not just coffee. Strongly-brewed coffee, like from a moka pot, will work well too. But if all you have is a regular coffee maker, you're probably better off using instant espresso powder, or running out to buy some espresso at a coffee shop.
Use a med-roast espresso blend and brew it using a Moka pot (stovetop espresso maker).
You're going to buy expensive ingredients for this dessert. Don't skimp on the coffee, it is by far the most aggressive flavor in the dish.
I make Tiramisu regularly as it’s a favorite with my friends and family. I use my Breville espresso machine and make strong espresso. I like plenty for dipping the ladyfingers so I make 2-3 cups. I also add coffee liqueur (Kamora) and a touch of Amaretto to the coffee mixture.
A Moka pot works well; that's what I'd do by choice. Moka pots shouldn't be tamped like espresso machines, but do make sure the basket is full (e.g. lightly smoothed down with the back of a teaspoon and topped up)
An Aeropress should be good too, though I haven't used mine to make tiramisu.
Another option when making bulk quantities is simply to brew very strong coffee fairly briefly in a jug and strain it. I did this for about 40 portions which turned out very well (though I can only take credit for the coffee, which was all the chef trusted me with). In that case I used a supermarket own "Italian blend", so quite a dark roast. If you use a cafetière (French press) you can push the plunger down very slowly and not all the way. If you use a filter cone, sieve out the worst of the grounds first or it will take forever to go through.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.767428
| 2015-05-31T13:59:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57923",
"authors": [
"Bac 2025",
"Carol Farrer",
"Elaine Newman",
"Kelly Derrick",
"Margo Mullineux",
"Matthew Willis",
"Megan Wethy",
"Michelle Nellist",
"Rebecca Roades",
"Steve Merrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138872",
"robmcanicyahoocouk"
],
"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
}
|
41824
|
My seitan is horrible
I have no trouble preparing the seitan dough, or at least, that is what troubles me the least and can be fixed easily. However, I can't get the texture right. I don't use yeast, just vital wheat gluten and flavor adders.
First I tried with the simmering method. I put a broth to a boil and dropped in small loafs of seitan. As they cooked, they grew bigger and bigger, as they absorbed water. The loafs grew a ridiculous amount, and I was consequently left with loafs made of water and seitan, in that order.
I thought maybe water was the problem, so I tried instead of simmering it, baking it; like some online recipes indicate. I made a seitan tube and wrapped it (rather mediocrely) in aluminium foil and put in the oven. I had preheated the oven to 190 °C. The recipe I used instructed to bake the seitan for 90 minutes, and so I tried. However, about 60 minutes into the cooking, my loaf exploded in the oven (the wrap wasn't strong enough, I recon, although it was a few layers thick). To my surprise, the seitan already had a thick hard crust, and it was quite inedible to my taste.
What recommendations do you have for me? Is there something I have done wrong in each of my attempts? (Is blaming the great growth of my seitan on water wrong, on the first method I tried?) And finally, I am left to wonder: is it really necessary to precook seitan? (Why?)
Thanks a lot chefs! I know practice makes perfect but I'd rather quit wasting ingredients until my ways are right.
Yesterday I read some more recipes and I think today I'm going to try drastically reducing the baking time. I'm going to try out 25 minutes, I hope it works!
Seitan does tend to expand a lot if you cook it in a way that prevents the water from escaping (simmering or baking wrapped). I've had good luck baking, but the texture is a lot different than simmering. You might try simmering, draining, and then either braising or pan-searing it to cook off some of the extra water.
Well it's weird that I found out about baking wrapped because when I tried without wrapping it grew a lot more :-/. Could it be perhaps that there is something wrong with my vital wheat gluten?
It usually expands a lot when I wrap it, but to the point of the wrap being very taught. It's never exploded through the wrap. Maybe leave a little more slack?
Is it possible that you're not kneading it enough? I've never tried making seitan, but I use gluten to make a chinese dish called kau fu, and ironically I want that to expand as much as possible and you need to knead it quite a bit to develop the gluten to "hold" together
Hm that's curious. I've never thought about that. I just made a cook a few days ago, and didn't knead it a lot, but I found that keeping it under a boil (like is always stressed in recipes) did the trick; my seitan didn't grow that large. The flavor problem, however, I do not yet consider solved. Perhaps I just don't like gluten's flavor much.
look here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22619/what-method-for-advance-prep-of-seitan-prevents-deterioration-of-texture-and-pre/22969#22969
Don't fully boil it (aim at a simmer), and try leaving it in the refrigerator over night.
Seitan texture troubleshooting
Spongy when simmered
The classic Seitan problem- make a dough and boil it, anyone can do that right? Not with Seitan- either you get it just right or it's inedible. Here's two tricks.
use a container
The surefire way to avoid watery Seitan is to constrain it in some way- commonly used methods are aluminum foil, a freezable/cookable plastic bag, or a cheesecloth.
The cheesecloth is the most wholesome, but is finicky to clean. The foil is cheap and can be tossed, but you're sure to be extracting some aluminum and drawing it into your Seitan, especially if there is lime or vinegar in your broth. The cookable plastic bag is great because you can use a small amount of broth in the sealed baggie, so you won't have any broth waste- but you are also sure to have small amounts of plastic in your Seitan (no worse than store-bought).
I'm currently trying to find a good easy-to-clean cookable sealing reusable container to replace the baggie- stainless steel or tough glass. Maybe a jam jar- or event a small pan.
really, really, really, soft simmer
I was able to improve my Seitan with this, but it didn't get perfect- I'll update if it will. The idea is to boil your water, and then turn the heat down and wait until it just barely simmers. There should be no surface disturbance at all, and just the tiniest of bubbles. The bubbles you see in your water are going to poke holes their own size into your Seitan, so really turn the heat down. You also have to keep it almost at the boiling point though, or your Seitan won't cook properly. I'll see if I can post detailed surefire instructions once I've got the hang of it, these are the best known to me so far. I know others have done it.
Chill before cooking
This is as of yet untested, but I will update once I've tried this. Some recipes call for placing the Seitan in an ice bath for ten minutes before cooking. I have no idea what this does, I would guess something chemical about the gluten "development". The ice bath seemed like a lot of effort, so I just put my dough in the freezer. Results upcoming.
Roll while kneading
Kneading has the most impact on the Seitan texture. One technique to get a more fibry and interesting texture is to stretch out the seitan on one side, and roll it up. After rolling it will easily form right back into a ball, so you can use your kneading time to also texturize your seitan. When you're done, take the little part you didn't knead much and wrap it around your rolled ball. This aligns your gluten fibers in one direction. Will post back with results.
Age it
Seitan is always better the next day- this one is so true, even spongy seitan can become somewhat edible if you press the water out and let it sit there for 24 hours and then fry it. So once you've got some technique that's reliable, make your Seitan weekly and keep it chilled. Then eat cold, stew, or, especially, fry.
Compress before cooking
For unwrapped Seitan, add a step of compressing the dough after needing it- take some time to just press down on it with your hands and massage it into the shape you want, without turning it or changing the shape a lot as you would with kneading.
Dry when baked
Baking Seitan sounds too good to be true, right? No broth, no bubbles. Well, no moistness either- an overcooked Seitan O' Greatness tastes like rubber tires sprinkled with oregano. Yum.
The problem with not boiling boils down to not enough fluids. Kneading the dough needs about 1 cup of water for 2 cups of vital wheat gluten so you can handle it, but after that, the dough gets plenty more moistness from simmering or steaming. When baking, this doesn't happen- so you get a much dryer Seitan.
Soak, then bake
The most straight forward solution is to add an extra step of soaking your finished dough after you've let it sit there- try 10 minutes. This could be combined with the ice bath method above- just add a couple of ice cubes.
Reduce temperature
A lot of recipes call for 60 to 90 minutes at 350°F (180°C), and I never got that to work. 250°F (130°C) is much better. The cooking time of 90 minutes seems to be about right, though.
Water bath
Half-cover your seitan with broth in a baking dish and flip it over after half the baking time. This is just like slow-cooking a meat dish instead of boiling it.
Reduce time
I was only able to get good-ish results with this- okay, but too doughy. Use the 350°F (180°C), but only leave it in for 30 minutes- less if using smaller parts. I still found there was a propensity for this to taste like bread that also tastes like sausage and rubber bands. Some report success.
Bursts when baked
Wrap it loose and thick
As with simmering, wrapping the Seitan is much less tricky. It will expand some, so it needs to be wrapped somewhat loosely. The tighter it is wrapped, the denser it will be- and the thicker and stronger the wrapping needs to be. 2-3 layers of foil worked for me wrapping the Seitan with just a little bit of wiggle room.
Flaky when baked
Age it
Baked seitan is a little bit less finicky but still tests better the next day. Seitan always tastes better the next day. This is proverb-grade wisdom, like "a Lannister always pays his debts".
Lunchmeat Texture
Lunchmeat texture is great if you want lunchmeat or meat loaf, and it doesn't matter if you are just going to grind it down. But if you want to make a version of unprocessed meat, as good as Seitan is, it doesn't make for a very interesting texture.
You can, however, fake the fibery texture by folding the Seitan into layers like puff pastry- but then you turn it and do the same thing. This results in an interesting, semi-meaty texture, and also does a lot of compressing for you, so it gets less spongy as well.
Make a moist dough, a little more than 1 cup water for 2 cups gluten
Mix until all the gluten is moist, but don't knead
squash it flat on the counter, and stretch until it is about a quarter inch (0.5cm) high
sprinkle a tiny layer of gluten to unstick it
fold it, or cut it and stack it
squash-and-stack about 10 times. You will now have about 1000 layers of gluten fiber and it shouldn't take longer than kneading.
gently massage-unsquash it back into a roundish cube, but don't knead
turn it around by a quarter
squash-and-stack about 10 times. You will now have 1000 fibers up and across, because you made layers across the layers
gently massage-unsquash it back into a roundish cube, but don't knead
place the cube into the freezer for 10 minutes
Recommended Procedures
Here are some procedures based on the above troubleshooting to get the results you want.
1. Cold Cuts
To get a good deli style cold cut, do the following:
Make a dryish dough, slightly less than 1 cup of water per 2 cups of gluten
Knead like bread for 3-5 minutes
rest covered for 10 minutes
knead like bread for another minute
form into a log shape and wrap snug in a cheesecloth (don't leave much room, but don't compress it either)
boil for 60-90 minutes
store for a day in its broth
You will know it worked when the outermost layer is softish, and the inside is a little less firm than a rubber eraser.
2. Steak
Make a fold-and-squash cube, as above
cut the cube into 4 pieces. cut so that you are cutting apart the fibers, and each steak has a short part of all the fibers.
flatten each steak to a quarter of an inch (0.5cm). keep pressing and condensing longer than needed to keep it in shape, until it feels like it got distinctly firmer than before
no-bubble-simmer each steak for 90 minutes
store the steaks in their broth for a day
press out the broth and fry
3. Chicken Wings
Do the same thing as with steak, but also cut each steak into 4 as well, somewhat unevenly.
4. Sausage
Do the same as with the cold cuts, but wrap into 5 or 6 small logs using the same cheesecloth.
5. Ground beef
Make a cold cut log as above, and grind it in a food processor in a couple of pulses, until the biggest pieces are about a quarter of an inch (0.5cm)
6. Stew cubes
Make a fibered dough as above, but cook it in a cheesecloth as above to get extra-firm, fibered texture. Then cut, fry, and stew, but much shorter than normal stew, perhaps 45min to 1 hour. Add some xanthan gum to the stew to mimic the gelatin that usually forms when slow-cooking stew meat's connective tissue.
So glad to see someone else is doing research in that area :) :) :)
For an alternative to cookable plastic bags, perhaps some of the recently available silicone reusable bags would work? The ones I've looked at are supposed to be safe for boiling, baking, freezing, etc, and they sound like they're a possible alternative for reusable soft cooking containers like you mention.
@Megha sounds great!
Wow, this answer is so complete, it deserves an A if only for effort. Marked as answer.
I think the mistake you are making is not letting the dough sit. Your recipe does not include a rest period for the dough, which is important. You want the seitan to absorb most of the water in the mixing stage, not in the cooking stage. Letting the dough sit before cooking is important for that to happen.
Precooking seitan is important because you want it to be fully formed in the first stage so you can use it as a regular ingredient in the second.
Here's my can't miss seitan recipe. They key is to use just enough water to make the dough. It has never failed me:
1 cup vital gluten flour
Put vital gluten in a large bowl (if you are mixing my hand)
Add 3/4 cup of water and mix well, until all the water is absorbed.
Knead by hand for a minute or two
Add water, very sparingly, if there
is some loose flour left. The dough should be a rubbery mass.
Knead by hand for about 5 minutes.
Cover the dough for 20-30 minutes while
you prepare whatever simmering broth you want to use. You'll need
about 6 cups of broth.
Do not let it sit for more than 30 minutes
Make the dough into two equally-sized logs. Set them in the broth and bring to a boil. It is OK if the logs are not fully submerged.
Lower the heat so the broth bubbles gently and cover. Cook for about an hour, turning the logs once or twice.
After an hour, taste a slice of one log. If you want to less dense, cook for 15-30 more mintes.
Turn off the heat, let the seitan cool in the broth (which can be frozen for future use).
I would avoid mixing any flavors or spices into the dough. Let your broth add the flavors. I usually make my broth from 6 cups of veggie broth and 1/3 cup soy sauce, plus whatever spices I feel like adding.
You can then bake, broil, sear, or whatever else you want with the seitan.
I managed to make seitan with a texture of thoroughly tenderized meat. The secret is pressure:
I just tightly packed the dough in a pot, and pressed down the dough using another pot with water. Then I cooked it in a bain-marie for 90 minutes.
At the top - spongy seitan, baked unpressurized. At the bottom - meaty seitan, made in a pressurized bain-marie
The pots I used to make seitan
Bain-marie
Use 3 times as much seasoning and reduce the time ( if boiling in water - still nice results can be done ) to 1/3 :) or find whatever timing /ration fits you best
my best results so far were due to adding sparkling water and cooked chickpeas, with this recipe: https://www.elephantasticvegan.com/seitan-made-w-vital-wheat-gluten/
Could you compare your experiences and solution to the OP? The answer you have does not go into enough detail to really be an answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.767746
| 2014-02-07T00:50:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41824",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Daniel Chui",
"Harukeyn",
"Jill",
"Megha",
"Severo Raz",
"Sh J",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"cmc",
"datakeluaran spam",
"dk ye",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"pegasuspect",
"rackandboneman",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16206
|
What are some ways to prepare beet greens?
Back in my home country beets are only sold as the roots; in the US they're always sold with the leaves attached to them. I know how to use the roots, but what are some interesting uses for the leaves? Are they edible at all?
The leaves are often referred to as "beet greens", which might return some more search results. I usually see them treated similar to spinach or swiss chard; that is, either served raw in a salad, or blanched and/or sauteed, perhaps with some garlic and olive oil.
Thanks, I tried it cut in strips and sautéed with oil and garlic and it turned out great (although I was impressed on how much it wilted down - a huge bunch of leaves ended up in just a tiny tin after the sautéeing).
They also pair very earthily with wild mushrooms and balsamic
It's no accident that, as Ray says, people treat beet greens similar to chard (swiss chard - also known as silverbeet in some regions!). According to On Food and Cooking, they're the same species, Beta vulgaris. Chards are varieties that have been selected for thick, large leaves, subspecies cicla. The same passage also mentions that beets are a distant relative of spinach! Pretty distant, though - same family, different subfamily. Beet root (commonly simply called beets) was on the other hand selected for the root - subspecies vulgaris. (Wikipedia mentions a couple other subspecies, but you're unlikely to have seen them - they're wild, not cultivated.)
As for uses, there's really no end to it - just like there's no end of chard recipes. Unfortunately, since the greens are usually pretty small compared to the beets, it's hard to get a lot of mileage out of them. Since they're generally thinner than chard, they cook down even more than chard does. Sometimes I just quickly saute them and have a snack while I cook the rest of the meal. If you have another dish with greens, you can toss them in there. You can also just cook them separately and toss them back in with your beets, to add a bit of color and texture to that dish.
Finally, the presence of the greens is by no means universal in the US - I've seen plenty of stores selling just the root. I prefer them with the greens, though. Both parts are great, and I enjoy the bit of extra variety in my meals.
Yes, it indeed wilted down a lot, but it turned out great (what little was left of it)
I treat the beet as three different items - the root, the stem, and the leaves. I generally use the stems and leaves at the same time, but I cook them differently. Unlike ruby chard, the stems keep their glorious colour when they're cooked, making them something I like to add to lots of dishes for contrast. So in soup, for example, you can saute the stems (along with onions, carrots, and the like) to get them good and cooked, then add the cooked stems into the soup for a simmer. The leaves I cut into half inch ribbons which I stir into the soup at the last minute. Another thing which I do with any stemmed green is to saute the stems and then put in the leaves (usually in ribbons again) with the water that clings to them, put a lid on the saute pan and a minute or two later, serve them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.768890
| 2011-07-16T23:29:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16206",
"authors": [
"Beoran",
"Elise van Looij",
"HSquirrel",
"Ken White",
"carlosfigueira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6171",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68321
|
Can I halve the Amish Friendship Bread recipe?
If you're not familiar with Amish Friendship Bread, or if it's been a while:
Basically you mush the bag of starter every day for ten days. On days 5 and 10 you add one cup of milk, one cup of flour, and one cup of sugar. On day 10 you again add one cup each of milk, flour, and sugar and then divide it into four equal parts.
Theoretically that is enough to make one loaf of Amish Friendship, share a portion of starter with two friends, and still have one portion of starter left over to keep it going. Of course, in the real world you run out of willing friends pretty quickly. Then you start making more than one loaf at a time. Then you get burned out and throw the starter away. Sounds like fun to me!
So I was thinking: Surely we could add less sugar/flour/milk and end up with only two portions of starter at the end. Then you could just make one loaf every cycle. It would be a lot less burdensome!
Okay, I usually don't answer my own questions but by the time I got done writing up my question the answer came to me:
On day 1 take your one portion of starter and divide it in half. The other half can either be shared with a friend or thrown away. (I promise I won't tell!)
On day 5, instead of adding 1 cup of milk/flour/sugar just add 1/2 a cup of each.
On day 10, instead of adding 1 cup of milk/flour/sugar just add 1/2 a cup of each.
Don't forget to mush/mix the bag each day.
Now on day 10 you'll have two regular sized portions of starter. You could use it to make two loaves of bread. Or you could use one portion to make one loaf, take the other portion and start again with step 1 above.
Note that sourdough starters are not completely divisible, I have seen reports that you can't establish a good starter in home conditions if you are working with less than 50 g starter. But your half cup of each feedings are safely above the limit. Also, yay for self answering.
You could probably also find a way to retard the starter si that it wouldn't multiply as quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.769188
| 2016-04-16T18:17:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68321",
"authors": [
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"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
}
|
25961
|
Why are red wine glasses wider than white wine glasses?
I understand that one of the important aspects of a wine glass is that it has smaller opening at the top, which is going to help concentrate the aromas.
But why are glasses for red wine generally wider than those for white wine?
Also are there any reasons for white wine glasses to be narrow?
Summary of the question is really; why have two different sizes for wine glasses?
As baka has said, more volatile components of the wine will be released with more wine surface exposed.
Also, this not only releases aroma but also helps the wine to "breathe" and oxidize, which is why you open the red wine bottle half an hour before serving it (so that this process starts), and why you might pour the wine into a decanter.
This process accentuates the flavors and aromas of the wine. It is not very much necessary with younger, colder served wines (e.g. vinho verde).
In young, sparkling wine, a larger glass will disperse the bubbles faster, as well as warming it. This is undesireable, hence the smaller, narrower glasses.
Aged white wine should behave similarly to aged red wine, although it doesn't need to breathe as much.
This is what I was thinking; with red wines (especially new wines) you generally want exposure to air, even after the decanting period. A wider glass exposes more surface area.
My guess is that it has to do with typical serving temperature. Red wines are generally served at warmer temperatures, so they need less concentration at the nose, because the aromatic compounds are more volatile at warmer temperatures. Basically, "more" smell is coming out of a warmer liquid than a colder one, so to get the full experience, you can get by with a larger-mouthed glass.
I have no idea if this is true, though.
As has been said, red wine glasses are generally wider because increased exposure to air helps the deeper and generally more complex flavors of red wine develop fully. Larger surface area means higher air exposure, and the wider bowl of red wine glasses allows for more wine to be exposed at any given time.
