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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
42666
|
Are Gem Squash Edible After the Green Rind Turns Yellow/Orange?
We've had these squash for a while.
I've cut them open and they appear to be OK, but I want to be sure.
Generally, aging/ripening squash does not pose any food safety problems. You can eat all members of the family. You just have to make sure that they are only overripe and not rotten. Rotten squash will have areas which are much softer than the rest, and usually somewhat slimy.
It is a different matter if you want to eat overripe squash. Both the taste and texture will change, becoming mealy, or soft, or spongy, and the taste can get bland. You can try cooking it the same way as young squash. If this doesn't work, you can also try some recipe which masks the taste and texture change, for example something involving a puree or a coulis, and adds spices.
Thanks so much, that is what I thought... I just boiled them like usual and ate it out of the peel with some butter.
Keep them too long and they'll start to dry out and get stringy. With Boiling!!!, that might not be a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.785289
| 2014-03-11T16:00:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42666",
"authors": [
"Jesish Ojha",
"Pamela",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99716",
"jpdh",
"solutionst",
"spammer",
"wilburlikesmith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38280
|
Best practices to minimize smoke when cooking meat using a cast iron skillet
What are the recommendations to minimize the amount of smoke generated when cooking burgers, steaks or other meats in a cast-iron pan?
Do make sure you are using a high quality refined oil that is good for high temperature cooking, and has a high smoke point. Grapeseed is nearly ideal, although it can be expensive. I have heard good things about avacado oil, but haven't tried it personally.
You might wish to oil the meat rather than the pan, so that you are not getting smoke from oil away from the food you are cooking, but this unlikely to make a large difference.
Still, if you are searing at high temperatures, some smoke is inevitable. Of course, lowering the temperature at which you cook can eliminate the smoke, but it also changes the result, sometimes for the worse.
In truth, for high temperature searing, you simply need to have good ventillation.
You might also want to temporarily take the battery out of the kitchen smoke detector—just remember to put it back in when you are done.
by the way, grapeseed oil can be bought in bulk over the internet, which brings down the cost.
@user21182 Virgin coconut oil actually has a much lower smoke point than other oils, so be careful about the kind of coconut oil you use. It also can add a distinctive flavor to foods, which many other oils suitable for high-temperature cooking don't. See the Wikipedia article on Smoke Points of different oils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
Not sure if this is an option for you but if the goal is to reduce the smoke inside the house, you could use a grill outside. Either on a side burner or on the grill itself is something I have done. Then either bring it back inside to finish it in the oven or just keep it in the grill at a lower temp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.785421
| 2013-11-08T17:23:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38280",
"authors": [
"Dan Herbert",
"Justin R",
"Kathy J Newman",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"WhateverLou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91272",
"nayana v",
"smcg",
"vickong"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27331
|
Getting dog meat to taste as close to steak as possible?
After going on a business trip to Vietnam and tasting dog food there, my husband has begged me for the past 3 weeks to make him a dog steak.
I would like to know what is the secret to cooking dog meat to taste as close to a regular sirloin steak as possible?
feed dog grass.
Why do you want it to taste like something else? If you want sirloin steak, eat that.
I really hope you meant tasting dog meat in Vietnam; eating the dog food sounds like a bad plan.
It seems to me that steak is a way of cooking (and cutting) meat. It requires that the meat starts out tender, so that quickly browning the outside with high heat, leaving the inside rare or medium rare results in something edible. While I've never had experience with dog meat, there may well be cuts which are sufficiently tender and cuts that are not. It would likely be hard to find a butcher who would know how to cut a dog steak, since Europeans don't butcher dogs, and south-east Asians don't cook steak (it would require knives at the dinner table, which Confucius considered barbaric).
@TheodoreMurdock whats the relevance of confucius?
Confucius considered the use of knives at the table to be a form of violence, and because of his philosophy, all Chinese meat dishes involve cutting the meat into bite-size pieces before serving it, so that knives are unnecessary. Vietnam also has had significant Confucian influence, and so I think it's unlikely that steak would be something traditional to make from dog meat.
@TheodoreMurdock For my money your comments are as good an answer as we are going to get. I suggest you post it as such.
It seems to me that steak is two things: a way of cutting meat, and a way of cooking it.
Recipes for cooking steak don't to my knowledge vary that much based on the cut of meat...the ideal temperature might vary, and the ideal cooking time certainly does (lean steaks are said to taste better rare, while fatty steaks are better medium rare), but the approach to cooking is the same: quickly brown the outside of the steak at high heat to cause a Maillard reaction, and then cook to the desired level of rareness.
So I think the question is more one of whether there exists an appropriate cut of dog meat to use as steak...the meat must start out tender, so that cooking it as a steak (leaving the inside rare or medium rare) results in something edible.
In cattle, some parts are sufficiently tender for steak, others are too tough, and are usually sold as roasts, so if dog meat is appropriate for steak, it might be important to get a cut from the right part of a dog. If you can find an against the grain cut of dog meat that seems sufficiently tender, there's a decent chance it will work well as steak.
Alternatively, a really good butcher might be able to identify for you whether (and what parts) of a dog carcass would make good steak and cut you one as a special request, but I think it would be hard to find a butcher who has experience cutting dog steak, since Europeans don't usually butcher dogs, and south-east Asians don't (at least traditionally) cook steak: Confucius taught that the use of knives at the dinner table was a form of violence ("The honorable and upright man keeps well away from both the slaughterhouse and the kitchen. And he allows no knives on his table." source), and as a result all meat dishes in the region involve cutting the meat into bite-size pieces before serving it, so that knives are not necessary at the dinner table (i.e. so that they can be eaten with chopsticks).
For the record, I agree that steak and potatoes is pretty barbaric compared to typical south-east Asian dishes with carefully chosen ingredients, spices, and sauces...but I'd be much more concerned about dishonorable men in my kitchen than about honorable ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.785864
| 2012-09-21T22:46:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27331",
"authors": [
"Alex Gordon",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"DorothyP",
"GazG",
"Gwen Darrough",
"KMC",
"Kyle Weise",
"Mien",
"Nathan Krowitz",
"Theodore Murdock",
"blane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"weakish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42829
|
How do I catch drippings on a charcoal grill?
It's time for me to buy a charcoal grill. I am looking into the Weber 22.5 inch.
I hope I will be able to use it to get smokey flavor as well with Alton Brown's "wood chips in aluminum foil method".
However, I am worried about durability. Since the the shape of the grill is cylindrical, I suspect I am going to have a hard time catching drippings effectively. Most dripping catchers are rectangular.
How does one go about solving this? I am thinking of just using aluminum foil, but I am afraid that it might melt.
It might help if you were a bit clearer about what you were looking for. The video you linked didn't address catching dripping at all, and Mr. Brown uses the very same Weber you're looking at in his second example. Could you clarify the concern?
The melting temperature of aluminum is 660C/1220F. It's extremely unlikely your grill will ever achieve that temperature.
Although a rectangular pan doesn't fit a cylinder very well from a geometric perspective, in practice on a grill it fits just fine. Your food is rarely circular in shape either, after all. The Weber grills have a very good reputation as smoking/grilling devices. I wouldn't hesitate.
If you're going to smoke on a Weber, especially on your 22.5" model you're getting at, the single best thing to catch drippings will be an aluminum foil pan. You can use either a square one or a round one.
Generally there is no problem setting one of these on the bottom of the grill (Weber uses a 2 grate system, the bottom grate holds the charcoal, the top one the food). The bottom of the grill is quite wide (I have the 18.5" model and I can fit a 9" pie plate comfortably with a ring of charcoal around it).
If you look carefully at Mr. Brown's video, he is actually using a Weber 22.5" in his second example.
For a practical guide to doing long cooks on a Weber, I've written a blog post for this site. I've successfully used this method for pulled pork, brisket and ribs, as well as roast beef and turkey.
As far as the melting concern goes, unless you're trying to sear a steak, you don't want your grill that hot, and generally it's not going to get that hot, you have to try very hard to get anything approaching 1000F.
I am wondering if I should get the 22.5 or 18.5. Can you do proper smoking and indirect heat with the 18.5? Maybe 22.5 is too big for me, I would have to use a lot of charcoal each time.
@l3win I used to smoke all the time on my 18.5 (got a smoker, honestly prefer how my 18.5 handles to the smoker, but I'm trying to learn it well). However, the original instructions that got me doing it were for a 22.5)
I use an aluminum pan to catch drippings in my 22.5 Weber, and it fits just fine. I put it on the charcoal grate, and I'm good to go. It also makes for a nice barrier for fuel if you want to maintain hot and cold cooking zones.
If you're getting a charcoal grill you don't need the wood chips in aluminum foil method, just wood blocks/chunks directly on the charcoal works. Alton Brown's method is if you have wood chips and you want a slow smoke that... wood chunks give you anyway.
If you want to catch drippings you can use aluminum foil or a disposable pie pan. Carey's on point for that.
i've got a 22 inch OTG and i just have a disposable weber brand aluminum pan on one side (the right) and pile my wood charcoal on the left. works like a charm and provides a great 2 zone fire. furthermore, i very rarely change my drip pan - i just let the heat from the wood boil it for a bit and it's all good. it has made my meats unbelievably delicious. i can definitely tell all those drippings adding mucho flavor.
In our experience that particular grill is the best grill for anything less than the cost of Big Green Egg (the Egg beats it at slow cooking but it's also 16x the price and temperamental).
Durability:
Over the Six or Seven years I have put it through all kinds of punishment (1000+°F grilling, frying oil fires, etc) winters and summers and not a peep from the poor thing.
Drip Tray: The shape of the grill tends to help burn off most of the drippings (flavour). The round tray that comes with it should do the rest along with charcoal ash.
Improvements: The only modification we made to this grill was to add a $6 thermometer on the lid and stack two pizza stones for pizza.
Overall, I find myself using this one over the Green Egg. I've only used real wood charcoal and sometimes even real cedar but never the briquettes.
How did you add a thermometer on the lid?
@l3win likely he's talking about a modification to drill a hole in the dome and place a thermometer.
@l3win wax eagle's correct. Drill a hole in the lid and place thermometer. It's pretty painless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.786200
| 2014-03-18T01:37:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42829",
"authors": [
"Alexander Madyuskin",
"Andre",
"Ankit Mahadik",
"CATHY ",
"D_grens",
"FabioDaily",
"KitchenWitch",
"Manaa BM",
"MandoMando",
"Paul Bao",
"RCC Auto Transport",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"l3win",
"solenn",
"spammer",
"wax eagle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123187
|
Steak still tough despite using methods to tenderize it
First method: dry marinating the meat with sea salt for an hour.
Second method: cooking the meat with low heat using 80 degrees Celsius (electric oven) for 30-40 minutes.
The cut looks like the one on the right:
I used these two methods today (one followed by the other), and my steak was still tough and chewy.
What could be the reason?
Note: It's a sirloin steak.
How big is this steak? Do you mean like a regular 'steak & chips' rump/sirloin etc. single portion, or a larger cut? Also, can we assume these 'two methods' are actually just two steps in a single method. You did one followed by the other.
A picture of the raw steak would help. What cut? Was it marbled with fat or lean? Often it's not how you treat it, but the steak itself.
@Tetsujin I updated my question. Yes, I did one followed by the other.
@moscafj I added a photo.
It’s difficult to tell what cut a steak is from by looks, especially after it’s cooked. If the steak has its fibers going mostly in one direction, you want to make sure to cut across it, so each slice is lots of tiny little fibers, but that’s not always possible if you have a cut that’s from multiple muscles that aren’t all aligned.
What cut? Also was it dny aged by chance? I will say it looks a little thin for reverse sear which it seems was your second method. It's possible the steak dried out too much because it was too thin. As for dry brining 60 minutes might not be enough time for the juices to make their way back into the steak. You might get moisture loss in that case. All this is shooting in the dark though without knowing the cut. If this was brisket that would be the immediate answer!
Also I can't get past this - is the yellow stuff just fat under weird lighting conditions? Or did you do something to it to give it that color? It looks like one of Guga's experiments. :D
@PeterMoore I thought that was the normal color of grass-fed fat: https://www.theregenranch.com/blog-folder/why-is-the-fat-on-my-steak-yellow
Huh. I've never seen that color before but I guess that's a thing! Well that's another clue to your issue - 100% grass fed can be less tender than grain finished.
It looks like you're cutting with the grain instead of against it. A good deal of "tenderness" to a steak has to deal with how it's cut. Long muscle fibers are hard to chew, try cutting against the grain and on a bias (angle) to get the shortest fibers.
@RonBeyer I'm trying to do that. It's very difficult to see the grain with that grass-fed beef. I hardy see any lines.
Are you gonna tell us what kind of cut that is or make us keep playing 20 questions? :) If it's a ribeye (which is what it looks like to me) grain shouldn't be a factor.
@PeterMoore It's a sirloin steak. I updated the answer.
@alexchenco - "sirloin" is a different cut depending on the country. In the UK what Americans call "sirloin" we call "rump". Are you in the US? Rump can be chewy - it's not the most tender of cuts to be honest.
You have a couple of things working against you for tenderness. First, grass-fed beef is often less tender that beef fed on grains. Second, the sirloin is not the most tender cut regardless of what the cow eats. Third, it appears that you are slicing with the grain. Advice for tenderizing grass-fed beef includes mechanical tenderization (a mallet to break down fibers) or acidic marinades. Slicing against the grain cuts long fibers into pieces that are easier to chew. So, if you are satisfied with your attempts at tenderization, you may want to try grain fed beef....but certainly try to slice against the grain.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm having a hard time seeing the grain. I can't see any lines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.786609
| 2023-01-29T13:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123187",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Joe",
"Peter Moore",
"Ron Beyer",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6973",
"moscafj",
"wyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73168
|
Which part of a cow does UK "frying steak" come from?
UK supermarkets often sell cuts of meat with ambiguous names that don't resemble the cuts on a butchery diagram:
Where would I find frying steak on that?
According to this site the frying steak is cut from the thick flank.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.787029
| 2016-08-15T14:42:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73168",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2913
|
Achieve crosshatch on grilled pork chop?
I know that putting a crosshatch on a pork chop won't increase its flavor but I like the presentation. Generally, I either rotate my chops too early or too late, resulting in torn meat or no crosshatch. How can I tell when is the right time to rotate the chop to achieve the crosshatch?
First, make sure your grill grates are brushed well to remove debris so that the food has complete contact with the grates. After preheating the grill use a clean old towel to wipe the grates with a light coating of oil. Additionally, a thin coating of oil on your pork chops or other protein item will be beneficial.
Once you've placed the meat on the grill it's really just a matter of paying attention to the meat. Don't try turning too soon or you'll tear the meat and leave the grill marks behind. If the meat resists, leave it alone. It will release itself from the grill when it's ready to be rotated for the cross-hatch marks or to be turned over.
Of course there is no need to be concerned about grill marks on the second side as only one side will be the "presentation side" and the second side will never have marks as good as the first since there will likely be small bits of food debris keeping it from having complete contact with the grill.
Presentation side for other items would be the flattest surface (such as the skin side of a skinless chicken breast) or the nicer looking side (flesh side of a fish fillet).
Used this method last night and it worked. Thanks for the tips!
Be sure the grill is very hot. If the meat did not sizzle when you put it on the grill, then the grill was not hot enough. Also, do not move the meat around except for turning it over.
As well, try and only use half the grill, but keep all burners on. When it's time to rotate, rotate it over to the unused side, which should be searing hot.
I know the standard answer is to wipe the grill with oil, but I find it much easier and more consistent to spray the pork chop with cooking spray, e.g., Pam, before putting it on the grill. That way you know you have an even layer of oil and don't have to worry about it burning off the grill.
Roux, this is the second time I've seen a comment of yours begin with "Ew." Please consider a more polite beginning statement. I have found that simply saying, "Interesting..." conveys the same, "Why would you do that?" feeling when followed by a critique, without sounding as rude. Tx.
Try wiping some oil on the grill before slapping the chops down?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.787098
| 2010-07-23T00:55:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2913",
"authors": [
"A1exandr Belan",
"Adrian Sadoogh",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Flipper",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mutation Person",
"Ralph Winters",
"Tim Reddy",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"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
}
|
7779
|
I need to quickly and safely thaw frozen ground beef, what are my options?
Since reading the answers to my question about defrosting meat on the counter I've been good about giving my meat time to defrost in the refrigerator. However, my plans for tonight have changed and I'd like to defrost some ground beef that is completely frozen for dinner this evening. What are my options to do so quickly and safely?
Put the meat in a sealed plastic bag, place in a bowl in the sink, fill with cold tapwater, then set the tap running in a thin stream with the water overflowing the sides of the bowl. The moving water will safely thaw the meat through convection. Make sure you get as much air out of the plastic bag as you can. You might need to put some weight on it in the bowl to keep it submerged in the water.
There's a Good Eats episode where they show the differences in thawing methods (cold water, hot water, oven) with little ice sculptures. Cold running water was clearly the fastest.
If you're really in a hurry then you can't beat the microwave. It might defrost a little unevenly, but assuming you plan to brown it or something afterward, then that will take care of evening it out.
The microwave is perfectly safe; the key point about food safety here is not allowing the meat to sit in the "danger zone" (basically more than a few degrees above freezing) for a very long time, and if it's only defrosting for 5-10 minutes in the microwave then that's perfectly safe. Just make sure you cook it immediately afterward.
Microwaves aren't that good for big chunks of meat (ground or not) because the waves only penetrate about half an inch (if I recall) into the block. If your ground beef is frozen in a flat block, the microwave might be an OK solution. Otherwise, the running-water approach might be better...
@Harlan: I've done it. You're right, it doesn't penetrate completely, but if you're going to stick it in a frying pan then it's defrosted enough to break it apart into large chunks, and the rest will soften very quickly as the pan heats it up; you can quickly mash it before the outside cooks completely. Obviously this is not the ideal method of cooking ground beef and you'll end up with a few hot spots, but if you're in a hurry then there might not be time to thaw it with cold water and the microwave is "good enough."
I wouldn't do something like this if I planned to make hamburgers or meat loaf, or with a solid cut of meat like steak or chicken. But if it's ground beef going into a chili, ragu, etc., then absolutely I will microwave-defrost it if I didn't have time to fridge-defrost.
I'd also use the microwave in this kind of situation. It does completely ruin it for burgers or similar, but it's fine for a ragu or chilli con carne or something like that. Just do it on really, really low power. I don't care what my microwave says for defrost, I turn it to the lowest and use that. Defrost often seems a bit too powerful to me.
It's even easier if you plan ahead. I split the ground beef up into 1 lb chunks, put them in ziplock bags and squish them flat before freezing. They thaw nicely in the microwave in about 3 minutes.
@Tim Gilbert, that's exactly what I do. Just don't forget to label the bags before you fill them.
The defrost setting on my microwave beeps at me to flip the meat every few minutes. At first it was annoying, but when the meat defrosted all the way through and evenly with no hot spots, I can't complain. I used to just start the defrost on a third to half the wieght of what I actually have, then peel off the defrosted stuff and put the frozen back in for less. Works pretty well too.
Microwave on defrost or slightly higher, and then every minute stop the microwave and remove the defrosted parts, return frozen part and continue. You can perfectly defrost ground beef without cooking it this way
This works only in the winter months:
Get home from work.
Turn on heater for cold house.
Set frozen ground beef on floor vent
Turn in 10 mins.
Total time 20, fully thawed.
My house drops ten degrees during the day so the time it takes to get to 70 is how long it takes to thaw my dinner.
I've started using a new technique for defrosting without doing so unevenly. It takes a lot more time and patience than just hitting defrost and coming back 10 minutes later to a partially cooked plate of raw shrimp or fish (would work for ground beef as well.)
What I do is to run the microwave on defrost for about half the time it would take for a "normal" microwave defrost (where the edges of the fish and/or some shrimp are pink in spots.) Then I run the microwave for about 20 minutes at 10% and check on it periodically until it's defrosted.
I've also done the ziploc bag trick, but it sometimes leaks and it's really hard to submerge it. Putting it in front of an oscillating fan can work as well.
The quickest way is to defrost is in the microwave, although it may not defrost evenly and some may 'cook' slightly. Defrosting meat quickly usually means you lose moisture too. If you are planning on using the beef straight away I wouldn't worry about the safety issue as long as you cook it through.
Laying the meat on a surface that conducts heat works well too.
I find that putting frozen meat directly on a granite countertop or in a copper sink (with minimal wrapping) will thaw it much more quickly than a wooden cutting board or dishes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.787363
| 2010-10-02T22:37:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7779",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"FoodTasted",
"Harlan",
"Jeffrey Walker",
"Joel Cure",
"Marti",
"Matthew Walton",
"TFD",
"Tim Gilbert",
"dialogik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72034",
"tobiw"
],
"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
}
|
11919
|
Best way to chop an onion?
Possible Duplicate:
A definitive method of dicing an onion
Do I first cut it in half or do I make crosswise incisions before chopping it? And what is the best knife to use?
Ramsay and Oliver both use a similar method leaving the root in, but I like the quicker chop-both-ends-off way I've seen done by one of the ladies from America's Test Kitchen.
I use two different knives when I dice an onion. First, cut the onion in half, through the root end (so that each half has a bit of the root on it to hold it together). Next, take a paring knife (the skinny blade is why I use this knife here) and make vertical cuts that go almost all the way to the root. Next, use the paring knife to make horizontal cuts while using one hand to hold the onion in place. Last, use a chef's knife to make downward cuts to finish the dice.
If you are trying to julienne cut the onion, cut off both the top and root part of the onion and peel it. Then chop the onion in half vertically and cut thin slices of onion on an angle from the outside toward the middle (about a 10 degree angle should be fine). I do all of this with a chef's knife.
I'm sure there must be videos on youtube in regards to this, but here it is in a nutshell. Cut the ends off of the onion. Cut it in half from the root to the tip. You will have two halves now, each with half the root. On the end not containing the root, cut horizontally along the entire length up to the root, stopping just short of cutting all the way through. For a larger onion (or a finer dice), repeat this step as many times as necessary starting close to the cutting board working up to the top of the onion half. Then, cut vertically many times along the onion, also just to the root but not through. After this, start cutting at the leading edge (the side that does not contain the root). Cut all the way to the root, and you will have diced onion.
Also, the best knife to use for this is a very sharp french knife. Some people will also use a serrated knife, but there is no tip. The french knife is all you need.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.787838
| 2011-02-08T12:42:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11919",
"authors": [
"40XUserNotFound",
"DanteAlighieri",
"Jacob Akkerboom",
"Lambart",
"Twenty Twenty Partners",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84578",
"user1942292",
"user24551",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
14738
|
Why rinse basmati rice?
Every Indian recipe I see seems to insist on rinsing basmati rice before cooking it. Why, I have no idea, because I never rinse it, yet I can discern no difference between my rice and rice cooked by other people that have, presumably, spent the extra 15 minutes rinsing.
If the stickiness is the difference, as suggested in this thread, then I would suggest that not rinsing the rice would make eating rice-based thali a lot less traumatic because the grains would clump together more easily.
Related: Why do you have to rinse rice?
You're right, for basmati, this is probably less necessary than other varietals.
well first of all you shouldn't be spending 15 minutes rinsing rice
Well, c.., I was using hyperbole to make a point.
Basmati rice is supposed to flow freely though, if it clumps, you are using it against the norm and should probably stick with a stickier rice.
Usually Basmati is used Pilau style, or in a Biryiani, then the grains are slightly coated in some form of fat (oil, ghee, etc), so the starch you would definitely want rid of.
I am wondering if the origin of this step in the recipe comes from recipes written in India, and have been copied over into western book without asking this questions.
I do know that many times in India, rice is stored in sacks with some kind of insecticide (usually boric acid) applied to it. So there's always a need to wash the rice before it's cooked.. So maybe this step comes from that..
Sometimes rice is polished using talcum powder, which is one reason you would need to rinse it. Another reason would be to get rid of extra starch. The extra starch cause the rice to clump and stick, which isn't what you are looking for with basmati rice. Normally you just rinse it until the water runs clear.
Rinsing is a matter of personal taste. The idea is that it removes excess starch from the rice, which if left in can result in a 'gloopy' consistency.
I'm not sure why anyone would spend 15 minutes doing it though - I rinse my rice about six times (fill the saucepan, tip it out, repeat).
Yeah, 15 minutes seems a bit much, unless you're rinsing each grain individually or something. :)
15 seconds is more like it.
Well, I've always been taught by many Indians to rinse it in a sieve till the water runs clear, ie. the loose starch is gone. That usually takes a good minute.
I was utilizing hyperbole! It just feels like 15 minutes.
Hyper-bowl? Is that some kind of new kitchen gadget? ;)
fyi from wikipedia: Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
Lol. I know what hyperbole is (and how it's pronounced), I was joking!
and I upped the ante!
I have never washed any rice before cooking and every grain is perfect and separate. Perhaps its the way I cook rice. I put a little oil in the pan, sauté for a few minutes, then add the water and salt, mix it and cover until its ready. Always perfect.
I used to rinse basmati rice prior to cooking by steaming in a closed pot. Then I got fed up and couldn't be bothered. Nothing changed - the rice remains fluffy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.788090
| 2011-05-12T19:11:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14738",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Jefferson",
"Doug",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eugene Lavine",
"JamesB18",
"John P",
"Mark Spargo",
"Orbling",
"Paula Livingstone",
"bikeboy389",
"britne",
"c..",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
54525
|
How to properly clean a bundt mold without ruining the surface
I usually do the suggestions in my previous question for seasoning the Teflon coated (non stick) bundt pan (buttering and flouring) and I have no problem with that. The problem is with leftover residue,I cannot clean the pan properly. After a few times of cleaning, the surface is hurt and since it is a fairly expensive, I am a little worried. I gave it a long soak in hot water and it didn't work. I also found this question which seems to ask the same thing but the answers are not about cleaning but the other part of the question.
I hope you're using cake release! And you've never actually "seasoned" it (as in covering it with oil and baking it in a very hot oven). If you did season it, that's a problem. I'll get to that in just a second.
Otherwise, all you need is to wash the pan right away in hot soapy water (use a high-quality dish soap, ultra-cheap ones don't work as well) after each use. If necessary, soak it for a half-hour or so in hot soapy water (as in for hand washing, not machine-dishwashing detergent). Then wash it with a dishcloth. If you still have stuff stuck in crannies, use a soft toothbrush. Dry thoroughly. That's it. If you still have stuff stuck on, use a plastic scrubby sponge-like this (my favorite), or this.
Do you absolutely know what surface it is? Unless it says otherwise, don't season it. If it is made by Nordic Ware, look for any model number or anything it says on the box about seasoning or not seasoning. If this is your pan, don't season it. I've got their number. I'll call them if you still have questions, and if this is, in fact, your pan. If you seasoned it, please don't do anything else until we contact the manufacturers. Just catch me in chat, you know I'm almost always there.
There is an answer somewhere on this site (Seasoned Advice) that says that Nordic Ware tells you to season their pans. Please note that that answer refers to pans that DO NOT have a non-stick coating.
What I've found that works for any cake pan is to clean it immediately after removing the cake.
Following my mother's example, as soon as I turn a cake (or layer) out, I wipe out any residue in the pan with a dry paper towel. This gets it out while it is still moist and before it has a chance to harden on the surface of the pan. Once it hardens, it can be quite difficult to remove.
Then, wash as usual.
You can also fill a warm pan with warm water, and let soak until you have time to clean it. This will often remove much of the remaining cake (and gives you time to finish up your recipe).
This has also happened to my pan and it's been soaking and cleaning for two days and still is dirty. So all I've done before is kept soaking and washing till gunk was gone. Nothing else worked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.788411
| 2015-02-08T09:35:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54525",
"authors": [
"Abby",
"Alisha Doulen",
"Amin Jamal",
"Brandie Stewart Bee",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Carol Aylward",
"Colin McWay",
"Esteban Herrera",
"Gil T ToyTrucker",
"Hailey",
"Jenny Camacho",
"Joyce Skeldon",
"Kirstie Ann",
"Kulsoom S",
"Maria Fonnegra",
"Mikel McGatha",
"Ronnie ",
"Shan M",
"X Vr Xvr",
"cherie combs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"sunrisehouse"
],
"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
}
|
47575
|
What would be a good substitution for powdered milk in cereal cookies?
In a TV show, a recipe was used that its main ingredient was corn flakes. I don't know if it has a name but it calls for caster sugar, butter, corn flakes and milk powder.
It's called Cornflake crunch, apparently!
What is a good substitute of powdered milk? I'd go for powdered infant formula, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Hello Gigili, half of your question was a recipe request. Only a recipe can tell you what amounts of the ingredients to use. And even if recipe requests were allowed - which they are not - nobody can know which one of hundreds of possible recipes this show used. The substitution part is fine, so I edited the recipe request out and left the substitution.
Why don't you want to use milk powder? Do you have a dairy allergy, is milk powder hard to get where you live, do you not enjoy the taste of it, ...? Suggesting substitutions is impossible without knowing the reason for the substitute
How about liquid milk ;)
@KateGregory: Unfortunately I can't get hold of it where I live.
I don't think that infant formula would be a reasonable substitute for powdered milk in your recipe.
The inclusion of powdered milk here is to provide the taste of milk to go with the cereal component of the cookies (so they're actually sweetened cereal and milk cookies that crunch - not just cereal crunch cookies) - so the real milk taste of the powdered milk is important. Admittedly, as an adult, I have not tried powdered infant formula, but I would be willing to wager that, either dry or reconstituted, it does NOT taste like the milk you put on cereal.
Also, I would be wary of how the ingredients in infant formula would react when heated in an oven over time. Different infant formulas have different compositions - typically they have some components isolated from cow's milk, but add other ingredients to achieve a desirable consistency, nutritional balance, and vitamin/mineral content. There probably isn't much research to help you predict what happens when you bake dried infant formula - you might not want to be the first to take the risk.
Basically, I wouldn't risk substituting a primary flavor component of your recipe with something else - I think you should stick with the powdered milk.
Thank you for your answer. I think you're right about infant formula, but -as weird as it sounds- I've got the idea from a pizza dough recipe that calls for infant formula.
In a pizza dough recipe (1) the primary purpose of the infant formula would NOT be milk taste like it is in the cookies, & (2) the formula would be thoroughly hydrated in the pizza dough and not as likely to react unexpectedly from the heat in the oven (the recipe for the cookies has almost no liquid whatsoever - just a little bit from what is in the butter). I would think of this more like processed cheese-food slices - they vaguely resemble cheese, but they don't really taste like cheese and when you broil them, they turn strange colors and don't always melt and sometimes smoke and stink.
Thank you for your thorough answer and comment, I really appreciate it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.788713
| 2014-10-01T07:19:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47575",
"authors": [
"Bernice Senese",
"David Weintraub",
"Deeanna Porter",
"Gigili",
"Kate Gregory",
"Lee Jenkins",
"Michael Vetter",
"Nicholas Urso",
"Stephen Eure",
"Terrell Breaux",
"Yvonne Poxon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"mery tryfonopoulos",
"rumtscho",
"seasoned"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44785
|
Is yogurt plus milk considered buttermilk?
I've read somewhere (it was a vanilla cake recipe, IIRC) that 3/4 cup yogurt plus 1/4 milk is buttermilk. A recipe (buttermilk biscuits) calls for buttermilk and I'd like to know if I can use this formula to make buttermilk.
Yogurt plus milk actually equals more yogurt, with a little heating. Google "make yogurt" for many examples. You can make buttermilk in much the same way using buttermilk (google "make buttermilk").
Technically, this is not precisely buttermilk, but it's pretty close in both composition and usage.
The term "buttermilk" can actually refer to a wide range of fermented milk varieties. Traditionally, buttermilk was produced by allowing natural bacteria present in cream to ferment some of the sugar lactose into lactic acid. This made churning butter from the cream easier and also helped protect the cream from spoiling. After the butter was churned and removed, the liquid that remained would be your buttermilk (today referred to as "traditional").
Nowadays, mass-produced "cultured" buttermilk is produced by taking pasteurized low-fat milk and introducing bacterial cultures to produce lactic acid in a similar fashion. That's similar to how yogurt is produced, but yogurt is generally allowed to ferment for longer until the milk proteins set and thicken. There are many varieties of yogurt with slightly different cultures from each other and from cultured buttermilk, and the beginning fat content of the milk can differ too.
So, technically these are distinct, but if you use milk to thin out yogurt, you're producing a beverage that (like buttermilk) contains lactic acid, producing that distinctive tangy flavor, and which (like buttermilk) is somewhat thicker than milk. Your identified ratio is the same as other recommendations that I found while searching around, so you can definitely use this to substitute.
There are also other substitutions available. This thread also covers similar information, in addition to being a colorful exploration of related terms.
While Yogurt and milk are not traditional buttermilk, modern buttermilk is very similar to yogurt. Traditional buttermilk is actually the liquid you have left over after you've made butter, while modern buttermilk is a cultured product.
Generally, in baking, buttermilk is used for its acidity and protein content. If you want a viable substitute, milk and yogurt can work, or milk and some lemon juice. It's a good idea to let these mixtures sit a bit after you've combined them, to allow the milk to curdle and acidify.
If you were to make butter at home, one way to do so is to inoculate some heavy cream with a yogurt culture. This introduces bacteria into the cream which will acidify it and cause the fat in the heavy cream to glom together more easily.
Once you've fermented the cream as you would ferment yogurt (in a warm place for about 4 to 12 hours), the result is something called creme bulgare. This is similar to creme fraiche.
If you churn the cooled creme bulgare, you will cause the fat in it to conglomerate through mechanical action. I use a food processor to do this. You process the creme until it separates, you'll clearly see the butter clumping together and a liquid separating from it, this liquid is buttermilk.
To finish off the butter, I strain the mixture, save the buttermilk, and cool the butter until it is no longer soft. Once it's not soft, I put it in cheesecloth and squeeze the remaining buttermilk out of it. Squeezing the buttermilk out of the cooled down butter is much easier since the butter will not be able to pass through the cheesecloth. Additionally, it's a good idea to do this since it ensures the butter last longer.
I'm not sure where you're from, but 'buttermilk' in the US rarely refers to the leftover liquid from butter making anymore. It's typically 'cultured buttermilk', which is a fermented product similar to yogurt. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67
@Joe: I'm from the US, I simply strove to give a definition that's closer to buttermilk's namesake. Even though this isn't what's typically sold in stores as "buttermilk", it's still buttermilk.
Seems like logophobe covered the current and past usage of the term well.
the problem is that there's no retronym for the 'original' buttermilk, so it's difficult to differentiate between the two -- but if someone's asking about how to deal with a modern recipe, telling them about the antiquated usage of the term, particularly without mentioning that there's something else that the term more than likely refers to, isn't useful.
I agree, I just never thought that modern butter milk could be anything different. I always just get buttermilk when I make butter. I've never had experience with it before that. I'll leave my answer up in case someone looks up buttermilk and they end up here. There is some added content (how to make butter/buttermilk) and taken together with our comments, I think it might just end up being useful for someone else.
Yoghurt + Milk != Buttermilk.
It is made by shaking Cream as long as possible. The first you'll see in this process, the Cream will become whipped cream. If you keep on shaking, the water and fat will separate from each other. The fat will agglomerate and is further on called butter.
The separated water, the leftover, is called buttermilk (traditionally).
The mixture you mentioned is somewhat cultured buttermilk with some substitute for the removed fat and stuff which makes it less liquid and regulate the acidity. Some more information can be gained here:
http://www.webexhibits.org/butter/buttermilk.html
My guess it, that the recipe is meaning a cultured type of buttermilk, because most people would associate buttermilk with cultured buttermilk as a replacement to the traditional meaning.
I can't find "buttermilk" anywhere in the recipe link that was originally referenced (http://parsleysagesweet.com/2013/05/18/tourte-milanese-a-meal-en-croute/).
Regardless, the information you presented in your post seems to refer to "cultured buttermilk" and not "the milk left over from making butter."
If the yogurt you're using has active cultures (look at the ingredients list), then the yogurt/milk (whole milk) mix will result in something reasonably close to "cultured buttermilk" in flavor, body, and acetic enough for activating baking soda if your recipe calls for that.
Sorry, I linked to the wrong recipe! I edited the question and fixed it.
The recipes author states that the yogurt and milk mix gives a similar effect. The link on how to make buttermilk calls for adding vinegar to milk to, in effect, curdle the milk. Neither are actual or cultured buttermilk, just good substitutions for the recipe. P.s. I think I'm going to make these :).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.789011
| 2014-06-11T16:45:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44785",
"authors": [
"BobRodes",
"Daniel Henry",
"Delia Antohi",
"Gigili",
"Hamza Hussein",
"Idran",
"Joe",
"Lugemwa Fred ",
"Michael E.",
"Polished Flooring",
"Ron",
"Sharon",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kingofherrings"
],
"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
}
|
49382
|
How to distinguish cream of tartar from bread improver
A few months ago I bought a pocket of cream of tartar (unlabeled) and after a few days I bought some bread improver. Now that I transferred both from their unlabeled pockets to air-tight containers, I can't seem to find out which one is which! Is there any way to distinguish them?
It's a bit hard to say without knowing what's in your bread improver. If it has ascorbic acid, it becomes much harder. The easiest way would be to find a labeled sample of either substance, taste it, and then match the taste.
This depends on what is in your bread improver. Cream of tartar is salt which acts as a buffer. If the bread improver also contains acid (ascorbic acid is sometimes an ingredient), it makes it harder to distinguish, because it will react similarly in many circumstances.
The first simple test would be to add baking soda to a solution of each ingredient. If only one sample fizzes, this is the cream of tartar, and the bread improver has no acid. If both fizz, the bread improver has acid and you cannot tell from this test.
The second test needs six jars of water (or smaller things, like espresso cups) and pH strips. Dissolve each of the ingredients in two jars, and fill pure water into the third pair. Add some baking soda to one of the water jars, and a colorless acid to the other one. Use a pH strip to see that you added enough to be able to measure it, a change in pH by 1 step should be enough. Then add the same amount of soda to a cup with ingredient A and a cup of ingredient B. Repeat with the same amount of acid. Measure the acidity of the new cups. The ingredient whose solution remained at a neutral pH is the cream of tartar. There is a small chance that both will do this, because we can't know if the dough improver also have a buffering quality, but I think this is not so likely.
A third test, if you don't have pH strips for the second: whip an eggwhite with a pinch of each ingredient. The more stable foam will be the cream of tartar. With some luck, the bread improver eggwhite will whip even worse than pure eggwhite, if the dough improver has emulsifiers (intended to soften the bread). But this test is not perfect either, because ascorbic acid or other ingredients used to make stronger bread could also stabilize the eggwhite - they are intended to strengthen gluten, but will work on eggwhite proteins too.
The best test would be to use not chemical behavior, but taste. For this, you need a new, labeled sample of either cream of tartar or the same brand of dough improver. You can just dip your finger in it and lick. Then repeat (with a different finger) in each of the unlabeled ingredients. As long as you are sure that these two are indeed food additives (you don't have an unlabeled box of NaOH sitting in your cupboard, for example), there is nothing dangerous about the test. The taste should be distinctive enough.
+1, of which: +0.25 for the taste test suggestion; that might be enough. +0.25 for the over-the-top answer. +0.5 for having a well-stocked kitchen; @rumtscho: do you give tours of your pantry? :) I submit one final test: bake three loaves of bread: one with Powder A, one with Powder B, and one with neither (0). Label them. If all perform equally well, discard both powders; save money on your next trip to the market! If any performs way better than others, you have your answer! If A&B perform better than 0, it doesn't matter! Good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.789641
| 2014-10-30T16:10:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49382",
"authors": [
"Faith Masia",
"Lorna Sutton",
"Pat Worsley",
"Pedro.Alonso",
"Pummy Kumari",
"Vanessa Hoang",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"meg hammbone",
"rumtscho",
"sarwar undre"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61510
|
"Place pan in a large pan; add 1 inch of hot water to larger pan." -- Why?
I have found a cheesecake recipe which says, for the cooking phase:
Place springform pan in a large baking pan; add 1 in. of hot water to larger pan.
Bake at 325 °F (160 °C) for 60--65 minutes or until center is just set and top appears dull.
I have done it so (I mean, it's in the recipe which I followed), but I wonder what is this for? I suppose that the water layer prevents things from going much over 212 °F (100 °C) since the water stays at this temperature. But I don't understand the motivation for this set-up. Couldn't I just use a lower temperature setting?
It's just like when you boil milk. Special pots have inner space to for water so it technically boils in hot water. Not having direct contact with the unevenly hot metal, it does not go over a certain temperature and keeps it from getting burnt.
Couldn't I just use a lower temperature setting?
No, you can't. Ovens are very bad at keeping a constant temperature. Not only is the oven thermostat usually off, it also cycles around its mean temperature a lot. So your food is subjected to constantly changing temperature.
If you were to set your oven to 100C, you 1) won't get really 100C, and 2) won't get the crust to brown, as the temperature is too low. Instead, you can use the water bath described. In combination with a temperature setting higher than 100C, it will keep the bottom portion of the cheesecake at a constant temperature, and will allow the surface to bake well.
You will see water bath (i.e. bain marie) recommendations for many types of baked goods, including custards. But when it comes to a cheesecake, it has a second function. At each temperature, there is an equilibrium moisture in the oven air. As long as the equilibrium has not been reached, moisture evaporates at a high rate from every moist surface (your baking good). When this happens to a cheesecake, its top cracks. But when you have an open water surface, it is sufficient to saturate the air, and no (or very little) evaporation happens on the cake surface. You end up with a smooth cheesecake.
Thanks, this is very explanatory. However, I got the cheesecake very moist, but that may be a technical problem (and also, it may be undercooked and also I have a different type of cheese available in my country than the one that's in the recipe). I'll keep experimenting!
Possibly helpful side note: The second pan will also save you a lot of time and aggravation if the springform pan fails or leaks; the run off will be safely contained.
@apaul34208 I always place a second wide pan / place below the springform pan, no matter what I use it for, but you're right, this is important since my springform pan is over 20 years old .... :-)
You are creating a bain-marie. It is used to gently heat the food and to stop the food scorching or boiling. When used for custards it stops them curdling. For cheesecakes the technique is used to stop the centre cracking.
There's a secondary function for custards as well. It keeps the custard from burning to the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.789950
| 2015-09-05T09:48:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61510",
"authors": [
"Beverly Bergthold",
"CodeAngry",
"Eddy M",
"Elaine White",
"Laraine Buchan-Preece",
"Laurie Luedeke",
"Mary Ann Ruskuls",
"RubberDuck",
"Scott Gillenwater",
"Tisha M",
"apaul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37364",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47227
|
Why do bread and butter pickle recipes call for onions, mustard seed, and celery seed?
I recently made a jar of bread and butter pickles. I understood most of the rationale behind the ingredients and directions in the recipe - the cucumbers are salted to draw out water and break cell walls, then put into a highly saturated acid/sugar solution so that microbes present on the cucumbers would be destroyed by acid and osmotic pressure. Turmeric is not essential to preserving the pickles, but adds yellow color.
That leaves three ingredients I found in most recipes: onions, mustard seed, and celery seed. Why are these ingredients included in bread and butter pickle recipes? What would happen if they were left out?
Er, maybe some of the ingredients are there for taste?
Those are the flavorings.
Just like dill pickles have dill in them, those are what give the flavor profile that people expect from bread & butter pickles.
If they were left out, the pickles wouldn't taste as good. +1 for simplicity.
I'd add that turmeric is also primarily a flavoring agent. The color is incidental (and imo annoying if you don't like your entire kitchen tinted yellow). The yellow color is desirable because we tend to associate it with "good" pickles, which we often think of as well-spiced. See also: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/11/07/243733126/how-17th-century-fraud-gave-rise-to-bright-orange-cheese
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.790242
| 2014-09-18T16:42:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47227",
"authors": [
"Alexandria Tapp",
"D S",
"David Richerby",
"Domenico Narducci",
"JM Craig",
"Marla Amyotte",
"Mary L",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"shadowtalker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63839
|
can tough brisket get softer?
I am cooking a brisket in a pot with water and vegetables, on a stove top.
I meant to leave it on a slow simmer, so that it would get very soft. About 2 hours after I started cooking it, after having left the room for a while, I found it in a rolling boil.
The meat was no longer pink or red, but a grayish-brown well-done colour, and tasted cooked but was a little tough. Will it get softer if I cook it longer on a slow simmer?
Related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/55464/67
Well there is good news and bad news. The good news is, if you keep cooking it, the proteins will eventually break down and the meat will get softer. The bad news is, the boiling for so long may have spent the goodness of the meat.
More good news however. The meaty goodness has likely been transferred to the broth. You could convert your dish to a small bite stew, and no one would be the wiser, and the broth will impart some great flavor to root veg you might add to a stew. (Potato, parsnips, turnips, carrots, etc.)
Can you clarify what you mean by "spent the goodness of the meat"?
@RockPaperLizard well I think most people know what I mean, but to clarify, I mean the meat juice where most of the flavor is. What's left behind may still be meat and connective tissue, but it'll be rather bland since its been extracted into the broth. That's why making the meat bite sized may be a way to save it. Since you aren't going to notice the lack of juicy flavor in a small bite if the recipe is converted into a stew. It'll likely taste perfect because of everything it's surrounded with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.790402
| 2015-11-25T17:38:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63839",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Anita Charlson",
"Brent Rogers",
"Escoce",
"Heidi Gail Meadows",
"Janet Grice",
"Joe",
"Timothy Landers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"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
}
|
68988
|
What kinds of corn can be nixtamalized?
What kinds of corn are the standard for nixtamalization? I mean, do they use sweet corn, popcorn, dent corn, flour corn, flint corn, pod corn, something else, or some/all of the above? I'm guessing it would work with any corn, but some might be ideal for the purpose. Maybe it depends on what you want to do with that nixtamalized corn. Let's assume it's for masa de maíz, for use with tortillas and stuff.
Well, it looks like I found my answer:
Field corn is used for creating masa de maíz (see this link for my source). Field corn includes a few types of corn (dent, flour, flint, waxy). I'm not sure if all types of field corn are used for masa de maíz, however. So, if anyone has a more specific answer, feel free to give it.
I'm guessing really any kind of corn could be nixtamalized, however (but some kinds may be more ideal than others). Other kinds of grain besides corn can also be nixtamalized.
I just use corn from the feed store. It's probably Roundup ready, but it works fine. Various sources on the internet say something to the effect "Popcorn can be nixtamalized, but the results are poor because the skin is especially tough and the endosperm is small and hard." http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=5129.html The stuff is expensive anyway. Most decent Latino stores will carry dried purple sweet corn. It works nicely, but has a higher sugar content than field corn.
@WayfaringStranger Thanks for the information! :) I'll edit that part out of my answer, about the sweet corn.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.790570
| 2016-05-14T08:23:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68988",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54467
|
Choc pudding, cook & serve hasn't thickened
I cooked it for 30 min over medium high heat, stirring frequently. I used 2% milk. It didn't thicken completely, but eventually I removed it from heat, thinking it would thicken in the fridge. It hasn't. Can I bake it in the oven for a few minutes?
Is this pudding from scratch, or boxed pudding, like Jello?
If the pudding was from scratch, please post a recipe. Whether it was from a box or from scratch, did it ever come to a boil? How confident are you that you measured properly?
Also, do you have cornstarch on hand?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.790707
| 2015-02-06T15:44:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54467",
"authors": [
"Ammara Am",
"Barbara Monteagle",
"Gerry Paslawski",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lela Rahimi",
"Sharon Russell",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"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
}
|
52255
|
White cloudy areas on bottom of new stainless steel skillet
I just bought my first few pot and pans "Calaphon" stainless steel trip-ply
I used my new 10" skillet tonight, and cooked pork chops. I heated the pan first, added olive oil, let it heat, then added chops. After I was done, cleaned it immediately under water, and noticed white cloud looking areas on the bottom of the skillet. They won’t wash or rub off
Do I need to return these? I did buy them for the look as well.
Most likely the same problem as here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10548/stainless-steel-pan-gray-bottom-why?rq=1
Sounds like hard water issues to me, too ... so Pepi's link would be the right one to look at. (and 'white cloudy areas' sounds exactly like what I have ... I don't think it shows up as well in Pipi's images)
I put mine in the dishwasher and comes out perfect
Vinegar, or citric acid soaks are the usual treatment for calcium carbonate deposits around here. Should take care of most sulphates too.
Sprinkle the 'cleaned' dry pan with coarse salt - add any kind of inexpensive vinegar, just enough to wet the salt to a wet paste, scrub the pan with this paste with a paper towel for 30 seconds or so, using the salt as a mild "abrasive", while the vinegar dissolves the cloudiness. Rinse with water and dry. Voilá.
This is simpler and cheaper than using any kind of kitchen cleanser, and no toxic residue.
This guy:
Stainless scrubbing pad
Just clean stainless with stainless, you'll never look back.
If salt pastes do not work, a good option is BarKeepers Friend, the powder form is available in any hardware store for couple bucks. Its oxalic acid and work wonders for stainless steel.
This is kind of late but never use a stainless pad on polished stainless steal. Bon Ami will do it. You can find it nest to comet. It is non abrasive, you may also need to grab some Wenol. We used both at William Sonoma's kitchen. I've had my All Clad stainless tri ply for 22 years and they still have a mirror finish.
Hi and welcome to Seasoned Advice. This does not seem to answer the question directly. Can you edit your answer so it specifically addresses the issue of cloudiness? If you're saying that Bon Ami will remove the cloudiness, please make that explicit in the answer. Thanks!
Did you intend to post this as a comment on EmTee’s answer?
I had the same white cloudy film on bottom of ss pan.
I just tried vinegar + salt paste (runny paste) and it worked beautifully! Didn't need to scrub, just wiped off the paste with paper towel voila- no film!
Barkeepers friend from time to time will get rid of the haze. Either the powder or the soft liquid. Never put good pots in the dishwasher. Ditto for good knives.
It's hard for me to believe the answer is mineral deposits. After one cooking and one wash, white cloudy marks on the inside bottom of a brand new pan, and in fact on all the pans and pots I used from this new set. And yet I have another stainless steel pan that I've had for years that has never accrued this mottled, unattractive staining. I think it must be a cheap quality of stainless steel, and maybe the fact that the tri-ply also has aluminum in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.790832
| 2015-01-04T03:18:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52255",
"authors": [
"Cindy Reyes",
"Denise Odell",
"Huangism",
"Jenett Geldenhuys",
"Joe",
"Liam Rimmer",
"OGDEN DECK DEPOT",
"Pepi",
"Sneftel",
"Tom Humphreys",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"verbose"
],
"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
}
|
36712
|
Steel Cut Oats: cooking in milk vs. water
Most of the recipes I've seen (including Good Eats) recommend simmering the oats in 4 cups of liquid for 1 cup of oats. Alton Brown recommends 3 cups of water for ~25 mins and then (1/2 cup of milk + 1/2 cup of buttermilk) for ~10 mins.
However, I would like to do away with water entirely (just curious). Could I just simmer 1 cup of oats in 4 cups of milk for ~40mins? Or is the first ~25mins of simmering in water designed to maximize water absorption?
Also, if anyone has cooked oats mostly in milk before, I'd like to hear their opinion as well.
I would imagine it would be almost impossible to do this without burning the milk. However, if you somehow did manage it, the results ought to be absolutely delicious.
you might try a double boiler - this would reduce the chance of burning the milk...
Oats are inexpensive, and milk not terrible so... why not just try it with half a batch?
@SAJ14SAJ: Doesn't hurt to take a look at prior research :)
@dax: Looks like the way to go. Or with a slow cooker overnight.
I've successfully done this in a rice cooker once... The second time I did it, the rice cooker kind of exploded because some oats got stuck in the valve that helps release pressure. But the first time was really delicious!
@Marti The main concern isn't burning, it's boiling over.
Yes, you can entirely replace water with milk. The main thing to be aware of is how prone it is to boiling over. Milk will eagerly do that on its own, and starchy water will too, so the combination has to be cooked on very low heat to avoid making a huge mess. (I think this is why the original recipe starts with water: less time with potential for boiling over, and more stable temperature when you add the milk.) You'll also probably want to be more careful about stirring the first time; if the heat is a little higher than you realize, you will start accumulating a layer on the bottom of the pan.
If you want them to cook faster and have less potential boiling over to worry about, you can always presoak in milk beforehand. I've done this overnight in the fridge, which was enough to let me make (admittedly slightly chewy) steel-cut oats in the microwave the next morning.
Yes, this is possible. From my childhood experience, oats were always cooked in milk, never in water. I can't tell you specifics of how to do it, because it was my mother and grandmothers who made them.
But based on the behavior of other grains cooked in milk, from complete kernels to flours, I don't think that you need to make any changes as compared to cooking in water. Take for example polenta - both the ratio and the method stay the same for cooking in water vs. milk. The resulting product is creamier and tastier. For oats, it is also slightly slimy (but not unpleasant), I don't know if this happens with water.
As for water absorption, some grains do well if soaked before cooking, others don't need it. This shouldn't change in the milk vs. water scenario.
The comments mention burning the milk. It never happened with my mother's oats and I am sure she did it on a stove, not in a slow cooker. Obviously, you want it to simmer, not boil. I assume that this is how you do it in water too, but if you don't, change your method for the milk, or you'll have a disaster on your hands. The mix may need stirring while it simmers, but maybe you can do it without stirring too, polenta in milk does not need it if you don't turn your burner too high.
I'm not quite sure what your goal is, but the standard recipe for porridge which I grew up with is 1 cup of oats to 2 cups of milk, stirring frequently to avoid burning. It takes about 5 to 10 minutes to cook, and is done when it starts bubbling. The result is usually already fairly thick, and it thickens as it cools.
Steel cut oats seem to require much more liquid and time in the cooking process, it's a different cut to standard oats. A 4:1 ratio for steel cut would fit my personal experience.
Using milk instead of water makes the outcome definitely creamier, although it may take a little longer (I start my burner on low-medium so the milk won't boil over). Once the milk starts to foam I add the steel cut oats and stir occasionally.
20 minutes or so is enough if you like them nuttier, or longer if you like them softer.
I add a little milk and sugar to the bowl. Yep sugar, it's a lot less than than the pre-sugared oats which are much too sweet. But you can certainly be creative as to what you add. They're a great breakfast or anytime :)
You could always do it in a covered dish and put it in a low temp oven. You could start low maybe at 200 and bump up the heat if it doesn't get anywhere in 40 mins.
My mother always made the rolled oats in milk as my parents wanted us to have the extra nutrition that the milk offers. As an adult, I discovered steel cut oats and haven't gone back to the rolled type since. The first and last time I made the steel cut oats, I used water as the package called for. I think I gave it to the dogs. No comparison to making it with the milk. I use the same amount of milk as the recipe calls for water (4 c milk to 1 c oats), pinch of salt, and simmer for about 45 minutes. Yes, I have scorched the bottom of my pot at times but I attribute that to difficulty with setting my gas stove to simmer. Also found it best to use a bigger pot. Today I made a batch in a 2 1/2 qt pot and had no trouble with it scorching or boiling over. Towards the end of cooking time, I added a handful of golden raisins. It came out great! Didn't even need to add any sweetener to my bowl.
I make steel cut oats with almond milk and a pinch of salt, cooking for 20-30 minutes at a low simmer, stirring throughout. I've also added some cut-up medjool dates near the end of the cooking time, which softens the dates and sweetens the oatmeal. Another sweetening alternative is a touch of pure maple syrup and a cut-up banana. All delicious. If some of your oatmeal sticks to the bottom of the pan just fill the empty pan with water, put it back on the stove and bring it to a boil. Once that cools your pan should be easy to wash.