In general, white wines do not require as much oxidation for the flavors to expand, thus partly explaining the narrower shape. However, there are other reasons. Heat transfer is another big reason for the more narrow shape of most white wine glasses. Larger surface area means higher oxidation, but it also means that more heat will be transferred into the wine from the surrounding air. The larger the surface area of a cooling/warming object, the higher the rate of heat transfer, so having a narrower opening decreases the exposed surface area, ultimately keeping the wine chilled longer.
One of the biggest reasons, however, is flavor distribution. Different kinds of glasses are made to deliver different sorts of flavors to the optimal part of your tasting apparatus. Generally, red wines tend to feature flavors that are best tasted with the tip of the tongue and the front of the mouth, while white wines are usually comprised of lighter flavors that can be more thoroughly processed by the back of the mouth. The wider bowl of the red wine glass and narrower shape of the white wine glass both cater to this trend, respectively.
For more information on different types of wine glasses (including a break down of some of the different types of red wine glasses), take a quick look at this article. It details all of the different types of glasses, as well as which type of wines they are designed to optimize.
Because red wine needs to breath!
I also made a video on white wine glasses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viimmjEwHAE
This would be much more useful if you could summarize the information from the video here.
From Ilikewine.com
Then there is shape and size of glass. No doubt your scientist will assert that neither size nor shape, neither material nor colour of a
vessel, can affect the tasting of the wine. Well, there are plenty of subtleties in wine which are beyond the reach of scientific analysis. This matter of the vessel is one of them. Drink any
good wine from a thick, white teacup and see
what a difference it makes.. The ideal wineglass,
whether lighter or heavier, should be smooth-
lipped.
Very little if anything in food and cooking is "beyond the reach of scientific analysis". The vessel may (in fact does) alter one's perception of what they're eating or drinking, but that does not provide any foundation for statements such as "should be smooth-lipped". Why should they be smooth-lipped? Is that an absolute, or is it based on culture and media exposure? How do we know that there isn't an even better design, if it's all apparently subjective?
Someone who says that would be a very poor scientist actually...
I would argue that at least 50% of cooking is "beyond the reach of scientific analysis". I have yet to find a universal measure for tasty. I suspect smooth-lipped would prevent injury to the mouth and aid in delivery. However, the assumption that a difference of mere millimeters of surface area between one wine glass and another would noticeably impact the flavor is a little hard for me to swallow. (Pun intended) I, can, understand how one might prefer a tall slender glass for a light crisp white or a goblet for a full-bodied red.
So this answer basically boils down to "Because it's better, for mysterious unquantifiable reasons"?
Exactly! Hand me my astronaut Jambalaya in a tube please ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.769374
| 2012-09-03T09:38:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25961",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"EDabM",
"Rose Taylor",
"Yamikuronue",
"aniline hates nazis and pedos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76997",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14385
|
Fish and cheese: An unbreakable rule?
I always wondered about this seemingly static rule:
Never add cheese (especially, but not limited to parmigiano reggiano) to a dish with fish.
Italians would never, ever add parmigiano reggiano to a pasta with fish. But they have many other fixed views on food (e.g. sweet and savoury is a no-no, which is allowed at least in Austria and Japan).
I obliged until now, but I wonder where this rule comes from. To be honest, I would never add cheese to frutti di mare, but I'm open to trying other combinations. Is there some evidence that the two ingredients don't mix well? I hear there are some exceptions: Tuna with parmigiano reggiano is okay, but I only tried that as a salad and it was good. Also, I once saw a recipe of fish with mascarpone.
Did you ever have a professional cook serving you fish with cheese?
Please, I'm not interested in your personal opinion, but I'm trying to understand the rule and the exceptions.
EDIT:
Status update: Thanks for the brainstorming so far. I'm collecting the intermediate results:
Most importantly: It seems to be a regional thing (w/ Italy at its heart)
@Walter, @TFD and @Joe all agree on tuna as the prime counter example.
However, they disagree on the reason: We have @TFD's opinion, that tuna is strong and thus is not outplayed by strong cheese and @Walter's italo-centric opinion, that tuna is a particularly 'unfishy' fish.
@Carmi mentions umami as one/the possible reason.
@Todd has entered the discussion and disputes the highest voted answer: The umami claim by @Carmi. I'm delighted, because I'm still cautions about umami.
If you provide further examples, please include a detailed descriptions and a reason why you think the particular combination is a "allowed".
I would be extremely interested in opinions that favour the motion/rule. Is there anybody willing to take a stance and (maybe even) explain the origin?
And what about seafood with cheese? Is it unthinkable?
I also wonder where this rule comes from. Could you give us some idea of where you heard it from? It's certainly the first time I've ever heard of it.
well, I grew up with it. Now I'm living in Italy where I'm even more exposed to it.
"No cheese with fish" is one of the unwritten Italian rules; being Italian, I can report it is true.
No, please, we don't need this question to become a compendium of examples (AKA recipes) that happen to include fish and cheese - any recipe search can do that. If this is a regional convention then it would make for far more interesting reading to hear about its origins, the reasons (if any) why it came to be, and what exceptions are known or implied - as several of the answerers have been doing, to various degrees.
modified my post in order to avoid the growth of recipe collection, thx @Aeronut
Apart from tuna, anchovies also seem to be a counter example. Although you could make a point that they are more a form of seasoning than a fish.
Disagree with the umami analysis from @Carmi, even if it was a good attempt. You have some basic facts wrong though.
Cooked tomato sauce is high in umami, and is often combined with mushrooms, however, a sauce with mushrooms would not take parmigiano (also extremely high in umami)
Mozarella is high in umami, like most fresh young cheeses. So is tuna.
Caesar salad has both anchovies and parmigiano (both high in umami).
But you are sort of on the right track. Baked fish in Italy is not strong in flavor. It's delicate and calls for the following: fresh lemon. That's it. Maybe some fresh parsley. Usually cooked with no herbs and served with no sauce. The fish should be extremely fresh and appreciated for it's delicate flavor. Something like parmigiano would easily overpower the taste of the fresh fish and by putting it on fish you are telling the cook "this is fish gone bad and I need to cover the taste with something". Or if it was served that way, maybe better to avoid it because what is the cook trying to hide? While there I never encountered a fish dish served with cheese.
Being a curious foodie and having lived in Italy for 5 years, I can also add the following:
There are a LOT of rules that might seem strange to an outsider. No cappuccino after 10am. You don't mix salty and sweet in the same dish, or even during the same course. Beer with pizza, not wine. You would never drink coffee before or during desert, it's served after.
While I was there I did a lot of thinking about the basis of some of these rules and concluded it's usually either 1) health, 2) taste, or 3) regional cultural rules.
I asked the fish and cheese question a few times. The answer was always "That's gross, you just don't put cheese on fish". My guess is this one falls under 2 and 3.
The health angle from @Walter I think has a lot of validity in general. Italians often complain of their liver hurting after eating especially 'heavy' meals. Heavy meaning something very specific in Italian: difficult to digest. So a fresh salad with too much raw garlic could be considered heavy because garlic sometimes causes indigestion. A huge chunk of parmigiano is not considered heavy because parmigiano is very digestable. My guess is some of the rules come out of the particulars of the Italian digestive system. Much like you will not find many Asians joining me when I chug my glass of milk.
I think this is the correct answer. I am italian and while I confirm this rule is widely accepted, it is mostly enforced on delicate fish flavours. Even tomato sauce is not overly used on delicate fish. On tuna, yes. But pasta with shrimp or frutti di mare will have no or very little tomato sauce.
On a side note sweet and salty (or sour) dishes still do exist (mostarda di Cremona, cipolline in agrodolce, pork or boar with apple sauce) but are residues of medieval cuisine. Sweet was historically mixed with other spices and used everywhere, up until the Renaissance period. After that, the structure of the course has been revised and sweet has been relegated to the fruit and dessert phase (not just in Italy, but in most western cuisine). Most people now don't have a taste for sweet and spicy dishes... they just feel too different and strange to most.
I think that historically, at least in Italy, it is due to the fact that the majority of the regions facing the sea weren't big cheese producers on the first place, hence the fact that cheese wasn't present in their recipes. This might eventually have become a custom, without any particular reason, besides the original lack of the ingredient on the first place.
If you think about it, if you were a fisherman you probably didn't have much time for keeping a herd of cows for milk and dairy products, and buying it wasn't probably all that feasible (and it was expensive, too). This probably led to the search for substitutes such as breadcrumbs, which are sometimes referred to as "poor men's Parmesan".
Italians are generally very tied to their traditions, so the fact that Italians tell you that fish and cheese is a big no-no probably doesn't have a very good reason to exist, apart from the fact that so it was told by their parents, and their parents' parents and so on.
New recipes with fish and cheese do exist, as old ones that were forgotten are rediscovered (I counted about 10 recipes out of 50 with Parmesan and some other sort of fish in my "Artusi" cookbook), it might just take a while to get accustomed.
I remember my aunt telling me how disgusted she was in the early '60s of seeing "tortellini with cream" in a London's restaurant. Now they are widespread, and nobody is complaining anymore, even though at the time it was considered a "heresy". It happened with that. It is happening with fish and cheese. It will change, eventually.
There was some evidence I saw years ago that the "no cheese with fish" rule originated among Italian Americans that observed a convention and promoted it as a rule, and the historical accident that led to this was reverse-imported back to Italy in an era of trying to define "correct" Italian cuisine. I forgot where I read this account, but it seemed more convincing than any arguments based on natural flavor affinities.
Fish and cheese is fine. There are plenty of recipes that use these two ingredients together e.g. fish taco (cotija cheese and fried snapper in a tortilla), tuna pie (tuna casserole topped with rich cheese sauce baked in a pie crust)
The problem is that many fish have very delicate flavours, and since they are often served hot the cheese tends to melt and then have an overbearing flavour and smell
Strong flavoured oily fish (salmon, tuna) would more likely match with cheese, especially with strong cheeses such as parmesan
Having said that, I suspect any baked or poached fish fillet tastes great with a blue cheese sauce
great answer already @TFD. I do not understand all aspects though and hope you can clarify. You're saying that: 1. delicate (weakly characteristic?) fish is outplayed by strong cheese, 2. Strongly flavoured (do you mean intrinsically very tasty/characteristic?) fish matches well with strong cheese and 3. you assume most fish taste good with blue cheese sauce. Do you consider blue cheese a strong or weak cheese? Can you rate the examples given under your own categories? thanks!
Yes. 2. Strong/oily fish goes well with any strong or mild cheese. Weak fish generally not such a great candidate for cheese. 3. Blue cheese is not a normal cheese flavour, and pairs well regardless of fish type. Of course less people like blue cheese than cheese in general. Examples are very subjective as fish names and species vary widely around the word. Our local snapper is delicate, but oily enough to pair out a tasty cheese. Our local salmon and yellow fin tuna are also very strong
It's not a personal thing, it's a regional Italian thing. And it's even something like keeping kosher where you don't mix meat and dairy. (although, I'm not sure if fish counts as 'meat' under those rules).
Just the other day I was watching David Rocco's Dulce Vita on Cooking Channel, and he specifically showed someone's recipe that had shrimp and parmesean in it; he even commented on the no mixing fish and cheese 'rule', but mentioned that there were lots of exceptions to the 'rule'.
Personally, my mom's Italian-American, and although she was always concious of the no fish and cheese thing when visiting Italy to not offend people, growing up, we'd have tuna boats topped with cheddar cheese; a touch of parmesean or percorina romano (even more strongly flavored than parmesean) on a shrimp risotto, etc.
FYI, fish does not count as 'meat' under those rules.
+1 for the reference to a professional (David Rocco), although I don't know him and also the story of your mum.
For keeping kosher, fish only counts as meat for Jews from Sephardi backgrounds. (Generally, the current or formerly Islamic countries, such as Spain, northern Africa, and the Middle East). Fish doesn't count as meat in Ashkenazi Jewish culture (Eastern Europe).
It's an umami thing.
Both the very "fishy" fishes and the very "cheesy" cheeses, both of which are favoured in Italy, are very umami in flavour. Parmesan and anchovies are two very typical sources of umami in many dishes.
It's possible that combining the two would make something that is just too umami, and you get that MSG overdone flavour.
Generally, a good cook will try to balance flavours, perhaps to let one stand out over the others, but not to overdo it, which a combination of fish and cheese would do.
That's probably why tuna and mozzarela is fine, as they are relatively not very umami.
Interesting! And this provides another example that supports strong-fish-with-weak-cheese is okay: pizza napoletana contains anchovies and mozzarella.
I did a little more research: Umami taste is also very dominant in mushrooms or ripe tomatoes. Isn't that a contradiction? Tomatoes and parmesan is the classical combination?! I'm confused.
@Sebastian: With tomatoes, you generally need to get rid of the water to get a really umami flavour. If it's a tomato sauce, the parmesan will be fine as long as you don't overdo it. You'll rarely see sundried tomatoes or tomato paste with parmesan. As for the mushrooms, they are usually cooked in oil or butter and cream, not in tomato sauce.
Very convincing reply. The whole concept of umami is new to me. Where can I find more serious material about it? The web is full of fuzz! I'm therefore cautious to award you the question.
@Sebastian: What fuzz? Umami is simply a distinctive flavour that is defined by glutamates, which most people describe as savory or meaty. Same way saltiness is defined by salt.
Well, as I'm unfamiliar with the concept, I think it's fair to ask for further references. If I had as much reputation as @Aaronut, I wouldn't bother. However, I think there is a subtle difference between umami and salt: Salt is something I grew up with tasting, adding and evaluating. It's also in my kitchen cabinet. Umami is not (it's not a Japanese kitchen :] ). Oh and if it is some kind of metric: Umami is unknown to my spell checker! :P
@Sebastian: Actually, umami is widely available and often found in home kitchens - most people just don't know it by that mean. And for those who would quibble that not all glutamates are MSG - not all salts are sodium chloride either. If you've tasted MSG, as in cheap Chinese take-out, then you've tasted umami in spades.
@Sebastian: I actually tried to write a description of umami that is concise enough for a comment and yet also explains why no European language has a word for it. I can't do it though, and I think it's an interesting enough topic to have its own question. If you ask it as an independent question, I'll be happy to answer it, as will many of the others here.
@Carmi, @Aaronut's description above is concise and pretty much the standard definition. From the Wikipedia entry on Savoriness "Umami, popularly referred to as savoriness, is one of the five basic tastes..." So we do have a word for it, it just wasn't recognized as one of the basic tastes in Europe until recently.
It is definitely a regional rule. Growing up in NE Brazil, I often had a typical fish dish called Peixe a Delicia - fish cooked in a cheese sauce with plantains.
Edit: I think the fish most commonly used is snapper or halibut, and mostly mozzarella cheese.
Thanks for this example, could you please add: Is this typical fish of strong flavour (compared to tuna)? What about the cheese? Is it strong as pecorino or more like mozzarella? Nice picture!
I have never found in food science texts that dairy and fish do not go together for health or other reasons. On the other hand, the rule is a pretty strong on in Italian cuisine. You can find popular exceptions to it, for example there are countless salads served in Italian cafès (in Italy, I mean) that feature tuna fish (always from a can) and mozzarella.
An Italian like me might tell you that canned tuna fish is the least fishy of fishes in the Italian worldview: people who don't eat any other fish will eat tuna from a can. In the same vein, mozzarella is barely cheese - no sharp, cheesy taste at all.
But to sum it up, I think that it is simply a widespread habit that then you can codify into a rule to use when generating new Italian dishes.
Another Italian no-no is fish and meat combinations, with few expections - vitello tonnato comes to mind.
+1 for considering health aspects @Walter, I didn't even think about that! Secondly thanks for providing some regional expert opinion.
your answer makes most sense to me until now. Mozzarella is not very cheesy, but I never saw a fish dish accompanied by mozzarella. Can you name one? But I'm curious: tuna is not very fishy?
The /tuna not very fishy thing/ is just a shot in the dark :)
In the original question, and in some of the answers I read statements about a no fish and cheese rule in the Italian cuisine.
As an Italian who has traveled a lot in Italy (and abroad), I find that the situation is somewhat more multi-faceted. Probably because there is not a unique Italian cuisine, but many regional Italian cuisines from different regions of Italy (I would count at least a dozen of different cultural areas for the Italian cuisine).
In Sicily, for example, there are extremely popular recipes marrying cheese and fish. The first two examples coming to my mind are Sarde alla beccafico (Sicilian stuffed sardines) and swordfish rolls filled with pecorino cheese.
Also in Veneto (the region where Venice is) we can find another well known recipe, "Baccalà alla vicentina" (stockfish cooked as in Vicenza) where Vicenza is another town of Veneto.
And what about seafood and cheese? A well established recipe in many sea sites in Italy is scallops au gratin, where scallops are covered by parmesan cheese.
Notice that I am speaking about recipes which are traditional in some regions and not about creations of modern chefs.
Very nice addition to the discussion, grazie! I will check for recipes of your counter-examples. Now just let me know how you tipped over a 9 year old question?
@Sebastian Just by chance. I was on a page on Physics SE and I noticed, among the hot network questions, a question about "Is there a reason to not grate cheese ahead of time?" which captured my attention. In that page, looking at the "related questions" I noticed this one and reading the answers I realized that they were giving a too partial view of the situation. That's all.
"Please, I'm not interested in your personal opinion, but I'm trying to understand the rule and the exceptions."
The "rule" probably came into existence because of a lot of peoples' personal opinions that the combination doesn't yield something that tastes good :)
It might not even be a 'tastes good' thing ... it might be frugal thing (don't waste good cheese on something that tastes good without it (or is already potentially salty); or don't mask the flavor of a great fish)
Can fish and cheese inhabit the mouth together successfully -- it all depends. An example: Pierre Franey's Shrimp Greek Style with Rigatoni. The briny feta adds earthy salt, sharpening the taste buds and contrasting with the lush shrimp.
Shrimp is not fish.
A rule without a reason? The only things that should ever preclude two food items from being eaten together is taste (does it taste bad?) or danger (will it make you sick?). My mother was born in Italy, came from a long line of amazing cooks, and we grew up putting cheese on all types of pasta dishes, including speghetti with clam sauce and fruiti de mare. What about seafood fettuccini alfredo or lobster mac n cheese? This is hogwash and whoever created this ridiculous rule should apologize to the entire food industry!
Parmesan is way to strong to be put on fish dishes. Its taste is too strong and overwhelms the flavour of the fish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.769848
| 2011-04-28T05:16:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14385",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carmi",
"Frazz",
"GiorgioP-DoomsdayClockIsAt-90",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Martha F.",
"Robert Streetman",
"Sebastian",
"Sneftel",
"TFD",
"Todd Chaffee",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89816",
"user2215"
],
"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
}
|
43035
|
Why is there such disparity between the calories in a banana and the calories in this pack of dried banana?
If I Google
calories in banana
I get the result of 89 per 100g.
However, this pack of chewy banana
says 320 per 100g.
Why the difference? The ingredients are
Dried Banana, Rice Flour, Preservative (Sulphur Dioxide)
Do rice flour (which I presume is to keep the pieces from sticking) and sulphur dioxide add 3.5x the energy to a pack of dried banana?
Most of the weight in fresh fruit is water, which has no calories.
When you dry the fruit, the remainder is concentrated, so there are more calories in a given volume or weight.
Sulfur dioxide is a preservative with anti-microbial properties.
The claim of 3.6 times the energy is specious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.771326
| 2014-03-26T11:23:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43035",
"authors": [
"Brian Warner",
"Jani janj Jani",
"Jott",
"Piezo Pea",
"Tom Mahler",
"agenslotgacors",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100735"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42343
|
Substitute for sesame oil?
An Asian recipe I'm trying calls for sesame oil. However, the only bottle I found is $6, and since I'm only using a tablespoon of it, and am on a tight budget, I don't want to spend that much just to not use most of it. Is there a good substitute for the sesame oil?
The recipe I'm making is a "cheater" Korean beef dish if that helps at all.
Update: I tried it with extra virgin olive oil instead and it turned out fantastic! I'm not sure how much different it would have been with the sesame oil, but it was pretty great without it. The recipe can be found here.
Is it toasted sesame oil? If it's not toasted, most light oils will work. Toasted will be much harder to substitute.
It doesn't specify for it to be toasted, so I'm assuming that it's not.
I would assume it is, as that is the major reason to use it. IF you provide the complete recipe, the context should tell us. IF you are frying in it, its not. If you are using it as a condiment, it is.
If this was indeed for flavoring, the fact that it was good with olive oil really just means that it was good without sesame. You just made the dish missing that flavor.
Maybe someday I will bite the bullet and just buy the sesame oil and retry the recipe with it. :p I'm sure it would have added flavor, but it tasted good without it. I'm interested to see what difference it makes.