I do it all the time, and I think it's waaaay better than water
The trick is you have to watch the heat to ensure it doesn't burn or boil over
Haven't tried a double-boiler, but that seems like a good idea
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.791145
| 2013-09-11T13:30:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36712",
"authors": [
"Amari Gibson",
"Cascabel",
"Dana Hamoy",
"Deirdre Harbison",
"GdD",
"Jacob",
"Jacob G",
"Lee Dancaster",
"Marti",
"Michael Ayling",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wellcostore",
"dax",
"dkoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95061",
"mohankumar cs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22709
|
Can I substitute olive oil for butter/shortening in pie crust?
I was making a pie the other day -- a mock apple pie*, to be exact, which is unusual enough. But I came up short on butter and don't keep any shortening stocked in my kitchen. Desperate, I searched online for any substitutes, including olive oil, and found a small number of hits and recipes.
I ended up erring on the safe side and just made a brown sugar crumble topping, but I've been curious about an olive oil crust ever since. Has anyone attempted it? What are some of the differences between olive oil and butter or shortening? What would be the result of using a combination of all the fats?
* Mock Apple Pie uses no apples, and is a carboholic's dream. It was for a themed party and I don't intend to make it often. But it's quite a fun surprise to try out on unsuspecting guests at least once!
That recipe used to be on the back of every Ritz box. Oil crusts tend to be less flaky than butter or lard crusts. Half butter half oil can be pretty good though.
The trick to incorporating olive oil into your crust is to freeze it first until it's opaque and congealed, "like the consistency of slightly melted sorbet." From the recipe for an olive oil double crust; it has a "surprisingly neutral taste... [and by freezing it] helps the fat blend into the dough in little pockets, creating the flakiness you crave (Moskowitz, Vegan Pie in the Sky p. 39)"
That does sound like a great tip! Thank you. I'm not sure about the neutral taste though...olive oil has a pretty strong flavor IMO, but I usually use grapeseed oil for a neutral flavor anyways.
@TheSpatulaQueen thats what I thought as well, but that's directly quoted from the book, and I have made it with the Boston Cream Pie recipe and it was great. Like she said; ...surprisingly neutral. It probably amounts to a combination of the heat cooking away the taste as it goes from a gel state to 350'F, as well as the flour masking the taste
Hot-water or raised-pie doughs, I have had success with olive oil.
With your average apple-pie crust (mock or not), the consistency seems to be more fragile in rolling out and shaping: got better results by pressing the dough directly into pan after sprinkling in rather streusel size pieces, if you can picture that.
Advantage there is that the dough need not come completely together first and can be played with in the pan until even thickness whereas kneading folding and re-rolling can easily lead to toughness.
Recently used up olive oil mayo in a crust. Nice moisture to fat ratio in the mixing and the added tartness was a plus
I constantly run across statements that it's not possible to make a flaky oil-based crust. However, this is simply not true.
My grandma's oil/milk based pie crusts are consistently flakier than any butter/shortening/lard based crust I've ever made or tasted.
However, it's important to point out that this bit of wisdom is so common because you cannot simply substitute oil for butter/shortening/lard in a traditional pie crust recipe.
A flaky oil based crust requires a different recipe and careful handling of the dough when mixing and rolling. For those interested, give this a try:
2 C flour + a little salt
5/8 C oil
5/16 C milk
It's easiest to use a glass measuring cup so you can measure
out the oil and then *pour the milk into the oil* before
pouring it into the flour.
**CAREFUL**
Pour the liquid into the flour and *gently* stir the liquid
and flour together with a fork. You only want ~12-14 stirs.
*DO NOT* beat the mixture or knead the dough.
After this gentle mixing, pack the dough together and divide in half.
The dough should have a *wet/oily* consistency; it should *not* be dry and crumbly.
Roll the dough out between two sheets of wax paper.
If you mixed things correctly, the dough should have a
marbled or mottled appearance and should be wet enough
to patch together easily.
Makes enough for two pie shells (or a top and bottom crust)
If you haven't worked with crusts between wax paper before, here's the trick for transferring it to the pie tin:
Gently remove the top sheet of wax paper and place it lightly back on the crust.
Quickly flip the dough over (grab two corners and flip the crust).
Remove the sheet of wax paper now on the top.
Place your hand under the bottom sheet of wax paper and flip the crust into a pie tin.
Gently form the dough into the tin and then carefully remove the wax paper.
Cut any excess dough off the edges of the pie tin and use this to patch
any tears or fill in any gaps.
You can further improve the consistency (i.e., flakiness) of the top crust (or bottom crust if you're cooking the pie shell on its own for a pudding or fresh fruit pie) by rubbing a little milk on the surface of the crust and sprinkling a little sugar (or cinnamon/sugar for things like the top crust of an apple pie).
I've been using this recipe for 20+ years and friends/guests are always surprised that such a flaky/delicate crust was oil based. Others are surprised at how simple and easy it is to make. It's a great all purpose crust that I use with fruit pies, meat pies, pudding/custard pies, etc. The pie crust itself is great on its own (sprinkle some cinnamon and sugar on it after rubbing it with milk and then cook some "pie crust cookies").
I'm obviously biased because this is the crust that my mom and grandmother always made when I was growing up, but I find the consistency and flavor to be better than typical shortening crusts. (Although, to be fair, my mother-in-law makes an amazing lard/vodka crust and, frankly, some recipes call for a more shortbread-like crust).
There is absolutely no problem in making pie crusts with oil instead of butter/shortening.
The important thing to remember is that it's not a 1:1 substitution.
In my favourite pie crust recipe, which is my own veganization of the Cook's Illustrated vodka pie crust, the substitution is 65 grams of oil for 100 grams of butter, and about a tablespoon of water.
Normally, I would use "yellow" oil, one of the canola/soybean/rapeseed neutral oils for this sort of thing. Olive oil has a special flavour which I'm not sure I would want in an apple pie. The ratios would be the same, but olive oil has the flavour, and is more expensive, so I tend to avoid it except for savoury pies.
A much better vegan substitute for pie crust is coconut oil, for one thing, it tastes like coconut. Honestly I think I like it better than butter for fruit pies. It is also very nice for curried meat pies. For me, olive oil is more heavy and greasy and not how I want a fruit pie to taste. I would also try almond oil, which for me goes well with both sweet and savory. I do think coconut oil is easier to work with in a crust dough. As others have pointed out, it is not a 1 to 1 sub, since butter is a semi-solid emulsion of air, water, and fat and oil is just liquid fat.
Tasting like coconut is a bad thing in my book. It's one thing in a coconut or banana cream pie or something else somewhat tropical but I don't really want my winter pie crust tasting of coconut.
Maybe grapeseed oil? It is a very neutral taste. I have never used it because I rather like coconut or almond( or butter since I am not vegan. )
I do not use milk in pie crust ever. I use water only and my oil crusts turn out fine. Just a thought, avocado flesh is very buttery and has an otherwise mild flavor. Has anyone tried using avocado as a butter sub in pastry? Since there is water in avocado as well as fat, it might be closer to a 1 to 1 sub.
That sounds like a question for the site. Consider asking it.
If you make the avocado pie crust please send us a photo, I am very curious what color it might turn out.
I don't think any sort of oil would work at all for a flaky pâte brisée type of flaky pastry crust. Those kinds of pastry rely on having layers of solid fat separated by dough. As the pastry cooks, the fat melts into the dough but leaves the distinct flakes. Oil might be useful in other types of crust, such as some sort of crumb crust.
I don't see why the melting would be a problem. The only thing you have to do is to ensure that some dough builds. After all, you can make a good crust with melted butter. But what I would find problematic is the softness of the dough, it is very hard to work with.
I agree with @caleb, most pastries get their flakiness and fluff from the shortening layers in the pastry melting as it bakes, not before. Some chefs will use multiple types of shortening, each with its own different melting point, in one crust. This adds an especially delicate texture. Often the dry ingredients are chilled beforehand also, to promote the layering process.
I come from a olive oil producing country. Every single person that knows how to cook in my family has the following rule:
Olive oil for savory recipes. Corn/sunflower oil or butter/margarine for sweet ones.
It wasn't until I disobeyed this rule, that I found out why it came to exist in the first place. Let me tell you it wasn't pleasant throwing those doughnuts in the garbage, after all the ingredients and effort I put on them.
Olive oil has a distinctive and strong taste that you don't want to overthrow the other components of your sweets. It can get a lot worse if your olive oil is of poor quality, which in my experience is very possible if you don't live in southern Europe (some of my relatives struggled to find olive oil that tasted 'home-like' when they lived abroad).
So, when you are making sweet pies opt for unsalted butter/other oils with mild flavor.
I agree that oil crust are very flaky, but as others have said, they are delicate. I just tried making a lattice top for the first time, for a mock apple pie (using green tomatoes), and the strips kept tearing. But oil crust work well for double crust pies. You can also refrigerate the dough for the top crust for 10-20 minutes and grate it on a box grater, to make crumble.
I have made pie crust cookies using different oils and done side-by-side taste tests. I like peanut oil best, which has a rich flavour, though avocado oil (a bit fruity) is acceptable for fruit pies. Canola oil tastes fishy; I have stopped using it.
I have used melted butter and water and compared it to peanut oil and water, and peanut oil and 2% milk. As you can imagine the peanut oil and water had the least flavour; it was also the most crumbly. I find the flavour of peanut oil and 2% milk competes well with butter and water. If you use milk as the liquid in an oil crust you still get the non-fat milk solids (NFMS) that make butter taste good. I did the math and in order to get the same amount of NFMS you should dilute the milk by 1/4 to 1/3, but I usually use straight milk...In my experience oil crusts made with 2% milk are sturdier than those made with whole milk. I have not tried using 1% or skim milk.
Note that extra virgin olive oil contains natural mono- and diglycerides, which are emulsifiers. I recently tired using EVOO as the oil in a crust for a quiche; the crust was very soggy. I think the emulsifiers in the EVOO bonded with the liquid in the filling. I won't use EVOO for pies with wet fillings again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.791784
| 2012-04-02T03:02:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22709",
"authors": [
"Anuket",
"Becks",
"Benjamin",
"Catija",
"Derrick",
"GaTechThomas",
"Lorel C.",
"M. Campbell",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sarah Lukens",
"Spammer",
"TheSpatulaQueen",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9742",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"user51181"
],
"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
}
|
12653
|
Will a dishwasher sterilize bottles for canning?
I'm making tomato relish. Can I sterilize jars adequately by putting them in the dishwasher?
Absolutely not. You need to boil them if you're even THINKING about canning. Chances are you'd be fine, nice acidic relish to keep the bacteria down...But do you want to take the chance?
Even if you have one of those dishwashers with a nuclear "sterilize baby bottles" cycle, don't trust it. For canning, you need them as close to medically sterile as is possible.
You can use the oven too, I find that much more convenient: http://www.ehow.com/how_5109586_sterilize-canning-jars-boiling.html
Yeah totally agree - bacteria like Clostridium Botulinum - Botulism breed in low-oxygen environments like contaminated cans. The results can be fatal.
I was going to downvote, but google... As it turns out, you can use the dishwasher to clean them (make sure it is rinsed well), and use the heated dry setting to keep them warm (no thermal shock). You are fine at this point if you process them longer than 10 minutes, or if you pressure can. Otherwise you need to sterilize in one of the methods listed above. link
Doesnt " if you process them longer than 10 minutes, or if you pressure can" mean "anything that isnt toxic will do, sterilized or not"?
@rackandboneman His question was, "Can I sterilize them by running them through the dishwasher." Not, "If I'm processing the jars for 10+ minutes, do I need to pre-sterilize." You need to answer the actual question.
Yep. Saitize the dishwaser does, sterilize it does not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.792892
| 2011-02-28T03:10:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12653",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"JSM",
"James Jenkins",
"Jerry",
"John Hansen",
"Katie Wood",
"Nishi Varma",
"Radek Simko",
"Richard Rast",
"Rose Theobald",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5068",
"rackandboneman",
"stephbu"
],
"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
}
|
55842
|
How to make Fresh Asian Noodle?
How do I make Fresh Asian Noodle (similar to Egg Noodle)? What are the ingredients and the steps to make them? I am asking about noodles, not a dish.
Welcome! We aren't really a recipe sharing site here, so you'll be better served doing a web search for homemade Asian noodles... this will be aided if you know the name of the specific type of noodle you want to make (there are many different types).
What do you mean asian noodles? There are so many types, you can at least be more specific
I think it might be okay asking for basic techniques like this if we knew the noodle (they're probably pretty much a ratio and a method of turning dough into noodles, not the problematic sort of recipe request) but unfortunately there's just no way to tell what kind of noodles you're talking about.
You just make fresh pasta....dry pasta doesn't usually have egg, fresh pasta does....egg noodle is just dried pasta that was made with egg.
Follow a basic fresh pasta recipe using 2 eggs per cup of AP Flour.
You'll want a pasta roller and cutter...You don't have to have one, but you really do want one to make life much easier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.793080
| 2015-03-19T02:08:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55842",
"authors": [
"Caroline Carew",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Huangism",
"Katie",
"Lauren Prosser",
"Mhairi MacDonell",
"Monique Dowd",
"Shanelle Kinser",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14802
|
Calories pre-cooked vs cooked
When I look for the calorie count of ground beef, for example, I see 480 for 8oz 85% lean ground beef. Fair enough. But this site shows 34g of fat, precisely 15% of the 8oz I started with. Seeing how much liquid is left in the pan, I imagine some of the fat had to have melted out. Yet, I'm unable to find a site that will at least hint at a better estimate based on the cooked product. Another site shows cooked calorie/fat count but the fat calories are actually higher for 8oz than with the uncooked from the first site.
Clearly, I'm missing something. I was expecting to find a pre-cooked count, then a post-cooked with a warning "based on medium well" or similar. Obviously the cooked products won't be identical.
It's not quite as simple as pre- and post-cooked; different methods of cooking will result in more or less of the fat left in. Since you could potentially leave all of it in, I think that providers of nutritional information have no choice but to provide that worst-case number.
Right. Throw it into chili, and there you go. I see that. I picked ground beef/ burgers as it seemed the one case where it's not an ingredient, it's thrown on the grill, or pan fried and [some of] the fat comes out. With 306 of the 480 calories being from fat, this isn't nit-picking, the lost fat and calories is more than trivial.
I know it's nontrivial, but it's also really hard for anyone to provide useful numbers. On the grill, fat drips away, completely out of your food. How much you lose depends on how long you cook, how much exposed surface area there is, where the fat is within the meat (for non-ground meat, anyway)... In a pan, some fat renders out, but the meat cooks in it and retains some. The better you drain it, the less fat you'll have. People may be able to provide guesses, but they'll be pretty rough.
In others areas, say computers, people are so obsessed with data and precision they'll come with the most obscure facts. With people's current focus on diet, I am surprised a google search doesn't turn up even the neurotic home dietitian's data. I'm currently on a low carb regimen, so the fat is moot, but when I shift to count calories, this would make a difference. I may just have to run a few 1 lb batches and measure how much fat I can pull out.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/66/67
@Joe - thanks! Nearly 8 years have passed. But I do remember that question. It's far more general. Mine here was sparked by the high fat calories specific to ground beef, and the comments remind me that I never did run the experiment I proposed.
You can easily calculate a maximum calories difference, and not so easily approximate an actual difference.
If you measure the weight of your meat pre- and post-cooking, you can regard the difference as the maximum amount of fat that has been lost from the meat. Multiply that difference by the number of calories per same unit, and you will have a good idea of the maximum difference in calories.
If you want a more exact number, catch all the drippings and try to determine the percentage comprised by fat. You could boil your drippings for some period, and what is left should be (mostly) fat. That seems like an awful lot of work, but you may be able to do it once and decide that for your purposes whatever you came up with on that one calculation is good enough to apply universally.
Exactly. Just for the sake of doing it once or twice, I was going to cook exactly a pound of 85% ground beef. take all the liquid, and let the fat solidify, same as I would to de-fat chicken stock. If I measured the weight of the fat pulled off, it would avoid the potential of measuring water.
In some cases, cooking food makes the calories more accessible, and so it could be thought of as making them higher in calories.
Eggs have more calories when cooked because raw eggs contain enzymes that interfere with absorption (this is thought to be a defense mechanism against predators). Cooking the eggs deactivates these enzymes.
Plants, in many cases, take longer to extract all of the nutrients than our omnivorous digestive systems allow. Cows have four stomachs to fully digest grass! Because the cooking process breaks down the plant matter, there is more accessible after cooking.
I disagree that it would be difficult to give an ESTIMATE of the calorie change for a patty. The Atwater system used nowadays may be hard to adapt, but using a bomb calorimeter (old method) the difference between an 80/20 raw patty and an 80/20 medium well barbecued patty is an easy measurement. Sellers just don’t want to do it.
Thank you, it’s always interesting to be reminded of such an old post. I have to admit, every time I barbecue a hamburger or fry up hamburger meat and then drain it I think about this issue. I still haven’t performed the experiment that I promised, maybe I will on my first snow day of the season
Here is my simple way of getting an estimate for calorie counting. I start with a 80/20 burger. Raw is 71 calories an ounce, if I estimate a quarter of the fat has drained off on the grill, to me it is the same as if I used 85/15 raw which is 60 calories an ounce. If I grill them to well done and they seem dry, I treat it as if I had 90/10 raw to begin with. Which is 50 calories an ounce. It may not be perfect, but it's quick and easy and makes sense to me!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.793240
| 2011-05-15T16:08:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14802",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Jake Kreider",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"isaacg",
"jackStinger"
],
"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
}
|
64447
|
New to sous vide and not having any luck
Tried a pork loin that had been well marinated. Cooked it at 140 for 3 hours. Was very tender and did not have any character and no taste of marinade.
Next try was chicken tenders. Cooked at 140 for almost 2 hours. Used it for Orange Chicken. It was very tender and kind of like eating tofu with orange sauce.
Third try was a marbled beef chuck roast. Put salt, pepper and onion powder on before vacuum bagging it. Cooked for 48 hours at 135. Seared in oil in cast iron pan on all sides. Was very tender but not falling apart. Did not taste like a roast.
My wife thinks I wasted money on sous vide. Everything I read raves about everything cooked this way, but we have not experienced that.. What am I doing wrong?
Are you saying "tender" is a bad thing? It kind of sounds like it. In general, can you be a little more specific about what your goals are? It's pretty clear that you wanted your pork loin to taste like the marinade, but a little less clear for the others.
Did you follow good recipes (e.g. following Kenji's recipes on Serious Eats or something) or just wing it?
I expected it to be tender, but i did not expect a blob of tender meat with no taste. I used the temp and time from charts and the sauce was one i regularly use on chicken.
Chicken should be noticeably firmer than tofu after cooking to 140 degrees, but it will be quite soft (and a little bit slimy) at 135 degrees. You may need to calibrate your equipment to make sure you're getting the right temperature.
It's possible your food simply needs more salt (or other flavors) added after cooking. I prefer not to add a lot of flavor before cooking, especially if it's going to cook for a long time. If you are going to add flavor first, keep it simple and avoid adding oil. (Oil absorbs some of the flavor, but it doesn't penetrate the meat very well.)
Starting with good quality meats helps a lot, too.
I wonder if, with the pork and chicken, if i over cooked the grocery store meat. I will check the calibration.
Sous vide is a great method for getting tender meat but it doesn't impart flavor to anything. Marinades only go so far adding flavor, you need your meat to have flavor in the first place. Other than from marinade flavor in cooked meat comes from:
The quality of the meat: good quality meat comes from good breeds that have been raised well and given quality feed
The cut: the more work the meat does on the animal the more flavor it has. A tenderloin is tender to begin with because it just fills a gap and doesn't move, but it isn't going to taste the same a shoulder. A working cut has a much stronger flavor and the connective tissues break down into gelatin which adds flavor and a luscious mouth feel. My personal opinion is that there's no point in slow cooking tender cuts, I always go for the beef shin (leg), chuck, or rump (round). Chicken breast, especially your standard cheap store brands, has very little flavor, I prefer dark meat, or if I'm cooking breast I go for quality free range birds
Maillard reactions and caramelization: When cooking at high temperatures you get flavors from maillard reactions and the caramelization of sugars, slow cooking does not add these, so you need to brown before or after (you appear to have done this with your beef which is good), before is better for slow cooking in my opinion as you get the flavors from the browning throughout the meat
The simple truth is you won't get a tasty result in cooking unless you start with good ingredients, and this is especially true in sous vide cooking, or any slow cooking method really. Sous vide is not a magic bullet which transforms mediocre steak into amazing steak, it's got to be amazing steak in the first place. Good restaurants use the best quality meats they can get their hands on, so if you want to get similar results you will too.
"Sous vide is not a magic bullet which transforms mediocre steak into amazing steak" Well, it can, but the sear is critical: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53373/sous-vide-chuck-roast-or-chuck-steaks/53376#53376
"Marinades only go so far adding flavor, you need your meat to have flavor in the first place." -- literally true, but maybe not the whole story. If you actually sous vide the meat in the marinade/sauce, it can take on a fair amount of flavor, and if you then reduce the liquid from the bag to use as a sauce, you'll be in even better shape. If on the other hand you marinate the meat then take it out of the marinade and put it in a bag to sous vide, then eat the meat plain, you won't get nearly as much.
Thanks for all the info. I think i need to explore different sources for meat. Also i think i will try searing the meat before cooking.
(I realize I'm late to this thread) To the last comment - The searing comes after the Sous Vide, no?
Joe - i think it is normally done afterwards, but my only successful sous vide is fajlta skirt steak. I seared it before putting in the vacuum bag. Completed cooking it, then put it on the grill for a few minutes at a high temp. It was great.
Afters using sous vide on well over 30 occasions with all types of meat, I hear familiar tones to your concerns about the meat being tender, but lacking flavor. In my opinion, sous vide makes for good pictures of pink-centered steaks, but little else (note in many of those pictures there is little juice coming out of the just sliced meat - my experience consistently). It robs the fatty juices, and breaks down collagen to a point where the meat no longer tasted like meat, but chalk. And yet, all I hear, is the constant bandying about regarding time of cooking. Folks, it’s not time, it’s the failure of the process itself. I have abandoned sous vide for cooking meats. I cook meat now I’ve gone back to cooking meats like the pros do. Reverse sear, broil, or roast depending on the cut and type.
Your Emperors-New-Clothes view of the situation doesn’t really hold together given the many of us who find sous vide a useful, effective tool in commercial kitchens or at home. It’s a poor workman who blames his tools.
(There’s also a lot factually wrong there.. for instance, sous vide cooking is notably deficient at breaking down collagen, a process which really only gets going in the 70s C, and which has little impact on the taste.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.793697
| 2015-12-16T04:52:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64447",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"C Leon",
"Cascabel",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Jerryh",
"Jess Farinazzo",
"Jolenealaska",
"Josianne Pisani",
"Lamia Alkadasi",
"Sneftel",
"Tony Rodak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142"
],
"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
}
|
24418
|
Is it possible to cook semolina or rice with milk in the microwave?
Is it possible to boil semolina or rice in milk in the microwave?
The problem is that milk will boil over, but I wonder if there are some adapted pots for this purpose or if there is some other trick.
Have you tried just using a larger container? How high does the milk bubble?
@Yamikuronue I don't know what it does in a microwave, but have you seen boiling milk on a stove? It can climb more than twice its height.
@rumtscho Hence why I asked, I don't boil milk often :/ well there goes the easy answer
You mean semolina or rice pudding? You can certainly make them in the microwave, the trick is simply to use a bowl that's big enough as well as to stop and stir every few minutes. Here's a recipe saying so, including a picture of the plain glass bowl the author used:
In a big bowl, put all the ingredients together and stir. Put in a microwave oven to bake at maximum power (I used 12 minutes for a 750 Watts oven). Stop every 3 min to stir and make sure the semolina is not stuck at the bottom. Let it cool down and store in the fridge.
From: http://www.cookingninja.com/174-Microwave-semolina-milk-pudding.html
Here's another recipe with similar instructions:
Put the rice into the bottom of a big glass microwave suitable bowl. Use the largest bowl for your microwave as the milk will boil up the sides.
From: http://foodonabudget.com/content1a/2008/10/how_to_make_an_easy_rice_pudding/
You can find tons of other recipes for microwave rice or semolina pudding on Google, repeating pretty much these two points.
If it's boiling over, you're heating it too much. If you were cooking on the stove, you'd be trying to heat it just enough to almost or barely boil; it's quite easy to boil milk over on the stove too. So try using your microwave on its lowest power, or at least reduce it to that power once the milk is nearly boiling. If it still boils over, it's never going to work. If it's not cooking hot enough, then adjust upward as needed. Keep in mind that if you're cooking something which would be stirred on the stove, you'll still need to stir it some, though probably not as much - it's not extremely hot on the bottom like a stove.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.794319
| 2012-06-13T15:43:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24418",
"authors": [
"Ann",
"C Gahagan",
"Kami Kaze",
"Muhammad",
"Richard",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"candymancan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"rumtscho",
"user55607"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18118
|
I left yogurt on my desk
Possible Duplicate:
How do you know when a cultured item is no longer safe to consume?
I left yogurt on my desk for about 4 hours before I realized it (left my desk for some meetings), just now put it in the fridge, can I still eat it once it is cold or will it make me sick?
Thanks
I'm sure you'll be fine. The yogurt would actually have to come into the temperature zone for harmful bacteria to become active, and then would have to have enough time for that bacteria to actually multiply enough to make you sick. I have eaten room temp. yogurt many times. You have nothing to worry about.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.794534
| 2011-09-30T16:29:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18118",
"authors": [
"Donnie",
"Philippe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39110",
"shellco",
"user39110"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20750
|
What are macaron "feet"?
This question mentions macaron "feet". What are macaron feet?
I thought they were cheesy macarons.. ;)
Take a look at this photo:
The feet are the ruffles on the edges.
A macaron (won't go into the dispute over macaron or macaroon) is a semi-foam/liquid composed of a meringue folded into tant-pour-tant (half and half of icing sugar and ground almonds). When they are baked the top shell layer of the macaron cooks and it means that the macaron can no longer expand and must rise up, this forms a frilled ruffle or foot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.794626
| 2012-01-24T19:20:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20750",
"authors": [
"Mark Loeser",
"Mico",
"Patrick",
"Vality",
"ccalboni",
"david berrios",
"frank",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21029
|
What actual effect does a Parmesean rind added to soup have?
The answers to this question state that adding a Parmesan rind to a cooking soup will add a cheesy flavor to the soup.
How much flavor does a rind really add? Does it flavor the soup to a degree that it will replace freshly grated Parmesan?
Does it thicken or cloud the soup?
What parmesan rind adds isn't so much cheesiness (an extremely difficult to pin down set of flavors, considering how many cheeses there are), but rather "umami". Umami is thought of as the "fifth flavor", after sweet, sour, salty and bitter. It's normally described as savory/musty. Common foods with umami flavors (other than parmesan rind) include mushrooms, beef, anchovy, seaweed, soy and fish sauces, and (somewhat less so) tomato pastes.
In the right recipe (beef stews, coq au vin), a blast of umami can be amazing. Parmesan rind is subtler than that, but still a good tool to have at your disposal.
This is a reasonable answer but I don't think the long-winded explanation of umami is really called for; we already have a number of questions on that fairly tangential subject.
Does the rind thicken or cloud the soup?
Using the rind is all about using every last bit of flavour from your food items, and since it costs so much you want to maximize usage. Ground rind tastes almost bitter at times but if simmered in a soup it adds flavour depth like a previous poster stated about the umami taste.
Think of it like cilantro/corriander. You have leaves which you use at the last second for a freshness kick, the stalks which are used in longer cooking methods, the root and seeds for spice mixes and other areas of dishes.
Fresh grated cheese for finishing and rind for deeper flavouring.
The rind of Parmesan is just like the core of the block, except dried out due to exposure to air. It should have more flavor in it than an equivalent mass/weight of Parmesan, since the flavor will be concentrated.
I've only used it in soups a few times. From what I recall, it does add some melty strands of Parmesan into the soup that can make it more cloudy. I personally don't recall much, if any, thickening.
The amount of stuff that ends up in your soup depends on how close to the rind you grated/cut; if you went far enough, there won't really be much there that'll melt.