@nuhcole obv i don't know what's available in your area, but i usually buy sesame oil on the cheap in a largish metal tin. it keeps a long time. i love the flavour and use it often, not just when making a korean dish.
Interestingly, now someone mentions it, really fruity/adstringent olive oil could maybe work well in SOME dishes that call for toasted sesame oil - but the flavor profile will be rather different and not very traditionally asian :)
As a substitute for untoasted sesame oil, most light oils will work (light olive, peanut, canola, sunflower, etc). Any nut or seed oil should be pretty close.
Toasted sesame oil has a much bolder and nuttier flavor. It could perhaps be approximated with a light oil and adding toasted sesame to your dish.
Or perhaps even toasting the sesame seeds in the oil...
Since your recipe only calls for a tablespoon, I am inferring this is toasted sesame oil, which is used for its strong and lovely flavor.
There really are no good substitutes for this purpose.
I would recommend investing in the bottle, which kept in the refrigerator should last a long time, and will bring flavor to many dishes.
If you choose not to do that, I would simply omit the sesame oil, although your dish will lack certain depth and complexity the oil brings.
A small amount of toasted sesame oil is frequently called for in recipes, so it might be a good investment. The smallest bottle I have been able to find is abt. 5 oz, or 150 ml, and kept in the fridge, it lasts me - like - way more than a yr. But please note that when this oil gets cold it sort of crystallizes a little bit and looks cloudy & clumpy, but when it warms up, it looks clear & fine again, and tastes absolutely just as good. The last drop in the bottle is still great - if you keep it refrigerated. So don't let that fridge-cloudiness bother you. Olive oil & peanut oil do it too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.771455
| 2014-02-26T20:42:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42343",
"authors": [
"Brigette Burnett",
"Cascabel",
"Digital Art",
"Lorel C.",
"Maya Philipp",
"Nicole Rae",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"daramarak",
"derek taylor",
"djeikyb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98876",
"p. bear",
"rackandboneman",
"xlxs4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50125
|
Is it safe to deep fry two turkeys in the same oil for Thanksgiving?
Should you deep fry two turkeys in the same oil or is it better to use fresh oil for the second turkey?
Reusing deep frying oil is fine (up to a point - you can't refry indefinitely), and in fact the flavour often improves with use. You should be absolutely fine frying two turkeys one after the other for Thanksgiving. Have a good one!
Yep, way more convenient too. You can even save the oil to do a few chickens before you dump it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.771742
| 2014-11-27T13:29:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50125",
"authors": [
"Alexus Shuffler",
"Jackie Turner",
"Jamria Chowdhury",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Dashwood",
"Pamela Rabalais",
"Paula Pearson",
"Samantha Upton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89143
|
Do I need to separate all the eggs if a recipe needs more yolks than whole eggs?
I am going to make lemon bars except I am going to use oranges instead, so I was reading the recipe for lemon bars.
The recipe calls for 2 large eggs and 1 large egg yolk separated, then in the instructions it says to beat eggs and egg yolks together in a bowl.
Wouldn't it be okay to just leave them as whole eggs if they are going to be mixed together anyway?
Your recipe calls for both whole eggs and egg yolks. (Presumably, it needs the extra fat from an additional egg yolk without the liquid/protein contribution of an additional egg white.)
Since the goal in this recipe is just to have 2 whites and 3 yolks in the mixture, there is no reason to separate the first two eggs. So you will only need to separate one egg to get that extra yolk.
It depends on why they are separated, if one is going to be cooked more or if you need to fluff up the whites and what not. Another reason is how you want the yolk or white to combine with whats being mixed. The yolk and whites have obvious difference in consistency and flavour so this can make a difference in the end product of the dish if you use the whole egg at once. You can probably get away with putting it all in at once assuming theres no cooking or whisking difference but the texture will be off from the the intended in the recipe so its better to just separate it unless you have experience and knowledge that its better whole. Also another reasoning for adding them separately could be to avoid clumping in which case you'll be causing yourself more work if you put it in all at once.
It calls for 2 large eggs, 1 large egg yolk, and says to beat eggs and
egg yolks together in a bowl.
I am not reading that as the 2 large eggs need to be separated.
You are actually correct! I don't know why I assumed they were all to be separated. I can't believe I didn't read it that way. Embarrassing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.771839
| 2018-04-15T23:25:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89143",
"authors": [
"Renee Ketcham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66593"
],
"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
}
|
54058
|
Choreography of making many yorkshire puddings
Say you want to make a lot (>4) yorkshire puddings, but your form only has 4 molds. What is your choreography?
Do you ...
stack several forms in the oven
use one form, take out the pouddings when done and refill the hot form immediatly with fat and batter
something else entirely
Background: I'm about to buy a form as a present for my mother, who often cooks for more people. The question is: Is it worth it to buy two forms?
I would buy two tins, for the reason that one of the most important factors for successful Yorkshires is a good hot oven. This is required to convert the water in the batter into steam quickly, causing the puddings to rise. Your oven loses a lot of heat when you open the door, so you will more than likely get a poor rise on your second batch if you reuse the tin.
So, I would use two tins, then you can keep that door closed until the last possible minute.
Interesting. My thought was to reuse one tin so the tin can retain it's heat.
You can get the pan as hot as you like, but if the oven's cold it won't do you any good
How do you get your pudding into the oven in the first place, without losing all the heat? And why should it be different the second time?
Overheating it to compensate. But then you adjust the temperature down to stop the Yorkshires burning.
Personally at home I use two trays at a time. They easily both fit in the oven together, with enough room for proper airflow.
More important to me is, I start my Yorkys at 230°c for 5min and then turn to oven down to 180°c for 20min. If I was to do one tray at a time I'd have to wait for the oven to get back from 180°c to 230°c before putting my next batch in. In total probably costing me 2 hours for 8 Yorkshires once you've accounted for resting of the batter etc. A little excessive for a simple gravy soak-er if you ask me.
Splash out, get her two and save her an hour of her life :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.772025
| 2015-01-27T20:28:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54058",
"authors": [
"Abogado De Inmigracin Y Crimin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jacqueline Lovett",
"Jeffrey Lovett",
"JoAnn Elliott",
"Joaquin Cortizo",
"Prity Lad",
"Richard Mccormack",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"mart"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86166
|
How can I achieve the equivalent of "Slow Cook High" setting on my multicooker?
So a deal site popped up for this KitchenAid multicooker.
I've been meaning to get a slow cooker for a while, and after checking the details of this guy, along with the rest of the stuff it does, I went for it.
Today, I was planning on putting some pork in for 6 hours, on "Slow Cook - High", but the only option was "Slow Cook - Low". I'm not sure exactly what's wrong, but with the other settings of the thing, I think I should be able to achieve just about the same from another setting, specifically the Manual mode,
So my question is, to you slow cooking maestros, what setting should I be using to have "Slow Cook - High" equivalence?
(This pork roast is the recipe I'm trying to try)
A point worth adding is that slow-cooker manuals usually say pork joints should only be cooked on high. The lack of clarity on the slow cooking options speed me buying such a multi cooker to replace my old slow cooker recently
"The lack of clarity on the slow cooking options speed me buying such a multi cooker to replace my old slow cooker recently" - sorry, I don't understand what you mean here?
I'm used to Low and High modes on a slow cooker. I was thinking of getting a multicooker that claimed to do slow cooking, but gave no further detail. I looked up the specifications. Counting the modes meant there was only one slow cooking mode, but I couldn't tell whether it was equivalent to high or low, so I bought a slow cooker instead. her emay be a valid option starting on a different mode and turning down to low after some time, but I don;t know enough to answer that and it may even vary between makes.
Looking at the table you've added, your "Low" is not far off a slow-cooker on high. It's just short of boiling but bubbles a bit from the hottest parts. You appear to be able to override the temperature upwards a little anyway. Slow cookers are based on power input rather than temperature control and expect the ambient temperature to be that of a typical room. I pointed my IR thermometer at mine after a few hours of cooking; the outside of the crockpot a few minutes after I removed it from the outer unit was at around 90°C. Unfortunately this was just out of curiosity and I didn't keep notes.
What's still not clear is where that temperature is measured -- if it's the temperature of the air surrounding an inner pot, the food will take a very long time to reach that temperature. In that case you should probably start at a higher temperature for a little while. The recipe book for your cooker may have more details.
Similar devices (eg, rice cookers) have a part that springs up in the base, just in the middle of the cooking vessel. The spring is to make sure it makes good contact with the vessel, as that's where the temperature probe is.
@Joe, yes, I used to have one. The lack of clarity about things like that and how much control I'd have put me off buying a multi cooker when I needed a new slow cooker and would have liked a new rice cooker. I was wary of spending a lot more on something that did everything badly
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.772228
| 2017-12-06T15:11:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86166",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"seaders"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50099
|
Which end of the cucumber should I save for later?
When using only half of a cucumber, which end of the cucumber should I save for later use - the stem end or the blossom end?
Split it lengthwise and avoid the dilemma altogether.
Now that you mention it, I am curious to cut a cucumber in half and put both halves in the fridge and check which lasts longer...
@ElendilTheTall Won't it dry out much more quickly like that?
I was being facetious :)
There's no difference between the stem or blossom end, you should save the end which looks and feels in the best shape.
This was going to be my first comment on Seasoned Advice, but after reading the preface about writing answers, I'm wondering if 55 years of every-day family cooking qualifies me. Forging ahead fearlessly and with nothing to back me up except personal habit, save the root ends of onions, the blossom ends of cukes and tomatoes.
Hello and welcome! You wouldn't have been able to write a comment, we require a bit of reputation for it, while answers and questions are open to everybody. While we prefer answers to have a well founded explanation (it's entirely possible to do something for 55 years out of habit, not because it's the best solution), this certainly qualifies as an answer. Every reader has to decide for themselves how believable they find it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.772906
| 2014-11-26T21:11:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50099",
"authors": [
"Amber Defelice",
"David Yellen",
"ElendilTheTall",
"G.Rassovsky",
"Jill Collingwood",
"Nigel Frost",
"PRATIKSHYA POKHREL",
"Shawn Gendron Frenchy",
"charles salomon",
"claire barth",
"debbie dula",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"janis bartch",
"mecdonals menu",
"ronyia louis",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41383
|
Challah bread -- too crusty?
Just made my first loaf of Challah (traditional Jewish braided bread). Bread came out great but the outside was a little crustier than I was expecting. The recipe called for an egg wash (also a first for me)... is the crustiness a result of too little or too much egg wash? Or to hot an oven?
Edit with more info
Here's the recipe I was using (from Peter Reinhart's The Bread Baker's Apprentice):
4 cups bread flour*
2 Tbsp sugar
1 tsp salt
1 1/3 tsp yeast
2 Tbsp oil
2 eggs
2 egg yolks
7-9 oz water
*I did add a decent amount of flour while mixing because the dough seemed quite sticky.
Basic steps:
Knead for 10 minutes, let rise for 1 hour
Knead/degas for 2 minutes, let rise for another 1 hour
Braid into 1 large or 2 small loafs, brush with egg wash.
Proof for 60-75 minutes, then brush again with egg wash.
Bake at 350˚F for 40-60 minutes depending on loaf size
I made a large loaf so I checked it at 45 minutes and it was quite a dark golden brown on top already so I pulled it out. The consistency of the inside was great and the crust was fine too, just a lot crustier than I was expecting.
I've found that the crustiness of my challah is dependent on how long I leave it in the oven... If you want it less crusty I'd say you should just try taking it out a bit earlier. You can also try turning the oven temperature slightly lower.
(I bake my challah in tins, and find that the bottoms of the challah are often too soft when the tops are just the perfect crustiness, so I flip the challah and bake for another minute or 2 upside down to crust the bottom. If you're aiming for a soft crust, maybe you can also try covering the top with aluminum foil? I've never tried this though.)
There are many possibilities that are hard to choose from without seeing the recipe. Temperature is an obvious one and--counter-intuitively--it could be because the temperature is too low, but the hydration of the dough is another possibility (too much flour). Or it could be a problem with the rising time (not rising enough).
I've added the recipe to my question, if you want to take a look. I did add some additional flour during mixing because the dough seemed very sticky... maybe that was my mistake? I only added enough so that I could knead it without making a total mess. I was focused on the egg wash since the interior of the loaf was great (not hard and dry like I would expect with too much flour).
I've made the BBA challah, it doesn't have too much flour. So I think we can rule this one mostly out (although I probably didn't add flour, I usually knead sticky in the air until the gluten is developed enough to pull the mess off my fingers)
You shouldn't need to add much--if any--flour. Are you weighing the flour? BBA uses 4.5 oz cups, I believe...getting the correct amount by volume can be difficult. Do you have an oven thermometer to be sure your oven is actually at 350?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.773090
| 2014-01-23T04:39:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41383",
"authors": [
"Anara Medspa Cosmetic Spam",
"Anna Wilson spam",
"Chris",
"Hank",
"Kristen Chang",
"Matthew Sundberg",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96517",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43642
|
Getting poppy seeds to stick to bagel
I've been trying to top my homemade bagels with poppy seeds but haven't had much luck getting them to stick.
The instructions I've found says to boil the bagels first, then sprinkle seeds on top after boiling (before baking). The problem is that almost all of the seeds just fall right off, and the ones that do manage to stay on in the oven are not well attached and come off later (e.g. while cutting the bagel).
I've tried putting some poppy seeds on a plate and rolling the boiled bagel around, but it doesn't really seem to be much better. Plus, handling the bagel too much before baking causes it to deflate.
I've used a few recipes to make the bagels, some call for adding baking soda to the water and some call for malt extract powder.
Anyone have any advice? Some bagel shops manage to get poppy seeds absolutely covering the bagel, so there must be some trick...
There should be a point after the boiling and before the baking that the bagels get sticky. Are you not seeing that? What are you adding to the water?
@Jolenealaska: I guess I would call the bagels soft after boiling, but not that sticky. Even gently pressing the seeds into the bagel does not get them to stay. I added info to the question about water additions.
You might try adding sugar to the water. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39895/bagels-baking-soda-or-sugar-in-the-water?rq=1 That might make the bagels stickier. So far, I haven't tried the sugar, but I don't see why you couldn't add it to the water along with baking soda. I don't know about malt extract powder, I've never used it. There should come a point, after the water has mostly dried that the bagels feel tacky.
Are you adding anything to the water you boil the bagels in? We use lye instead of baking soda in the boiling water and it makes the bagels perfectly sticky.
After boiling, drain the bagels and then press the top of the bagel firmly into a dish containing the seed of your choice. Too much water still on the surface of the bagel and they won't adhere properly. This is how they did it at a bagel shop I worked at, and here's a corroborating video:
http://videos.sorensonmedia.com/San+Francisco+Baking+Institute/7.2+Boiling+and+Seeding+Bagels/b8ec0e85a84f3948ccca841Xb2fe940df302
You might try 2 things:
add sugar to the water (as per @jolenealaska's suggestion)
after boiling, brush the bagels with a little beaten egg white before sprinkling on the toppings. Not traditional, but it works.
In response to your query. It is a very simple concept. The minute you are done boiling your bagel and remove it on a tray, all you need to make sure is that you sprinkle your seeds onto the bagel within a minute it comes out of the water. Basically before the bagel dries out. The seeds will stick to the bagel even post baking.
Hope this helps :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.773359
| 2014-04-22T16:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43642",
"authors": [
"Adi Lavy",
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Felicia",
"Hank",
"James",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kent Vuong",
"Kim Kastner Greenwell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22726",
"spam exchange",
"sud007"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29270
|
What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?
I have a high-fat cookie dough (see What ingredient changes will make this cookie dough more workable?) which wants to be chilled in the refrigerator overnight before shaping. I tried to cheat by chilling it for only 4 hours, which I figured would be more than enough time for the dough to get as cold as the fridge could make it.
I was wrong. When I pulled the dough from the fridge after only 4 hours, it was not nearly as stiff as it needed to be. The next morning, the dough was much stiffer and more workable.
What is it about an overnight (or longer) refrigeration that transforms the dough into something workable?
I don't suppose you tried 6, 8, and 10 hours? :)
Nope - no iterative testing, afraid.
Did you divide in half, was the dough ball shaped or flat? The size and shape of the dough will effect the time it takes to chill the dough all through. I guess that one big ball might need all night, but one large flat/thin shape might be OK in 4h or maybe even 1-2h.
I divided the dough in half, and smooshed the ball down to about 1 and a half inches.
The rest period hydrates the starches in flour, giving the dough a firmer and more workable texture (there is some very minor gluten development, but its mostly the expansion of the starch bundles with water). In many cookies, the flavors will also mature and improve, especially with cocoa in the recipe.
In many recipes, the cooling from refrigeration is itself part of the point--doughs may be easier to roll and cut when they are cool due to chilling of the fat. Most dietary fats are waxy, which means they don't have a single set freezing/melting point, but rather get more viscous or eventually firmer then hard as temperature drops.
For example, linzer cookie dough is very frangible, and the chilling and hydration make rolling and cutting much easier.
Generally, most of this affect is going to happen in the first 8 hours or so. The overnight thing is simply for convenience in most cases. In fact, 4 hours is often enough, although obviously not in your case.
If the major effect is chilling in your recipe, by flattening the dough to a disk, or lengthening it to a log (thus increasing surface area) compared to a ball, it will chill more rapidly. You mentioned this is a high fat recipe--if that fat is butter (as it so often is with cookies), that may help.
Excellent use of frangible.
Generally - overnight chilling just ensures that you actually DO chill for 4 hours.
However - in your case the fat needed to penetrate the flour and harden up. It's a slow process (deopending on the type of fat), but well worth the wait.
For example - olive oil hardens up in the fridge, but not in 4 hours, even though it reaches the right temperature. The structure has to change. Think about honey. It hardens up, but over a long period of time.
The mechanism in honey--crystallazation of sugars--is very different than the hardening of lipids, which is much more complicated. Waxy fats don't have a set freezing point. Really, their viscosity varies with temperature. If you ever made candles, warm wax is pliable but cold wax is seems quite hard, while hot wax is essentially liquid--but it is a continuous variability, not a phase change.
I do not know the chemistry involved, but longer dough refrigeration toughens the dough, and makes it more cohesive. It, like any refrigeration, also changes the texture of the finished product (usually making it chewier).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.773631
| 2012-12-19T03:00:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29270",
"authors": [
"Anguel Roumenov",
"Domata Jemisti",
"KatieK",
"Laura L ",
"Maurice",
"Mr Douglas Hague",
"PhilC",
"Rodrigo Varela Tabuyo",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68178",
"jscs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21155
|
How can I avoid seizing chocolate?
Possible Duplicate:
How can you melt chocolate without it getting wet?
When tempering chocolate over a water bath, how can I avoid getting any droplets of water into the chocolate? These water droplets will cause the chocolate to seize!
Where are the water droplets dripping from?
I've never had an issue with this, I guess if the steam was condensating above the pot or on your tools it could drip in, in that case an extractor fan might help. Other than that just be careful:
don't to have the water boiling to high, creating too much steam, it only needs to be simmering
don't use too much water, it needs to more than cover the bottom of the pot but doesn't need to come up to the bowl with the chocolate in
take it slowly
You can use 1 teaspoon of potato starch (or maizena).
How exactly does this help?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.773965
| 2012-02-08T01:41:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21155",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8564"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21148
|
Why Did This Cheesecake Catch on Fire?
A friend of mine's wife was baking a cheesecake, which she does somewhat regularly. The house filled up with smoke, and when they opened the oven, they observed that it had caught fire. Apparently it was a fairly standard cheesecake, not a unique petrol-flavored version, nor even spiked with a healthy dose of brandy. She proceeded to remake the same recipe immediately after with no further conflagration.
I did a bit of googling and the only conjecture I saw that somewhat jibes with the circular burn mark is that somehow liquid fat separated from the filling, pooled, and caught fire.
Any idea why specifically that would happen, or alternative explanations?
Whoa. There's not any evidence to suggest the oven for some reason got too hot, is there? (Oven malfunction or user error?) I'm pretty sure most food fats have combustion points well above normal cheesecake baking temperatures.
That's not true - butter burns at 250 F for example.
Hm, true, but isn't that because of all the other things in it? I figured we could be confident that the combustion point of homogenous cheesecake batter is below its baking temperature, so either something did separate, or the oven was too hot.
I can't tell from the picture—did she forget to fill the water bath?
(not that I think failing to fill the water bath would set it ablaze, I'm guessing @Sean Hart's "broiler"—by user error or oven malfunction—is the answer)
@Jefromi - right, thus the conjecture that liquid fat separated from the homogenous batter.
@derobert yes, the water is there.
Is it bad that I was disappointed there wasn't a video...:)
Well, butter burns at 250°F, but that's the milk solids. Clarified butter is much higher, above 350°F (i.e., hotter than the oven should have been). So if the fats separated out, you'd have clarified butter, which wouldn't smoke, much less ignite. (And, also, should it happen again, probably best to turn off the oven and let the fire go out before opening the door. The oven is designed to contain fire. Opening the door ads oxygen.)
@derobert Correct, yes, I meant the butter as an example. I'm wondering if some fraction separated that contained something flammable below 350. I think the shape of the pool somewhat suggests that. I wouldn't expect a round shape from any broiler setup I'm familiar with. Of course I guess it could be both. If the broiler was on, that high temp might cause separation into a round puddle followed by ignition.
Not sure if the oven has that, but here in germany, many ovens have a "grill" function (not sure how it is called in english) where basically some piece of metal at the top starts to glow. I could imagine that this function could cause something like this.
I know it sounds like a stupid question, but are you sure the oven wasn't in "broil" or "clean" mode? It seems unlikely that a regular shape of flammable would emerge from a fairly homogeneous mixture. It seems more likely that a heat source in the shape of the burn marks on the top of the cheesecake was radiating directly onto it. It could have been an intermittent malfunction with the oven, too.
Other than that, I'm lost. It's quite a mystery you have on your hands there.
I wasn't there, but I'll check with the remote O.P. ;)
I've confirmed with the O.P., they are quite certain there was no broil or self-clean going on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.774080
| 2012-02-07T22:40:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21148",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Flo",
"Jay",
"Michael Natkin",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9059"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10803
|
What book/website should I read to help me move beyond just being able to follow a recipe?
Possible Duplicate:
Books that explain the science of cooking?
I am looking for a book/website or other resource to help me gain a deeper understanding of cooking and to help me move beyond just being able to successfully follow recipes. Although I can cook well I don't necessarily understand why things work, or why certain processes are necessary. Any suggestions?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.774356
| 2011-01-06T13:36:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10803",
"authors": [
"Hyrtsi",
"IdeaMan",
"JoshP",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22158"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20043
|
Why does Angel Food Cake use a tube pan?
I know from Can an Angel Food Cake recipe be converted to cupcakes that it is possible to make Angel Food Cake in a form other than a tube pan.
However, I'm wondering if there is a reason that Angel Food Cake is usually made in a tube pan. Is there an advantage to that shape? Other cakes are not usually made in a tube pan, so I'm wondering why that's the traditional shape for Angel Food Cake. Is there something about the nature of Angel Food Cake that requires the extra internal heat?
Structure is the main reason a tube pan is used for angel food cake. Angel food cake rises a lot, but does not have much of any gluten network or other means of supporting this structure. The egg whites can hold the air bubbles initially, but will lose them eventually. (Hence you should not delay baking after the batter is mixed, and you should treat the batter gently, spooning into the pan and taking care to not slam the pan around.) The tube pan helps because as the batter rises, it can "climb" the pan, sticking to the edges. This is also why angel food cake is left to cool upside-down in the pan for an unusually long time; it should not be removed from the pan until it is completely set. If it weren't for the tube, the center of the cake would not have anything strong to hold it up, so it would collapse. This is not an issue for cupcakes because they are so small.
If the batter actually "climbed" the pan as you suggest, wouldn't the cake end up higher near the (inside and outside) walls than in the middle?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.774432
| 2011-12-29T14:46:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20043",
"authors": [
"Ciprian Vilcan",
"Ludovica",
"Maggie",
"Mamaghia",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14602
|
Why did my vinaigrette emulsify so quickly?
When I make salad dressing, I usually don't expect my vinaigrette to emulsify particularly well. I don't do any of the steps described in this question about vinaigrette emulsification, such as drizzling the oil into the acid slowly with much stirring.
However, last week I decided to try to make a vinaigrette using some aged balsamic vinegar that I just bought. I've used aged balsamic in the past and had the same experience that I normally have with the vinaigrette -- that the mixture doesn't stay together -- I need to stir just before dressing the salad.
I poured olive oil into my bowl, added my new vinegar, and some salt, pepper, and herbs -- and almost immediately, the mixture turned into the texture of thin mayonnaise. No matter how much oil I added later to thin it down, it didn't break the emulsion. (I ended up saving it as a sauce for chicken, since I don't like thick salad dressing.)
Why did this emulsify so well? Could there have been something about that vinegar? (It's aged and thicker than most, but not so much that it compares unfavorably with other aged balsamic I've bought. It's just vinegar -- no added ingredients.)
Are you sure that it was true pure balsamic vinegar and not the "Balsamic of Modena" stuff that's thickened with a bunch of emulsifiers?
The ingredients listed are: Barrel-aged Balsamic Vinegar(4.5% acidity). Contains naturally occurring sulfites. It's from http://jdgourmet.com/
Maybe it's counterfeit? :P Haha, but seriously, I'm pretty sure daniel is right, there has to be an emulsifier...
Maybe your herbs included an emulsifier?
Pretty much everything contains lecithin to some extent, for example. Some things (e.g., mustard) are pretty good emulsifiers.
You answered your own question here (emphasis mine):
(It's aged and thicker than most, but not so much that it compares unfavorably with other aged balsamic I've bought. It's just vinegar -- no added ingredients.)
Viscosity promotes emulsification by physically slowing down separation. This gives you (and your whisk!) a wider window in which to break the oil into very small droplets. Once established, the viscosity promotes stability. According to Cook's Illustrated, it's due to melanoidins in the vinegar:
These compounds, abundant in aged balsamic vinegar, are formed when sugars and proteins are heated and undergo the Maillard reaction, the chemical reaction that generates deep browning and flavor. Because the molecules of these compounds are extremely large, they increase the viscosity of emulsions so much that it becomes difficult for the oil droplets to move around and coalesce into larger droplets and eventually separate from the water; thus, the dressing is very slow to separate. (Melanoidins also happen to be responsible for the aged vinegar’s inky color.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.774595
| 2011-05-09T16:38:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14602",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Martha F.",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"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
}
|
55896
|
Can I boil bratwurst in beer to cook them?
I bought Red Hook Bratwurts today, and I'm making them tomorrow. Does anyone know if I could boil them in beer since it already was pre made with beer (Red Hook), or would it not be a good idea?
Also, how long do you cook Brats on the grill or oven?
You can certainly simmer them in beer, but that's a totally different thing than beer battering. Beer battering would mean that you are coating the bratwurst, kind of like a corn dog.
Please try to only ask one question in any question.... How long you cook the brats should be printed on the packaging as it depends on the ones you get. If they're precooked, they likely don't need to be cooked at all and if they're raw, the type of meat/s and size will determine how long they need to cook.
Assuming that they are uncooked, you can certainly simmer your brats in beer (don't let them boil, that will burst them). I'd try to get a hold of some Red Hook and use that. Simmer them gently until they are almost done, about 15 minutes. Simmering in beer will only intensify the beeriness of the brat. If you like beer, go for it. If you've got time, do one in advance and see how you like it. You can dilute the beer with water or broth if you find the test brat too strong.
Consider adding some whole spices, garlic and onion to the beer and simmering them for 10 minutes before adding the bratwurst. Here's a recipe for exactly that. (That recipe looks outstanding, BTW)
Cover the pan and let the almost cooked bratwurst cool in the beer (seasoned or not). The recipe I linked to says to cool completely, but just 20 minutes or so is plenty. By then any carry-over cooking is done, but the brats would still be warm. Then just grill or brown on the stove just for browning, they will already be cooked through, so it's just the browning that you're looking for. Just let your eyes be your guide and don't go past medium heat (again, they will burst if your heat is too high).
This is pretty much exactly how I make beer brats (whether pre-made with beer or not). I don't add the spices (though it's a good idea), and I usually use a brown ale (Old Brown Dog is a great one) as it gives the brats a bit of malty-caramelization. I also add sliced onions to the beer and you get some soft, delicious beer-y sweet onions to put on the brats.
I like to give them a quick, hard sear before adding the beer (or cider--my preference). The marks make it look more attractive and I like the texture difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.774831
| 2015-03-20T23:17:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55896",
"authors": [
"Adam Mpofu",
"Catija",
"Debra Sell",
"Delbert",
"Duncan",
"Eugene W Land",
"Horland Hudson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Natalie Blachere",
"Patrick Hafner",
"Preston",
"Póilín Bryant",
"Rudolph Thomas",
"amir ijaz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34200",
"user5049"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52085
|
Nutrient content of ground bison meat
I have been searching for fat and calorie content per volume of ground bison meat, and I have found various conflicting sources.
BisonCentral.com lists it as 2.42 grams of fat and 143 kcal per 3.5 oz serving.
nutritiondata.self.com claims 14 grams of fat and 190 kcal per 3 oz serving.
healthyeating.sfgate.com says 10 grams of fat and 200 calories per 4 oz serving.
So which is right?
None of them are right—or, all of them are right.
"Ground bison" does not fully describe the product. Any ground meat is produced from one or more cuts of varying fat content, and usually does not have the same overall fat content as the average across all cuts of meat for that animal. So, to have a chance at comparing these different sources of information, you would at least need to know the fat content of the ground bison meat. To make things more complicated, the %fat indicated on ground meat labels in the US refers to the maximum proportion of fat in the product from a regulatory standpoint. There is some flexibility in how accurate the label must be for the product to be in compliance with federal regulations, so the actual fat content could be as much as 20% more or less than the advertised value; but in practice, a vendor won't get in trouble for selling meat that is leaner than advertised (even though this would be very annoying for those of us who are more concerned with preparing the dish properly than having it be low-fat). From the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service guidebook:
Q. Is the leeway on values still 20 percent?
A. Yes. The regulations in 9 CFR 317.309(h) and 381.409(h) specify
that certain nutrient values are not out of compliance, unless they
are more than 20 percent above the labeled value. That rule applies to
the labeled values for calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat,
cholesterol, or sodium. These regulations also specify that certain
nutrient values are not out of compliance unless they are 20 percent
below the labeled value. That rule applies to the labeled values for
vitamins, minerals, protein, total carbohydrates, dietary fiber, other
carbohydrates, polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat, or potassium.
Q. If a producer is not sure of the lean and fat percentage of a
ground or chopped product, could the producer label it with a worse
lean and fat percentage? For example, could a producer label a product
that is actually 80% lean and 20% fat, with a 70% lean/30% fat label?
A. FSIS would not take action against producers estimating that their
products are higher in fat than they actually are.
For an analytical perspective, check out this item from the Agricultural Research Service, which shows that at the lean end the of the spectrum, ground beef products are more likely to be fattier than the label advertises, while the reverse is true at the fatty end of the spectrum (near 70% lean/30% fat, which is the absolute maximum fat content allowed by law).
The other glaring problem with comparing these different sources of information is that the BisonCentral page is giving information for cooked meat, while the self.com page is giving information for raw meat. The sfgate.com page doesn't even specify cooked or raw so I would consider it the least credible of the three.
The nutritional information source I recommend is the USDA National Nutrient Database, which has over a dozen entries for various forms of bison meat:
NDB No. Description
17148 Bison, ground, grass-fed, cooked
17149 Bison, ground, grass-fed, raw
17156 Game meat, bison, separable lean only, raw
17330 Game meat , bison, ground, raw
17157 Game meat, bison, separable lean only, cooked, roasted
17331 Game meat, bison, ground, cooked, pan-broiled
17267 Game meat, bison, top sirloin, separable lean only, trimmed to 0" fat, raw
17268 Game meat, bison, ribeye, separable lean only, trimmed to 0" fat, raw
17269 Game meat, bison, shoulder clod, separable lean only, trimmed to 0" fat, raw
17332 Game meat , bison, top sirloin, separable lean only, 1" steak, cooked, broiled
17335 Game meat, bison, ribeye, separable lean only, 1" steak, cooked, broiled
17336 Game meat, bison, top round, separable lean only, 1" steak, cooked, broiled
17337 Game meat, bison, top round, separable lean only, 1" steak, raw
17333 Game meat, bison, chuck, shoulder clod, separable lean only, 3-5 lb roast, cooked, braised
17334 Game meat, bison, chuck, shoulder clod, separable lean only, 3-5 lb roast, raw
In fact, if you look closely at the chart on the BisonCentral page, you'll see at the bottom:
Bison, separable lean only, cooked, roasted. USDA NDB No. 17157
The corresponding NDB page doesn't agree exactly with the BisonCentral source (if you add up the lipid entries, you don't get 2.4%) but it's at least in the ballpark.
You have another problem: That's not a "ground meat" category. When the meat is raw, grinding it won't change the proportion of fat by weight, but when you cook ground meat the fat escapes much more easily than it would if you cooked the whole cut(s) from which the meat was originally ground.
Here's some further reading from Texas A&M about ground beef labeling, for those who are interested.
Actually, the %fat is closer to the minimumm proportion of fat in the US. It's the percent of fat trimmings mixed in, while the lean portion may have intramuscular fat.
@Joe Well, it's not as simple as being one or the other, max or min - I've expanded that section of the answer, with what I think are very credible citations (and learned a few things in the process!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.775214
| 2014-12-30T00:13:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52085",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Dennis DIY DEN Horseman",
"Diana Mitchell",
"Gabriela Osio Vanden",
"Joe",
"Judy Newman",
"Khalida Begam",
"Lorraine Queener",
"Melanie T",
"Tuan Tran",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"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
}
|
119929
|
What parts of Italy should you go to for anchovy pizza?
Is there a specific region of Italy that is known for anchovy pizza? Can you get that in all of Italy or is that specific to a region?
Can you actually get a buffalo mozzarella anchovy pizza?
Im trying to flesh out the specifics of my culinary bucket list.
I’m assuming Italians actually do anchovies on pizza. I know they have nothing but disdain for those who put pineapple on pizza.
I've seen pineapple on pizza in Italy, not often but it's done, and not just in tourist places.
Well all I can say according to Claudio Reineri it is not real pizza. That is just a side note. I can remove if it detracts from the main premise of the question.
Ask a group of Italians what is 'Italian' and what isn't and you'll likely get a different answer from each.
Hey, you seem confused about what you want to ask. I've answered your first question. If you have additional questions about cheese on pizza, I suggest asking them in separate questions.
Napoli.
Prior to the blessing of Pizza Margharita as the official pizza of Napoli, the locals equally enjoyed pizza with tomato sauce and anchovies. So much so, that this pizza is still known as Pizza Napoli.
So if you're looking for a traditional, "canonical" anchovy pizza, that's the place to go.
Thank you, I did think anyone with a good knowledge about Italy would be able to tell what kind of Italians are anchovy on pizza Italians
I expect anchovy pizza (or variation of) be available pretty much everywhere a pizza is made in Italy, maybe more in the south part of Italy (Rome, Naples...)
Look for "Pizza Romana".
Your best bet is to go to Naples.
For example (rome) : https://katieparla.com/daily-food-photo-pizzariums-anchovy-pizza/
I can't say I've seen Ricotta on pizza while traveling in Italy.
Ah yes I was thinking of buffalo mozerella
"Proper" Buffalo Mozzarella comes from Campania and surrounding areas (but is found everywhere in Italy)
I know it is subjective but is the buffalo cheese the ultimate pizza cheese?
Neil: that's exactly the kind of question that gets closed as "opinion-based", so I don't suggest posting it. Again, ask three Italians and you'll get five opinions.
Anchovies are very much a staple ingredient in many Italian dishes, but as Max said in his answer, the salty, briny flavor is more of a "thing" in Middle/Southern Italy. I do however think it's very much possible to get anchovy pizza in any proper restaurant that offers pizza. It's more restaurant specific than region specific.
The same goes for buffalo mozzarella. As it is a somewhat premium ingredient, most restaurants will offer it at a premium or not all. You will then typically find a normal "Pizza Margherita" and a "Pizza di Buffala" or "Pizza Margherita (con Mozzarella di Buffalla)" right next to it. Expect to pay around 1-2€ more.
So if you want a pizza with both buffalo mozzarella and anchovies (nothing else might be a bit weird to be honest) you can most likely simply ask for it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.775639
| 2022-02-21T09:41:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119929",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Max",
"Neil Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124161
|
What do you call these long spoons?
In this video the cook uses a really nifty long spoon.
What would you call such a thing and where would be the best bet to purchase one? I'm pretty certain the spoon is long because you cannot get too close to the industrial burners used in that restaurant, but that is a nice piece of kit for the home cook as well.
We shouldn't have to watch up to 18 minutes of external resource just to spot what you mean. Upload a still.
Not quite that long or large of a bowl, but there are also ‘ice tea spoons’
"Long handle spoons." ...just search the webstaurant store and you will find plenty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.775882
| 2023-05-11T13:01:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124161",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121633
|
What veggies give the best results in a mirepoix?
I want to make consomme. I think I have the general theory down. Im just wondering what veggies works best in the mirepoix, and in what way they should be chopped?
I wonder if the French tradition teaches something specific in this regard?
Do you mean mirepoix? The standard combination is 2 parts onion to 1 part each of carrot and celery. See that linked Wikipedia article for alternatives and the related sofrito and Cajun "holy trinity".
If available, parsley root and parsnip work very well in addition to the classic mix.
Also roasting a cut onion in a pan until black and adding it to the stock with the peel gives additional depth and colour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.775972
| 2022-09-12T10:39:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121633",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104768
|
Can gravlax be hung to dry?
If I cure salmon into gravlax as made in this video featuring a Gordon Ramsey recipe, what would happen if I hung the cured salmon for let's say a week after curing has been done. Of course, hanging it in a suitable environment away from lecherous insects.
Ultimately, I want to make a salmon version of bokkoms.
Gravlax is a wet cure, salting and sun drying is a dry cure @NeilMeyer. You need the right conditions to dry cure.
I tend to think that people here worry too much about botulinum... but you really REALLY don't want to be inventing your own recipes for dried fish.
There are lots of other kinds of food poisioning that are more common that botulism. And if you hang gravlax for a week, you'll get to find all of them!
It's impolite to make serious changes to your question after someone's already answered your original question. You should roll back your edits, and start a new question instead.
@NeilMeyer you unfortunately changed the premise, thus effectively making the existing answer “not an answer”. Please don’t do that. I made a rollback (and a bit of cleanup), because a Q/A with an answer that basically says “don’t do that because...” is still helpful, also for future readers. I recommend a new question (you can still link to this one, if you like), asking about the dry cure approach.
I'd strongly advice against that. A cure only works as long as the salt and sugar concentrations are high enough. And although Gravlax does a decent job of infusing the salmon with both the content in the salmon itself is not nearly high enough to keep it preserved, it is the crust on the fish itself that keeps it ok to eat.
It is not a problem to keep your salmon under its crust for a week, just make sure to keep it on a rack so liquid can drain away.
What you could try is making a version of Stockfish but you'll need a dry and cool environment (like Norwegian cool). Stockfish is usually made with very lean fish, I don't know how that would work with fatty salmon. But a casual google seems to confirm people are making something called "salmon jerky" so it might just work.
Making salmon jerky requires dry heat for hours. The traditional method is staking it near an open fire. Salmon on its own won't dry, it's too fatty. I'll spoil instead.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.776064
| 2020-01-16T05:36:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104768",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84379
|
Is it possible to make burger buns pans made with paper tape?
I know that there are professional burger bun pans (such as silicone or metal) available, but I've heard that some burger restaurants make their own bread with crafted pans made of paper tape since they make the burger bun grow better vertically.
Is that possible? Did anyone do it before? Can you guide me?
If by "paper tape" you mean "strips of (food safe) paper or parchment" then yes, it's possible.
But before we talk about the how, let's have a quick look at the why first:
Most cooks want to match the size of the bun to the size of the patty or vice versa. Unfortunately, some recipes can be a bit unpredictable as far as the rising and expansion of the buns are concerned, and so are the abilities of the various bakers when it comes to proper shaping. A burger bun pan limits the sideways expansion, thus determining a maximum diameter. And if the bun can't expand sideways, it will go up.
Now, how you achieve that is up to you.
The aforementioned hamburger bun pans (aka mini pie pans, btw.) are but one solution. Others are baking rings, the tops of canning jars, strips of tinfoil, strips of parchment, a parchment collar inside a tin, parchment around a tin. (The latter two are probably overkill for your case.)
In short, for tinfoil or parchment you take a strip that's an inch or two longer than your desired diameter and a few times as wide as your desired height. You fold it lengthwise a few times for increased stability, then secure the overlapping ends - a stapler comes to mind. Tape will probably not stick to parchment (depends on the brand) and is not supposed to go in the hot oven. In a pinch, a piece of string (cotton, not plastic!) can work as well. The tinfoil link above has also step-by step instructions.