This is true, and there's always a balance to be struck in how close you want to get to the rind. I typically try not to grate too close to the rind since that means stiffer cheese gratings with a less chewy mouthfeel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.794729
| 2012-02-03T00:25:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21029",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Eric Hu",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5476
|
What Kinds of Recipes Should I Sift/Aerate The Flour?
We've talked about methods for sifting flour (How can I make sifting easier?), and the purposes of sifting (What is the purpose of sifting dry ingredients?).
How can I tell whether a recipe specifies sifting for aeration? How can I tell when to bust out the food processor? In what kinds of recipes will I see a better result by fluffing those dry ingredients?
For example, when I make cookies, I do just whisk the flour, salt and baking soda together in a bowl, and they turn out just fine.
Cakes are where sifting can make a significant difference. See Shirley Corriher's BakeWise book, she goes into it in detail.
Generally sifting is really only necessary when you are dealing with an ingredient that clumps a lot (cocoa powder, cake flour, and baking soda come to mind). For the average cookie or quick bread recipe, whisking these ingredients in a bowl before adding the wet ingredients will usually do the trick.
Any recipe that requires aeration of the batter (Creaming method, sponge cake method, etc), it definitely helps to get out the sieve and give the dry ingredients a good sifting. With the ingredients listed above, you will definitely noticed clumps in your final product or a denser texture. When it doubt, it never hurts to sift. I recommend using a small sifter with a handle for small batch recipes over a piece of wax/parchment paper.
According to Cooks Illustrated:
Sifting flour or cocoa powder is a chore, but sometimes it is
important. When making a delicate cake like a sponge cake or genoise
that requires flour to be folded into beaten eggs and sugar, sifted
flour can be added quickly and distributed evenly (because sifting
aerates the flour), thereby reducing the risk of deflating the batter.
Recipes with cocoa powder, such as chocolate cake, also often call for
sifting the cocoa powder. In this case, sifting breaks up small clumps
of cocoa that form as the powder sits in the package. Sifted cocoa can
be evenly distributed throughout a cake batter; with unsifted cocoa
this isn’t always the case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.794953
| 2010-08-18T17:36:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5476",
"authors": [
"Alexan",
"AnchovyLegend",
"Drew",
"Kaori MoonchaserThuliaga",
"Lou",
"Smandoli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11206"
],
"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
}
|
17964
|
How to combat odor from pickled radishes inside refrigerator?
I know the question is related to How to get rid of the smell from the fridge?. At the same time, I am curious about possible additives as part of the pickling that may help reduce the odor. So I didn't use a recipe, but rather finished the jar of pickles found in the Costco chilled section. I thought rather than dumping the remaining solution, I could use the same brine to pickle something. I brought home radishes on sale and just rinsed and cut the tops.
After about 4 days, there was a strong odor which I didn't expect because the original pickles didn't have a smell. I'm assuming it's the radishes that are out of "balance" for this brine solution. Is there something to add to the pickling solution that counteracts radishes?
Since you didn't heat the glass after adding the newly chopped radishes, any bacteria on the radishes weren't killed. The solution (sour and salty) should reduce growth of bacteria, but
in this case this wasn't enough. Next time remember to heat the picles according to standard pickling instructions.
I will have to try this for the next batch.
You might indeed have suffered from radishes gone bad. When pickling or fermenting, don't eat something you don't trust.
However, it's also possible you simply experienced the wholesome stench of radish fermentation. From what I've read, fermented radishes are pretty well known for their rank smell. Some have compared it to farts or old gym socks; my wife says it's like decomposing cabbage. I can't disagree. Whatever it is, it's sulfurous, and radishes are a source of sulfur. I've pickled with fermentation, but the same probably applies for vinegar pickling.
However, I'm fermenting my second batch, and despite the stench both batches have been really, really tasty. My son likes them too, but I don't dare open the jar if my wife or daughter will be in the house sometime soon.
As for reducing the smell: I've seen some claims that peeling can help, but that didn't help me. I haven't found any other useful suggestions, and I suspect it's just the nature of the beast. My suggestions:
To reduce the risk of actually-rotting veggies, follow a fermentation recipe. There are lots out there, even if not specifically for radishes. The basics: clean everything well, keep the veggies submerged during fermentation, and use a reasonably salty brine; I use a 3% salt solution but 4-5% is even safer.
If possible ferment in a garage, basement, or somewhere else out of the way. The radishes will vent CO2 during fermentation, and wherever they exhale you can expect the noisome aroma. Only put them in the fridge when you're happy with the way they taste, at which point you can keep the jar tightly sealed.
To share them: open the jar quickly (and preferably outside), remove a few slices, then rinse them well. Rinsing greatly reduces the smell without diminishing the flavor.
If you decide it's worth the trouble and the eye-watering funk... bon apetit!
I dont think your pickles went bad-
Radishes, just have a smell when you pickle them. It's a fart smell, and it's due to their high sulfur content. If there was a way to extract some of that sulfur prior to pickle, maybe it would be reduced, I am trying to figure it out. any help or insight is appreciated.
I had the same thought just today. Just finished prepping some radish for pickling and tried to think of other foods high in sulphur and what we add to them. That made me think of deviled eggs. Which I think sometimes includes mustard. Also, perhaps pickling isn't a great preservation method for it, maybe it's a fat bath like how they do cured ham (soprasetta). I bet smokey and savory spices would mitigate or even make the sulphur bring something good out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.795172
| 2011-09-24T05:06:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17964",
"authors": [
"Alexandre Beaudet",
"Nandini Bhattacharjee",
"Will Charlton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99735",
"sbzoom",
"yash punjabi",
"杜興怡"
],
"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
}
|
54779
|
What is 'Musk' as used in this recipe
I recently made this truffle ravioli dish, it was an easy enough recipe, but I was confused about one thing: it calls for 'musk'. I didn't know what this was, my research only turned up musk melon, which I think is probably different. So, I skipped it.
So, my question is, what is 'musk' as used in this recipe, and what sort of flavor would it have imparted to the dish?
Just a lil' dash of Elon....
It's nutmeg.
The author of that blog is from Switzerland, so I imagine that term is used there, but I had never heard used culinarily until now. I Googled "Grated Musk", and still had to look around to be sure. Thanks for teaching me something.
EDIT As of an hour after the question was posted: Click the "Grated Musk" link now! This question is now the top result :) You're famous, Tom!
I Googled that too - what'd you find that convinced you? The things saying nutmeg smells like musk?
@Jefromi The definition of nutmeg from the Free Dictionary, and the images.
@Jefromi And here we go: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/nutmeg
That's kind of bizarre. It doesn't seem to be being used much of anywhere (that blog is the only usage I quickly found), and the OED (at least whatever part that's freely available) doesn't have it as a definition of musk. They don't usually have synonyms that obscure there!
@Jefromi I'm thinking the same thing, how weird, but I'm positive that we're right. :) I translated nutmeg into all of the official languages of Switzerland (except Romansh, Google doesn't do that one), and they all come back to variants of "musk".
Yup agreed it's right, just surprised it was in that thesaurus. I looked around on Google Books for a while and didn't really manage to find any usage that really looked like it meant nutmeg, and words that no one uses don't usually make it into dictionaries!
German native here: definitively nutmeg (=Muskat)
Just because it came up: Rumantsch Grischun (4th language in Switzerland): "nusch-mustgat". "nusch" is "nut" and "mustgat" is "Muskat" or the"-meg" in "nutmeg"
Awesome that this question is the top result. SE is definitely succeeding at making the internet a better place.
Muskatnuss, Herr Müller! Muskatnuss! :)
I think it's nutmeg.
The author of that blog is from Switzerland, and nutmeg is muscade in French and Muskat in German. It's also something that'd taste fine in the dishes she uses it in.
Jinx, you owe me a coke!
This is rather late in the discussion, but a recipe from Martha Washington's cookbook calls for "a little muske or ambergreece." Ambergris is from a sperm whale and similar in odor to musk. So, if it is an old recipe, it probably was musk from a deer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.795503
| 2015-02-15T19:12:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54779",
"authors": [
"Andrea H",
"Barry Hardy",
"Cascabel",
"Donovan Rooza",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kari O",
"Monte Carrington",
"MujahidTv 2",
"Stephie",
"Tom Hennen",
"Tracey Harrison",
"douglass zielaznicki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman",
"wohnungsauflösung berlin",
"yuritsuki"
],
"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
}
|
56337
|
3 types of fish, 3 temperature/time per package
I have to have 3 fish items ready at 6:00 PM but they each require different temperature and time and are of different weight.
Can someone please help me ... what I need is the oven temperature and at what times (prior to 5pm when we leave for church) I need to put each item in the oven so they are ready, but not dried out, when we get home at 6:10 pm tonight.
My thought is to pre-heat the oven (ex: to 375 F), put items in when YOU suggest, and set the oven to turn off at 5:00 (so it will gradually cool down ... and the fish will be warm when we get home at 6:10 pm - but not burnt from being in the oven too long)
Here is the list:
Qty Fish Type Status CookTemp CookTime TotalWeight
2 Salmon&Sauce Thawed 375 16 min 0.9 lb
2 Stuffed Salmon Frozen 350 20 min 1.2 lb
4 Crusted Talapia Frozen 425 16-20 min 1.1 lb
The cook time above is from the package(s) based on if frozen or thawed.
I need one temperature and then at what time to put in each item or tell me what the cooking time should be for each item at your suggested temperature and I'll subtract from 5:30 tonight.
Thanks so much in advance for your help because I'm totally stumped about this and trying to help out my wife.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/19444/67 ; I'm pretty sure there was another one recently where someone mentioned putting the cooler one in the middle of the oven, and the one that needed more heat closer to the element.
With a recommended baking time of 20 minutes tops - I'd pop them in the oven right after returning and serve at 6:30 instead of at 6:10. With 8 servings (I presume), you'll need about as much time until everyone has taken off their coat, washed his/her hands and found their seat anyway. Or serve an apéritif, just to be sure...
If the oven turns off at 5 and you don't get home until 6:10, that leaves 1:10 of danger zone time (2hrs is the max amount for the food to be still safe to eat) on top of any additional time spent setting the table and preparing the food (before cooking and before eating). Do as @Stephie recommends!
Thanks everyone - as it turned out my wife stayed home from Good Friday service [intestinal prob] & looked after the fish but I GREATLY appreciate the suggestions.
@Stephie : but the problem is pre-heating, which can take a little while. Depending on the situation, it might be better to either leave the oven on warm while at church, or pre-heat the oven before church, then shut it off just before leaving so that it hopefully retains some heat.
@Joe: that (like so many other things) depends a lot on the oven - some need mere minutes, some take a lot longer. But thanks a lot for adding this point, I had no time for a long answer, but luckily Duncan took over from here.
I would recommend doing what Stephie says in the comments - start the food right when you come in. With 5 minutes to preheat and ~20 minutes of cook time, your fish will be ready around 6:35-40. It won't be ready right when you walk in the door, but that's okay.
To answer your original question of how to cook these three fish in the same oven, here's how I would handle it:
The frozen tilapia can probably handle temperature variation more easily, so let's drop the 425 temperature. Heat your oven to 375. Since we're lower than the 425 the tilapia calls for, you will want to give it a little extra time. Put the tilapia and stuffed salmon in at the same time. Put the tilapia on the bottom rack (it will be a little warmer) and the stuffed salmon in the middle of the oven.
After about 4 minutes, put in the salmon & sauce, also on the middle rack (if there's space). Leave them all in for another 16 minutes. (You may want to check after about 10 minutes to make sure the tilapia isn't overheating on the bottom. It should be pretty warm at this point, but not steaming hot.)
After 16 minutes, pull them out and check them for doneness (or appropriate heat level if they're already cooked, as I'm guessing at least the two frozen ones are). If they're not quite cooked yet, then put them back in the oven, and you can bump the temperature up to 400 for a couple minutes to give them a last boost.
You said you needed this by 5:30 tonight, so I'm guessing it's a bit late for this, but hopefully it will be useful for future questioners.
DUNCAN: "you will want to give it a little extra time". Thanks but I was looking for some FORMULA [I'm a retired Engineer] on how much extra time to give - and nobody answered that. I know you can't do a simple ratio / proportion because the relationship is inverse ... ie: lower temperature means longer time. So the 4th grade algebra formula 18min/425 = x min/375 does not work as it yields LESS time at a lower temperature. Ahhhh - the trials of a retired engineer learning to cook haha. But thanks EVERYONE for your answers and suggestions.
@JimHolstein: If you want to develop a formula, think about the amount of energy that needs to be transfered. You will want to consider thermal conduction, which means shape and material are essential, as is temperature difference between frozen/thawed fish and oven. You will also need to make sure that your thermometer is correct (built in ones notoriously aren't) and consider the fact that most ovens fluctuate slightly - they "keep" their temperature by turning the heat off or on when it leaves a certain range. If you manage to do this, be sure to post an extensive Q/A here ;-) Happy Easter!
@JimHolstein: Or simply develop a gut feeling - "a little extra time" or "season to taste", as vague as these instructions sound for someone who has meassured all his life, may open up a whole new world to a beginner cook. Welcome to the site, by the way!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.795778
| 2015-04-03T18:54:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56337",
"authors": [
"Ana Lucia Gonzalez",
"Jim Holstein",
"Joe",
"Liz Johnson",
"Lucy Moon",
"Ruta Sevo",
"Stacy Hemmeter",
"Stephie",
"WetlabStudent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"malissa marsden"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57995
|
Custard - How much milk can one egg set?
If I had one whole egg (my understanding being that the white has more 'setting power' than the yolk), how much milk would I be able to set?
If I tried to set 2 cups of milk with 1 egg, can I expect something like a creme anglaise or something thicker?
I've found that three normal-size eggs and precisely one cup of full cream, works perfectly.
It really depends on how thick you want it. Some sites recommend one egg or 2 yolks per cup of milk. Ruhlman mentions 2 eggs per cup as 'standard', with 1 egg able to thicken 3/4 of a cup of liquid (but more fat helps).
I can't comment on thickness of creme anglaise -- I had to gave up dairy years ago, and that's not something that I've ever made.
My understanding (from school days, Mrs Crabtree would be surprised) is that 1 medium egg will set 1/4 pint UK. That's 5 fl oz UK. USA is different and metric different again.
I use 1 FRESH medium egg to set 150mls of milk.
My compliments to Mrs Crabtree and welcome to Seasoned Advice to you! Don't forget to take the [tour] and browse our [help] to,learn more about this site.
fl oz are the same between US and UK (although pints are different ... a US pint is 1 pound of water (16 fl oz) instead of the UK 20 fl oz)
Just checking this out for a class I am teaching and confirmed with a quick look at 'Cooking Explained' Barbara Hammond, Longmans 1966, and yes, she says 2 meium eggs to half a pint (UK measures), 4 to 5 pz shortcrust pastry and a 7 ins sandwich tin to bake it in.
If its a pouring custard (creme anglaise ) 1 egg o half a pint creamy milk or light cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.796352
| 2015-06-04T10:40:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57995",
"authors": [
"Bobby Brown",
"Erick Guzman",
"Fattie",
"Jane PARKER",
"Joe",
"Rich Thurman",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"Ιωάννης Τζιάσιος"
],
"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
}
|
66852
|
Can you add water to shortening to use in place of butter?
When I was younger I was in an honor camp for felons taking a culinary program and was taught that you can add water to shortening to make a butter substitute.
Shortening is all fat, while butter is fat with "other stuff":
Commercial butter is 80–82 percent milk fat, 16–17 percent water, and 1–2 percent milk solids other than fat. Source
Therefore, shortening plus water can provide a somewhat more accurate substitute than plain shortening. Even a major shortening brand recommends adding water when substituting for butter.
If you use shortening, but want an effect closer to butter, add 1 and 1/2 teaspoons water for every 1/4 cup of shortening. Source
To get a mixture that tastes a bit more like butter, you could use milk instead of water.
In most baking applications, the additional liquid can simply be added when other wet ingredients are mixed in.
Alternatively, combining them in advance can be done with sufficient beating, although this will incorporate air and potentially affect texture. See below a picture of shortening whipped with water for a pie crust recipe:
I wouldn't use shortening + water as a spread on bread, for example; even though they combine well, it's really quite flavorless!
Shortening is pure fat, while butter also contains milk particles and some water. While they sometimes can be interchanged, shortening doesn't have the same flavor profile as butter, and behaves somewhat differently. Some key properties which differentiate them, listed e.g. here are:
Shortening is 100% fat.
Butter has additional milk and water particles, and is not all fat.
Butter melts faster under heat.
Butter spreads thinner when melted.
Shortening retains a higher flexibility, and retains air, resulting in a higher rise.
Shortening products are softer.
Butter is used for flavor.
Shortening is used as a flavorless base.
Shortening can be exchanged for butter.
Butter cannot usually be exchanged for shortening.
Butter has uses in the kitchen beyond just baking.
While adding water to shortening might make it somewhat softer, fat and water doesn't in general mix well, so I doubt you'd have much luck with the method which was taught you.
Additionally even if you can get the consistency of the shortening similar to butter, it will still lack the milk particles which gives butter its flavor, making it unsuitable for many of the things you use butter for.
How do you know what method the OP was taught?
@Cindy I don't. I also don't think any part of my answer relies on any particular method being used, except that I note that mixing oil & water (well, fat and water) is tricky business? Without him providing more details in his question, it is hard for me to go into more detail in my answer.
The information in your answer is fine, but the OP is not asking for the differences between butter and shortening, nor is he looking for an equivalent to butter. He's asking about a substitution.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what he is asking. It could be that he is asking about how to make margarine, it could be is asking for a butter substitute, it could be he is asking whether you can add water to shortening to make something to use in place of butter. My answer is to the latter of these, and expounds on why such a substitute won't be ideal in all cases, and that it's fairly tricky to make. @Cindy
@Cindy I think "the method which was taught you" is just referring back to the question saying "was taught that you can add water" - a general statement, not something about a specific method. And seems like pointing out the differences between the two is a decent way of evaluating the quality of the substitution, although it might help to mention a little more explicitly which of those differences the water addresses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.796535
| 2016-02-26T09:21:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66852",
"authors": [
"Carrie Kees",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Montgomery",
"Cindy",
"Deborah Gibson",
"Erica",
"Khizer Rehman",
"Kim Kreuziger",
"Samuel Thomson",
"Sue Yates",
"Tara Gatewood",
"eirikdaude",
"helen heberle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67396
|
White sauce without roux
Recently I have been making white sauce by:
heating the milk in a pan until nearly boiling
mixing corn flour with a small amount of cold milk
removing milk from stove
add corn flour mix to hot milk
stir until thick.
This is very fast and never produces lumps, but what are the disadvantages versus using the traditional roux approach?
I am not certain why your are looking for "disadvantage"? if it works for you and in the recipes you make, then it is a good substitute for a roux.
My suggestion is that you try making a sauce with a blonde roux and your own white sauce and comparing the two for yourself, side by side.
I'm surprised there are no real downsides. If so, why do all recipes i read call for a roux?
The technique you're using is called a 'slurry' (mixing the starch with a cold liquid before adding it to the hot liquid). I want to say that I've seen this technique used for gravy, so went looking for cream gravy w/ slurry ... but wasn't having much luck in recipes (a few people saying it could be used, but most were still using wheat flour). I did find some cons to cornstarch -- besides the stability issue that Hmmm mentioned, they also said it doesn't take well to freezing (if you make a lasagne & freeze it), and it can lose thickness if over-heated.
In the end, what you are doing is the exact same thing as making a custard sauce from an eggless custard powder, sans the vanilla flavoring and colorant (cornstarch, coloring, flavouring, that's all what is in custard powder).
Instant masa, dried and powdered nixtamalized corn, is a good thickening agent for gravies and sauces. Made with white corn, it adds surprisingly little flavour.
If it works for you (you like the results), there really isn't a disadvantage unless you have leftovers. Cornstarch (cornflour) thickened sauces tend to thin upon reheating more than roux thickened sauces. Depending upon what you are making, you may or may not notice it much if at all.
I saw this on another search and I will quickly add my 2 cents. Cornflour (corn starch) doesn't hold it's thickness as well over long periods of time in a warmer (think restaurant). The sauce breaks with long-term heating or reheating, however I feel it is far smoother than a roux is. I can taste the grittiness of AP Flour in a roux.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.796862
| 2016-03-13T21:34:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67396",
"authors": [
"Alison Green",
"Catherine Jones",
"HandsomeGorilla",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Ron Getman",
"Tim Galvin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"user161705"
],
"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
}
|
42670
|
Units conversion : cl to grams
One of my recipe tell me to add 25cl of cream. I only have a weighing scale to measure it. How many grams should I add?
If it was water it would be 250g and cream is quite heavier isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle
Cream is lighter than water. That's why it floats.
Rather than try to determine the weight of the cream do the following.
Measure out 250g of water in your container.
Mark the waterline on your container with a marker or tape
Measure your cream based on your mark
This way you don't need to know the weight of your cream, you simply need to find a container with the proper volume.
This is a great way to measure it! Cream's density will vary a fair bit depending on where it comes from. And this technique works for any substance. Eureka!
According to the charts at Alicia Noelle Jones, the density of cream is very, very close to that of water. Depending on the type of cream and the temperature at which you compare (remember, water is densest at about 4 degrees C), the density of cream varies from about 0.978 to 1.021 that of water.
As you can see, the largest variation is about 2%. Unless your recipe or application is spectacularly sensitive, just measure it as if it were water.
You're right, I don't need a 2% precision to cook.
In other words, 250 grams of cream should do the trick.
In the kitchen, you can safely assume - If it is liquid then 1g = 1ml
The recipes use these "rounded" values, because they are convenient, not because they are necesarily the best anyway. Maybe your cake would be better with 263.7ml of milk, but who the heck would remember such numbers.
Also, since in Europe cream is often sold in 250ml packages, I assume you are from US. If it is the case, you can safely use - 250ml = 1cup (1US cup is 236ml precisely, roughly 5% less than 250ml)
If the cream isn't liquid (like some in France), is the error important?
If you refer to sour-cream or even yogurt, it is still mostly water and some fat. Even if there is fruit inside, still mostly water. Even human body is mostly water. As long as you are cooking and not doing lab research, don't worry about it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.797111
| 2014-03-11T17:39:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42670",
"authors": [
"Aaa",
"Debra",
"Fractaliste",
"GdD",
"Mark Apodaca",
"Mirko Jankovic",
"Pete Becker",
"Petr",
"Redoak",
"Roopak",
"Sandy",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99737",
"v7r"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30721
|
Making a sorbet by cooking or by pureeing the ingredients?
For a sorbet that contains a fruit, sugar, water and lime juice, i would like to know which is the best way to make this sorbet; by putting all the ingredients on heat until the fruits are very soft (and then put this mixture in the blender) or just by puree the ingredients in the blender until smooth?
What changes in each case?
There are a few things to consider here. Firstly, sugar dissolves in hot water better than in cold water. So, regardless of other considerations, it's worth making a simple syrup of the water and sugar.
What will change by heating is a few things. From a taste standpoint, depending on how you cook the fruit, the sorbet may taste "cooked". If that's the flavor you're looking for, cook away! However, "fresher" tasting sorbets are made by just pureeing (and straining). Cooking the fruit also stops oxidation (and discoloring) which happens with some fruits. On the other hand, the acidic lime juice will help prevent oxidation. Speaking of lime juice, if it's freshly-squeezed, a large component to its flavor are the volatile citrus oils. Cooking will likely cause these to evaporate, thereby losing some "citrusy" flavor (the acidity will remain, though).
From a texture standpoint it depends on a few things. Cooked fruit is usually softer; when pureed it will contribute towards a smoother texture. Additionally, many fruits contain pectin which is released when cooking. Pectin will contribute positively to the resulting texture of the sorbet. However, overcooking does degrade the pectin.
One way to get the best of both worlds is to gently poach the fruit in the simple syrup to soften it and release the pectin. (Alternatively, you can sous vide the fruit.) If you really want the "fresh" flavor (my preference) but want the benefit of pectin you can add a hydrocolloid thickener like xanthan gum or guar gum in a small amount (usually under 1% by weight).
One thing to add. The power of your blender is also going to make a difference here. If your just running a cheapo $50 household blender your results may not mimic a sorbet you will find in the store because of the lack of "shearing force" your going to miss in your household blender. If you had a vitamix or equivalent blender your going to get a much finer puree and therefore a nicer mouthfeel.
@Brendan Absolutely correct! Straining + reblending (reserve a bit of the syrup for this, just in case) may help a bit.
@EliLansey it may help a little bit if there are big chunks but in reality unless your blades spin faster your going to max it out pretty quickly in terms of fineness of grind. This is the argument I make for people deciding between a cheap Oster and a Vitamix type blender. You'd burn out 4-5 cheapos trying to achieve 30s worth of a commercial blender.
You can can get plenty of sugar to dissolve without any hot water.
it helps a lot though. Warm water at least.
Another thing you can do is mix & blend everything in a food processor (including the sugar, it will dissolve) and then strain. You can also add in the lime zest that way, by pulsing it with the sugar before adding the juice.
@Brendan Not really. As derobert said, the blender is going to dissolve the sugar anyway.
Most of it, but it's not 100% guaranteed so I prefer to do it with warm water separately so I don't get a grainy texture from undissolved suger left behind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.797334
| 2013-02-05T19:23:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30721",
"authors": [
"Art Scott",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Eli Lansey",
"ReBoot The Universe",
"derobert",
"fritz",
"g_true",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71851",
"john simms",
"jtxl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82383
|
What is the correct reference for amount of salt in lacto-fermenting?
When lacto-fermenting pickles, sauerkraut, kimchi, etc. do you do your salt calculations per amount of brine, or salt per volume of the pickling container?
I mean, if I use 1-3 tablespoons of pickling salt per quart, as I've seen recommended, a number of times, is that supposed to be per quart of pure brine or per quart jar of pickles? The answer could make a big difference in the result.
I've heard you should mix the brine separately and then pour it in. So, perhaps that means to make an entire quart of brine with 1-3 tablespoons of salt in that quart (even if you don't use all the brine when you pour it on your vegetables), rather than ensuring that 1-3 full tablespoons of salt are in the jar of pickles.
It seems like my pickles could use less salt, on average, despite warm temperatures, and I see other questions on here that might benefit from the answer here. So, I'm curious.
Again, is the salt relative to how much brine you have, or to the size of your container?
Simple answer
In general, when a recipe calls for "x tablespoons of salt per quart", you should add that amount of salt to a quart of water to make your brine.
The "correct" amount of salt
Salt in fermentation can vary wildly. As Sandor Katz notes in The Art of Fermentation (p. 99), "[s]ome traditions of fermenting vegetables, such as those of the Himalayas, mostly ferment vegetables without salt..."
As (very) general guidelines:
less salt = faster fermentation and greater risk of unwelcome microbial activity
more salt = slower fermentation and lower risk
Factors like the size and cut of your vegetables, or the coarseness of your salt, could make an even bigger difference to overall saltiness than measuring your salt by brine vs. measuring by pickling container size.
So it really depends on the recipe, and on your own taste for salt (and risk).
Less salt risks putrefaction,
"A mere 0.8 percent salt to vegetable weight will prevent the type of
decomposition you don't want... Our standard is around 1.5 percent... For comparison, the salinity of seawater is 3.5 percent."**
While more salt risks halting lactic acid bacteria. I've also seen recommendations for higher salt content for doing whole or nearly whole vegetable brines (~3%?), versus lower salt content (1-2%) for krauts and other minced veggies. Note the above is by vegetable weight; another option is to make a 100% saline solution, then cut that with water to the desired percentage. (Experience and training will also help, as usual.)
** Shockey, Kirsten K., and Christopher Shockey. Fermented Vegetables: Creative Recipes for Fermenting 64 Vegetables & Herbs in Krauts, Kimchis, Brined Pickles, Chutneys, Relishes & Pastes. Storey Publishing, 2014.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.797641
| 2017-06-14T09:10:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82383",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84751
|
Turning toasted, non-crumbly whole wheat bread into breadcrumbs
I've got some toasted 100% whole wheat homemade bread that I would like to turn into breadcrumbs. How can I do that? It doesn't crumble easily.