I personally use neither - I shape my buns until the surface is taut and usually they turn out nice enough. So in addition to crafting rings, you should also read up on how to properly shape buns.
Paper Tape? If there's a food safe tape that can survive oven temperatures, I've never seen it. What's more likely is they were borrowing from the souffle cooks playbook and making a collar for their bun rings using parchment paper. Must be a pretty expensive burger place if they're going through those fussy steps for their buns. I honestly can't even imagine that the bread would be significantly affected by this, but hey, experimenting is always fun.
Kapton is one of the tapes that I know of that will survive ovens (and autoclaves), but I have no idea if it's food safe. And it's really expensive. It's also the translucent orange tape that you see in pictures from NASA, especially around electronics.
@Joe it's not all that expensive. Generically it's polyimide tape. Typically rated to about 500°F (260°C). There are two kinds of adhesive- silicone and acrylic. I would personally feel confident with silicone adhesive tape in contact to hold the parchment paper ring together. Not so much with direct food contact, though I suspect it's okay (the non-adhesive side) but I won't be testing it. Generally I think plastics at high temperatures are to be avoided.
@SpehroPefhany : I guess I should've said I was told it was expensive 20 years ago when I was working w/ something that needed it. But it's possible that I heard it from the faculty member who was using the equiptment bought tax-free for the project to start his own company ... it's possible he was taking consumables, too, and just wanted to make sure we didn't run out after the stuff he took.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.776274
| 2017-09-13T18:31:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84379",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Spehro 'speff' Pefhany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49739",
"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
}
|
66579
|
Soft dinner rolls always taste bland or flat
I proof Granular Rapid Rise yeast in mix of milk/water/honey/touch of flour and 100 - 110 degrees, adding the yeast. Always proofs really well, doubling etc. I have made these so many times, you would think I would give up,, I cook alot, bake a good deal, and always seem to get a great shiny dough, buttered and rises with all the unpredictability yeast dough can - moisture content, temp. etc I like a softer dough, not quite sticky, and punch down, and rise a second time. I know the times that I've allowed rises to happen too quickly - but generally an hour for each rise, almost double rise first time, and 3/4 rise the second time. I use eggs, milk, water, King A. Unbleached AP Flour, some sugar* and some salt*. sometimes I mix in butter, sometimes mix of shortening/butter, and like tonight, very little butter, with heavy cream instead of milk.
I think the texture is good, very consistent crumb, soft crusts ( egg wash or butter), and they look great. Trouble is the taste:
Seems to me that butter helps, but really salt and sugar will affect the flavour/taste the most. Would you agree with this?
I like a sweeter dinner roll, and with the sugar in the proofing liquid, I may only add another couple of tablespoons no more.
Perhaps salt is my weakness, I love salted things, and try to add as much salt as I feel I can, but worry so much about harming the yeast, am I just not putting enough? tonight, I put a total of 1.5 tsp in dough of 4 eggs, 4 cups flour, 3 tablespoons of sugar, 2 tablespoons of honey, 1/2 c. water, 1/2 cup whpping cream, for a total of 1.75 cups of liquid. Dough was predictably soft and sticky, but came together, so while kneading added approx 1 more cup flour until just soft, shiny, and smooth. I kneaded by hand for about 2 - 3 minutes until I felt the dough was not too elastic, smooth and formed a nice soft ball. The rises were as mentioned above, pretty good.
I have half of the dough in the refrig. to perform a slower rise, which I understand develops a better yeast flavour - I hope so, but now I realize that the finished rolls are just bland. Like just the flour taste, maybe a touch of the honey, but otherwise, flat, cardboard flavor. Hard to throw them away when they look so good, texture is great and all that unsalted butter waiting to go on them!
I need advice please - what am I missing or doing too much of? Do you think longer rises? More salt? less yeast? Sorry for the long question - wanted to give you as much info as possible! thanks, Brad
Are you really aiming for a stronger yeast taste or just a more complex flavour overall? Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
You've answered this question yourself.
Flavor in bread comes from:
salt
yeast action
and to a lesser degree
fat
sugar
Obviously you have plenty of fat and sugar.
As you suspect, your yeasty flavor will be improved by letting it rise longer in the fridge.
Flat flavor in bread is almost always because of not enough salt. I agree with you that you don't have enough.
As the saying goes: "Bread without salt is insipid"
For how much salt is good, see this question: Amount of salt in bread
About 2% of the flour weight. In your recipe with 5 cups of flour (600g) that would be just over 2tsp of table salt (12g).
I use kosher salt and would probably use closer to a tablespoon for a batch of bread this size.
In addition to more salt you should consider a few things to improve your flavor. One primary piece of advice would be to try other flours. AP flour is the dullest possible base for bread, and even with more salt, sugar, fat, and a long rise in the fridge there's only so much flavor you are going to get. Malted barley flour, malted wheat flakes, and oat flour all have a natural sweetness and complexity. Rye, whole wheat, spelt, and others add more of a nuttiness. If you want more flavorful bread start with more flavorful flour.
Another suggestion would be to start by making a sponge. A sponge is made by mixing some of the flour and water (say 1/4 or 1/3 of each) from your recipe and your yeast, then letting it sit awhile. This gives you an active and healthy yeast base, but also creates flavor, especially if you let it sit overnight in the fridge.
You could also try other strains of yeast, or natural yeasts. The yeast you buy in the store is reliable and fast, typically at the expense of flavor development. What else is available depends on your location, but there's plenty of options you can get off the web.
For me, this works:
1) before adding the yeast, I rest the dough with sugar added for and hour or so. The french call the autolyse. No salt.
2) I add yeast.Knead. Then I add salt. (Salt hampers yeast). Adding fats (butter, olive oil) result in a finer crumb. I find that olive oil gives more taste, butter is more well, cake-like I suppose. Proof a long time, a day and night. Even in the tropics, I leave the dough outside the fridge. I use a bit less yeast than normal, because of the long proofing time. You can smell the yeast building up complex tastes.
I shape it in its final form, and proof for say a final hour before baking, until it has risen as much I want (or it wants).
so, I think: do an autolyse, use long proofing time on relatively high temp, dont use too much salt and first mix the yeast in, use long proofing, and use olive oil.
If you want it salty, an option is to sprinkle salt on the surface before baking, so you do not destroy the yeast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.776562
| 2016-02-17T03:47:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66579",
"authors": [
"Aspen Golding",
"Catherine Williamson",
"Kimberly Hodge",
"Lenray Gandy",
"Robyn Rominski",
"Shirley Taylor",
"Stephie",
"Wendy McDonald",
"amrita mirza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159629",
"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
}
|
81202
|
What are vegan ways to change or neutralize the taste of textured vegetable protein (TVP)?
I find the taste unappealing. For one cup of TVP I blend 3-4 onions, a head of garlic then add some spices, add carrots, then bake it as burgers and still I can taste it. I tried soaking it in vegetable broth and veggie cubes but I didn't like their taste.
Edit: I'm particularly interested in improving TVP taste or at least neutralizing it.
Blending onions can surprisingly introduce bitterness. Is there a strong umami source in your mixture (eg yeast in the broth), as well as sugar and some fat?
Thanks, I will keep that in mind, I have to blend them because this way they last longer. I don't use broth, used it once, didn't like it. So it's usually just onions, garlic and spices.
Uh no, blended onion paste spoils quicker than whole onions. Try adding some soy sauce (shiitake soy sauce is best here) or MSG, sugar, and fat.
Some might object that this is "not answering the question" but:
If you find that TVP tastes objectionable, try moving on to a felafel recipe (instead of using TVP) if you are looking for a protein rich vegan "patty." (Yes, you can make felafel pattys rather than balls. And you can bake them.) Pretty close to "use soaked, ground/chopped beans/peas/lentlls rather than TVP" in your current approach/recipe. Instead of trying to cover up a flavor you object to, start with a different flavor.
I have used many different types of dry beans or split peas, soaked overnight, coarsely ground or food processed, and turned them into baked pattys. So far they all worked, though of course the taste and color vary between using green split peas, yellow ones, or chickpeas, etc. And can vary further with other vegetable/fruit additions (apple and onion work well, for me.)
I have not used kidney beans and I suppose they might be a poor idea with the toxin that has to be boiled strongly to inactivate it.
Have you tried textured pea protein? Much better taste. Also rehydrated TVP has a super short shelf life, like 3 days, before it begins to smell and taste sour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.776993
| 2017-04-24T15:57:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81202",
"authors": [
"Marina Dunst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41531",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65304
|
How long should I bake a hamburger meatloaf, and at what oven temperature?
I invented my own recipe for meatloaf: hamburger, bread, 1 egg, dried onion bits, Worcestershire sauce, a bit of ketchup. Put into the oven at 350 degrees F.
Please advise the ideal oven temperature, and length of cooking time. Also, should I cover it with foil for part of the time?
it will be cooked when it reaches the internal temperature corresponding to the "done" temperature of whatever meat you are using. From the US food Safety Chart:
Category................................................Food.........................Temperature (°F)
Ground Meat & Meat Mixtures......Beef, Pork, Veal, Lamb.............160
Ground Meat & Meat Mixtures......Turkey, Chicken.......................165
I'd guess that it will take about 45min-75min depending on what size and shape of pan you are using. I personally don't cover my meatloaf with foil but I have a ketchup mixture I spread on the top so while that caramelizes it doesn't really "brown". If you have a "dry" top you may want to consider covering it, but I do find that covering with foil can increase the cooking time somewhat..
on the issue of a dry top ... see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10875/67
Depending on depth and placement within the oven, 45-60 minutes most likely.
You'll have to test it, but once you know then you'll know.
350 degrees for oven for around 40-45 minutes, I top mine with tomato sauce lightly and I cover mine with foil to keep it moist and remove foil the last 15 minutes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.777187
| 2016-01-12T01:13:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65304",
"authors": [
"David kyle",
"Elena DeFilippis",
"Faith",
"Helen Brazel",
"Joe",
"Joylene Young",
"Kathryn Hands",
"Mary O'Halloran",
"Nor Aine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jay fulton",
"rian ogallachoir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65078
|
French Fries: Why soak in cold water, and if so, why a long time
I have heard that, to get crispy french fries, I need to get rid of the excess starch on the surface of potatoes after cutting them. But that can't be the reason, really, because starch is actually what FORMS the crust... so my reasoning is the following: we soak them because enzymes released by cutting will quickly convert the starch into glucose, and THAT will caramelise and burn our french fries. Is that the reason why we use cold water, to keep the enzyme inactive?
If so, soaking in cold water seems unnecessary to me. Thoroughly rinsing until the water runs clean should be enough. Am I correct?
Soaking is probably less important than blanching, and fry perfection is quite complex. I know no one who has investigated this more than Dave Arnold. No need to reproduce all the gory detail, which can be had here: http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=4043.html
Thank you moscafj. That link will keep me busy for a while. Biiiig thanks, that is one leven up!
Willem, whatever works for you of course, no problem. I am digging into the chemistry and technique as deep as I can...I have made FF for decades, and have seen many many ideas. I am trying to find out WHY. We cooks tend to follow authority, in stead of experiment. Call it evidence based cooking (much like medicine, that is an art and is trying to incorporate experiment. Dont steal the term, I am trying to get rich with it..;-)
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78898/when-making-french-fries-can-i-precut-them-before-baking-or-frying-them
The cooking issues link has a lot of good information, but one thing they didn't test for is tossing the fries to rough up the outer surface before the final fry. It's possible that they didn't do it as it's more typical for Dutch & Belgian fries, which tend to be less slender (shorter and thicker) than American fries, so they can take rougher treatment.
According to https://foodcrumbles.com/should-you-rinse-or-soak-potatoes-before-frying-an-experiment/
when it comes to crispiness it makes little difference whether you soak for a long period of time or not (it only affects the color). So you are basically correct that thoroughly rinsing until the water runs clean should be enough.
The reason why you want to get rid of the excess starch on the surface is, while cooking they will brown faster and will yield very dark brown fries, instead of golden-brown "which we all like ;)". It has nothing (or little) to do with enzymes aiding caramelization/maillard reaction. The browning happens at high temperatures, such as the temperature of the frying oil. As you have more starches on the surface, they will get darker, or even burnt.
As a side note, I’ve found out that instead of soaking, just cooking the fries in water for a short while helps greatly in getting rid of the surface starches, even more than soaking or running them through water.
I never soak my fries and actually prefer the dark color (although I always thought this was due to a different variety of potatoes), it's one part of what makes the so much better than fries you can buy everywhere.
I just know that when I soak them they don’t stick together when fried. Also it doesn’t just reduce starch it can reduce Acrylamide in the potatoes. That’s why I soak them at least. I never soak longer than 1 hour if I’m prepping dinner and sometimes I just rinse if I’m in a rush.
Soaking French fries in cold water is done for two reasons. This takes out the excess starch from the outside of the potato. Let them soak for a minimum of four hours in your refrigerator. They can stay in the water for up to some 24 hours or so with no harm coming to the potatoes. Be very careful in drying the fries before putting them into the oil? Water and oil do not mix. The second reason for soaking is that it has the advantage of keeping the fries from getting too dark during the cooking process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJ739iMYXI
Please read the question....WHY soak a long time, and I dont think the starch is the problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.777459
| 2016-01-05T12:50:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65078",
"authors": [
"Anthony Grady",
"Greg Grivas",
"Joe",
"JohnEye",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lotty Pontones",
"Marc Luxen",
"Michael Cozzi",
"Michele Crane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66712
|
What is the difference between Microwave, Microwave Oven, and Oven?
Some sites say that a "microwave" is only for heating or re-heating cooked food. Whereas, in "microwave ovens", you can microwave and bake. Is that true?
If it is, then why I can cook main course dishes (chicken, rice), soups, etc. in my microwave oven? I even have a recipe book with 100+ recipes using a microwave oven.
So, can someone please clear up this fog? What's the difference between Microwave and Oven and Microwave Oven?
I see on your profile that you're in India - note that the terms you're using in your question are probably used a bit differently in the rest of the world (or at least in the US).
First off, the terminology issue.
So, can someone please clear up this fog? What's the difference between Microwave and Oven and Microwave Oven?
"Microwave" is just short for "microwave oven". Both terms mean the same thing: an appliance that uses microwave radiation to heat food. Cooking food in this way is called "microwaving". An oven, on the other hand, has a heating element which heats the air inside, which then heats the food. Cooking food in this way is generally called "baking", though there are a lot of other things (e.g. roasting) you can also reasonably do in an oven.
So if all you have is a microwave, then all you can do is microwave (not bake). And if you have an oven, then you can bake (but of course you can't microwave).
There also exist combinations, which are capable of both microwaving and baking, i.e. they have a microwave emitter and a heating element. However, remember that in the US - and thus on much of the internet - something talking about a "microwave oven" likely does not mean this combination, but simply microwave heating. Names like "convection microwave oven with grill", "combination microwave/oven" do refer to these combinations, though. I've also seen "speed oven". You may sometimes have seen people referring to these combination microwave/ovens as a "microwave oven" (I think this may be common in Indian English), but that's really just imprecise language.
Some sites say that a "microwave" is only for heating or re-heating cooked food. Whereas, in "microwave ovens", you can microwave and bake. Is that true?
It sounds like in this statement, "microwave oven" is careless language, referring to a combination microwave and oven. (It doesn't make any sense at all otherwise; the two things are the same thing, so of course you can do the same things in them.)
So the question is really, what can you do in a microwave vs an oven, or a combination microwave/oven?
It's true that microwaves are mainly used for reheating cooked food, and it's true that they can't actually bake. However, they can do a lot more than reheat food; there are a lot of kinds of cooking besides baking. For example, microwaves are great at simmering/boiling and steaming, and it doesn't matter if the food was cooked already or not. The recipes you're talking about are probably mostly in those kinds of categories, but if you're interested, How do I know if a food or recipe can be made in a microwave oven? discusses in a bit more detail what works in microwaves.
The big things that you can do with ovens but not microwaves are the things that actually need the steady dry heat of baking. You can't bake bread or cookies or roast a chicken in a microwave. Microwaves hold in a lot of steam and don't get terribly hot, so you can't generally get things to brown or crisp up. They also don't really hold a temperature like you need for baking, they just pump more and more heat into the food.
Thanks a lot for your answer. Now I understand why it is called "convection." One more question: I have a microwave Oven. So I can bake in it, too. Right? Or will the baking be any different from that of an Oven?
@Mrstupid I'm pretty sure I covered that... do you have a microwave oven aka microwave? If so, you can only microwave, not bake. Or do you have a combination microwave and oven? If so, you can microwave and bake.
(Also, for the record, a convection oven is a specific kind of oven - it has a fan to move the air around, i.e. to force convection. Some combination microwave/ovens have this feature, and some don't.)
I have these four modes in the Microwave: Combination, Grill, Convection, Microwave.
for clarity, a microwave oven is different from a microwave. Please be aware that a microwave oven can bake as much as you can with an oven. The fact is a microwave oven is a microwave convention which is a higher grade to a microwave. And in such, you can make brownies, cup cakes, pizza, bread, e.t.c in a microwave oven.
Here is the first search result for "microwave oven" on Amazon. Note that it doesn't do convection. Neither does this one or this one. I can understand your confusion, but the accepted answer from two years ago really is correct.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.777802
| 2016-02-22T11:58:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66712",
"authors": [
"4-K",
"Audrey Poole",
"Cascabel",
"John Davis",
"Kay Nichols",
"Linda Poulin",
"Rudy Rubio",
"Sneftel",
"Terra Hegy",
"Vivian Mendoza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"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
}
|
75293
|
Can you ferment tomatoes in a fermenting crock with water seal?
Going all the way, fermenting everything...
Can tomatoes be fermented in fermentation crock?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. What is your goal here? Are you wondering if the results would be appetizing, or just safe to consume?
Well, safety is always number one. So yes, would it be safe and how long if yes to ferment? And taste is also important. Is it worthwhile?
Also, since we talking fermentation here, I can not find the answer to "Is it safe to consume sourcraut if the water seal was broken". My crock is just sucking the water in and I have lost a seal a cople of times. Its been in for about 12 days now. Continue the process, or disregard and dump it?
Thank you in advance for your help. I m used to doing the cabage, pickles and tomatoes without a water seal, just in the pot and now trying the water seal and am concerned about food safety and what if procedures.
We're a Q&A site (see the [tour]) so if you have other questions (like the broken seal one), please just post them as new questions so we can get you answers.
Ripe Tomatoes
I've fermented ripe tomatoes, not on their own but in mixed vegetables. They get very soft. I used a mason jar, but I imagine a crock would have similar results.
Note that this was a brine style ferment (submerged in salt water), not a kraut-style ferment (mashed with salt and submerged in its own liquid).
Personally, I won't do it again—but then I prefer ferments that are on the crisp side, so maybe it's a matter of preference. I feel fermentation works best with hardier vegetables, though it's possible that some salsa and chutney recipes may involve fermenting red tomatoes.
Green Tomatoes
Green tomatoes, however, are a different story and ferment wonderfully. With garlic, dill, bay leaves, coriander, and black peppercorns, kosher green tomatoes are one of my favorite ferments.
The only catch is that they can be hard to find, even at farmer's markets. But at this time of year (fall), I always have some left on our tomato vines, and I find fermenting is easier than fried green tomatoes. If you don't have tomato plants, maybe friends or neighbors do.
"Undecided" Tomatoes
This is completely anecdotal and includes some guesswork, but may still be helpful:
This fall I put up four jars of green tomatoes to ferment. Three had major problems with kahm (benign yeast). Even though I aggressively managed the kahm, removing it at least daily, those jars ended up with an off-putting taste and I ended up discarding them... tears in my eyes.
I used the same procedure for all four jars that I've used several times before, But in the three failed jars I included a few tomatoes that were half ripe. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the extra sugar in the ripe tomatoes made the kahm more likely. So it's possible that ripe tomatoes, as a relatively high-sugar item, could risk more yeast issues.
Safety
I can only say that I've had no foodborne illness problems, and I'm aware of nothing that makes tomatoes more susceptible to these issues than other vegetables when properly fermented (enough salt, kept below the liquid, etc.).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.778188
| 2016-11-06T00:17:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75293",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Fermentation 4Ever",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51761"
],
"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
}
|
81703
|
What are these pans used for?
I have these 2 pans and do not know what to cook in them. The square one is non stick; the lid has holes in it and is curved to fit the hump in the bottom part.
The second pan has a detachable handle.
Popcorn? (It's a little hard to see the inside of the bottom piece, so I can't tell if there's enough room for that.)