A coffee grinder or food processor both work well. Drying the bread at low oven temperature will aid the crumbling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.797847
| 2017-09-30T19:08:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84751",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92852
|
Are canned, unsweetened elderberries supposed to smell like blue cheese?
I know someone who recently water bath canned some blended-up elderberries without added sugar (it should be noted that elderberries aren't sweet in the first place). We ate a jar of it that didn't seal; we ate it over the course of a couple weeks or so. We opened another (a sealed one) today, and when I put it in my mouth, I noticed that it smelled quite fragrantly to my nose of blue cheese (or smelly feet). Is this normal? The jar that didn't seal didn't smell at all like blue cheese (directly after canning).
It seems that elderberries are thought to have an unpleasant smell, based on the idea that telling someone they smell like elderberries is an insult (unless that just has to do with alcohol, as one person thought).
I'm a little worried that the pH was too high. People say you can water-bath can elderberries, but I'm not sure if this is just an assumption based on other berries. They don't taste very acidic, and the lack of sugar seems concerning.
If it is actually Brevibacterium linens causing the smell, it would seem rather astonishing, since it's not supposed to survive canning temperatures. The jar did seem to seal correctly, and popped when opened.
Re-cooking the smelly berries did not fully remove the smell.
I'd be concerned: "While it’s impossible to guarantee the pH of your specific elderberries, testing at the University of Missouri yielded elderberry pH levels in a range of 4.56 to 4.91, which would place it in the high acid to borderline high acid range." https://commonsensehome.com/elderberry-syrup/ You can buy a decent pH meter for about $12, unless the tariff went up. pH 4 and 7 standards about $5 a bottle. If you do much canning, it's worth the price.
Smelling of blue cheese sounds like it may be moldy. Have you visually inspected the contents?
I didn't see any visual signs of mold.
I've had elderberry jam and elderberry shrub any number of times, and it has never, ever smelled anything like blue cheese. I'd throw it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.797903
| 2018-10-12T21:42:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92852",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Debbie M.",
"FuzzyChef",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
}
|
3502
|
Finding a farmer's market
A lot of people advise getting fresh produce and other ingredients at a farmer's market, where you can find items that are local and high quality, and have various other appealing attributes (such as being organic, or grass-fed, or humane, or hormone-free, or heirloom, or whatnot).
However, since many farmer's markets aren't open all the time, and there are different kinds of farmer's markets, finding one can be tricky.
Are there any directories of farmer's markets? What other strategies are there for finding farmer's markets when you're in a new area other than asking around? Do the different kinds of farmer's markets (like the large, permanent kind) have different names that might inform a better search query?
For the US, try Local Harvest. They list farms, farmer's markets, CSA, etc, and try to keep track of what sort of things are sold from each place (fruit, meat, etc.)
update : other places to ask around : the local farm extension office or your local farm bureau. When I lived in Europe, it was easy -- they were large enough that everyone knew where they were, and it seemed that there was at least one per town, and there could be a dozen for larger cities.
I found our farmer's market by looking into a CSA, and noticing that one of their pickup points was listed as "farmer's market". Turned out to be literally ten minutes down the road -- just on a street I'd never travelled before.
@Yamikuronue : Local Harvest also lists CSAs. (as those might also be something difficult to find).
@nohat, since your profile says you are from San Jose, CA:
Farmer's Market List in near San Jose (SF Bay Area), from San Jose Mercury News
Similar Farmer's Market List, from San Francisco Chronicle
Most of the Farmer's Markets in the SF Bay are are actually used by real farmers, i.e. there is typically no middleman. Which is good for you. Further, since these are typically small farmers, even if these farmers are not all "certified organic", they usually are non-spray-pesticide using farmers.
How do I find things when I'm new to a region? Besides the Internet? (I would imagine that Google is your friend here.)
If you can't find a local Farmer's Market association, try local farmer's cooperatives, food co-ops, University extension bureaus, whoever organizes the nearest "summer crop festival" (they're just about everywhere these days), local orchards... oh, an country/regional summer/fall fairs. They might not be associated directly with it, but SOMEONE there would know what's going on in your area.
I know we're not SO, but this seems to still apply: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5280/embrace-the-non-googlers That said, this seems like the kind of info that would get out of date rather quickly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.798094
| 2010-07-27T23:22:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3502",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Darwy",
"Dave Wilson",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Hanson",
"Kati",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mxk"
],
"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
}
|
13646
|
Replacement for wine
Possible Duplicate:
What is a substitute for red or white wine in a recipe?
I am making a short rib recipe which calls for white wine in the brazing liquid. I don't have any wine, what would you recommend I used in place of it? Will I be missing out on a lot not using the wine?
The wine has three main functions, as I see it: liquid for braising, acidity, and flavor. You can get the liquid from any source. Acidity could come from vinegar, lemon, or tomato. Flavor can come from herbs, spices, or fruit. Certainly, the flavor will be different without wine, but that does not mean worse. I usually throw in whatever I have around the kitchen. For example, the last time I braised short ribs, I used beef stock, tomato paste, and 4 plums.
I've used a sweet vinegar before in place of wine, you don't have to add much and it give's recipes a bit more kick due to the acidity.You will have to use your judgement as you definitely won't want to add as much vinegar as you would wine.
Beef and chicken stock are commonly used as braising liquids, either on their own or combined with wine. You could just use plain water and still accomplish braising (you just need low, slow, moist heat), but you'll definitely be missing out on some flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.798332
| 2011-04-01T05:32:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13646",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5707
|
Does water that's been left to sit and then reboiled taste different from fresh water boiled once?
This may sound like a silly question, but I've always wondered:
If I boil some water and use some of it and leave the remainder in the kettle, and then a few days later boil that same water again, will it taste the same as if I'd emptied the old water and boiled fresh new water?
I've got a habit of emptying the kettle water and starting with fresh water to boil when I prepare my coffee (using a French press), and I'm wondering if there's no good reason to do that.
For what it's worth, the kettle has a top (so I'm ruling out dust as a concern), and the water I'm boiling is tap water that's been through a Brita filter in a jug.
If the taste is different, what's the chemical or physical justification?
Yes, it is different. Two things happen: the dissolved oxygen boils out, and whatever mineral solids are in there become concentrated as steam evaporates.
Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. A little extra minerals in water can significantly affect coffee flavour, but depending on the specific combination, it can be for the better. There is a town near where I live where coffee made from well water on one side of the river tastes amazing. Coffee made from well water on the other side is unpalatable.
The effect of losing dissolved oxygen is also well known in tea-making. Thoroughly boiling the water very quickly extracts the dissolved oxygen. For this reason, enthusiasts of green and oolong tea never bring the water to a full, rolling boil in the kettle. Instead, they wait until the water in the kettle makes a distinctive rumbling sound prior to actually boiling.
AIUI, gases will re-dissolve in the water after it cools, so it'll end up with the same concentration of dissolved gases that it had originally — having been boiled won't affect that. (However, that doesn't apply to the second point: if the water picks up minerals from the kettle, then it won't lose those over time.)
If it tastes different, it is either evaporating and you're getting a stronger flavor of the same water you drink.
The other thing is that it may be picking up flavor from the kettle.
Dissolved air is eliminated when you boil the water. However this is only really an issue immediately after the water is boiled. Waiting for a long enough time will allow the air to reabsorb into the water.
And this matters why?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.798559
| 2010-08-21T15:35:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5707",
"authors": [
"Angelo",
"Dante",
"Dariel B",
"Eclipse",
"Lia Tumkus",
"Natalia Kinga Kedzierska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7216"
],
"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
}
|
5232
|
What is the shelf-life of store-bought commercially-produced jam?
My question is similar to this one, but about store-bought jam.
What is the shelf-life of store-bought jam – i.e. commercially prepared major brands – if not opened?
Are the processes or ingredients for preservation of mass-produced jam superior to at-home sterilization of home-made jam?
Quite simply: I have an unopened jar of jam purchased 18 months ago. Good to eat now, or not?
According to the Smucker's web site, their products will last 24 months from the date of production. They should also have a use by date on the label.
According to Shelf Life Advice, it should be good at least one year from the purchase date, although they recognize that it's not exact. I'd say that you could probably try it -- if it's unopened, the sterilization as well as the high sugar content should work in your favor. (It's also better if it's stored in a cool, dark place -- you weren't keeping it on your windowsill, were you?)
Coincidentally, it is a Smucker's jam :-) Thanks.
Jam and jelly have VERY long shelf lives both in the cupboard, unopened as well as in the refrigerator. The acidic environment and concentration of sugar make it an inhospitable environment for bacterial growth.
Typically the only changes you'll see are darkening of color (unopened in the cupboard) and possible "sugaring" in the refrigerator (development of sugar crystals). Flavor can diminish over time too. There's very little need to be concerned about it being safe for consumption....mainly palatability will be affected with age.
It took some time to get a really honest answer for jams & jellies stored on the shelf at room temp. Most said 1 year, some two. Only a couple pointed out, as above, that such preserves can (under good storage conditions) last almost indefinitely. If their seal is air tight so they are not exposed to germs in the air, and if the seal is very durable and remains undamaged, then the acid in addition to the sugar which preserves are loaded with and which is an excellent preservative, preserves can last years.
It seems obvious to me that the reason few have the courage to say that is that merely saying it might expose them, they fear (I think) to legal problems should someone open and eat their 10 year old strawberry jam. It is very possible that could be ok, but only if very specific conditions have been constantly maintained throughout the 10 years with a guarantee that no one has even slightly attempted to open it even once in that period. So . . . can't you just see the problems if you do not put all kinds of red flags around your statements when you mention that preserves can last a real long time? In today's litigious environment, I don't blame them one bit for refusing to commit themselves to the possibility of preserves lasting more than a year or so.
The question was, simply, "What is the shelf-life of store-bought jam – i.e. commercially prepared major brands – if not opened?" I've edited out everything that doesn't address that question. If you have a different question, feel free to ask it as a new question - but please do so in a concise, clear way. The community doesn't generally respond well to verbose questions, and things that can be perceived as ranting or demanding.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.799115
| 2010-08-15T13:25:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5232",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris W. Rea",
"Madison Ruiz",
"Philip",
"Roy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/396"
],
"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
}
|
5278
|
How can I teach someone to taste for the correct amount of salt in a dish?
Possible Duplicate:
How much salt should I add to a dish?
After so many years of cooking, I can usually taste a dish and adjust it to find that point where the salt is just enough to bring out all the flavors without crossing over into oversalted. I find that I have a difficult time communicating that art to others. Are there any exercises or tricks I can teach people to learn this all important skill?
I think that post will cover it.
This question covers an entirely different ground than the other one. It is discussing how to pass on your trained palate to others in quick and efficient method. The answers to the other question don't read as suitable explanations for this one. In other words, you couldn't take any of them and place it under this question and expect it to be accepted.
You're missing the obvious @sarge. If you ask "how much do I salt?" the answer is in that thread. If you ask "how do I teach someone to salt?", the answer is "go read that thread". Marking this as a duplicate does just that.
I grasp your point, but sending someone to that thread isn't going to the best way to teach someone to salt. The answer to every question on this site could just be "google it" but we all know that this site exists because that isn't the best answer to the problem, and in this case, read that thread isn't the best answer to how do I teach this person in front of me how to salt food correctly.
@sarge I'm pretty much the last person to recommend closing a question--I'd rather improve it, answer it, make it more relevant, emphasize an angle, or just tolerate it and see what happens...but this was really a duplicate. If you read that thread, it's a thorough answer to the complexity of understanding, learning, and implicitly teaching about salting to taste.
What I was looking for was not so much how to convince people to salt to taste, as to learn how to train their palate, which isn't well covered in that thread. For example, one thing I've tried that didn't work very well was to give someone 4 glasses of water. One left plain, and ask them to salt the other 3 as if it was soup - one slightly undersalted, one on point, and one just over. I thought this was going to be genius, but with the totally neutral taste of water, the salt is so dominant that it is confusing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.799385
| 2010-08-16T07:02:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5278",
"authors": [
"Jeannet",
"Jennifer S",
"Jmum",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ocaasi",
"french_fries",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"mgorven",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5677
|
Vegetarian substitutes for nuoc mam / nuoc cham?
Possible Duplicate:
What is a good substitute for Fish Sauce?
What makes the best vegetarian substitute for fish sauce (nuoc mam) in Vietnamese dishes and condiments, especially nuoc cham (the nuoc mam prepared with acid, garlic and chilis)?
You may want to revise the question so as not to be a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1366/what-is-a-good-substitute-for-fish-sauce/1407#1407 ... it looks like that thread addresses the first (nuoc mam) half of your question.
Thanks, I missed that! Although actually I might reopen this as a question specifically about Vietnamese food - I don't think I'll be putting worcherstire sauce in nuoc cham :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.799610
| 2010-08-20T21:21:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5677",
"authors": [
"Adelle Charles",
"Alex",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Orihara",
"Patricia Giesenhagen",
"Rory O'Kane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56621
|
What's wrong with keeping frozen vegetables in refrigerator?
The bags of frozen mushrooms and okra that I just bought got mistakenly put into the refrigerator for a few days instead of frozen. I want to eat them now.
What's the problem with letting bagged veggies thaw and then eating them? Is there a danger of food poisoning?
After a few days, they're almost certainly still safe. Most fresh vegetables will last a few days to a week in the refrigerator.
The quality might not be amazing, though. Frozen vegetables tend to get limp and soggy when they thaw; after a few days of being in the refrigerator, they might very well turn to mush once you cook them. But the chances of food poisoning are remote.
Thanks you Aaronut. The okra turned out ok; however, the mushrooms weren't too good. Still, the dish came together pretty well and I didn't get sick.
Thanks for the speedy answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.799704
| 2015-04-12T19:10:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56621",
"authors": [
"Anton Rasmussen",
"Chaitra Nayak",
"Eric Krauss",
"Jeff Ludvik",
"Kay Smith - Powers",
"Yannis Tialios",
"beverly Brumfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25095"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44845
|
Where and how do I keep the extra buttermilk biscuits?
I wrapped some buttermilk biscuits in a kitchen towel and kept them in the pantry (they were baked two days ago) but now they dried out and turned to some teeth-breaking biscuits! Where and how should I have kept the extra fresh?
Biscuits are notorious for that; they're best eaten right away. If you want to preserve their original texture longer than 12 hours (yes, that short of a time), your best bet is to freeze them as soon as they are cool and eat them within a month or two. Wrap them as air-tightly as possible.
You can pop the frozen biscuits in a moderate oven or unwrap and give them an hour or so on the counter to defrost, then warm them. Either way, it's best to serve them warm, they will seem softer and fresher that way.
If you've found a recipe you like and think you might want to make them frequently, mix the dry ingredients for multiple batches. If you can weigh the dry mix that you have just mixed, then you're golden. You can make as many or as few biscuits as you want anytime just by using the same proportion of dry, fat and liquid as the original recipe. You can easily make a single biscuit that way or feed a crowd.
Seems like there's some relevant information here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-storing-bread-in-various-locations even though the topic is bread, I could see biscuits being susceptible to the same problem. So +1 for the freezer suggestion.
Note that the OP didn't use an airtight container, it sounds like, so two days would've been a problem even without something extra prone to drying out.
Another option is to make your biscuits in advance, freeze the unbaked dough, then when you want them, only bake as many as you plan on eating. King Arthur Flour has a pretty good baking blog with a specific recipe and some tips, but the short version is that you just make the whole batch of biscuit dough, form them into biscuits, then freeze the unbaked biscuits. When it comes time to bake them, just extend the baking time a bit (around 25% in my experience, though it depends greatly on the size and shape of your biscuits).
Leftover biscuits that have dried out can easily be made soft again. Simply wrap a biscuit in a wet or damp paper towel. Microwave for about 20 seconds or so until hot. (Don't overheat). That's it; it's like magic.
I am not sure how people are only getting their biscuits to last for 12 hours before drying out... but that is not my experience. I seal my made-from-scratch buttermilk biscuits in a ziploc baggie (take the air out) and they can last for three or four days before drying out to the point where they're no longer good.
Don't wrap them in towels once everyone is done eating them unless you want them to dry out very quickly. Put them into that bag as soon as they are cooled and you start doing clean-up from your meal. Also, buttering your biscuit before microwaving it to reheat it can help to re-moisten it further.
I always cook a batch on Sunday and put the leftovers in a zip bag and keep in the lower part of the fridge. They seem to keep at least a week and you can zap in the microwave about 28 seconds to reheat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.799840
| 2014-06-13T11:11:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44845",
"authors": [
"Amanda Paltelki",
"Cascabel",
"David Trejos",
"Dini Shanto",
"Sammy Black",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"mlw11743",
"petemoss0",
"משה יצחק ויצהנדלר"
],
"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
}
|
87113
|
Forgot the yeast in a brioche bread recipe
This is the brioche bun recipe I frequnetly use:
250 gr potato puree
3.5 cups flour
1 tsp sugar
0.5 tsp salt
2 tsp instant yeast
1 tbsp olive oil
50 gr butter
1/3 cup milk
1 egg
1 tsp bread improver
First mix the dry ingredients, then add melted butter, egg and potato puree. Then add olive oil and milk.
I followed the instructions but forgot to add instant yeast. And with the mistake remaining unidentified I waited for the dough to rise. But after two or so hours, all of a sudden I figured I didn't add yeat to the dough.
Is it possible to corporate it into the dough now? What can be done to save the dough?
'Instant' yeast can be added without proofing first. I dont know if you could get away with kneading it in and letting it sit again to rise
I will sometimes add yeast late, for instance when I'm not finding a sourdough culture to be adequate for a decent rise, or on the rare occasion when I'm getting poor performance from a particular batch of yeast.
I typically dissolve it in a small amount of water (or milk for this recipe), work the mixture into the dough, and add a bit of flour if needed to compensate for the added liquid.
It works.
I did it and it actually worked. Thanks for the tip.
Sounds like you made some pasta dough...
Don't know the name any longer but the potato dough was rolled out 2 or 3cm thick and rolled up with a spinach or other filling then the fat log boiled whole wrapped snug in cheesecloth. Pretty spirals upon slicing. Quick saute in butter to finish.
Otherwise it is quite the mess and fuss incorporating yeast into a dough. Your results will not have the same texture as planned but if above suggestion is not desired: a slurry of yeast -double the recipe- folded in a bit over each successive turn.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.800128
| 2018-01-15T20:47:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87113",
"authors": [
"Gigili",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125494
|
Are these spinach leaves safe to eat?
I bought a bag of spinach late at night and left it in the balcony for the night (the weather was cold enough). In the morning I forgot to take them in and to my wonder the sun was out and shining! Some of the leaves changed color like the ones in the picture. Are they safe to eat? They are not soggy or anything, just the color change!
I've eaten leaves like that and they were fine. I'll leave the answering to someone who knows for sure, but my guess is they've just broken down a little, like what happens when you cook them.
The actual temperature outside is an important detail, both overnight and during the day. Whether the spinach is safe to eat depends on if it ever entered the danger zone (between 4–60°C or 40–140°F) and, if so, how long it was there for.
@abion47-- it must have been around 8-10° C, for 10 hours I think.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.800297
| 2023-10-08T11:44:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125494",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Gigili",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125441
|
Can every cake/cupcake batter be made as pancakes?
I successfully made pancakes from a cake recipe and was wondering if it can be generalized to every cake/pancake recipe?
Edit:
I look for healthy nutritional pancake recipes for babies everyday on the internet. It's not easy to find a good baby friendly recipe that doesn't call for sugar! So when I have an already tested cake recipe, I'd like to know if I can make it as pancakes to have a different shape with same nutritional value. Here's one of my favorite sugar free diary free very easy cupcake recipes for your reference:
Pumpkin Puree 1 cup
Eggs 2
Oil 1/2 cup
Molasses/date syrup 1 cup
Cinnamon 1 tsp
Flour 2 cups
Baking Powder 2 tsp
This is what I call pancake:
It may depend on what your definition of ‘pancake’ is. There are the japanese soufflé-like pancakes that I would suspect would be more like what you would get in terms of shape if it’s possible to use angel food cake batter. And then there’s the ‘crêpe cakes’ but if you don’t spread the crêpe batter and let it brown a bit it’s close to a pannekoek (Dutch unleavened pancake)
It may also depend on what your cake recipe is…
@Tetsujin -- right, that's what I am asking. If every cake recipe can be made as pancakes.
@joe -- just normal pancakes, not crepes not Japanese pancakes, something in between. I'd like to know if we can bake cake batter in pan and get good quality pancake which is thoroughly baked and fluffy.
Too broad - angel cake vs carrot cake, for example. If we don't know your recipe we can't really say. Personally, any pancake with sugar in it would not be a pancake at all, but then again, I don't consider 'American pancakes' to be proper pancakes either, so you cannot just ask for "normal" pancakes, because there's no such thing.
@Tetsujin -- I am afraid I don't follow, what do you mean by "any pancake with sugar in it would not be a pancake"?!
Most types of pancake don't contain sugar, so not only will you have to define your cake mix, but also the resulting pancake you desire. The pancakes I eat contain eggs, flour & water or milk. I never eat sweet pancakes, nor ones with baking powder to make them rise. See https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/easy-pancakes
…of course, there's always the additional consideration - that anything you can cook in a thin layer in a frying pan could be considered a pancake. That would make the answer 'yes' but by as equally broad a definition as the question.
I think it might help to edit some of your rough definitions into the question. There are a lot of things that people mean by "cake" and "pancake"; I suspect that you actually have some constraints in mind that make the question a lot more answerable.
This seems like a simple enough question to answer with proof by contradiction. Show an example or two of cake recipes that won’t make successful pancakes, and possibly explain the factors of why they won’t work. Some constraints would help, but I could also see an answer on which factors would mean an unsuccessful American style pancake and which would make for an unsuccessful flatter crepe-like pancake
For an explanation of the many types of pancakes, see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13102/67
Please don’t take it as criticism, but 1 cup molasses / date syrup is actually quite a lot of sugar for baby food. Yes, it’s “healthier”, but ultimately it’s still a kind of sugar. I am not judging the dietary choices you make for your baby, just pointing out what sometimes gets overlooked - sugar is not just the granules labeled as such.
@Stephie -- Well, that's a good point. Although I consider date syrup a natural sweetener, it must be used in moderation as you pointed out.
As Stephie noted, that is by no means a sugar-free recipe, but also, calling something that's reduced-sugar "healthy" is assuming facts not in evidence. This is why questions of whether a food is "healthy" or not are off-topic for this site.
@Stephie -- Giving it a second thought, I think you might be wrong. dates are nutritional and date syrup is a natural sweetener which is definitely healthier than processed sugar. Also, it must be noted that the amount of date syrup in the recipe will be for around 15 cupcakes, so for a baby that eats one cupcake the ratio is pretty low. It's not like pouring the whole amount into a cup and let the baby eat/drink it.
The definition of a pancake is a flat, often round cake made from a starch based batter that is fried in a pan. Any cake batter is going to flatten out to some extent and if flipped will cook, so yes any cake batter will make a pancake.
That isn't to say that any batter will make good pancakes however.
Thick batters won't spread well - if you have to spread it around a pan it's unlikely to make a good pancake
Batters with raw ingredients that need to be cooked for consistency won't give you a good result. The 2-3 minutes it will be on the pan won't be enough to cook. Shredded carrot is a good example
Coarse starches like corn meal take longer to cook, if you mix a corn meal based batter and cook it straight away you're likely to get a grainy result as it takes more than 2-3 minutes to rehydrate. You can often get around this by resting the batter for 30 minutes before cooking
Chocolate is problematic in pancakes. First, because it's dark it can be hard to tell when it's cooked, it's easy to overcook them as you can't tell when they're done by eye, so use the touch test. Also, the chocolate on the outside tends to get bitter when fried, I don't like the result myself but my kids don't seem to mind one bit
There are some ‘pancakes’ that need to be intentionally spread around… matafan (a French pancake made with mashed potatoes) comes to mind, but you have to know how to cook it (a little bit longer and lower than an American pancake (aka pikelet aka drop scone). Coarse cornmeal I would let rest even longer; I also have a recipe for johnnycakes that calls for two additions of cornmeal… you make the initial batter, give it a long rest, a second addition, then a 15-20 min rest so you still have a little texture.
I am just wondering why would I eat "bad pancakes"? Of course I am asking about proper good pancakes just like what you see in the picture. I am not looking for a batter to be flipped and fried in the pan, I am looking for something good that resembles cake to eat!
@Joe, there are certainly many other types of pancakes like potato pancakes, or thicker types of pan fried cakes like crabcakes, however the question was asking about cake batter so my answer is limited to that. I like you johnnycake idea, I may give that a try.
GdD: potato matafan aren’t what you would think of as ‘potato pancakes’. You use mashed potatoes so it’s more like potato bread where you may not realize there are potatoes in it: https://www.thatskinnychickcanbake.com/matafan-fluffy-potato-pancakes/ . There also seem to be potato matafan, which are more like ‘Dutch babies’ (a popover/Yorkshire pudding type thing)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.800427
| 2023-10-03T08:38:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125441",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Gigili",
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"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
}
|
82885
|
How to avoid flour lumps in the sponge cake?
I have a sponge cake recipe which has been in our family for a long time:
6 eggs
1.5 cups icing sugar
2.5 cups flour
1 cup milk
1 cup oil
1 tsp baking powder
cardamom and saffron
Separate the eggs. beat egg whites until soft peak and set aside.
beat yolks and add sugar then mix well until creamy. add cardamom
while mixing. Add oil and continue mixing. add lukewarm milk and mix
for a few minutes until thoroughly mixed. Add yolk mixture to the egg
whites and mix quickly for one or two minutes. then fold in the
(flour+baking powder +saffron) mixture which is sifted into the egg
mixture.
I was wondering how do we actually fold during the process of making the sponge cake. Do we fold it very lightly or fold until all the flour is fully incorporated? whenever I fold it to fully incorporate it, the texture does not get too airy and the volume decreases. or do I fold it lightly to ensure maximum air volume but whenever I pour the batter into the mould, I see remnants of unincorporated flour.
Also is it correct to use electric mixer to mix egg white mixture and egg yolk mixture, or do I need to fold one into the other?
Always fold, gently, by hand. The more delicate the ingredient, the more critical it is; few culinary ingredients are as delicate as beaten egg whites.
The flour (you're using bleached cake flour, aren't you?) should be added in stages (about 1/4 to 1/2 cup at a time), preferably via a sifter. Incorporate just to the point where the flour is mostly evenly dispersed and is wetted. When transferring to the baking dish, keep an eye out for any unwetted or clumps and gently mix them in.
In addition, I always fold in all ingredients to beaten egg whites and would recommend you do the same when adding the yolk mixture. You need fold just until it's mostly dispersed as you will be further folding when you add the flour.
If you are still having problems, you could try adding cream of tartar to the whites when beating to help stabilize them. I don't use it generally myself, but 1/4 tsp should do the trick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.800907
| 2017-07-09T08:33:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82885",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86275
|
Should I fry mushooms before adding to a red meat sauce?
I'm planning on making a pressure cooker sauce using tomatoes, ground beef, sausages and wine — a classic Italian American spaghetti sauce. The method is to sweat onions, carrots, celery and garlic whilst frying off meat in a separate pan and adding in along with liquids before an hour in the pressure cooker.
I am thinking of adding mushrooms for flavour and texture — my plan was to dice them and cook them with the meat. Will I get better flavour and texture by frying the mushrooms beforehand, or should I just put them in when I sweat the vegetables?
pressure cooker. here's my method https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BABComPWgLxLlgfmEBEk2X18VIMpcMegOVNkWKu_aXk/edit
Not quite an answer to the question, but consider using dried mushrooms. They don't need any fuss. Just add them to the pot of the pressure cooker right before you're ready to lid up. You have a wider variety open to you, not limited by season or region. Consider porcini.
I would absolutely put them when you sweat the vegetables
You are right on track with pre-cooking/frying the mushrooms instead of dumping them just into the dish. I think they benefit greatly from it, especially flavor-wise, which gets a lot more concentrated. Whatever you choose to do, remember that mushrooms will exude a lot of liquid during frying.