No it's very shallow with a hump in it
This is boggling my mind! Is the bottom of the pan flat, creating a hollow space inside the hump? So far my only guess to what it could be used for is flatbread (the way flatbread is made on domed griddles in the Middle East/East) or even possibly flat steak (notice the edge could catch juices) but that's a major stretch I think.
Where did you get these pans?
Surely it is some sort of gimmicky bacon pan. You lay the bacon over the hump and clamp it down like you would with a bacon press, then the trough-like sides catch the grease.
I could see it maybe being used to make naan bread. Once it's puffed up you clamp the top down and flip upside down to blacken the bubbles like would happen in a tandoor. Seems like a little bit of a stretch though.
Two hypotheses for you:
The holes in the lid resemble a colander and make me think there's some steamer functionality for the pan.
This might be a stretch, but perhaps it could be used to make spatzle, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spätzle. I can't tell how deep the pan is from the picture but perhaps you cook the dough in the pan and turn the pan over to let the water out through the holes of the lid.
I'm curious to hear what other people think!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.778446
| 2017-05-16T00:02:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81703",
"authors": [
"Joshua Engel",
"Valpitt",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57953",
"kettultim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90707
|
How to eat a spruce tree
Big farm to table dinner coming up. I'm showcasing the vegetables that are readily available this season. There is a beautiful spruce tree on the farm that I'd like to incorporate into a brisket. I have already kicked myself in the butt for not picking the spruce tips and or collecting the pollen. Timing is everything, I have to wait until next spring. But, there are still the needles. I understand the potency of flavor. Bitter is what I want. Plenty of fat to balance. I'm pairing with a black IPA that has piney and citrus notes.
So, my questions are:
If I was to do a long cold smoke with the needles and or wood, how long and how "hot"?
Should I just simply braise the brisket with the needles? Or both?
Sap?
What are your thoughts on cooking with spruce?
I have many years of BBQ experience smoking briskets.
I would not recommend spruce as a cooking/smoke wood for brisket or for anything.
It will not taste very well. Too much creosote.
Use oak, hickory, mesquite or any fruit or nut wood.
If you are cooking the brisket via another heat source and using the spruce needles as a flavoring agent, that may work. Not very appealing to me, but.
I haven't tried spruce, but I have made the mistake of attempting to cook over other softwoods. Not a good choice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.778620
| 2018-06-30T23:19:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90707",
"authors": [
"Joshua Engel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91652
|
Is it possible to transfer E-O157 from simply touching something with contaminated hands?
Today I went to eat at a local hamburger chain with my family. It was the type of restaurant where you can clearly see the workers making and prepping the food. While observing them make our food, I witnessed the cook take out the raw hamburger patties (with a gloved hand), put them on the grill, grab the buns and cut them in half, line up the plates, place the toppings on the bun, then continue cooking the hamburger, all with the same gloves. Being a little paranoid about my children getting unnecessarily sick, I immediately informed the manager and requested new buns and toppings with fresh gloves. The manager didn't seem to think a whole lot about it, but still granted my request, but I definitely had to spend the rest of the stay with some death stares from the staff. After leaving, I started to wonder if I was being a little unreasonable since I have been seeing this practice more and more at different restaurants and fast-food joints.
I have read ALOT of questions on this site about the risks of cross contamination but most of it involves best practices and food being cooked together, like this, and this, and this.
Based on all my reading, I already know this is not good practice, but what I am curious about is if any of the bad stuff, like E-O157 can actually be transferred to the buns and toppings in this manner.
Am I overreacting about the risks associated with this practice, or are the risks relatively low? More specifically, is it even possible to transfer enough of the bad stuff to make someone sick by using the above practices?
The risk is very low but I think your request was reasonable.
@paparazzo - Thanks for the reassurance. I updated my question a bit because what I am really curious about is if it's even possible to get the bad stuff using these practices. I couldn't find a whole lot online since most of it specifies eating the undercooked meat.
Get bad stuff yes. Get enough bad stuff to hurt you is different. I can tell you many commercial kitchens do not re-glove every time they touch raw meat. On fast food you can grab the wax paper and have very little contact with the burger.
It's not unusual for a line cook to handle several things at once, but I can certainly understand your concerns. It would be preferable if the cook could pick up the burger with a seperate utensil, dedicated to the burgers. With someone else assembling the plate (bun, side dish and "fixin's").
The issue(s) with E-O157, as I understand them, are primarily a result of contamination during production. In NC, an establishment that grinds their own meat is allowed to serve the food product at any temp the consumer requests (even to the point of Steak TarTare - yum!). The reason is simply that they are in a more controlled environment and the risks are significantly lowered/eliminated. Businesses that have their ground beef processed off-site are limited to cooking it well enough to kill the bacteria. Typically, "well done".
Cross-contamination is a "thing", but a restaurant employee is more likely to think of it as: don't put the potato salad spoon into the spaghetti sauce, or don't stick the meat thermometer into the soup pot. Picking up lettuce and then reaching for a slice of tomato... is generally "ok". I do agree that it would be unappealing to see what you described.
The US Dept of Agriculture/USDA provides much more information on their website.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.778754
| 2018-08-13T01:43:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91652",
"authors": [
"T James",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63659",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86339
|
Cheese suggestions to replace melted Velveeta
I have been given the honors of making appetizers for the family Christmas dinner. One of the traditional recipe calls for melted Velveeta, to go over a cooked sausage "pate" on top of a small piece of rye bread.
To not hurt any feelings I'm going to make some of these with the traditional Velveeta, but for others I would like to replace the Velveeta with some other cheese. I'm assuming I'll have to make a thick bechamel sauce. I need help with what cheese, or up to 3 cheeses, I should melt down. Any suggestions would be considered.
FWIW the sausage is usually fairly mild, not much spicier then the rye bread it is on.
There's a lot of answers already, but no one has clarified why you don't want to use Velveeta. What is it that you want to avoid or what do you want that the packaged cheese doesn't provide? There are many options depending on your goals.
Most complaints I've heard are either around the flavor, or the waxy texture melted Velveeta takes on once it's been at room temperature.
I want something that would improve the overall flavor of the appetizer. Something with some funk/earthy might play well with the ray bread, which is usually more flavorful then the sausage. Or something with some spice could be fun to.
Getting a cheese to melt and spoon onto the toast & sausage is the only physical requirement. I was thinking a hard cheese with bight/funk miked with another for smothness.
Any meltable cheese would work IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taleggio_cheese
I should think the biggest complaint about Velveeta is that it's not cheese.
If you want the smoothness of melted processed cheese, but not the extra trouble of making your own, you can use processed cheese in other flavors such as Swiss, sharp cheddar, extra sharp cheddar, and pepper jack. (Just to name a few.)
Another option is canned or jarred process cheeses in various flavors.
Lastly, and probably what I would use, are different varieties of very young, soft cheeses. They tend to melt well and if young enough, don't need any additional ingredients.
As an example, I make a mac and cheese with a very young Gouda. It is quite literally just the macaroni and cheese. The cheese is to die for creamy. On the rare occasion that I end up with a slightly more mature cheese, a tablespoon or so of cream is all it needs to get to that smooth, creamy point.
Thank you for the young Gouda idea.
I'll still check out the Sodium Citrate method a few people mentioned below.
The ideal answer here is to use Sodium Citrate to make a cheese of your choice soluble in water. This Modernist Cuisine article is exactly what you want.
If you look at the ingredients in Velveeta or most American cheese slices you'll see that they use Sodium Citrate to emulsify the cheese and water. Most of the other techniques here, including your bechamel concept, will dull the flavor of the cheese, and in many cases fail to approximate the texture of Velveeta. It sounds like the Serious Eats approach mentioned in another answer would achieve something similar, but it's unclear to me why the author explicitly eschews the use of Sodium Citrate.
In any case, the technique I'm suggesting will allow you to get the exact consistency and stability of Velveeta with the minimum possible effort and without masking the flavor of your base cheese at all. You can get Sodium Citrate from multiple suppliers on Amazon or elsewhere online.
You can probably modify any cheese to melt similarly to velveeta.
Sodium citrate would be my go-to method. It's actually one of the main things that gives Velveeta its smooth, processed texture, but you can buy it yourself and add it to a cheese of your choice. (A good alternative would be gelatin plus (evaporated) milk; see rumtcho's answer for a description of that. It's not quite as close to processed cheese texture, but it should be good enough for your purposes.)
The basic process is to heat a bit of liquid (water, milk, broth, beer, whatever you like) with sodium citrate in a pan to dissolve it, then slowly blend in grated cheese, letting it melt, until it's all incorporated. Ideally, you use an immersion blender to get it really smooth, but I think determined whisking would suffice. For thinner sauces, you can use more liquid. I've also seen varying ratios of cheese to sodium citrate, anywhere from 25:1 to 90:1.
Here's an example generic recipe for just the cheese. I've seen this kind of thing used generally for sauces, for example this Serious Eats "Modern" Mac and Cheese recipe or this nacho cheese recipe, but it should work for you too as a melted processed cheese replacement.
That example recipe says to use immediately; it'll be like melted processed cheese at that point. If you let it cool, I'm pretty sure it'd solidify into something like Velveeta.
Note that if you want it to be really thick, you could likely use slightly less liquid, as long as it's enough to cover the bottom of your pot and dissolve the sodium citrate. You could probably use a little less sodium citrate too and still have it be plenty smooth while seeming a bit less processed, but since you're actually trying to replicate processed cheese, I guess you might as well go all in!
If you want the texture of Velveeta, you have to make your own processed cheese. The best way I know is to mix finely grated cheese with some kind of milk or cream, gently melt, and add gelatine to make the sheets. You can find the story of perfecting the process, as well as the final recipe, on Kenji Lopez Alt's column on Serious Eats, http://aht.seriouseats.com/2011/09/the-burger-lab-how-to-make-super-melty-cheese-slices-like-american.html.
If you wonder "but why make processed cheese if I want to get away from Velveeta" - if you use some good quality, aged aromatic cheese as the source, the end product tastes differently from the stuff you can buy.
To maintain the consistency of Velveeta you would be well served to start with a base of Cream Cheese into which you can melt other soft cheeses. You have a wide range of choices. Cream cheese will promote the right texture and is a neutral enough flavor that what ever you want to add as a 'feature' cheese(s) will come through.
Personally, I might look at a smokey Swiss & Cheddar I get at my local deli or for a little kick some pepperjack.
Thanks if I can't find a young Gouda a quartet of Swiss, Cheddar, pepperjack, and creamcheese might be perfect for the group.
Do you melt the harder cheese then remove the heat to add the cream/soft cheese before spreading?
I usually get the base warm (cream cheese, maybe some beer) flowing smoothly and then add the harder cheese, in grated form, to the sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.779309
| 2017-12-13T18:13:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86339",
"authors": [
"Bob Tway",
"Cos Callis",
"JPhi1618",
"RunThor",
"Shufflepants",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63693"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102462
|
Why is my Frozen Yogurt Grainy?
I used Cal Peternell's recipe:
1 cup of whole milk
1/2 cup of half and half
1/2 cup of sugar
pinch of salt
3 cups of whole milk yogurt
zest and juice of a half lemon
BUT... Instead of half and half I replaced it for cream because this is what I had at the moment. Could that be the culprit?
Is there yogurt in your recipe?
Also, what was your freezing method, and how long did it take?
Hi: Thanks for writing back, yes the recipe called for 3 cups of whole milk yogurt, and it took about an hour to freeze. I was using the Breville ice cream cream maker.
Quicker freezing = smaller ice crystals. One hour is a long time, that likely contributed to your grainy texture. If the Breville ice maker is your only option, make sure your base is as cold as possible before using the ice cream maker. That means refrigerating it for several hours in advance. You also might want to strain your base through a fine sieve first. This would help to ensure that the graininess is not coming from your ingredients.
The first culprit is the recipe ratios. You have only 6% of fat and 16% of nonfat solids. This is way too low, and unlikely to ever produce smooth frozen yogurt. So, change the recipe, you won't get far with this one.
Second, for a good frozen dessert, there are many things that have to go right at the same time. We have tons of old questions on which ones these are, so for them, please refer to Preventing Crystalised Dairy Ice Cream, especially the questions in the Linked section in the right column.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.779929
| 2019-09-23T12:58:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102462",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78667",
"moscafj",
"savilac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93049
|
How to check if baking powder is fresh?
How do I know if my baking powder and baking soda are still fresh?
Baking soda is sodium bicarbonate, a mineral. Left to itself in a clean and dry place, it will remain unchanged for billions of years. In particularly wet or polluted environments it may react with chemicals in the air and become unpleasant for use in food, which you can detect by smell.
Baking powder is a combination of baking soda and tartaric acid, which react in the presence of water. Eventually, even the moisture in the atmosphere is enough to cause this to happen. Checking whether your powder is still active is easy...just add a drop of water to a small bit. If it bubbles and reacts, it's still good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.780075
| 2018-10-19T12:08:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93049",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93565
|
How can I toast rice without using an oven?
Rice can be toasted for adding more taste and flavor. The recipe I have uses an oven to toast rice. I want to find out another method which toasts rice without using an oven.
You could put it in a dry frying pan on medium high heat and stir frequently until perfectly toasted.
Note that you need to watch it closely cause it's easier to burn the rice than in an oven.
It helps to use a drop of oil in the pan and constant shaking to prevent burning. ( similarv to the old way of popping corn)
..Preferably a nice sauté pan, with a curved profile to the sides.. toss occasionally while coming up to heat, and continuously when the color starts to change. Have a cool place ready to tip the rice out onto, reasonably well spread out, as soon as you reach the point you want it to get to.
Like a cookie sheet to spread the rice onto.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.780160
| 2018-11-03T20:23:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93565",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"Robin Betts",
"Welz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64587",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96014
|
What's the purpose of adding water to a skillet when cooking solid food?
I recently came across a recipe for cinnamon skillet apples. One of the steps was to put the chopped apples into a skillet, along with half a cup of water and ground cinnamon. This reminds me of the instructions on seasoning packets, which involves stirring the contents into water, and then pouring it on top of meat in a skillet.
Is there a technical term for this cooking method? Does the water impact how the apples cook, or is it there for the sole purpose of evenly distributing the seasoning?
"Solely distributing the seasoning" is an "actual cooking purpose".
In this case, you are braising the apples. The water is the braising liquid, which helps to cook the apples, reduces, integrates with the other ingredients, and becomes a sauce. It also keeps the apples from sticking to the pan and burning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.780281
| 2019-01-29T03:54:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96014",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96236
|
Can acetate sheets be put in the oven?
I have tried lining mini cheesecake pan (with removable bottoms)in parchment paper, as I do with larger cheesecakes. The parchment paper bends in the mini version. Can I use food-grade acetate in place of the parchment?
I think it will melt. I could be wrong, but until you know for certain, be cautious
You should only post a question once, and you have this one here also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96239/parchment-substitute. Delete one of the two?
Voted to close as duplicate of June's other question.
Acetate sheets or strips should not be heated, so do not use them to line a pan that will be put into the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.780385
| 2019-02-09T16:44:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96236",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16376
|
How to judge the quality of pizza dough?
What are some good guidelines for judging the consistency and texture of a good pizza dough? I would like to know so I could make some corrections before it's too late!
Maybe some people have some good rules of thumb or neat tricks to share?
I would be more interested in the thin base italian style. The thinner the better and the bigger the bubbles on the edge the better!
Depends on the kind of pizza crust you like. There is the thin Italian style, there is the thick American style, and I think each of these has its essential substyles which may require a slightly different consistency.
Thanks I made the question more specific, to italian style.
Even in Italy the differences are huge. Some are thin, some are fat, some use wholemeal, some don't etc. I would just go with good flour and good yeast, and made by hand :-)
@rumtscho There is no singular "American style" - New York/Brooklyn, Chicago, deep dish and New Haven are all examples of American styles. Here's an index where many different American styles are listed http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2008/01/a-list-of-regional-pizza-styles.html
My targets for the final dough:
when I stretch it over my fist, once it has got to the size where it covers my whole fist, it starts to stretch under its own weight
if the inside of the dough is exposed it will stick to hands/surface
need to use semolina/cornmeal to transfer the pizza around
contains lots of visible bubbles before stretching, with the dough having enough integrity to stretch the bubbles without losing them.
can stretch it to be translucent without tearing too much (preferably without tearing at all)
What I look for at different by stages:
I have been making a lot of pizza dough over the last year, experimenting with different amounts of water and kneading techniques. In order to make a very thin base, (on you can stretch so it is translucent) but can still transfer into the oven I make a very wet (60% hydration) dough and either:
No-Knead approach: use small amounts of yeast and salt. Just leave the dough for approx 18 hours. Then put in the fridge, I find it is best after 2 days in the fridge. Because the dough is cold you can easily handle it, although you might need to let it warm up a bit before you can do anything with it.
What I am aiming for is that when I stretch it over my fist, once it has got to the size where it covers my whole fist, it starts to stretch under its own weight.
I expect to see a lot of bubbles, up to 0.5cm in diameter but most smaller, in the dough, but not to be able to pour it out. I will have to scrape it out of the bowl using a wet spatula. and will have to use a light dusting of flour (not too much) to stop it sticking to the surface or my hands. I sometimes let it rise again after shaping (need to at least let it relax for a few minutes) and usually have to add more flour to my hands to do the stretch. Try to use as little extra flour as you can. I usually have to only dust the dough once and lightly before stretching it. If you have to use any more it might be too wet or not have enough gluten development.
Hand Knead approach: using more yeast and salt. When I first turn the dough out to knead I do not expect to be able to handle it, it is to sticky and runny. I use tools to fold it a few times. You will probably need some flour to do this, but try not to use too much. After several folds the dough comes together enough for me to lightly cover it in flour I "roll knead" - which is rolling and stretching it, but not bringing the wet inside to the surface. If you start to fold or tear the dough it will stick to your hands and the surface, if that happens you have to put more flour on which will reduce the hydration of your dough so avoid it. You will have to work it for quite a while. Try to get your body weight applied to the dough as your roll it.
What I am aiming for is a dough which you can pick up without your fingers just going into it and that springs back when you deform it; but if you tear it or open it up the inside will immediately stick to your hands and the surface. When I get this I stop kneading.
I usually rise it for 80 mins but it depends on the temperature. After this rise, I will divide it and shape it into balls. I expect to not be able to easily rip the dough apart due to its wetness. It should contain quite a bit of air, and some largeish bubbles which I try not to knock back too much.
I have to use a wet spatula to divide it, and then use a small amount of flour on the outside to form a smooth surfaced ball. Then I cover it and rise it again for 20mins. The outside will be smooth with some bubbles visible and due to the flour dry enough to handle. The inside will be too wet to handle without adding more flour.
After this second rise I put a bit of flour on my hands and stretch it over my fist, it should behave pretty much the same as the no-knead version at this stage.
My quality of life has been officially improved. My girlfriend even ate the crust! I've never seen her do that with anyone's pizza before! :-)
Judging from your description, I would suggest you try to increase the hydration even more. If you like that kind of dough you'll love a 80-90% hydrated one (you can get even >100% if you're brave!).
I find the best pizza dough is relatively wet and unstable. Even after kneading it should still be sticky and bordering on sticking to the board. A wet dough bubbles nicely when you cook it, giving a light, crisp texture.
There is also the amount of oil, and how long it mixes. If you want a thin and crispy pizza, you do not want very much water. Around 4 pounds water for 11 pounds of dough. I cant give you specifics because my dough recipes I use are not mine, but rather property of the company I work at (Pizza Hut), but I can tell you do not want wet and unstable dough.
That explains why I don't like pizza hut! :-P
It depends on if you like it thin and crispy or thick and delicate so if its to your taste then go with what you like best and if you are judging it on how it lokks then you would want it to be golden brown crust with melted cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.780483
| 2011-07-24T21:30:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16376",
"authors": [
"Arjun R",
"Chris",
"Joshua Frank",
"Sharita Mccray",
"TFD",
"Warren Sergent",
"Water Softener System",
"annie b.",
"barrymac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6837",
"nico",
"paul",
"pbar",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43023
|
Chicken enchiladas still safe to eat
I cooked chicken and made up enchilada with sour cream and the green sauce and made extra.
How many days can I keep them in the refrigerator before reheating?
http://www.stilltasty.com/
I would heat within 3 days. From that point on, first flavor will decay, then quality of tortillas...then, say after about a week, they will get progressively nasty.
I would store for up to three days. If you're concerned about too many leftovers, throw them in the freezer. They will last for 1-2 months and you can have yummy enchiladas any time! I have done this with no negative effects on the taste or structural integrity of the enchilada.
Due to the presence of sour cream, they will keep no longer that any other dairy product. I would be more concerned about the consistency the the tortillas. Have you already stuffed them?
Downvoted because you are perpetuating the myth that food keeps as short as its most perishable ingredient. This is not true; there are many examples of foods which will keep shorter than their least stable ingredient! In this case, the enchiladas are only good for 3 days, just like any other cooked food, but sour cream will last weeks on its own.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.780947
| 2014-03-26T02:07:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43023",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Chantal Martens",
"Chris",
"Henkie",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"rumtscho",
"slotgacorpbowin",
"somedotnetguy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62262
|
Fixing oily dukkah
We just made some dukkah by blitzing a mixture of baked nuts/seeds: almonds, pistachio, fennel, coriander, sesame, caraway, cumin (and raw chia at the very end).
It smelled and tasted amazing, but it seemed very wet; not dry and powdery like dukkah at all. We thought we could fix that by spreading it on a tray and baking gently (70degC) to remove the moisture. However, after 20 minutes, it seems no drier, so we're thinking its oily (like a nut butter).
Any advice on how to have avoided this is in the first place? Any way to correct this now, after having made it?
I don't have any ideas on truly fixing this batch, but I think I know what the problem is.
I think you over-processed it and blitzed it into a paste. It should be a little more coarsely ground, probably only about 30s in the blender or food processor, otherwise everything releases too much oil.
In order to achieve this consistency quickly, pre-crush or grind any herbs and spices you will be using and coarsely chop (and probably toast) the seeds and nuts. Pulse it together briefly in your grinding implement of choice, watching the texture carefully, and stop as soon as any of it starts getting too fine.
For your current batch, you could either simply use it as it is or turn it into something else. I expect it could be a good base for a new take on mouhoumara or even pesto, or you could possibly add finely ground bread crumbs to take up some of the oil or add some ground olives to make a tapenade. I imagine it would go well as part of a stuffing mix for tomatoes or bell peppers, or mixed with olive oil and lemon to form a topping for a salad. :-)
Thank you so much for this very helpful and comprehensive answer! I love your suggestions for making use. We ended up adding a bit of olive oil, and spreading it on crackers, which was great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.781102
| 2015-10-04T04:15:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62262",
"authors": [
"Aimee Lee",
"Anna Olliffe",
"Claire Nwachukwu",
"Franceska Madden",
"Mary Reeves",
"Tracy Hicks",
"aaaidan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23962"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43280
|
What fruits keep their sweetness when baking?
I want to replace sugar with fresh fruit when baking. What fruit would produce the most sweetness? The fruit should not produce an undesirable flavor and be easy enough to buy in Florida.
Edit:
Kiwis caused me to think this.
What are you trying to bake?
You cannot simply replace sugar with fresh fruit in baking recipes. Sugar is, well, 100% sugar.
Fruit is mostly water, on the order of 70-90% depending on the particular fruit in question. The remainder is usually sugars, starches and pectins for the most part.
Any recipe not specifically designed to be sweetened with fruit is going to fail spectacularly if you try to substitute. To do so, you would have to calculate the water weight in the added fruit and remove it form elsewhere in the recipe (if there is enough liquid elsewhere in the recipe to do so) at the very least.
Sugar is also extremely important to the structure and moisture retention of baked goods (with the notable exception of yeast raised breads), and simply substituting it out is going to have a deleterious effect on the texture.
Instead, you should search out recipes that are sweetened in a manner that meets whatever requirements you have. Applesauce and cooked down pears, as well as bananas might be suitable, but it would depend on the specific application.
In any case, almost no sugar will be lost during baking; all fruits will retain essentially all of their sugar.
Except at the very edge of the baked good, where browning occurs (indicating caramelization and the Maillard reaction are taking place), the sugar will be unchanged by the baking process. The amount of sugar lost to browning in the crust is vanishingly small.
So why do many fruit when even just heated taste much less sweet?
They don't. They may loose aromatics which are key to their flavor, but that is not sweetness.
I love to use raisins because they are so, so sweet when backing!
Now, of course it depends on the product you're trying to create... but believe me that raisins are really sweet and tasty when baked!
Well, raisins are dehydrated, so the sugars and starches and cellulose fibers are more concentrated. Furthermore, heating breaks down the starch and fiber to sugars, so that would replace the other sugars which become caramelized and oxidized.
It was just the kiwis. Peaches benefit from heat.
Experiment: 4 fruit each sliced 4 ways for tasting at fresh, heated, slightly browned and half burnt. Some mount of cooked left over to compare when cooled again.
Fresh; mandarin sweetest then yellow mango, and kiwi & peach tied.
Heated; peach strongly improves to almost mango sweetness. kiwi tastes slightly less sweet. mandarin becomes bitter.
Slightly browned; all fruit same relative sweetness as 'heated' but sweetness clearly reduced.
Burned; I guess the black bubbles are caused by sugar burning. Peach and orange had most big black bubbles per weight with kiwi having some and mango almost none. The mango probably did not burn enough. Microwaving mango did not cause such bubbling, only dried it more. Everything tasted much less sweet.
Ree-cooled: burned clearly least sweet. forgot to keep enough not cooked fruit pieces.
Kiwi; browned tastes sweeter
Mandarin; tie
Peach; browned tastes sweeter
Mango; tie
Heated; mandarin mango peach kiwi
Browned; mandarin mango peach kiwi
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.781298
| 2014-04-04T19:57:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43280",
"authors": [
"Anthony Mistretta",
"Bettina",
"Hovercouch",
"James Williams",
"KarenC",
"NicoleP",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sue E.",
"TripleH",
"Tyler McEntee",
"can-ned_food",
"goodoldamy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"javold",
"pbowinonline",
"ran8",
"slugis",
"xrosaber"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43240
|
What is the combination of spices for garam masala?
It's been a while since I've been able to get my hands on real garam masala. I bought some garam masala from a store last week and was disappointed. It lacked the rich flavor that I am use to. There is so many versions of garam masala all with different ingredients. I'm looking for advice for a flavorsome garam masala with moderate heat.
As you say, there is no one definitive recipe for garam masala, and seeing as recipe requests and open-ended questions are off-topic here, I would say this question needs to be drastically reworked if it's going to remain open.
Store bought ones are often disappointing, many spice blends are. Sometimes it's the quality of the spices used, sometimes it's because the stabilizers they add to prevent the spices from interacting. There's nothing in garam masala that you can't find on the shelf as a separate spice so make your own and experiment until you find what you like.
@ElendilTheTall To clarify, What is the basic combination and what spice do I need for a moderate heat. The only thing I can think of is crushed chilli or peri-peri, besides that what else can I use?
Please google garam masala recipe; you will find a myriad of options. You can compare or just try one, and increase or decrease the hot ingredients (capiscum peppers of whatever spicy variety) to your taste.
If you have a specific well-known brand of garam masala that you're trying to recreate, this might qualify as a 'restaurant-mimicry' question, which is one of the few 'recipe request' type questions they tend to accept on this site.
As many have said in the comments, there are many different recipes, often with quite different ingredients. But wikipedia has a list of typical ingredients:
turmeric
peppercorns
cloves
cinnamon
cumin seeds
cardamom pods
I don't normally think of garam masala as having any heat. If you want to add some heat to an Indian dish you could use dried cayenne pepper (hotter) or kashmiri chilli powder (milder).
If you're looking to make your own flavorful spice blend, I recommend buying whole spices and getting a spice grinder (I use a dedicated blade coffee grinder). Grinding spices fresh makes them much more flavorful than the pre-ground ones that have been sitting on the supermarket shelf for years.
Make sure you toast the spices a little in a pan before grinding.
And I would absolutely add coriander seeds to that list. Careful with the cinnamon as it tends to be very dominant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.781595
| 2014-04-03T12:20:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43240",
"authors": [
"Capsicum Online",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gazi Ashiq",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kathy",
"Nordic Blomseth",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Thomas Harris",
"cioddi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"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
}
|
123199
|
Does using less sugar fundamentally impact how a cake or pie comes out other than sweetness?
One of my favorite pies is Impossible Pie, named such because you need only mix the ingredients and bake in a greased pan and it will form three layers (bottom crust, middle custard, top crunchy coconut) on its own. I found it in an old 50's cookbook:
4 eggs
1/2 cup butter
1/2 cup flour
1 cup sugar
1 cup shredded coconut
2 cups milk
2 tsp. vanilla extract
pinch nutmeg
zest from a full lemon
juice from a half lemon
Mix together thoroughly, pour in a greased pie pan (I reserve about 10% of the butter for this), bake at 350 for 1 hour on top of a baking sheet to catch possible spillover. Rest with a dish towel atop for 1 hour before refrigerating. Best served cold, I would wait at least 12 hours in the fridge.
I've made this before with 3/4 cup sugar instead of 1 cup, and it turns out more or less the same. I couldn't discern the two from looks or texture. But I tried earlier today with 2/3 cup sugar instead and the bottom crust didn't really form. It looks almost like it wasn't cooked enough but I followed the recipe the same otherwise.
I hope it's not too naive of a question, but what does less sugar (with nothing to replace it) do in a pie or cake? The only variable here I changed was the sugar, so I'm assuming that's why it didn't turn out properly.
Possibly related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42378/67
The general answer is yes, in baked goods sugar does more than just add sweetness. Via the Maillard reaction it will contribute to browning and add a more complex flavor than just sweetness in the crust or exterior of a cake or pie. This is one reason why malted barley is added to bread flour and malt or molasses is added to bagle boiling water.
It also interacts with ingredients like eggs and cream and butter which could all influence the characteristics of the custard that you mention is supposed to constitute the middle layer.
That said I don't know enough about this cake to say for sure if 2/3 vs. 3/4 cup sugar could be the difference between success and failure but it seems unlikely. You're talking about 5.3 vs. 6 ounces by volume. That could be the difference between levelling your measuring cup or not.
On the other hand, crust formation is exactly an area where I would expect the sugar to assist, so it is also not impossible that the lower amount contributed to your disappointing result.
The only way to know for sure is to repeat the experiment in controlled conditions and compare side by side!
"the difference between levelling your measuring cup and not" can definitely affect how baked goods come out. That is ~12% less sugar.
I mean, I certainly don't disagree, I just am skeptical that it would mean the difference between total success and total failure here, unless there really is something "magical" going on where it emulsifies at a very specific sugar %.
@PeterMoore it doesn't have to be very specific, just that the transition is in that range - after all, ¾ and 1 cup behaved the same. But it's also perfectly likely that something else changed at the same time, either causing the difference or contributing to it - for example the size of the eggs or the lemon
Sugar tends to create a more "crumbly" texture by breaking up the gluten in a dough, preventing it from becoming elastic. That is likely the source of your issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.781838
| 2023-01-30T02:55:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123199",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"Joe",
"Peter Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86447
|
How can I make a bar cookie more dense?
Most people are trying to make their baked goods lighter and fluffier. I have the opposite issue. I am trying to recreate a recipe my mother made years ago called "tobacco cakes." They're not made with tobacco, but with mincemeat.
Here's the problem: I remember these wonderful bar cookies as being very dense. What I am creating has the same flavor as hers but it is more cakelike.
Here's the recipe I'm using:
2 cups flour
½ tsp salt
1 tsp baking soda
2 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp cloves
Cream
1 c butter
1 ½ c brown sugar
Add 1 c mincemeat and reserved dry ingredients.
Put into 9x13 pan and bake at 350 for 30 mins.
I've tried taking out the baking soda and that made it a bit more dense, but it's still too cakey. What can I do to this recipe to make it more dense?
The usual answer is "cook it less"
Certainly a (IMHO) good fudgy brownie and a (IMHO) horrid cakelike brownie can be made from the same recipe, with only the cooking time changing. While I have not made your mincemeat-based-bars, the same phenomenon presumably applies.
If you are faithfully following the cooking time your mother used, it's possible that the oven your mother used and oven you are using vary wildly in actual temperature at the same set temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.782209
| 2017-12-16T17:14:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86447",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127869
|
How to choose a pressure cooker specifically for legumes/beans and which setting is appropriate?
I am interested in buying a pressure cooker. I have only 2 requirements:
The only food I want to use it for is legumes/beans (mentioning it case it matters in any way).
Take little space
I have been checking some electric ones, but from their programs mentioned I don't see anything mentioned about legumes. Models I checked are e.g. Turbo Cuisine CY7548 Multicooker and Tefal All-in-One CY505E - 3 in 1 Slow Cooker - Multicooker - Pressure Cooker - Stainless Steel, just for example. Neither has a “beans / legumes” program.
So which setting am I supposed to choose (e.g. soup) when cooking beans if I bought a pressure cooker without a “beans” setting?
Is there anything else I should consider when choosing a pressure cooker?
I’m voting to close this question because its a shopping request - any answers will be opinion based and links to products become outdated quickly, so not suitable for SE sites.
@bob1: I am not asking for a specific product but what is the usual program for legumes
Many Instant Pot models have a ‘beans’ button, but usually the manual setting is all that you really need.
What’s more important is the type of mechanism that it uses for maintaining pressure. Most electric pressure cookers have a ‘locking’ vs a ‘jiggler’ mechanism. The jigglers will release steam the whole time that you’re cooking which means you’re losing liquid. (There are other styles… the important part is if it’s letting steam escape as it cooks)
Some of the electric pressure cookers also have sensors that are useful when cooking things that may thicken the liquid … if they notice that the temperature at the bottom of the pot gets too hot, it will shut off the heat to allow it to soften and disperse, then will continue. If it happens again, it will alarm that something it wrong (the older Instant Pots will show ‘burn’ on the LCD display)
I don’t know which specific brands or models have those features, but I would recommend the locking type with burn detection if you’re cooking beans.
The issue is going to be the ‘takes little space’ as electric pressure cookers tend to be much bulkier than stove-top ones. There are a range of sizes in capacities which affects their overall size, so you may need to look around to find one that will deal with the volume that you’re hoping to cook, and no larger.
(And note that as most electric pressure cookers are ‘multi cookers’, their total capacity is NOT the same as their pressure cooker capacity. Instant Pot says to only fill it 2/3 when pressure cooking, so a 6qt model should only be filled to 4 quarts)
When you say locking type you mean an electric one? While jigglers are the traditional kitchen stove/gas top ones?
Not necessarily. It’s more about regional preferences - in Europe, locking is standard even for stovetop models.
If we use the 2 examples I give in the post from Tefal, which characteristics cover the specs you are talking about so I understand what to look out for?
@Stephie: ^ same question
@Jim : there are styles that either use weights or springs to regulate the pressure. You have to adjust the heat so there is just a little bit of steam escaping (if there isn’t, then it’s below pressure). The weighted ones are the ‘jiggler’ ones because the weight bounces around while letting steam out. The locking ones have two pressure gauges… one that locks when the pressure is achieved, and a second that releases if it is too far over pressure. Most electric ones use this sort
And I should mention that sometimes the over-pressure valve is the silicone gasket. It’s designed to collapse or otherwise fail when it’s over-pressure, so always make sure that if you replace it that you buy the right one
@Joe: When you say to search for the ones that are of the type locking type with burn detection how is this usually phrased in specs?
@Joe: e.g. here https://www.tefal.co.uk/Cooking-appliances/Pressure-Cookers/Pressure-Cookers/Turbo-Cuisine-CY754840-Multi-Pressure-Cooker-%E2%80%93-4-8L-Black/p/7211004513 is there anything mentioned about burn detection? I am not sure how I would find this phrased across various brands
@Joe: Here I can't find something similar phrased either. Does it mean these brands don't support the burn detection? Or it can be phrased differently depending the brand?
Also can't find something about burn detection for instant pot pro crisp 11-in-1
If you read the Instant Pot manual, section troubleshooting, you’ll find the burn detection. In all manuals you’ll see diagrams of the valves and can see that they are locking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.782341
| 2024-03-15T19:49:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127869",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71867
|
Will bitter cucumbers ruin gazpacho?
I plan to make gazpacho in a blender. I'll be using the following ingredients, all blended together:
3 medium-large tomatoes
1/2 cup cucumber pieces
1/4 cup onion
1/2 cup bell peppers
1 Tbsp. Red wine vinegar
A few ice cubes
1 drop Tabasco sauce
Salt and pepper
The problem is that the cucumbers we have on hand are somewhat bitter. Will using these make the gazpacho also taste too bitter?
Did you peal the cumbers?
No. Perhaps I should though.
You absolutely should if they are bitter, most of the bitterness is in the peels.
This is kind of turning into a recipe question so it may get closed.
Most recipes call for peeled and seeded. See how it tastes peeled and seeded. You have a other strong flavors so unless unless it is very bitter it is probably OK. Maybe cut back on the cucumber.
My gazpacho recipe makes 6 cups. I used different cucumbers, and suspect they caused bitterness. I added 2 teaspoons balsamic glaze (balsamic vinegar slowly reduced at a simmer by half volume) and this was perfect!
Gazpacho is a classic chilled summer soup that has transcended its Spanish origins and found its way onto the menus of a multitude of Spanish and non-Spanish restaurants throughout Europe and beyond. Cooling cucumber is one of a number of staple ingredients but using bitter-tasting cucumbers will likely upset the established taste parameters in a classic version of this delicious cold soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.782708
| 2016-08-03T21:24:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71867",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48147",
"paparazzo",
"triskit"
],
"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
}
|
11867
|
Keep or remove skin when grinding poultry?
After reading this I made "burgers" with ground chicken thigh. (Didn't have turkey thighs handy.) I have the feeling chicken thighs have plenty of fat, so less likely to dry out than turkey, but it occurred to me: what are the pros and cons to removing skin before grinding poultry meat? Especially if the complaint of turkey "burgers" is that they are too dry and lack flavor, wouldn't the skin help with that?
By the way, ground chicken thigh with skin, plus garlic and anchovy paste, makes a fine patty. :)
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned fat. Leaving the skin will give your ground poultry a higher percentage of fat content, resulting a more tender and moist "burger".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.782844
| 2011-02-06T21:11:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11867",
"authors": [
"J. Win.",
"TheChymera",
"Willem D'Haeseleer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"maximegir",
"pkushiqiang",
"user1146372"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110562
|
How can you cook milk without it burning the pan?
How can you cook milk without it burning the pan? The intention isn't just to heat/warm the milk, but to thoroughly cook it. Burned pans are hard to clean, and they make the milk taste burned.
The traditional approach of boiling milk on the stove tends to cause it to stick to the bottom of the pan and burn, if not done properly.
Background: The reason I want to cook milk is because I tolerate cooked milk better, depending on the gallon of milk. Most gallons of milk from the grocery store give me a lot of gas. Some gallons don't give me any gas at all (and those tend to keep a lot longer, interestingly). Either way, I tolerate it very well, without gas, when it is thoroughly cooked. I don't personally believe I have a milk intolerance or allergy; I think it's just yeast in the milk that grows as it nears expiration and contributes to its spoilage, as I am sensitive to some yeasts and molds; I tolerate other cow dairy products just fine (e.g. cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, butter, and sour cream), regardless of whether it is cooked.
This is a Q/A where I answer my own question, but you're free to participate as usual, of course. I figured the question had already been asked, and I came here to add my answer to the list of answers. (But I couldn't find a question like it on the site.)
Not sure what kind of milk is typically sold in your part of the world, but if you've observed yourself to be more tolerant of cooked milk and "milk that tends to keep a lot longer", you might want to give UHT milk a try. It's sort of been cooked, in a way that very effectively kills all microorganisms, and keeps a very long time even at room temperature. (Also, even if you don't think it's the problem, I'd still give lactose-free milk a try too. Conveniently, at least around here, UHT milk is frequently also lactose free.)
"I don't personally believe I have a milk intolerance or allergy" It's good, then, that this has nothing to do with belief. Go get tested and find out what condition you actually have. There is no need to guess or believe in anything here.
Double boiler.
You can buy a purpose built double boiler and if you are going to do this often you should. But for now you can fake it the way I do. Here is my setup.
The little saucepan is floating in the water that is in the larger pan. Because of the water, the temperature never gets higher than 100°C unless you boil all the water off. Milk at 100°C will boil but it will not scorch. That is milk gravy (white sauce) in the small pan which happened to be in there and which I thought was a good illustration.
Float a small pan in a larger pot of water and cook your milk in the small pan. If you like it, buy a double boiler. Sometimes the floating pan is too heavy and some water comes in over the side. Not a big deal for milk but a total loss if you are using the setup to melt chocolate chips.
You can also use a glass mixing bowl that sits on the rim of your pot. That makes it better for melting chocolate or coddling eggs. You have to be careful with premade double boilers. For some reason I've noticed a lot have a ridge around the top (but not at the top) where your mixture can get caught and dry out. Which personally grosses me out. Mixing bowl 4 lyfe.