So if you add a significant amount to your meat, it will likely interfere with the browning. The same is true if added to your vegetables from the beginning, but it won’t matter as much.
I recommend you either
brown your meat, then add the mushrooms and use the liquid for a first „deglaze“ or
sweat your vegetables and add the mushrooms when they are like half-done.
Of course you can fry the mushrooms separately, but why bother with an extra step?
Pressure cooking the mushrooms may overcook them, why not fry them and add them afterwards?
Depending on why you add mushrooms (individual bites or flavor) makes a difference.
I use them for flavor, so I food-process them into bits. They become like mince/ground meat & they lend a LOT of flavor when used this way.
You could then use them at any point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.801191
| 2017-12-11T11:29:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86275",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Alchimista",
"GdD",
"Will",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63628"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78710
|
why does doughnut powdered sugar seem cool?
Why does the powdered sugar which coats the outside of powdered sugar doughnuts give that amazing cool sensation on your tongue, when the powdered sugar in the box I buy from the supermarket does not? I am pretty sure this effect is not just imaginary since I see the question asked on the internet, but the two answers I find there are not satisfactory:
It's the cornstarch in the powdered sugar -- wrong. Cornstarch doesn't have that cool taste, ... and the boxed powdered sugar also contains cornstarch anyway.
Some thermodynamic mumbo-jumbo about latent heat of crystalization, or enthalpy [?] when the sugar dissolves on your tongue, which may be true for all I know, but can't be the explanation since it would apply to all powdered sugar - or maybe even all sugar.
I really think the doughnut makers are using some different type of sugar, or adding something that we don't have at home. Can anyone shed some light on this? (These are US doughnuts, if it matters.)
Could it be snow sugar? I just tasted some castor sugar and confectioners' sugar and couldn't detect a cooling difference, but both were much sweeter than I recall from commercial powdered doughnuts.
Further search found this King Arthur product and its nutrition sheet (pdf).
Thanks @wumpus D'00m, hmmm, dextrose...both the snow sugar & the King Arthur topping sugar have it. I was wondering if dextrose was involved from looking at the ingredients on the doughnut pkg. I guess I'll have to research "dextrose" next.
@Loral Dextrose is less sweet than sucrose (table sugar).
Could be the dextrose. I bought some dextrose tablets sold as energy booster, they had this 'cool' feeling as well. Might be because of the fine texture (seems it's not as grainy as fine sugar).
Maybe Coconut fat is used to hold the sugar in place? ... BTW, had to reread the title to understand the question wasn't about a hipster trend ;)
Summary: Most types of sugar will absorb some heat as they dissolve. Commercial baked goods often use a type of "snow sugar," which is designed to be used on warm, moist foods without dissolving. It's likely that commercial doughnuts use a lot of dextrose in their "snow sugar," which requires four times as much heat to dissolve as the sucrose in normal powdered sugar, leading to a "cold" sensation when consumed.
I tried poking around a bit in various sources and can't find a definitive answer, and I personally can't recall experiencing this "cold" sensation. But it seems to me the explanations really can only come down to two possibilities:
(1) The sensation is due to ingredients that stimulate nerves which feel "like cold." The standard example for this is stuff like mint or eucalyptus, whose menthol and eucalyptol create a sensation of coolness even without drawing heat. The problem with this explanation is that the list of chemicals that cause this sensation is limited, and I don't know why they'd include any of them in powdered sugar. That said, snow sugar products, as mentioned in comments, can contain various organic compounds to keep them from melting/running on warm moist baked goods. I suppose it's possible -- though unlikely -- that some doughnut coverings contain something that would do this.
(2) The sensation is actual cold, i.e., the increased heat transfer from tongue to donut, resulting in a perceived temperature drop. That would be due to "thermodynamic mumbo-jumbo" mentioned in the question, i.e., heat/enthalpy of solution/dissolution. That's just a fancy term to say that it takes some energy to separate a crystalline solid (where molecules are bonded together in an organized lattice) into individually dissolved molecules in a solution.
The problem with the second explanation is that we consume food all the time and don't generally sense the quite tiny amount of heat transfer it takes to dissolve things. But powdered sugars are somewhat unusual foods in that (1) they exist as a crystalline solid with a high solubility, and (2) they are ingested with a fine particle size that increases surface area significantly and therefore rate of dissolution.
It's likely that the mixture of chemical components used in some commercial sugar mixtures like snow sugar are engineered to have an increased enthalpy of solution (and thus don't appear to "melt"/dissolve or run on warm baked goods). While a warm baked good may not have enough moisture and heat to dissolve them, our mouths do, and that increased heat necessary for dissolution is perceived as "cold."
What exactly could the specific chemical be? Some comments have suggested dextrose (which indeed is the primary ingredient in the King Arthur version of snow sugar as well as in the French product Sucraneige). Dextrose (the D-isomer of glucose, and its most common form) has a endothermic heat of solution that's about double that of sucrose. That means that "snow sugar" needs to absorb about four times as much heat per weight as normal sucrose-based confectioners sugar when dissolving. (I'm assuming that the other components of the snow sugar are relatively minor; they'll have significantly worse solubility.)
Particle size, as mentioned, is also an issue. The Sucraneige mentioned above claims 10X fineness, but many powdered sugars at the grocery store will also be the same. If you are comparing a 10X sugar to a coarser powdered sugar, that will also make a difference: smaller particles have more surface area and can dissolve faster. If it dissolves faster, the reaction happens faster, thus absorbing heat more quickly (and feeling colder).
Still, this amount of heat transfer seems quite small. But I suppose for those who notice it, it could explain the difference. A quick search of some common commercial powdered sugar doughnut brands (like Hostess and Entenmann's) doesn't clarify the powder ingredients, but dextrose is listed quite high in the ingredients list, just after flour in one of them, seeming to hint at some form of "snow sugar." Other non-powdered types of doughnuts seem to have dextrose listed far later (if at all).
Technical note: For those who are wondering, why four times the enthalpy? The enthalpies that are given in the linked table are 5.4 kJ/mol for sucrose and 11 kJ/mol for glucose/dextrose. But these are per mole, and the molecular weight of sucrose is roughly twice that of glucose. Therefore, to get the same amount of glucose by weight, you'd need roughly twice as many moles of glucose. Since glucose already has twice the enthalpy of solution, the same weight of glucose will have roughly four times the enthalpy of the equivalent weight of sucrose. Also, it should be noted that perceived sweetness of dextrose/glucose is somewhat less than sucrose (roughly 70-75% as sweet), so more of it tends to be used. I don't know that that's a major factor here though, where doughnuts are doused in lots of sugar either way.
It is combined with an oil. Sucra Neige will turn rancid when old. It is also called snow sugar or Coating Sugar.
Can you expand a little bit to explain how does that answer the question? (Or how does that add anything that is not covered by the other answer) Check [answer] to learn more.
It mentions that coating sugar is combined with an oil, and can go rancid with age. Not sure if the oil contributes to the cool sensation or not, or even if the fact is actually true, but the possibility of going rancid is significant, and with a "1", rose22 will be unable to make that contribution as a "comment". As the notation says, "rose22 is a new contributor. Be nice".
I have found that glucose powder exhibits this cooling of the tongue as it melts. Caster sugar does not do this to the tongue. The glucose powder is much finer grained than caster sugar so it has a greater surface area although I have not noticed this effect with finely ground icing sugar.
Enthalpy , as explained above is the most interesting explanation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.801403
| 2017-02-25T16:05:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78710",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"rackandboneman",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
}
|
92417
|
My bread recipe book isn't linear with its ingredients?
The book that came with my bread maker machine has bread ingredients and quantities in the back but I note that they aren't very consistent in terms of quantities. Take a look at this sourdough:
I note that the 1.5lb loaf uses the same amount of sugar as a 1lb loaf, but a 2lb loaf uses 3x the amount of sugar as a 1lb loaf
I'm hence wondering if I should use 2tbs of sugar, this being the halfway point between the 1lb loaf's 1 tbsp and the 2lb loaf's 3tbsp?
Similarly they all use the same amount of yeast; does that seem right? By that pattern I could make a tonne of sourdough using only 1/3tsp of yeast! :)
The real puzzler for me is the flour. Firstly, I would expect that of all ingredients to be proportional to the desired final weight, and secondly it uses metric units when the desired final weights are given in imperial.
British manufacturer too! Probably a half-in-Europe-half-out thing!
I'd suggest picking up a bread machine book, a published one, which will have much better tested recipes than the booklet. We like Hensperger, but I don't know if she's available in Britian/metric.
Mine has only 2 sizes but also has some nonlinearity. You see it with the water as well (in yours and mine). Things like the rate of temperature change, and therefore the rate of rising, will depend on the total quantity, and some change in the proportions of the ingredients will offset that. Yeast multiplies, and a pseudo-sourdough with very little yeast to start with relies on slowly but surely growing the yeast (if you take it to extremes you end up with a true sourdough from wild yeast, with a tiny bit of cultured yeast). So you probably don't have a typo, and can trust the recipe, at least to start with.
Feel free to experiment; you may prefer the result. I use around 1/3 the stated salt and 1/2 the sugar, for example. The rise and texture aren't very different, but I used to find the bread tasted salty (then sweet if I didn't also reduce the sugar).
There are really too different reasons.
First recipes do not have some super exact proportions which must be accurate to 1 part in a 1000 like a chemistry experiment. There are typically quite wide variations in proportions for which the result which would be acceptable. So for the single loaf recipe if you varied any of the ingredients by +/- 25% you'd probably get an acceptable loaf of bread.
Second as Chris noted in his answer there are also procedural variations such as temperature and time that effect a recipe too.
So between the two there is some latitude in cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.801978
| 2018-09-22T20:08:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92417",
"authors": [
"Caius Jard",
"FuzzyChef",
"Peter Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69408",
"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
}
|
114192
|
Do bread bins really keep homemade breads fresh?
I usually keep my homemade breads for a day or two in a ziplock bag. I recently felt like buying a good-looking bread box/tin to not use plastic bags that often (I keep the bags for as long as possible unless used for something like cinnamon rolls) and a bread box looks good on the breakfast table. I was reading some reviews that people complained about their bread going moldy in the box although it was a pretty fancy/expensive one. Since I wouldn't spend money on something useless which takes some space in my small kitchen, I'd like to make sure it is a good buy.
I also read this question on plastic bags keeping the bread fresh for a few days and ask myself whether I should keep using ziplock bags.
Also, there different types of them,
Bread bins are very useful in houses with mice. Most are designed in such a way mice can not get in. I would still package my bread before putting it in.
I wonder how the box that suggests similar questions based on the title and the body of the question I am going to ask never show me the ones that my question with be linked to and closed as duplicate of them. something does not function properly.
@Gigili the questions in the box are found by the system, based on similarities with your question title and body. When I close a question as a duplicate, I manually search for older questions I remember we have on the site, and after finding them, I close, manually adding them as duplicates. You are correct that it would be better for everybody if they had been found during you posting the question, but the system is not that good yet. Maybe if you do a manual search before posting, you will sometimes find the older questions, depending on your search term choice.
@rumtscho: Noted, thank you for the clarification.
I would avoid anything that can't have a good wash. I've had wooden bread bins in the past and crumbs in crevices can go mouldy and spread the mould to bread until you give up and throw the bread bin away
These days I either use the enamelled cast iron pot I bake in (and which therefore fits my boules perfectly) or a plastic box that originally held a lot of biscuits (if I bake in a loaf tin or use the bread machine). Both can go through the dishwasher; the cast iron additionally gets sterilised at 240°C before baking. The plastic box is presumably more airtight, but both keep home made bread fine for a few days, which is as long as I need. It's important to make sure the bread is completely cool before putting it in, to avoid condensation, but not to leave it too long.
Excellent point, easy to wash and clean. Noted.
They stop it drying out quite so fast, not much else as far as I can tell.
There may be some small benefit from the interior being dark, but not really one I could categorically state would be helpful.
I would never re-use plastic bags for bread, though, unless you wash & dry between uses, otherwise any beginnings of mould will just proliferate & spread to whatever you next put in the bag.
It's always a balance, though - crusty bread will go tough before it goes off, things like baguette will either dry to a rock, or become really chewy, depending on if you let them breathe slightly or not.
Supermarket baguette tends to be supplied in a perforated bag. Left out, it's a truncheon, in a ziplok it's tough as boot-leather… but in the perforated bag in a bread bin, it just about survives.
"crusty bread will go tough before it goes off", I'd love to have a kitchen sign with that line!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.802215
| 2021-02-09T14:48:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114192",
"authors": [
"Gigili",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114438
|
Using muffin/cupcake pan for basque burnt cheesecake
I've seen images of regular cheesecake (crust + filling) baked in muffin tins,
Will basque burnt cheesecake be as creamy as the original in muffin/cupcake pan?
Here's the pan I'd like to use, each tin around 7.5 cm/3 inch:
That is a good question. As someone that is looking into making basque cheesecake AND never thought of using the muffin pan for this, I'm looking forward to the answers!
I expect that you will need to change the baking temperature or (mostly) the cooking time.
The smaller muffin pans have a large surface area so the heat will penetrate quicker and cook your cheesecake quicker.
I suggest you experiment, check to see if there are cheesecake recipes that use muffin pans to have an idea about cooking time and temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.802483
| 2021-02-22T12:50:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114438",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73358
|
carrot and potato dumplings question
My question is for potato and carrot dumplings as follows, what sort of binder would you recommend to make it more stable for frying or boiling? I've tried eggs myself, would you recommend flour? if so what kind of flour?
Potato and carrot dumpling recipe
Welcome to seasoned advice! Luckily I can be a bit of help here. I once tried mixing water and (AP) flour (1 tbsp of each) to form a paste and brushing the edges with it, which is what a chef on TV recommended. I was very satisfied with the result. Perhaps you could give it a try.
Personally, I'd avoid eating anything that mentioned "(the liquid just has to be drinkable & not poisonious to anybody)"
@Joe I was trying to have people avoid mistakes with the recipe if it helps!
Add 1 TBSP of water to 1 TBSP of (AP) flour and mix to form a paste. Brush the edges with a thin layer of the mixture, which was what a chef on a TV cooking show recommended.
You want to squeeze out as much of the water from the carrots and oven dry the potatoes.To make them firmer for frying you could add some panko/homemade breadcrumbs. For simmering add a small amount of flour to the mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.802575
| 2016-08-23T17:31:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73358",
"authors": [
"Abraham Ray",
"Gigili",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"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
}
|
53508
|
How to make "white" jello using aloe vera jelly pack for broken glass dessert
I've heard that it is possible to make the base of broken glass jello with aloe vera jello and milk/cream/vanilla ice cream. I attempted to do it but at first I brought milk to simmer then one pocket of aloe vera jelly but it got a lumpy mixture! At my second attempt, I did what I usually do with a packet of jelly and mixed together the jelly and boiling water until the jelly has dissolved and the mixture is smooth, let it cool. Then I poured milk to have the white color but the same thing happened. I wonder how should one add milk/melted vanilla ice cream/cream to a jelly mixture to prevent curdling?
I wouldn't use unflavored gelatin, that's why I would use aloe vera jelly.
was the packet a powder? You always want to disolve the powders in cold liquid first, then add it to the hot liquid, or you'll get lumps.
@Joe: Yeah it's powder. But I always dissolve this kind of jelly in boiling water, then I add cold water to it if desired.
I have not seen this "aloe vera jelly" you describe, but from its behavior (clumps milk, needs a boil), it seems to be a pectin based thickener. If it is HM pectin, it will need enough acid, and this will clump the milk.
The simple answer is that you will not be able to make a milk jelly with this thickener. Your options is to either use a different white liquid, or to use a different thickener. There aren't that many white liquids, but a nut milk might work. Especially if it's stabilized, it might not curdle under acid (but I'm not 100% sure). As for thickeners, you could try LM pectin, it will even get its calcium from the milk. Other thickeners are available, but the thickened texture will not be as gel-like, but have a somewhat different texture. Agar might work.
Thank you for your answer. It (aloe vera) actually yields a kind of transparent (no color) jello.
@Gigili thickeners generally don't color anything. The point is, if your powder is a mix of thickener+acid+sugar, it will always clump in milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.802700
| 2015-01-11T14:14:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53508",
"authors": [
"Christine Stock",
"Emily Sandner",
"Gigili",
"Joe",
"Karen Dive kdivebigpondnetau",
"LocksFix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user113727"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53431
|
Making cake balls with a not-so-sweet frosting
I baked a cake which is sweet and moist. I would like to make cake balls with it, but I wonder what should I use as frosting to not make it sweeter! Is it possible to ignore any kind of frosting and does coating the cake balls - which are made out of the cake only- work? I mean will it keep its shape that way? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
As another option, you can keep the sweetness down by using something that will give a very thin glaze, such as a thin royal icing. You can make it with just confectioner's sugar and water, but if you have meringue powder, it'll set up a bit firmer.
Pour it into a cup, dip the cake pops, then shake or twirl to remove most of it, then let dry. (a block of styrofoam, works well for drying things on sticks ... you can also use a corrugated carboad box (shorter than the height of the sticks), poke holes in the top, and then set them in that.
You'll have to play with the thickness of the glaze so you get a thin coat, but not so runny that it all drips off when drying. Twirling to remove excess is pretty important ... just hold the cake pop upside down in a large cup, then spin the stick between your fingers.
If the flavor is compatable with the cake, you can also help to balance out the extra sweetness by using lemon juice as some of the liquid.
Coating your cake balls is a good idea, it will help them retain their moisture and shape. There are plenty of not especially sweet options, I would try a cream cheese based frosting with less sugar or a medium-sweet chocolate ganache.
I've used Nutella for frosting either strait up or adding butter and it's delicious. I'm not sure if it forms a hard enough shell for cake balls though. It's worth a try for sure.
Be carefull with Nutella. It's soft at room temp. and gets grainy when refrigerated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.802891
| 2015-01-09T08:38:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53431",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Patrick Mccrossan",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Tana Denno",
"Tracey Fletcher",
"Tracy Waser",
"Willie Joseph Jr.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
94571
|
Bag-cooked omelettes turning gray when stored in the fridge
So, we found the omelette in a bag recipe, and decided to use it. Pretty simple, beat the eggs, drop in ingredients, (Usually either Great Value Mozzarella, Fiesta Blend Cheese, or Cheddar) and some Jimmy Dean's Breakfast sausage, boil for 20mins, done.
We store them in the fridge since we don't have time in the mornings, and eat them throughout the week. They're perfect for my father who eats them at work (microwaves them, about a minute or so) and for me if I'm looking for quick meal.
Problem is, that at times they turn a grayish color, as they're put onto the plate and break up the omelette, you can see grayish/black spots.
Are we storing them wrong? Are they safe to eat? Any suggestions would be helpful.
Devon, welcome! Thanks for your question! Could you please clarify: does the discoloration occur after a certain time (which could indicate spoilage), or also in freshly made batches, did you observe it with various mix-ins? How long are you storing the bags?
Cooking, not storage, to blame
Storing cooked eggs under refrigeration for a week is not turning your eggs gray. Instead the discoloration is from the iron in the yolk reacting with the sulfur in the albumen at temperatures of 170F or higher creating ferrous sulfide.
Overcooking the omelettes initially, or perhaps hot spots from the reheating method, create the gray-green discoloration. While unappetizing, the discoloration is not harmful.
Try storing them in the freezer. You can cook them at home in boiling water (straight from the freezer) like you do with the refrigerated ones. Or, you can take them to work and cook them in the microwave when you get there. (note: they will thaw out on the way to work)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.803084
| 2018-12-08T00:47:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94571",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89638
|
What happens to cheese below 0°C and above +8°C?
What happens to cheese if I transport it in cold temperature (below 0°C, up to -20°C) for 5-7 hours?
What if it's at +10°C for 5-7 hours?
Can it go bad? If it does, do cool bags solve the issue of cheese going bad?
What kind of cheese -- cheddar, parmesan, brie?
@Erica all of these kinds and many more. I love cheese you know :D
Though my answer won't go into the "technical" side of things as Lorel C.'s answer, I can answer from experience.
I regularly travel to The Netherlands and when coming back I'll always bring cheese back with me on the flight. (Flight duration ~4,5-5 hours)
I've brought back all kinds of cheeses, last time I brought a block of yellow Gouda cheese, block of Danablu cheese and 2 kinds of parmesan cheeses.
I've never noticed any tangible difference in quality of the cheeses after travelling and they stay good for at least the stated shelf life of the cheese.
What I tend to do is:
Make sure the cheeses are vacuum packed.
Helps store the cheese and ensure if any fats dissolve from the cheese they don't ruin anything in my suitcase.
Wrap them in bubble wrap.
I find this to be more flexible a packaging compared to a coolbag and as a bonus it doesn't add much extra weight.
Keep the cheese for as long as possible in the fridge before the flight.
I.e. put them in your suitcase just before you leave to the airport, but do make sure you left enough space for them :)
I personally haven't tried freezing the cheese as I'm worried that would ruin the cheese so I can't quote experience on that.
What about if the temperature is +20? the heat of the summer? Did they survive?
I've travelled from The Netherlands to Israel in the summer when it's ~35 degrees Celsius on an average summers day.
After the flight I had about another 2 hours drive to get to where I needed to be.
Due to the bubble wrap and storing them in the fridge as long as possible before the flight they still stay fairly cool.
I haven't measured exact temperatures, they do warm up a bit but still feel "cool to the touch" not cold but at least below body temperature.
After the trip I just put them in the fridge and use them as usual and haven't noticed any discernible degradation of quality.
Assuming you are talking Celsius, your warmer temperature, +10 (I guess the +8 morphed into +10 between the title and the question), isn't really that warm. According to the website of the cheesemongers Paxton and Whitfield:
Some cheeses are best kept cool, others need a warmer environment; it
depends on the type of cheese and its stage of maturity. Most hard
cheeses that arrive with you will be fine at 8 degrees centigrade to
15 degrees centigrade, at warmer temperatures they will continue to
mature; a cool, humid cellar would be perfect, or any unheated part of
the house that has a constant temperature between 8 &15 degrees
centigrade. Soft and blue cheeses need to be stored at low
temperatures, preferably in a refrigerator between 5 & 8 degrees
centigrade.
Even if others would disagree with them slightly, it doesn't seem like +10 is an outrageously warm temp. to transport for just 5-7 hours. I say don't worry about transportation at 10 degrees C.
Your other option, between freezing and -20, might not be as good. StillTasty recommends against freezing cheese. But as Catija suggests, it probably depends on the type of cheese.
What if It's +20?
What do I do about -20 in the winter?
Will cool bags solve the both situations?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.803358
| 2018-05-06T19:48:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89638",
"authors": [
"Dunno",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66993",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41456
|
How to make a brewed tea at work?
The way I make tea at home is per the following:
1/2 cup water
1/2 cup milk (or sometimes 3/8 cup)
2 teaspoons of tea
3-4 spoons of sugar
Few inches of ginger
Mint (occasionally)
I put all of them in a pot until it brews to the top of the pot. (Small pot, could hold maybe 2-3 cups of water)
Anyway, my question is how can I make this at work where all I have is
Fridge
Microwave
Hot water dispenser
And K-Cup machine
I usually make tea at work per the following but it just doesn't taste that great:
1 bag of tea
3-4 spoons of sugar
Add milk until cup looks like the right color.
8 oz. water
ideally I would like it to taste just like the contents of this packet (without artificial milk) http://shop.khanapakana.com/wagh-bakri-instant-tea-premix-3-in-1-ginger-9-18-oz-260-grams/
Are you using the same tea at home and at work? You said two teaspoons of tea (loose leaf?) at home, and a bag at work. Also, you said half a cup of water at home, and 8oz (one cup) at work. Are you just using too much liquid for your tea bag?
You're being a little vague about certain important things. Are you talking about fresh ginger/mint? Because I don't see why you couldn't take the powdered variety to the office. And you measure milk at home, but eyeball it at work... why? If you're able to measure 8 oz. of water then surely you can measure the same amount of milk? And, as Jefromi asked, why are you using double the amount of water at work? And what exactly do you mean by "it just doesn't taste that great" (lots of people make tea that way and think it's fine)?
@Jefromi : To answer your questions ,
Do I use the same tea? Not always, but I can (and have been doing so this week).
Two teaspoons of tea and a bag at work? Yea, i figured one tea bag would be equivalent. Guess its not, am trying two tea bags now.
Are you just using too much liquid for your tea bag? Its possible, though I would imagine the water - milk - tea bag ratio would work regardless of whether it was 8 oz as long as the other two went up too.. (hmm ill experiment more on this)
@aaronut : I didn't think of trying dry ginger or mint. I guess I could give those a shot (didnt even think of it). I eyeball it only because for some odd reason when I apply half a cup of milk the milk/tea ratio is out of proportion and its a very milky tea.
See the edit I've made.
If your home recipe is a 50/50 water/milk ratio, then of course the ratio will be off if you add 1/2 cup milk to 8 oz. water. 8 oz. is a full cup, so you need to add twice that much milk. I believe your problem may be as simple as a wrong conversion between metric and imperial?
Why not make it how you like it at home? Here's your best bet (and a very simple suggestion); buy a good thermos. You can get a 24 ounce one for about $30 which will work incredibly well, and last you a lifetime unlike most cooking appliances. When you properly prime a thermos with boiling water, it can keep beverages piping hot for upwards of 12 hours. This lets you avoid trying to come up with a complicated solution at work.
Boil water and put it in the thermos, and seal it. Leave it alone for a few minutes while you brew your tea exactly as you want it. When your tea is ready, dump out the boiling water and pour in the tea, and reseal.
We do this daily for my wife, since she is unable to brew tea at work. She just uses hot water, but it stays hot enough that she can actually drop in a teabag or two midway through the day and brew with no issues. Here is the one we use:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008FK9NIC
Proctor Silex makes a 32oz hot pot that you can cook in. My husband travels a lot and always packs it. He makes oatmeal and ramen noodles in it. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to make your tea in it. We always get it from Bed, Bath, and Beyond, but I'm sure other places carry it. Plus it's only $15!
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/store/product/Proctor-Silex-reg-32-Ounce-Hot-Pot/1018232286?Keyword=kettle
hmm. i'll give that a try. looks promising!
The trick I found to making iced drinks with a Keurig machine at work is to use separate cups for the hot liquid and cold liquid (or ice). Run the K-Cup through as normal, filling a hot cup. It works best to mix in sugar with the hot liquid. Pour the cold liquid (or ice) into a separate, larger, cup. I usually used big cups in the 32-42 oz range. Then you mix the hot into the cold.
It may take you a few tests to get the portions correct for your taste. If it's too cold for you at first, pop it in the microwave for 30 seconds or so to heat it up a little.
There are also chai K-cups available but I've heard from some chai fans that they weren't all that good. Maybe adding some sugar and milk would help them out. This certainly helps with the iced tea and coffee K-Cups.
I have two problems with this answer. 1- The OP wants to make warm tea, not a cold drink. 2- I'm sure the OP would rather use their own tea rather than Keurig's. I think they were just accentuating the lack of resources in the kitchen.
Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't support any Stack Exchange sites other than Stack Overflow.
The question pretty clearly says "brewed tea" in the title, not "iced tea". I don't see how the site is at fault for people not reading the question (and it happens just as often on Stack Overflow).
And people on Stack Overflow certainly don't hesitate to point out when something doesn't answer the question, or is flawed in any way, no matter how tiny...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.803657
| 2014-01-26T03:41:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41456",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bear Bile Farming is Torture",
"Cascabel",
"CondensedChatter",
"Dazbert",
"Drjmagic",
"Jesper",
"John Freeman",
"Kareen",
"Mulgoa Quarries Pty Ltd",
"Nilesh Tailor",
"Reut",
"Sandie Cochran",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96960",
"jfrankcarr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44133
|
Are special recipes needed to preserve using a pressure canner?
I know that it's best practice to use tested and true recipes for water bath canning due to botulism risk, but is it necessary to find special recipes for use in a pressure canner?
edit: What I mean is that, if I have a recipe for my grandma's chicken soup, can I can this according to instructions for pressure canning a similar soup?
The trusted recipes you get from, e.g., a university extension are tested to make sure that they actually heat through entirely and for long enough to destroy bacterial spores, in particular botulism (but also a few more less deadly ones).
In water bath canning, you're using acidity (primarily) to make sure botulism can not grow from the spores, which are not destroyed by boiling water canning. The inside of the jar isn't actually sterile.
In pressure canning, you're actually destroying the spores. So you can can things where the bacteria could otherwise grow—because the inside of the jar is sterile.
Destroying the spores requires reaching a particular temperature for a long enough duration. If you don't do that, once the food cools down, the spores will germinate. A very bad outcome.
The key thing is that (as always) the outside of whatever you're canning heats first. The heat then transfers in towards the center. But the rate of heat transfer can vary greatly depending on what it is.
If heat transfers slowly, you have to pressure cook longer. If heat transfers quickly, you don't have to cook as long. Generally, you'd like to process for as short a time as possible, to preserve texture and flavor.
When developing a safe canning recipe, multiple batches are prepared and each is canned with special equipment that allows measuring the temperature at various points inside the jar, during the pressure cooking. They time how long it takes for all the points to reach safety, and of course repeat this multiple times. That's ultimately where the processing time comes from.
I understood your quesiton differently from the other answerers: it seems to me that you already have canned in water bath and are asking if you need other recipes for the pressure canner.
While you can use recipes specific for a pressure canner, you can still reuse known-good recipes for water bath canning. Safety wise, the pressure canner is better than the water bath, so a recipe which was safe with the water bath will stay safe with the pressure canner. As others have said, there is some chance of mushyness, but you can assess your own tolerance for that easily.
Its not so much that the recipes are special in some way, but that you absolutely want to use only recipes that come from a trusted source, such as University Extension Service.
You still need to be sure that the recipe you are processing is suitable for pressure canning, and is being processed correctly, especially for lower acid foods where pressure canning is required.
What kinds of things would actually be unsuitable for pressure canning? I thought pH didn't matter anymore and (with correct processing) you could basically can anything?
@Jefromi well, a lot of things will turn to mush with the processing time required for safety. Those things are unsuitable.
@Jefromi pH still matters. Home pressure canners cannot achieve the temperatures needed for full sterilization, so home canning recipes for pressure canners still need to be under a certain pH - you just get much more pH playroom than with a water bath. This is why you shouldn't home can pumpkin puree for example - there is no known recipe which consistently yields sufficiently acidic puree.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.804126
| 2014-05-14T16:57:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44133",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Contango",
"Down the hatch-",
"Mark",
"Pack Moves Solution spam",
"Rob 70S",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rightbrace",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69009
|
Is getting rid of the dough the only solution when it smells of yeast?
I made pizza dough (it was ready to use, you just add the liquid ingredients -oil and milk in my case- and the rest is similar to the usual process of letting it rest and so on) the other day and left it in the fridge for about 48 hours, when I was making pizza I figured it smells of yeast which is unpleasant and quite strong. Anything can be done about it or tossing in the trash is the only solution to the issue?
What temperature is your fridge?
Forgot to ask: Is the dough mix supposed to go in the fridge, or is it a mix - raise on counter - bake type.
Hmm. A yeast dough smelling of yeast. There's only one solution - bake it.
I think the OP is probably smelling more fermentation than she's used to ("unpleasant and quite strong"), not just everyday yeast smell. Probably still fine to bake, of course; a couple days in a fridge shouldn't produce insane fermentation.
Smelling of yeast is not a bad thing. This dough is fine, it's a pre-ferment. Too much of a yeasty smell only means that the live yeast are running out of food. So add some flour to it, knead it, let it rise again, shape and bake. It will be delicious.
This sounds like making a biga or poolish: it might serve as a starter for new dough. You could mix it with fresh flour and water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.804435
| 2016-05-15T10:04:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69009",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
}
|
109087
|
Condensation between parchment paper and cake pan
I tried the following recipe for making Basque Burnt Cheesecake.
430g cream cheese, room temperature
120g caster sugar
3 large
eggs, room temp (approx 150g of eggs without shell)
270g heavy
cream/thickened cream (35% min fat content)
20g cake flour
1 tsp
vanilla extract
1 tsp lemon juice
Everything turned out great except that there was condensation between the parchment paper and cake pan. It got the bottom of cheesecake a little moist. Is there any way I could prevent this next time?
Assuming your cake came out well and not overly wet (though I appreciate this is a particularly moist cake/batter), I'm going to guess that this was just because of poor airflow when cooling.
Did you cool the whole pan on a wire rack as suggested? If not, that would be the first thing I tried to fix this. This could help the cake cool faster, allowing less opportunity for condensation.
But some other things to try could include:
Taking the cake out of the pan as soon as it's set enough to move, and letting it cool further on a wire rack. I appreciate part of this cake's appeal is how beautifully soft it looks though, so I imagine this may not be an easy thing to do!
If you baked in a springform pan, could you take the sides off the pan sooner to allow for better airflow?
The third thing is I wonder whether the double layer of baking paper is having an impact here? This may be hurting airflow even further and trapping more moisture.
Just some ideas! Besides a batter being too wet, poor airflow seemed to be the main culprit of condensation building up on the bottom of a cake that I could find, so seems like a good place to start troubleshooting. Good luck next time - the recipe looks delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.804567
| 2020-06-16T09:39:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109087",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105809
|
What makes breads different from one another?
I have two bread recipes I use frequently. recipe one is a type of flat bread called taftan, and the second recipe is called barbari. Taftan is griddled while barbari is baked in the oven. As for the amount of water, what I usually do is adding water until it forms a dough that is only slightly sticky.
Recipe one:
3 cups flour
0.5 tsp salt
2 tsp instant yeast
1 ts sugar
Lukewarm water
Recipe two:
3 cups flour
0.5 tsp salt
2 tsp instant yeast
1 ts sugar
1.5 tsp baking powder
Lukewarm water
The only difference is baking powder that one of those recipes calls for. But they result in totally different breads, with respect to both taste and appearance. I wonder what makes a bread different. Is it the shaping method you use, rising, proofing? Even when the ingredients are identical, why do the tastes differ so much?
can you edit the question to give some information about your making and cooking methods for your two breads? I assume the flatbread is griddled and the Barbari seems to be baked and is, according to wikipedia known as one of the thickest of all flatbreads, so there seem to be obvious differences there. I mean, you wouldn't expect a fried egg and a baked egg to come out the same.
Also, you didn't specify the amount of water added in the dough. This is known as the hydration of the dough and is a key parameter. (It's typically measured as a percentage of the weight of the flour, meaning that a recipe with 500g of flour and 300g of water will have a hydration of 60%.)
@Spagirl: Ah I see your point, one being baked and the other one griddled. I was more thinking about the differences there are in the ingredients and I was amazed that those two recipes are identical (except for the baking powder). Well, I'll try to update my question and add more information.
I think it is "all of the above"
including oven type, flour type, yeast type, water ...
In the case of Barbari bread, it seems, in most recipes that I have seen, to have extra flavoring like sesame seed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.804738
| 2020-03-13T13:14:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105809",
"authors": [
"Gigili",
"Popup",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58076
|
Problem making cakes and pancakes
There is an issue I face whenever I try to make cakes or pancakes in which egg yolks and egg whites must be separated. I try to achieve the thickened creamy mixture by whipping egg yolks with a portion of sugar and I make sure I am doing it right by mixing for a long time, but when I pour milk/oil in the mixture as the recipe calls for, the mixture of egg yolks and sugar gets separated and I can feel the sugar when the mixer touches the bowl. What must be done to get the right texture for the batter and what am I doing wrong?
Pancake recipe:
1 egg
2 tsps sugar
1 tsp vanilla powder
1 cup flour
1 cup milk
2 tbsps oil
1 tsp baking powder
a pinch of salt
separate egg white and egg yolk. whip egg yolk with sugar and vanilla
until creamy. Add milk and oil. whisk flour, baking powder and add to
the egg yolk mixture, mix until well combined. Beat egg whites to the
soft peak stage and fold into flour mixture with spatula.
I don't know why you would separate eggs for pancakes, could you please include your recipes?
@GdD Added pancake recipe. As for the cake recipe, its a butter base batter with separated eggs (butter cake).
@GdD : it makes really, really fluffy pancakes. It's standard in matafan, but those are much eggier than this recipe.
I'm not sure I see any major benefit in creaming the sugar with the egg yolk here. And it's not going to produce a "creamy" texture in your batter: beating yolks with sugar is generally about lightness and/or to ensure eggs don't "clump" when cooked. You will achieve both of those goals more effectively by (1) beating the egg whites, and (2) thoroughly mixing the egg yolk into the other liquid ingredients.
Most pancake recipes use the so-called "muffin method" of combining ingredients:
mix together all wet ingredients in one bowl
mix together all dry ingredients in another bowl
make a "well" in the middle of the dry ingredients to maximize surface contact when you pour the wet into the dry
add wet ingredients to dry ingredients all at once
whisk just briefly until the ingredients are barely combined and still often a little "lumpy" (this avoids gluten formation and toughness which can happen with more beating, as well as preserving a few "lumps" of leavening powder in some cases where moisture is the main activator for rising)
if the eggs are separated and the whites beaten for extra lift, the whites are folded in gently and quickly at the end
I have used variations of this sort of method for many pancake recipes. I generally just add the (beaten) egg yolk to the rest of the wet ingredients.
If you were making a sabayon (zabaglione), you usually whip the egg yolks with sugar until the ribbon stage (or past) by introducing heat, which greatly speeds up the process and allows the sugar to dissolve more thoroughly. But the point generally isn't to dissolve the sugar; it's to break up the egg so it won't be grainy when cooked. It also creates a relatively stable mixture -- when you suddenly add a bunch of liquid to it (as in your recipe), it will break up and you'll likely lose quite a bit of "lift."
It's true that beating can add some lightness to the yolk mixture, but in the case of something like pancakes, I can't imagine this will produce a significant effect once the yolks are combined with the rest of the wet ingredients and then mixed into the batter. Beating the egg whites for a few minutes will have a much, much greater effect on the lightness of your pancakes than if you whipped your yolks for an hour. (If you had a recipe which had a significant amount of yolks, I suppose it might be justified in some cases.)
Lastly, I've never personally had a problem with sugar dissolving in pancake batter. But if that's your problem -- I'd think dissolving the sugar in a larger quantity of liquid (e.g., the milk) will be more effective than creaming it with a tiny amount of egg yolk.
You also mention butter cakes. Almost all butter cake recipes I can recall usually involve creaming the butter with the sugar and then adding eggs (whole eggs or just yolks). That's a very different process than what you're doing here. In the case of butter cakes, you generally want to cream the butter and sugar until it's no longer grainy -- even before adding eggs. So I'm not really certain what the problem might be there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.804927
| 2015-06-07T11:57:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58076",
"authors": [
"Benedikt Ganterer",
"Christine Cohoe",
"Demetris Demetriou",
"GdD",
"Gigili",
"Joe",
"Pau Hertneky",
"Shalee Grover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"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
}
|
34142
|
At what concentration is sodium bicarbonate a sanitizing solution?
I can't find an authoritative answer to the question @rumtscho asked me here about the concentration of sodium bicarbonate, mixtures of which I've come to rely on as a cleaning and sanitizing solution for refrigerators.
I've seen just about any combination you can think of:
With just enough water to form a paste.
With water and vinegar.
With lots of water.
5% dilution in water.
0.5% dilution in water.
Most 'recipes' are not very exact. I've also read that it can be harmful, so the issue is not without interest. Especially as I've been cleaning my fridge with the 5% dilution.
Others, on the Internet, claim that it's a harmless substance and recommend it against stomach pains.
Sodium bicarbonate alone is not a sanitizer at any concentration, although it may be an effective cleaner, mostly due to its abrasive quality. It may be used in certain sanitization regimes, in combination with other chemicals and agents.
Food Safety Site of Clemson University does not list it as a sanitizing agent. According to 21 CFR 178.1010 - Sanitizing solutions (as queried through VLex), it is a part of two sanitizing regimes, but not the only component.
There are many non-credible, non-scientific sites that seem to claim sodium bicarbonate has anti-fungal properties, but I do not consider them worthy of consideration.
In terms of reputable sources, there is some evidence from NIH that sodium bicarbonate, at concentrations of 3%, can contribute to anti-fungal properties (at least for storing oranges), but it is part of an overall plan also including biological antagonists, not used alone.
I would not take this to mean that sodium bicarbonate is a sanitizing agent, which is a much stronger statement than simply reducing growth of fungus, which is only one possible type of pathogen. I simply cannot find any evidence to support this stronger statement.
Na(HCO3), sodium bicarbonate is alkaline or acts as a base in water: HCO3- + H2O → H2CO3 + OH−
The bicarbonate ion takes an hydrogen from water and results in a hydroxide, this raises the pH, and a high pH is poor for fungal growth and can prevent sporulation (sort of like germination for plants), http://books.google.com/books?id=tpnBqSZzw0kC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=ph+fungal+sporulation&source=bl&ots=Tf4E08v4Rk&sig=UKdSKoppfqRmFTuNdCjJh4TF7rY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fwuUUd6ZOIfO8QSH5oG4Bg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=ph%20fungal%20sporulation&f=false.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.805520
| 2013-05-15T14:38:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34142",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Lorraine Brooks",
"Motomotes",
"Paige Patterson",
"Rajeev",
"Tech Guy",
"Warren Jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79431"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56458
|
What is a device used to slice tomatoes with in one motion called?
I worked at a restaurant for a month once and they had a device there. It was a rectangular box: you'd put a tomato in it, and there was a handle at the one end you could use to push the tomato against some blades. The tomato would come out the other end in 5 slices.
It was so much more efficient than using a knife, but I don't know what it was called.
I almost want to say it was a tomato slicer, but I never heard anyone call it that.
If you google/image search for "tomato slicer" you'll find devices with the same functionality - I'd say go for it.
I'm sure Dr. Seuss covered that at some point....
Yes, believe it or not... it's called a Tomato Slicer, but they are also sometimes referred to as a Tomato Saber. Which is a product name originally from the commercial company Price Castle.
Although I agree with Stephie and janeylicious just include the additional keyword 'commercial' with your search.
Another option is that you can try the keyword 'Tomato Saber', this should also aid to a successful search.
That's it exactly! It looks just like it.
Do they cost alot?
A tomato slicer! If you're looking to buy one, you may want to add 'commercial' onto a search.
This is what I use at my restaurant: http://vollrath.com/ProductFamily/Food-Preparation-Equipment/Redco-Tomato-Pro.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.805727
| 2015-04-07T04:54:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56458",
"authors": [
"Carol Long",
"Divine Roberts",
"GdD",
"Jay lawrimore",
"Molly Dawson-Tuck",
"Robert Swoboda",
"Stephie",
"Vici Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"jemma claeys",
"leeand00"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5172
|
Light vs Dark Brown Sugar
Is there a practical difference between light and dark brown sugar? I ask because I've seen many recipes specify one or the other. Do they really behave differently in some way?
They have a different ratio of white sugar to molasses.
Therefore, dark brown sugar is more hygroscopic, and will have a deeper molasses flavor (and color, obviously) They're pretty similar, and you can usually get away with replacing one with the other, but if you want subtle flavors coming through, dark brown sugar might mask it.
I've seen recommendations that call for substituting light brown sugar with a 50/50 mix of white sugar and dark brown; I don't know how messy (or if even possible) to add molasses to light brwn to get dark brown sugar.
Hygroscopic strikes again!
p.s. why would having more molasses make it hygroscopic, I thought that meant water-seeking. Wouldn't the drier ingredient absorb more water?
@Ocaasi : I'd assume it has to do with specific chemical bonds; both honey and molasses are more hygroscopic than white sugar, at least in baked goods. (I'm not sure if that's true before they've been cooked into something).
Yes, you can add molasses to light brown sugar to achieve a darker brown sugar, and you can even add molasses to white sugar to make any desired darkness of brown sugar. Just add the molasses slowly to the sugar in a bowl, and keep mixing until the color is homogenous (and is what you desire).
@Kevin : a litte research after I posted my message last night suggested adding 1.5 tsp molasses to 1c. white sugar for 'light brown' and 1TB molasses to 1c. white flour for 'dark brown'. (specifically, 3.5% and 6.5% molasses to white sugar ratios), but it won't behave exactly like brown sugar, as it'll be grittier.
If the brown sugar is being creamed with fat it's not even necessary to first mix the white sugar and molasses together...just dump in all together.
Oddly, most brown sugar on the market isn't less processed sugar (like many believe) but rather refined white sugar with molasses re-added to it.
White sugar carmelizes at much higher temperature than brown sugar and so in cooking the resulting flavors will can be very different.
This Serious Eats article tells you all you need to know about brown and white sugar and cookies:
Cookie Fact #8: White Sugar = Thin and Crisp, Brown Sugar = Tall and Moist
A mixture of the two provides a good balance, and as I noticed in my egg tests, dissolving too much sugar can lead to a texture that's too uniform. With sugar left in distinct grains, the pockets of melted sugar that caramelize within the cookie as it bakes remain irregular, giving the cookie more textural interest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.806010
| 2010-08-14T02:21:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5172",
"authors": [
"Alexis Pigeon",
"Catherine san pablo",
"D Theriot",
"Darin Sehnert",
"David Nunnally",
"Freya",
"Jobjörn Folkesson",
"Joe",
"Ocaasi",
"Sjolin Hayes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kevins",
"user12781"
],
"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
}
|
3870
|
How much difference is there between brands of flour?
How much real difference is there between flours (specifically all-purpose) such as King Arthur, Gold Medal at a considerable savings and a store brand which is even less expensive?
There is a difference beyond just the price.
All-Purpose flours are not the same:
Southerners tend to make more quick breads, pies, cakes, etc. where tenderness is the primary quality factor.
Southern brands of all-purpose flour such as White Lily, Martha White, Red Band, Adluh and others are typically milled from wheat that naturally has a lower gluten percentage. They also blend it to achieve an overall lower percentage. In addition, southern all-purpose flour is usually bleached, often with chlorine gas which weakens the gluten structure of the gluten in it and creates an acidic nature in the dough. Gluten doesn't develop as easily in an acidic environment.
On average, people living in the northeast/midwest tend to bake a lot more yeast-based products (dinner rolls, cinnamon rolls, pumpernickel bread, rye, wheat, white, french bread, etc.) which benefit from a higher gluten percentage.
Northern/Midwest brands such as King Arthur, Hecker's etc. tend to use wheat that has a higher gluten content for the milling of their flour and they typically leave it unbleached which allows the gluten to better develop during mixing/kneading.
National brands such as Gold Medal and Pillsbury are being distributed across the country so they blend their flour to fall within the mid-range of gluten content.
As for store brands, those that are national (such as Kroger/safeway) are probably being milled by the national flour mills and should probably perform about the same. If it's a regional store brand (such as Piggly Wiggly here in the south or Wegman's in the Northeast) I'd be willing to bet that it probably falls within the scope of those regional types of milling practices.
For a chart showing the range of gluten content for various types of flour from cake flour to bread flour (including the all-purpose brands mentioned above) see Flour Power.
These days, there's probably very little difference between Gold Medal and the store brand. They are both industrial products, and may well come from the same mill.
As for the King Arthur, that's a more complex question. Needless to say, their organic product is, well, organic. In the all-purpose department, they will claim that theirs is more nutritious due to their process. I'm in no position to prove or disprove that.
If it's baking you are doing, I would recommend a bake-off and see if you can tell the difference. If you are thickening sauces, heck, buy the store brand. Though, in some cases, a whole-wheat roux has a nice flavor.
Me, too. Flour (market) power?
Bob's Red Mill is the best flour I think.
My hunch is that the biggest difference you'll find with flour is freshness. If you could find grain milled yesterday (or today!), I bet it would have a much better taste, even if it was from the least expensive brand. So, possibly outside the scope of your question, but, an airtight container for flour is definitely a good idea, as is testing out a grain mill or finding a bakery that has fresh flour, if you're really interested in the secrets of wheat.
Nope. Flour is routinely aged in order for the baking properties to improve! See e.g. https://bakerpedia.com/processes/aged-flour/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.806260
| 2010-07-31T14:56:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3870",
"authors": [
"Chris Gwinn",
"Fadzy",
"Feasoron",
"J126",
"Jay Gerland",
"Popup",
"bmargulies",
"daalbert",
"djangofan",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8012",
"reggie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54488
|
What exactly is essence?
The most popular is the Brand's Essence of Chicken, but there are also other products that are "essence", like "essence of fish" and even "essence of beef". There are also other terms that seem to mean the same thing like, "extract of something" and "essential oils".
What exactly are these essences and extracts? Where do they come from? How are they processed?
Edit: Chicken essence recipe
I hadn't heard of this stuff. According to Brand's website, "Essence of Chicken is an all natural extract from quality chicken in concentrated form." Huh. That said, this does not appear to be an ingredient in cooking but a nutritional supplement and may therefore be off topic for Seasoned Advice. We're good at answering questions about food and food preparation, not so good at answering questions about supplements.
AFAIK, this product is popular in Asia and it is possible to use this to cook broth and stir fry foods. I suppose there are equivalent in the western world?
Based on your comment, it suddenly occurred to me that Asian food preparation often emphasizes on the "healing" 补 value, and in some way, there is always some "nutritional supplement" in a traditional meal, usually in the form of a "herbal soup" or some ingredient that is supposed to give the supplementary boost. So in our context, the distinction between food that we just eat for pleasure and nutrition intake is much less than in western context.
Reminds me of Ajinomoto aka MSG. I would have guessed that a "fond of X" is meant by "essence of X".
@Jake Very interesting. I guess maybe there is a gray area there in between what we'd consider a supplement in the west (essentially medicine and decidedly not food) and in the east.
Based on the recipe you provided, it's kinda like concentrated broth. It's produced by cooking the chicken covered in a double boiler, effectively steaming it and collecting the drippings.
I have no idea if that's exactly what's being sold in those nutritional supplement bottles, but given that people think the homemade version is, well, the homemade version, it must at least be close.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.806558
| 2015-02-07T06:38:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54488",
"authors": [
"Allan Mallinger",
"Amber Hutchison",
"Ching Chong",
"Jake",
"Marios Psyllides",
"Muhammad Hussain Rana",
"Preston",
"gary raymo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78291
|
How do you minimise hand washing between every step to keep tools clean?
Say you cooking beef steak:
You have to unwrap the beef from its packaging, lay it down, get blood on your hands, wash hands, sprinkle salt, wash hands, grind pepper, rub the seasoning into the beef, wash hands, grab the tongs etc..
Is it normal to wash hands after every step or is there a trick to avoid getting all the tools dirty?
If you watch TV, they don't ever wash as much as I do.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68085/physical-method-to-season-steaks/68102#68102 - we already have a q/a about the seasoning part.
Your observation regarding TV cooks not washing their hands is spot on. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment recently published a study about TV cooks (not) following proper kitchen hygiene - on average one error every 50 seconds! - and the influence of their behavior on their audiences.
@Stephie : On the 4th season of "Food Network Star", in one of the last episodes, they had the contestants cooking with kids on a talk show (the first year of Rachel Ra's show, I think), and Aaron McCargo, Jr spent about 1/3 of his time showing the kid how to wash his hands before they cooked. I didn't have any luck in finding the video online, though.
@Joe oh, good! So at least some TV cooks bother with being a good role model.
Bad news first:
Frequent washing is part of clean cooking. And while the TV chefs might seemingly ignore this step and simply wipe their hands on a towel, note that they a) typically don't serve these meals and don't do the cleanup after the show and b) the shows are heavily edited - no viewer wants to watch the chef wash their hands again.
But the good news is that you don't have to wash all the time. With a bit of practise, you can use the fact that you have two hands - keep one hand clean and dry, actually touch the meat only with the other one.
I did a longer explanation for a very similar question about seasoning steak.
This might need a bit more conscious planning and a mise en place for the first time, e.g. opening spice jars or chopping herbs before unwrapping the meat, but unless you are dealing with very large and heavy pieces of meat, the "dedicated hands" method works pretty well.
One clean hand and one dirty hand? Only touch the meat with one hand.
I guess you need two hands for pepper grinder but you could use a towel or not grind the pepper.
You see a lot chefs with a towel over their shoulder to wipe their hands and they use the apron to wipe their hands. In handling raw meat you need to worry about contamination so should wash your hands when you are done handling raw meat.
Another option is to hold the spice with a towel. Out at the BBQ there is no sink.
If I am going to BBQ a steak I open it at the BBQ on the paper. Season one side. Place that side down on the grill and then season the other side. Throw away the paper and then wash my hands.
If you are going to cook later then I like to season as soon as I get home before the paper gets bloody. Season and then put it in a sealed container in the fridge so you don't get odor contamination. Basically you should not be in a position that you need to handle really bloody meat in the first place.
In the professional shows they are pulling fresh meat that is not (typically) bloody and will just prep it and then wash their hands.
If frozen same thing. I will season lightly frozen and place it in a sealed container to thaw in the fridge. Then add more seasoning on the grill to taste. Professional kitchens (not high end) with frozen meat will typically do it that way.
I sense the need to cover food contamination general
Raw meat should not cross contaminate with cooked meat
Raw meat should not cross contaminate with raw or cooked fruits or
vegetables
You should even avoid cross contamination of most different meats (e.g. chicken and
beef)
In a small kitchen you should be prepping one or the other and never both. A commercial kitchen will be large for separate prep areas. Most restaurants have dedicated separate prep areas. I like to prep meats first as they are either going on the grill or if not go back in the fridge easily. A salad is something you want to prep last. Clean the kitchen and clean your hands. Vegetables you need for the meat is first like garlic and parsley and put them in small bowls. Pull your spices. Pulls your meats (one at a time) and prep. Going to a different type of meat (e.g. red to chicken) clean the prep area. I easily get away with just cleaning my hands once per meat.
Clean the kitchen and all prep pots and utensils before moving on to vegetables and fruits. You can still be working on cooking your meats as you are not handling raw meat.
you can pre grind it into a bowl as well, or buy an electric pepper grinder which grinds with one hand
@Batman Valid point but there is not a single meat that I would bother with ground pepper or salt in prep.
...steak? makes it so much better.
The TV part of this question: Apart from obvious edits and cuts (save in a live show), take a look again, are they using a pepper grinder or salt grinder, probably not, they have their seasonings in little pots, so can just grab a pinch as and when needed. It's not a problem to wash a small pot!
And to the washing of your hands... You are handling raw meat - now go and wash your hands! I don't mean to come across as bossy here, but that is the only thing you can do to stop cross contamination.
I personally hadn't appreciated how much I wash my hands until you posted this - and yes I do a lot of hand washing - it's just one of those things.
On TV they always touch cooked food with bare hands especially during plating. I assume it's not a common habit to wash hands in their culture?
I also use the one clean hand / one dirty hand technique. My clean hand is the one that I hold a knife in.
To avoid getting both hands dirty while opening the packaging, I'll use a paring knife to cut the packaging, and then my 'dirty' hand to unwrap it. I can then grab salt with my 'clean' hand. If I'm going to be using a spice blend, I'll loosen the lid ahead of time, so I can do it one handed. If I forgot, for the containers with large lids (that aren't flip-top and easily opened one-handed), I can put it between my arm and side to hold it while I remove the lid.
I don't tend to use just black pepper at this stage -- if I did, I'd either wash my hand, pre-grind some and sprinkle it on like the salt, or use tongs so I'd never get either hand dirty. (I always use tongs when grilling, as I'll need them at the grill, and I need two clean hands to open the door while holding the plate of meat).
I can then put the meat in the pan seasoned-side down, and then season the other side. (if grilling, I'll season both sides first, so I'm not trying to throw salt at the ones in the back without burning myself).
....
But just as likely is that I'll marinade the meat -- put it in a zip-top bag, wash hands, then add in the spices, oil, acid, herbs, whatever garlic qualifies as, etc. And then wash up, seal the bag, throw it in the fridge and wait 'til it's time to cook. I then use tongs to grab them out and put them on a plate w/ paper towels to dry off the surface, and then cook them.