There are a number of ways to cook milk without burning it.
My personal favorite is to bake it. When baked according to my instructions, it does not overflow, and the bottom of the pan does not burn at all (the edge where the milk surface touches does get some milk protein cooked onto it, though). You do not have to do anything with it while it's baking. It does develop a significant brown skin on top, but you can pull it off and eat it. To cook it to my personal satisfaction, I fill an 8"x8" glass pan about halfway with milk, and put it in the toaster oven on 425° to 450° F. or so for about 25 minutes. I like to make milk porridge via this method, too (same instructions, except add oats and brown sugar with the milk). Anyway, I tolerate it better than boiling on low heat on the stove, and it's much easier. 25 minutes on 450° F. might be overkill for some people's needs, especially if they don't need to kill anything in it, nor denature any components of it, but it's not overkill for a non-soupy milk oat porridge. It is possible to burn the top of the milk if you bake it too long/hot or too close to the surface of the oven—but you can just take the skin off, and your milk should taste fine. If you bake it in a toaster oven (on the bake setting), do not cover it, or it will not cook very quickly.
Here's what the milk looks like after it's been baked (in my toaster oven on bake on 450° F. for 25 minutes), with the skin. The skin is dark brown (although not black, even though parts of it look black in the picture; the lighting wasn't perfect, and it's just my inexpensive tablet's camera); so, I probably could have used a lower heat than 450° F. (like 425° F.), but this does not affect the taste of the milk underneath it anyway, since the top side of the skin does not touch the milk; I usually don't cook just plain milk with nothing in it, so that accounts for the error:
Here's the baked milk after removing and eating the skin (this remaining milk is really what we're after):
Here's the pan after I drank the milk (you can see that there isn't milk burned on the bottom of the pan, and it should be fairly easy to clean compared to a burned pan; there are cooked portions stuck where the milk surface was, but they're not burned); it tasted great, by the way (and not as much like evaporated milk as stovetop boiled milk):
Other methods:
Some people like to microwave milk. It can overflow easily that way, if you're not careful, however, but it shouldn't burn. For personal reasons, I don't recommend using a microwave for anything, though, but if you do, I don't blame you.
Boiling milk on the stovetop without burning it requires a lot of patience, skill, and attention. People like to use pans with thick bottoms, since they heat more slowly, and are less prone to making things burn (not just milk). They like to heat it at a low temperature. They recommend stirring. In my experience, it can still burn even then, though, if you cook it long enough.
Some people recommend putting a very small amount of cold water on the bottom of the pan when boiling milk to help prevent it from burning. I'm very skeptical about the logic entailed, since the milk is cold anyway (and the water at the bottom of the pan will mix with the milk, especially if you stir it as I saw recommended with this method; so, it will no longer be on the bottom of the pan), but if it works, it works, and I don't claim whether it works.
Why do you not recommend cooking with a microwave?
@BryanBoettcher I don't know if it has anything to do with this: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/risk-burns-eruptions-hot-water-overheated-microwave-ovens (I seriously doubt). Maybe some things have a different taste than heated with other methods?
@BryanBoettcher I think baking is healthier than microwaving. I know there are science articles to the contrary, however. I wasn't trying to persuade people to avoid microwaves (I just didn't want to be seen as endorsing them).
@BryanBoettcher Isn't that addressed directly in the answer? "It can overflow easily that way, if you're not careful"
@Kakturus I was referring more to the "I don't recommend using the microwave for cooking anything". I'd kind of like to see the answer say "I don't cook with a microwave for personal reasons", since a lot of weird pseudoscience starts to come out around microwaves and ~ radiation ~.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.782969
| 2020-09-06T00:56:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110562",
"authors": [
"Bryan B",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Ismael Miguel",
"Kakturus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87506",
"kitukwfyer",
"user91988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91309
|
My sourdough starter split in 2 on the 3rd day. What should I do?
I have fed it first after 24h and it grew nicely. And on the 2nd morning after I woke up I saw this:
Should I keep the upper half? or simply start a new batch?
I have used the following formula: 200ml water, 200 gr 550 flour, and kept it at about 25 degree celcius.
Sourdough during the first few days can show pretty erratic behavior. I wouldn’t worry, just stir and feed as planned. Continuing the culture with just the foamy top would probably also work.
Reasons to start over would be visible mold (fluffy or colorful spots) or if there’s no bubbling. Neither is the case here.
Thanks!, I continued the feeding with the foamy part and I threw away the maia which was at the bottom. It was a bit less than the actual formula (I usually leave 50% and the foamy part was only 25-30%) but we will see how it is going to evolve :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.783529
| 2018-07-28T06:55:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91309",
"authors": [
"Andrei CACIO",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68407"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97200
|
How to reverse sear a steak?
Been trying this method recently and generally happy with the results. That being said, I can't help but feel I'm still making a few mistakes:
Steak lets out quite a lot of juice when slicing it, even after it's been rested for 7-10 minutes. How do steakhouses serve a steak on a plate that almost doesn't let out a drop when cutting it?
Cast iron, smoking hot - is there such a thing as too hot? I use avocado oil with a high smoking point but the oil always seems to burn rather quickly, even in just a few minutes of searing. It turns into this ugly brown color and doesn't let off a great smell either.
Steak is unevenly cooked (i.e. top vs. bottom). Should I be flipping it while in the oven?
By "This method" do you mean Kenji Lopez-Alt's method? Can you link to the version you're using?
oh yes, sorry, this is the method I followed:
https://www.jessicagavin.com/how-to-reverse-sear-a-steak/
The method on the link talks about how it is more consistent, but really it has as much potential for going wrong as any other. That doesn't mean it's not a good method, just that there are some gotchas. To answer your questions:
Good steaks are juicy, there's nothing bad about having juice come out when you cut it! If juice doesn't come out when you cut it then it's probably too dry
With this method you can't get too hot, the idea is a quick sear at the end of the bake. However, you have to get the temperature right when it comes out of the oven or you must cook it for longer than a quick sear to get it up to temperature. The right temperature depends on the thickness of steak, a thin steak cooks much faster than a thin one, so you pull it from the oven at a lower temperature or the heat from the pan frying will overcook it. The method on the article says for medium to take it out of the oven at 105°F and then sear it to 130°F. That means your sear is supposed to add 25°F. This may work with a thinner steak but a thick one it means a lot more time searing. I'd bake a really thick steak up to 120°F before searing it to get to medium
There may be a difference in heating between the conduction of the air on the top and the metal on the bottom which is causing uneven cooking, it all depends on your oven and the pans you use. I'd be tempted to try a baking tray rather than a cast iron pan in the oven as it should be more even, but flipping it is a good idea as well and may be all you need
So, a couple of tweaks should get you there. One thing more, with a thick steak I'd let it rest for 10 minutes rather than 5, don't forget to cover it to keep it warm.
Thanks! What about the avocado oil being burnt? Is that possible? Would you suggest coating the pan with something else instead?
If you are genuinely burning avocado oil then your pan is too hot. 520°F is hard to reach on a lot of stoves, although I've done it with cast iron on induction. More likely it's the fat from your steak that is burning, not the oil itself, beef fat smokes at about 400°F. I suggest getting an infrared thermometer to measure your pan temperature, they are cheap and take the guesswork out of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.783642
| 2019-04-01T04:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97200",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Dandan",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54814
|
Golden Syrup best before date
I have some golden syrup in a plastic bottle, all looks normal. It has a best before date Feb 2010. Is it still ok to feed to kids on pancake day February 2015??
Hello and welcome to the site! Could you please clarify: what kids are you talking about? Your own or other children?
Does that really matter @Stephie?
Yes it does. While I might choose to ignore some food safety recommendations when serving food for my family because - after careful consideration - I find them overly cautious, other rules apply when serving food publicly, e.g. to a youth group, at summer camp or to my childrens' class mates. This has little to do with actual safety (none of us would willingly risk the health if others, right?), but a lot with legal ramifications and potentially over-zealous lawyers. Especially when food is sold, strict adherence to any regulation is recommended.
Since "Pancake Day" implies a large group event (rather than just breakfast at home), it was worth asking. Nice catch @Stephie.
Duplicate as far as the spoil-or-not-spoil question goes, but the implications of serving to others (especially kids, possibly in public) are not part of the other post.
@Stephie I think in general we should just always provide the super paranoid answer, and then if we think it's worth it, mention if it's a "no seriously don't do this you'll die" thing or a "well in practice it's probably fine" thing.
A best before date does not specify how long a food item will last. It merely gives a time frame within which an optimum quality can be assumed ( as given by the manufacturer).
Food does not automatically spoil after the best before date, so use common sense.
My gut feeling with golden syrup would be that it's fine unless a change in smell, consistency, color.... can be noticed. That stuff is so high in sugar, that bacteria would really have a hard time there. At my last move, I unearthed a few forgotten bottles of elderberry blossom syrup from (I'd better not tell here), that are still perfectly fine... I tried.
But: If you are planning to serve your syrup outside your family, that is, to kids that aren't your kids, other rules concerning food safety may apply. Check with your local authorities or play it safe and get a new bottle.
Mine and other kids. I guess I just wanted to check it didn't have any chemical properties in it that, after time, turned into a poisonous cocktail! Common sense tells me it's fine...but common sense can sometimes be misleading!! Thank you for the response
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.783911
| 2015-02-16T21:18:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54814",
"authors": [
"Andrea Llewellyn",
"Cascabel",
"David Cottell",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"Jacqui Miaoulis",
"Jim Covey",
"Melva Roberts",
"Pancake Girl",
"Stephanie Gaddy",
"Stephie",
"Tina Bolle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33598"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74609
|
More dense cookie
I am trying to recreate a cookie my grandmother made. She helped me with the ingredients. I have the taste right, but the texture is wrong.
I need a dense, smooth top, crunchy cookie. One that browns well and is good for dunking.
What I end up with is a crisp to crunchy cookie with a crackle top. I don't like the crackle top, or the crisp texture. My husband loves them, but I crave the old hard dense cookie.
This is a basic sugar type cookie,
2 cups shortening or butter,
2 eggs,
3 1/2 cups sugar,
7 cups flour,
3 tsp baking powder,
1 tsp soda,
2 tsp salt,
vanilla,
nutmeg.
I bake at 350 until well browned.
A crackly top is indicative of plentiful sugar, as is brittle crispiness. If you want to diminish those qualities, try backing off on the sugar. It sounds to me like you want a cookie with a more "shortbready" character. Perusing shortbread cookie recipes on the internet I see their butter-to-sugar ratio somewhat larger than yours (mostly greater than 1). So experiment with less sugar (even just down slightly from 3.5 cups to maybe ... 3c. at first). You don't say if you are rolling out these cookies for cutting, but if you are, you will likely need to adjust the flour a little bit for the correct texture.
I realize you don't want to make shortbreads or else you would just use one of those recipes. The flavor of the cookies (which you are happy with) seems to be coming from the soda-nutmeg-vanilla-salt, so don't change any of those. In fact, try leaving all ingredients the same, except just lessen the amount of sugar, and adjust the flour, if necessary, to get a workable dough texture. See what happens & proceed with experimentation from there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.784154
| 2016-10-09T11:39:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74609",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109620
|
Is there a quintessential Italian hot sauce?
Fill in the blank: Franks is to America what Cholula is to Mexico what Sriracha is to Vietnam what ______ is to Italy.
One of my recipes which is a spin on Orichiette with Rapini, calls for hot sauce. I usually use Sriracha since it tastes good but I do find it's a clash of flavors sometimes. I'd like to replace it with an alternative that's representative of Italy. I have no experience with Italian hot sauces, what are the popular ones?
I know "sauce" has an additional meaning when it comes to Italian cuisine: I'm not looking for arrabiata or red sauce or anything like that. I mean something that comes in a bottle, perhaps crushed peppers and chilis with vinegar.
Bottled/canned foods are in general considered low class in Europe, and chances of Italians, notorious for food elitism, having a favored bottled sauce brand is close to zero.
By the way, Sriracha is American, not Vietnamese (invented by a Vietnamese immigrant who gave it a Thai name). Looks like they have started selling it in Vietnam in the past few years: https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-vietnam-sriracha-20170321-story.html Or are you saying that Sriracha tastes like typical Vietnamese hot sauces? That may be true.
@Juhasz I thought sriracha was a type of hot sauce and the brand sriracha is just a sriracha sauce?
Ugh. Obscure product placement? I've lived 45 years in North America, never saw a Franks sauce before this post. I wouldn't call it quintessential. :-)
@Jeffrey I guess it's who you ask: Tabasco is also one I considered but here in Canada, Franks is extremely popular.
@Jeffrey Franks is very northeast/midwest. It's from Ohio originally and is the main ingredient in "buffalo sauce" (from the city in upstate New York). I would be kind of shocked if I saw it (outside of the chicken wings context) in the south, or west, or west coast.
@mattdm that's interesting. As a Canadian, I'd of thought Franks was ubiquitous about the United States. In Southern Ontario, it's pretty much synonymous (along with Tabasco) with American hot sauce.
quite interesting, I'm actually from Quebec, so the french heritage might explain Tabasco having ~ 90% market share, with, say, 10% (but growing) Sriracha
Down here we get in fights over hot sauce, Crystal vs Louisiana vs Texas Pete vs Cholula. Tabasco is it's own thing.
As a Canadian (from the west coast), I would have gone with Tabasco. Never heard of Franks.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, Frank's is definitely available. According to USA Today, "McIlhenny [maker of Tabasco] has a 17.1% market share; Reckitt Benckiser, maker of Frank's RedHot, has 11.3% and Huy Fong Foods [Sriracha] has 8%"
@gator, David Tran, the inventor of Sriracha and founder of Huy Fong Foods, immigrated to Los Angeles from Vietnam and started making sauces that he thought would appeal to other Southeast Asian immigrants. "His creations included his Pepper Sa-te Sauce, Sambal Oelek, Chili Garlic, Sambal Badjak and Sriracha Hot Sauce". The one he called Sriracha was meant to be a version of the Thai sauce (or family of sauces) called Sriraja, Si-racha, Sriracha, Siracha, or something similar. They're all named after the city of Si Racha
How about creating your own bottled chili oil instead of buying a pre-made "sauce"? It seems to be prevalent in every Italian restaurant I've seen so far (at least where I live)
Bottled hot sauce is not much in demand in Italy. I'm in central Italy, but I think in the south where spicy food is popular, chili is added fresh or dried to a dish rather than through a bottled sauce. I did find one example from Delizie di Calabria which is a common brand: http://www.deliziedicalabria.it/notizie/145-nd-sauce-la-salsa-piccante-senza-compromessi but I wouldn't call it typical. In my local supermarket (Tuscany) the only hot sauce available is Tabasco! Again, I welcome anyone from the south to correct me if I'm mistaken, but hot sauce is definitely not a thing here.
I know harissa isn't Italian, but with such close geographic proximity to Tunisia, is harissa a common condiment in Italy?
I don't know if you can find harissa in the south of Italy, but I've never seen it available in central/northern Italy. I have found harissa (imported from Tunisia) in Oslo, Norway though!
@gator no, harissa is now widely known in Italy.
@gator - simply, no. Distances don't work like that in Europe. England couldn't be closer to France, but look at the two eating patterns.
I have family both in the very north and the very south of Italy.
In the north, spicy food is not super common but there is usually a jar of dried chilies in olive oil somewhere in the kitchen and they are available in restaurants.
In the south there is always either fresh/dried/in-olive-oil/powdered chilies on the table (at home and in restaurants).
But I don't recall seeing a bottle of "hot sauce" anywhere (except maybe some tabasco).
That seems to be the consensus: chilis in oil. It reminds me of a Chinese cuisine staple: a very good Chinese restaurant near me has a little bowl of some menacingly red chili oil at every table, crushed chilis and lots of chili flakes with some spices in oil. I guess something similar is the closest hot sauce equivalent to Italy.
Seems like chili oil is indeed the answer you were looking for. Sidenote : be aware that chili color has little to no relation with heat level.
@gator There is a Calabrian chili paste that is basically chilis in oil crushed to a smooth paste. Not really a hot sauce, but maybe helpful! It is a little tangy and quite delicious.
The only one I know of is the Calabrese Spread/Sauce.
Whenever I see spicy food in Italy they mostly use hot chili.
Other than that, oil flavored with spicy chili.
do you mean 'nduja?
no, nduja is a soft sausage.
What do you mean by "the Calabrese Spread/Sauce" then? (btw, 'nduja is soft to the point that is mostly used as a spread)
'Nduja is sold in jars as a paste made from the (soft) sausage and oil, and is very often used as a 'spread' on pizza. In short, it's exactly what @Max is describing here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.784434
| 2020-07-12T21:40:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109620",
"authors": [
"568ml",
"Davor",
"Fattie",
"Jeffrey",
"Juhasz",
"Kryten",
"Max",
"QBrute",
"S. Tollefsen",
"ThePainfull",
"barbecue",
"fqq",
"gator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9516",
"le3th4x0rbot",
"mattdm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122866
|
Why do my sautee'd onions remove grill marks from my steak?
When I make steak, I sear it on the grill at high heat, then transfer to a pan of already cooking onions, mushrooms, butter to finish on low. Sometimes I've left it a little too long in the pan and notice sear marks and some of the color has vanished. I notice something similar if I put sautee'd onions directly on top of steak; after a while, the grill marks disappear. Why?
My assumption is maybe there's an acidic compound in the liquid that leeches out of the onions when cooked, essentially washing away the sear marks. Or, perhaps with the butter for the same reasons.
Just a guess but onions have layers and layers of cells, so the sear marks may simply melt off of the outside of the onions.
@Pointy the grill marks are disappearing from the steak, not the onions.
Grill marks are a product of the Maillard reaction, which is accelerated in an alkaline environment.
Onions are slightly acidic and like mushrooms, also release a lot of water upon grilling. This has a two-fold effect.
The flavour compounds that form the grill marks get washed away by the introduction of moisture. You can emulate this by getting a similarly grilled steak, and then transferring it to another hot pan with some water in it. The mushrooms and onions were simply a vessel for this water.
The acidic environment discourages further Maillard browning from occurring, even if the second pan is at a sufficient temperature for it to occur normally.
The mushrooms and onions in the second pan most likely still had moisture left to release. I am willing to bet that if you had grilled them further and then transferred the steak, the grill marks would have stayed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.784894
| 2022-12-31T00:34:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122866",
"authors": [
"Pointy",
"brhans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77463
|
Is it safe / advisable to use a nonstick baking sheet on an induction cooktop for pancakes (375 F)?
I bought a large non-stick baking pan and I would like to use it on my thermador freedom induction cooktop to make pancakes. The cooktop will apply energy evenly to the rectangular footprint of the pan. The pan is coated with or made from the same material as just about all bakeware that I have used before.
After washing it I heated it up on a low setting (3.5 out of 9) and monitored the temp with an infrared thermometer. When it reached about 200 F it released a plastic-y smell. It also deformed slightly which I know I will not be able to prevent and I can live with as long as it mostly maintains contact and doesn't shoot pancakes across the kitchen.
I took it off the cooktop after that and fired up the exhaust hood.
My concern is the material. Is it safe at pancake temperature (375 F)?
EDIT:
Is there a difference between the pan being heated in an oven from convection plus a relatively weak infrared source versus the heat being generated within the pan by induction? Is the induced heat more effective at decomposing the PTFE (Teflon)coating? Does the magnetic field in the pan affect the PTFE coating itself, or only kinetic heat?
The plastic smell is weird to me. The pan should be rated at 500+F. Maybe the oven is causing a very hot spot on the pan in excess of the rated temp.
@Caleb I'm actually using it on the cooktop and not in the oven. The cooktop changes the size and shape that it "heats" to match the cooking vessel's footprint. In this case it is a very large baking sheet (13.5" x 21"). I'm not too worried about the uniform application of "heat" across the surface area, just with the coating.
I meant to say stove, oops! That's a cool cooktop. Maybe you can cook the pancakes directly on it :)
I'm using nonstick pans on my induction cooker without any issues. Also frying pancakes is fine.
So, if something smells weird, it must be a particular issue with your pan, not a general induction-cooker-vs-nonstick-pan thing.
375 F (190°C) should not be a problem for any decent cookware, regardless of the cooker the cookware is being used on. This holds true, regardless whether you're using Teflon, Ceramic or a stainless (uncoated) pan.
I edited the question to concentrate more on the Teflon coating.
@KeithPayne: edited too
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.785072
| 2017-01-14T23:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77463",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Keith Payne",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528"
],
"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.