What I have not figured out is when to swap out the tongs. If I'm grilling, I'll just shove them in the grill to bake off (yes, I have strange colors on the end of the tongs now), but when inside ... when do I switch from raw tongs to clean tongs? Before I flip? After I flip?
So, more dishes, but I usually just use two pairs of tongs, one to put the raw meat on the grill and flip when it's time and another to remove the cooked meat. Sometimes I even use a fork to put the raw meat on the grill and to a flip (I know, I know... I shouldn't pierce the meat).
@lspare : I suspect that piercing the meat when it's raw is not as bad as when it's cooked or cooking ... sort of like how you can get away with smashing a burger when it's just been put on, but not after it's been cooking. If that weren't the case, then I wouldn't be able to get away with my 'stab it repeatedly with a fork before marinating' technique
If you overcomplicate, it gets messier. My process:
Unwrap steak, drop in hot pan (possibly using a fork to transfer from package, which minimzes blood on the hands), put wrappings in garbage, wash hands, turn with a fork, wash the fork, turn again or remove. Salt and pepper can be applied at table if you feel a need for them. I don't think a half-decent steak has any such need...
Or unwrap steak, drop in small container, dispose of packaging, wash hands, add wine, garlic, etc. seal, place in fridge. Remove container from fridge, fork out the meat, drop in hot pan, as above...
Why do you need to wash your hands between salt and pepper? - Use a utensil to turn the meat if that's your issue.
Perfect answer!
The big difference between you and a restaurant cook is that you are doing everything at once. A cook does all the prep work in advance, handling all of the vegetables at once, then prepping all of the meat, and only washing hands between tasks.
Once service begins, they'll be at a single station, so they don't have to wash their hands between every step. Salads are handled at a different station from saute, for example. (At some restaurants salads are finished by the wait staff, whose hands won't be the cleanest but they will at least not have been handling raw meat.)
They are careful to ensure that they handle cooked food and serving plates only with clean utensils, or with a clean hand. That's part of the reason for tactics like the "chef's flip" in sauteeing: it's not for flash, or even because it's more effective, but just because it means that they don't have to touch another tool with a dirty hand. Worse case, they may use gloves when they absolutely have to handle something raw in in between handling meat.
You don't get to have the same level of organization as a restaurant brigade, since you're doing all of the work by yourself. But a bit of prior planning can minimize hand washing.
Doctors and nurses, by the way, tend to use alcohol hand sanitizer rather than washing their hands all the time. It's just as effective, and takes a lot less time, though it's murder on your skin. To my knowledge restaurants never do that, but it might be worth adopting at home.
In a pro or home kitchen it is not just wash your hands and move from meat to vegetables I hope. The entire prep area and all equipment should be cleaned and sanitized. Most restaurants have separate prep areas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.806789
| 2017-02-10T13:42:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78291",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Jake",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lspare",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63657
|
Shelf-stable "frosting" for a savory "gingerbread" house?
My mom read a Rachel Ray magazine, and is planning a craft project with my nephews where they make a log cabin out of pretzel rods. The problem is that it likely won't be eaten on the same day.
The magazine called for using spray cheese, which I would assume would have lots of preservatives, and she was thinking of using whipped cream cheese (until I raise the issue of storage).
Everything that I can think of to use (icing, caramel, melted chocolate) is relatively sweet. Is there something that we could use that would be sticky, non-sweet and be safe after being stored at room temperature for a couple of days? Given how it's being used, it won't be tightly wrapped.
Peanut butter might work. It is safe at room temperature and not really sweet. It is somewhat soft, but so is the canned cheese. Natural peanut butter with the oil poured off might be thicker for use as mortar. The flavor would be good with pretzels.
We went with peanut butter, but I had forgotten about your recommendations of natural w/ the oil poured off. (my mom had gotten natural, as she was avoiding sugar, but I stirred it, so it was then too thin to use.) We sent my step-dad to the store for homogenized ... which worked, but it was so thick that I burst my piping bag. (ended up switching to a freezer bag that I brought).
Of course, the structure was barely stable as it was (and I don't think spray cheese would've been any better). If I had to do it again, I'd make a cardboard plug, wrap it in aluminum foil, then stick it the tray then stick the pretzels to it, rather than assuming they'll stay up on their own. If nothing else, it'd be easier to make the sloped roof work.
Maybe, just maybe, meringue will work. You'll have to dehydrate it after assembly, putting it in the oven at low and slow, like a baiser.
If you want to give it a shot, try it out first. I'm not certain it will hold well enough on the slippery pretzel surface, and it's also possible that the logs will become unpleasantly dry.
Another option would be to try something based on a vegetable paste, like ajvar or kyopolu. But while the paste itself is preserved, it is wet enough to wet the logs through so they could be unsafe at room temperature and/or get an unapetizing look. Maybe binding it with gelatine or similar will work.
Possibly you could experiment with something fat based, like buttercream without the butter. Solid fats can actually whip well without sugar. It will be rather heavy though, so maybe emulsify one of said preserves into it.
Personally, I'd also welcome a whipped ganache made from 99% chocolate and cream, without any sugar. But this is unlikely to appeal to children.
Finally, molecular gastronomy may offer a way out. You could try to make a set foam from something which does not have enough nutrients to spoil, in the simplest case just colored water. Again, you have to work in a way which keeps the logs from getting too soggy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.807594
| 2015-11-20T00:07:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63657",
"authors": [
"Abdullah sangi",
"Fortunate Chilhume",
"Graham Horton",
"Joe",
"Maria Barranca",
"Rebekah P",
"Sandra Chevin",
"Susan Lock",
"boon yen chua",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154853",
"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
}
|
96365
|
Does using wild rice in soup suck up all the broth if it is held after cooking?
This is my experience with rice and pasta. I was wondering if wild rice is less ‘needy’ in this regard and would soak up less broth.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20858/67
As you many know wild rice isn't a type of rice but rather a grass. Your intuition is correct that wild rice absorbs a lot less liquid than white or brown rice. However, what you can normally buy is a mix of the two so this may not be the solution you would want to go with particularly since straight wild rice is harder to digest.
If you want rice or pasta to absorb less cook them separately and combine shortly before serving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.807869
| 2019-02-15T15:25:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96365",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17701
|
How do I recognize that yogurt has turned bad?
Possible Duplicate:
How do you know when a cultured item is no longer safe to consume?
How does one tell when yogurt turns bad? Month-old yogurt smells the same as just purchased. The only visible difference is some separation. What are the rules of thumb?
I don't know what the official guidelines on yogurt are, but in my experience, yogurt, creme fraiche and other cultured dairy products never go bad in the fridge, because no bacteria other than their own culture can grow in them. You throw it out if a) you've got so much of its native bacteria that it is too sour and stinky (almost never happens with the mild yogurt in western supermarkets. Plus, it isn't risky to eat then, just unpleasant) or b) it catches mold (you see that easily).
Hi kzh, this question has actually been answered a couple of times here - see the linked question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.807956
| 2011-09-13T11:30:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17701",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"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
}
|
10317
|
Taking it to the next level, systematically
Possible Duplicate:
Books that explain the science of cooking?
Hi there.
I really like to cook, and I also like to experiment a bit with spices and ingredients, but I sometimes feel that the complexity of it all is overwhelming: How long and at what heat do I heat this? Which spice should be added at the beginning, which at the end? I feel that blindly experimenting will take ages to yield useful results.
What I don't like about most standard cook books is that they tell you step by step what you should do, but never explain why it is done. If they would tell, I could then start applying this knowledge in other places, I would understand which steps I could alter to achieve variations in taste and which steps are absolutely essential to avoid disaster.
Are there good resources that really teach and explain the art of cooking?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.808154
| 2010-12-20T02:41:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10317",
"authors": [
"Vicki",
"fiona",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21070",
"unforgettableidSupportsMonica",
"user2398041",
"windy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45614
|
Torte Milanese without puff pastry dough
I'd like to make Torte Milanese today, and I wouldn't use puff pastry dough in that recipe since my home-made puff pastry is not as soft as it is expected for such a dish. What other dough could I use here?
If you use something other than puff pastry it's not a Torte Milanese anymore, and other kinds of pastry will not hold together in the same way puff pastry does. Puff pastry's layers provide a certain amount of strength and will help keep the shape when sliced, other pastries will crumble much more easily. You can use short crust or any other pastry, it won't be the same but maybe that's not so important to you.
You could of course just buy pre-made puff pastry, there's no shame in that. Puff pastry is challenging and time-consuming to make, and in many places you can buy frozen pre-made all butter puff pastry which gives excellent results. I've made puff pastry, but when I need it I usually buy it as I don't have hours free to spend on it.
One option would be to make "rough puff" pastry, also known as "flaky pastry" rather than full-blown puff pastry. It's less time consuming, a bit more forgiving, and will still give a similar product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.808273
| 2014-07-16T07:24:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45614",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46839
|
Does tempered chocolate remain tempered and only needs liquefying?
I tempered a few bars of chocolate yesterday and it was a successful experience. Then I stored the remaining in the fridge. If I liquefy it, is it tempered chocolate and can be used as desired or should I do it all again?
If you melt tempered chocolate it loses it's tempering completely and you'll need to do it all again. There's no point in pre-tempering chocolate for storage as there's no benefit if you're going to melt and re-use it.
If you melt it fully this is true, but you can melt it very gently so that most of it never goes above the right temperature, can't you?
@Jefromi but the degree of finesse and control to achieve that is very hard. I tried a lot, all the times it de-tempered.
It is certainly safer to re-temper chocolate, but it is possible to melt chocolate without letting it go 'out of temper'. The typical upper bound for working with tempered chocolate is 90 F (32 C) for dark chocolate. Using a double-boiler (or an improvised equivalent), it is possible to melt chocolate to a workable state without going over this temperature.
The short answer is likely that, in many cases, it will be easier to re-temper the chocolate than to protect it from higher temperatures during the melting process.
As a side note, a cool, dark place is a preferable storage environment for tempered chocolate. The fridge's humidity may cause it to bloom (develop light patches or spots due to fat separation).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.808389
| 2014-09-03T04:40:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46839",
"authors": [
"April Wolanski",
"CHERYL GRIFFY",
"Cascabel",
"Charlene Traversie",
"Elaine Rice",
"Jeannine Benson",
"Lisa Horner",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25234"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67444
|
How to figure out where is the best place to store homemade cookies: in the fridge or on the counter, in an airtight container or elsewhere
The other day I baked some Nutella cookies (the famous four ingredient recipe which calls for egg, Nutella, vanilla and flour), they tasted awesome but the next day they became hard and chewy. A little Google search and figured they must be stored in an airtight container in the fridge. I bake several types of cookies but I have problem storing them so that several unknown factors don't affect their taste and texture. How do you figure out where is the best place to store homemade cookies to preserve flavor? Does it depend on the ingredients, as in if there is milk, store in the fridge?
It's not solely ingredients, as sugar cookies have milk & butter, yet do fine out of the fridge. Other cookies become problematic in the fridge (as they're too brittle & crumbly when cold), so it's not a universal solution, either. It often takes a trial (and possible failure) to determine if you need to place things between layers of cookies, and how high you can safely stack them. I used to have a lot of the Gladware 'family size' containers for my xmas cookie baking, but they went and changed the lid design, and they now take up ~2x the space to store.
I worked in a professional bakery and also have baked massive amounts of cookies every year for Christmas for as far back as I can remember. My preferred method of storage is in airtight containers in the freezer and doling out however many cookies at a time as needed. I find that any baked goods that are frozen soon after baking will have the same characteristics as just-baked items. It's the only way that I can bake for a few weeks and give fresh cookies as gifts and send through the mail. There are a few varieties that I do need to layer between waxed paper sheets, like chewy oatmeal, but all the cookies I've ever made through the years come right back to life once defrosted.
If the cookies are baked, I cool them completely. Then, I put them on a plate and under a cake dome. They look nice, don't get smashed or crumbled, keep their flavor, and maintain their texture for a few days.
I do not store baked cookies in the refrigerator because I have had problems with the cookies becoming dry (even in an airtight plastic bag).
If I don't need to bake all of the cookies at once, my best results come from freezing the cookie dough and baking on demand.
I mostly bake chocolate chip or sugar cookies. So, my answer is based on those types of cookies.
The cookie jar came into being for a reason. It is a place to keep cookies in a controlled environment that is not so open as to dry the cookie out, but is not so air tight that moisture from the cookie can't escape the container.
Hard dry cookies (or at least harder and dryer than intended) are no good. And floppy crumbled cookies from sitting in a humid sealed container are no good either. Hence the cookie jar where cookies can be kept for weeks before completely drying out, but not losing their integrity due to being trapped in with their own moisture.
Cookie jars are horrid. I can't possibly stack my soft cookies 6-8 rows deep like that, they'd be crumbs by the time I got to the bottom. Cookie jars should be banned.
Then use a longer shallower tin, the concept however is the same. FYI however, although a cookie or two sometimes gets broken, I never had problems with a cookie jar. My aunt has a cookie Ttin that is about oh 20inches in diameter, but stacked so that each subsequent tin was the nested lid of the layer below with a final lid on top. It was ingenious. Chocolate chip cookies lasted for weeks before becoming hard.
I don't see how this answers the question. The cookie jar is only good for the type of cookie which needs a cookie jar. Something like lady fingers or speculatius won't fare well in a cookie jar. You never addressed how one knows which cookies go in the jar and which don't.
@rumtscho: I think this answer is implying that the cookie jar should be used for all types of cookies. I don't agree, but that's how I interpreted this answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.808558
| 2016-03-15T08:10:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67444",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Corban Russell",
"Derek Hill",
"Escoce",
"Jane Tinder",
"Joe",
"Juli Montesano",
"Laura Kendall",
"Linda P.",
"Marti",
"Sharon Blend",
"Tim Lengs",
"Valerie Palmer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"stev jones",
"william adams"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45581
|
Thinned yogurt instead of milk
A tortilla bread recipe calls for 3/4 cup milk, is it okay to use yogurt which is thinned by water?
Flour 2 cups
Baking powder 1 and 1/2 tsp
Salt 1/2 tsp
Oil 2 tbsp
Warm milk 3/4 cup
Many other recipes call for water instead, but I believe milk makes the bread softer and affect the texture. That's why I'd use yogurt.
Wait... 1.5 cups of baking powder? That can't be right.
@derobert: Ooops, I meant to write "tsp"! Sorry, edited.
Yogurt will work just fine. It will even give you some nice extra flavor.
Unless it is greek yogurt you don't need to thin it at all. Greek yogurt has some water drained off but normal yogurt has the same water content as the milk it was made from.
In some recipes you might have to thin it to get the right consistency to work with but in the case of flour doughs you can just mix it into the dough straight.
Yogurt is acidic, much more so than milk. So when you substitute it for milk, you're affecting the acid-base balance in your recipe, and you may need to change some of the baking powder to baking soda to restore it.
Beat me to the punch. Given the amount of baking soda present in this recipe, I think it'd be okay, but I'd be very cautious about applying this rule in other recipes. The pH change could have a more substantial effect on rising through its effect on yeast and structural proteins, and definitely (implied by this answer) on recipes calling for very little baking powder or soda.
Yes, you should be fine using thinned yoghurt. You are correct in your belief that milk (or rather, fat of any kind) softens the dough.
Thank you for your answer. The only problem is that it must be warm milk, so should I add warm water to yogurt or do you have a better suggestion?
Add warm water, yes. That's common sense isn't it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.808950
| 2014-07-15T06:51:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45581",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gigili",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67729
|
Could all types of filling be used as macaron filling?
I've done a lot of research about French macarons recently and figured (every single recipe has a sentence describing macarons as finicky) the amount of ingredients for macaron shells cannot be changed. I'd have changed the amount of sugar used if I could, but then I prefer to get a beautiful macaron shell that is too sweet for my taste rather than a cracked one which tastes OK! So I decided to go for a filling that could milden the sweetness of macaron shells. The question is, do all types of filling work as a macaron filling? For instance, I have a recipe for cake filling (frosting) which calls for:
600 gr mascarpone or cream cheese
1 cup powdered sugar
1/2 cup cocoa powder
200 gr melted chocolate mixed together and fold in 2 cups whipped cream, which tastes awesome. Is it possible to use it as macaron filling? Does it hold in between macaron shells, could it be stored on the counter and etc.
It will be very difficult to know whether the final texture of this "filling" is suitable for macarons unless you tell us about the texture.... unless you post the exact recipe for us to try (or be familiar with already). Could you please add that to your post? My main concern would be the use of non-shelf-stable ingredients, particularly the whipped cream, would make them soften quickly, if not altogether soggy.
@catija I have the same concern, if that wouldn't work as a filling, what filling would be suitable? I'll edit my post to add the recipe, thanks.
I am not sure this question is objectively answerable...as, really, almost anything can work...it depends on what result you want. For example, I make cocoa macaroon with a chicken liver pate filling that is savory and delicious. As long as the filling is able to be piped and will not run out, it will work. Maybe I am not understanding the question.
Yes. I always use a buttercream frosting though, as I know how to make that in my head, know how to flavor it, and it's stable. You can use jams, cream cheese frosting, etc.
I don't make macarons often, and I really hate hunting around for fillings that work, so I use a very comprehensive list of ideas from Sortrachen. There are 20 recipes there, so it's not often I have to do a lot of searching. When I'm refreshing my mind as to the types of alternatives I could use, I head to Indulge with Mimi. As you can see if you check it out, it shows that just about anything can be used as a filling, but with different results for different occasions; for instance, one would never use a jelly filling in a macaron that is going to wait a full day before being served. Mimi does a great job of outlining the pros and cons of each type of filling, while Sortrachen delivers some awesome recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.809136
| 2016-03-24T19:45:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67729",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"Gigili",
"Ian Brodie",
"Jane Hunt",
"Katy Parker",
"Mlky Way",
"Phyllis Wilson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"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
}
|
22984
|
Mug-cake mix at home
I would like to make my own mix for "mug cake" -- that is to say, prepackaged instant cake mix you dump into a mug, add liquid, and microwave.
Is there anything special about mug cake that makes it cook in the microwave better? Will ordinary box cake scaled down work?
I'll want to make my own mix. Is there anything about boxed cake mix that's special beyond just sifting dry ingredients together, maybe throwing in some powdered milk so I don't have to use milk as my liquid? And can I do anything about requiring eggs -- for example, using some kind of powdered egg?
Are there any types of recipes for which this simply will not work? I kind of suspect Angel Food cake won't work in a mug :)
If you're searching for recipes, this one was tested and approved (but don't tell anyone): http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8AgfPCLRBeI/TgS7AP3M4GI/AAAAAAAAAKw/JFDNVuBhBbQ/s1600/1305292640193.jpg
Not really. If you mix up normal cake batter with the directions, and microwave it, it will cook. It doesn't taste like a baked cake, but its certainly edible.
Actually, specifically, you add Angel Food cake to other cake mixes. The reason is that angel food cake mix usually contains powdered egg whites. The other option is indeed powdered egg, but angel food cake mix is more common in these recipes.
Mainly its about expectations. Many things 'work' in the sense that they're edible, but they may not resemble the product you think they should.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.809385
| 2012-04-12T16:11:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22984",
"authors": [
"C Nolen Hudson",
"Chelsea Artelle",
"Hilmar",
"Mien",
"Sensii Miller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51960",
"jburgess",
"mxlian",
"user14233"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15587
|
Name of tea with tiny green leaves?
Please help me to identify the tea that I tried a long time ago.
It had very small bright green leaves (3-5 mm long). After brewing leaves became fully open, with very accurate undamaged leaves. The tea brew itself was green, with a slightly bitter taste and nice aftertaste, and it produced a very energetic effect.
I don't remember the tea name, but really want to buy one. Probable origin of the tea was Japan, Nepal, or Bhutan.
I cannot find a tea that matches your description, because the combination of Japanese style flavor and color and whole, small leaves is conflicting. I'm trying to find more information about Nepalese and Bhutanese green teas, but unfortunately they're not as well known or documented.
Perhaps we can work together to coax your memory and pin it down more?
I have four immediate questions to help pin it down more:
Was the brewed tea yellowish at all, or a true green shade (less common)? I'm assuming you meant a true green when you said "green" but it isn't terribly specific.
Were there any sweetness to the tea?
What was the "nice aftertaste" you describe like?
Can you think of any other flavor or smell descriptions that apply?
Here's what I get from your description:
The use of whole leaves, not fragments and not pearls, rule out several categories of green tea, and is probably the most useful information. It is also unusual for Japan, which tends to fragment the leaves and roll them into little spikes called sencha rolls. Many Japanese teas include parts of the tea plant other than just the leaves (buds, twigs, etc).
The lack of a yellow tinge to the brewed tea suggests a Japanese, rather than Chinese, style green tea. This is the result of cooking the leaves in processing using steam (Japan), rather than a hot pan (China), the latter of which produces "aroma molecules characteristic of roasted foods (pyrazines, pyrroles) and a yellow-green infusion" (On Food and Cooking, pg 437). If there were grassier notes, that would further suggest a Japanese tea. Ceylon green teas are kin to assam tea, and tend to be darker in color, so that's right out.
The energetic effect and bitterness suggest a higher caffeine and phenolic compound level than normal for a green tea, and rule out something like Dragonwell which is naturally quite sweet. Which is a shame, because Dragonwell is phenomenal, and varieties can have the color and leave shape you describe.
EDIT: Try sencha!
Based on your description, I think it's the best way to go forward, followed by kabusecha. "Grassy" is a descriptor usually attached to the Japanese way of preparing green teas. I always think of it as the flavor of sencha, although it applies to other Japanese green teas. I think your best bet would be ignoring the problem of leaf rolling (there may be some tea manufacturer with an eccentric way of handling it) and trying a variety of top-quality senchas to see if you can find one with a similar flavor. The best ones will be made from very young, small leaves and buds.
Thank's a lot! Color was light-green, no sweetness, aftertaste was not very strong, don't remember it. That's all, sorry. I was amazed by that tea because - I saw for the first time tea with such tiny leaves, green color, little bit grassy and biter taste. And yes, I think this type of tea is more Japan style, Nepalese and Bhutan was mentioned because the person who give me the sample of that tea was very often in that countries (but that fact can unconnected with the tea).
I edited my answer, but try some top-quality sencha teas, and see if you get what you're looking for. I can't find a better match with the info at hand.
Thank's a lot! I took a look at the Japanese green teas and yep it should be one of the high-grade green teas - Shincha Matcha somehow fits the description.
What you're describing is in fact the grade of the tea instead of the type. There are many types of green teas from different countries, but they can be produced using broken leaves, large leaves, small leaves or even buds. Especially for green tea, the use of small leaves and buds generally means it's a relatively higher grade green tea.
I think given your description, it might be a mao jian green tea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.809544
| 2011-06-18T20:29:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15587",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chemah Wahidin",
"LyK",
"bdsl",
"chupvl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6533",
"mrtsherman",
"quilkin"
],
"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
}
|
57707
|
Wrong consistency when making "after eight" chocolate
I am following a very simple recipe for making peppermint-stuffed chocolate, like the "After Eight" kind. I have a problem with the uniformity of the mint mass and am looking for advice.
A few spoons of egg white is hand-mixed with 60 g flormelis (icing sugar). Then a few drops of peppermint extract is mixed in. That's it.
The texture tastes good but is very "corny". You can taste and feel the small icing sugar grains, as if it is not fully dissolved. It tastes very strongly of icing sugar and then the aftertaste is the perfect peppermint taste.
I am looking for a method or recipe to make a smooth version of mint filling for the chocolates.
Recipe requests are off-topic but I can solve your problem nonetheless:
After Eights are filled with soft fondant, which is sugar, often glucose syrup and water boiled to the soft ball stage, then whiped. If you google "poured fondant" you should find enough recipes online.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.809868
| 2015-05-22T23:16:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57707",
"authors": [
"Alonso Rojas",
"Digger",
"Richard Potvin",
"Tom Rogers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137336",
"wendy lake"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93336
|
How to cook perfect long grain rice?
Every time I make rice it comes out mushy and clumps together. How can I get rice to cook properly and be fluffy with grain separation and everything?
Please share how you're cooking the rice now. There are many different rice cooking techniques, and for that matter, different kinds of rice. We're good here at improving your techniques, less good at guessing what you want.
As I don't know what kind of rice you are using, but there are some tips which can help you to make the rice less mushy and non-sticky grains:
You can add one tablespoon of lemon juice so it will help the rice not to stick.
Do not cover the pan with a lid while you are boiling the rice.
Do not stir with spoon too much as it can break the grains of rice into pieces, which can cause mushy rice.
Cooking rice with too high flame can also cause the rice to clumps.
Also you should rinse the rice before cooking them.
I also followed these tips and it works for me.
Lemon juice? How does that work? That's new to me.
I used it many times and it works for me.
i actually don't know its scientific reason, and it also make my rice tasty and non-sticky
I'm going to go contra to pretty much all the advice so far, but this is how I've been cooking rice for 25 years...
Clear-lidded pans make this far less guesswork.
Use a heavy-bottomed saucepan with a tight-fitting lid, 3 times the volume of your finished rice.
Don't rinse the rice, you don't need to.
Use your coolest, most even burner - this is not necessarily the smallest. Sometimes the tiny ones generate bad hot-spots that a medium one wouldn't.
Boil the kettle.
Pre-heat the pan on high.
Add rice to your pre-heated pan. Salt as required.
Immediately add 1.75 x the volume of water, not double.
That should immediately hit a rapid boil because of the pre-heating.
Stir once, just enough to ensure the grains are separated.
Drop the heat to minimum [on gas this is near instantaneous, you might need to wait a second on electric]
Put the lid on.
The contents should foam almost to the top but not go over - lift & replace the lid if it looks like it will go over, otherwise leave alone.
Simmer at this minimum temperature for 12-15 mins [depends how low you can get the heat]
Don't lift the lid to "see if it's done". Learn when it's done by repetition.
'When it's done' btw, is when all the water is gone; you might be able to hear a slight crackle as the last bit dries.
After the required time, switch off the heat, leave the lid on.
Allow to rest for another 15-20 minutes.
Fluff briefly with your spatula; no great effort should be required at this stage.
Serve.
The rice will be separate & fluffy, none will be stuck to the bottom.
This works for pretty much any rice type - long grain, basmati, or short-grain, glutinous [short grain, of course, will not separate in the same way].
*Almost copy/paste from my own answer at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/93672/42066
What I do with my rice (Basmati) is the following:
Rinse under cold water in a strainer and leave to stand so the water can drain.
In a pan put 2 tbsp of oil per cup of rice (I use olive oil but any (vegetable) oil should do). So if cooking 2 cups of rice I would use 4 tbsp of oil.
Warm the rice and oil together and fry it for about 3 minutes on a medium heat (using the smallest burner) whilst stirring regularly to prevent burning.
Add per cup of rice 1,5 cups of boiling water and salt to taste (I use 1 tsp per cup of rice), stir once, put the lid on the pan and turn down the heat to the lowest flame for 22 minutes.
After the 22 minutes turn off the fire and let it stand (with the lid on!) for another 10 minutes.
After the 10 minutes remove the lid from the pan stir through to loosen the grains and serve.
At no point after having added the water should the lid from the pan be removed up until finished.
The simplest way to prevent rice from sticking is to rinse it before cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.809994
| 2018-10-28T12:31:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93336",
"authors": [
"ASIM",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69882",
"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
}
|
86212
|
When changing recipe size, do I proportionally change bake time?
I'm making chocolate cupcakes and halving the recipe. Do I halve the baking time as well? I'm not changing pans, it's a normal cupcake tin.
Is each cupcake the same size as in the original recipe, and you are just making half as many? Or are you making half-sized cupcakes?
Baking times are based on the size of what's in the oven. If making 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 or 48 cupcakes of the same size, you bake them the same time, as each one "sees" the oven the same way or has the same volume/thickness from the outside where the heat is to the center.
If making mini-cupcakes or giant cupcakes, or baking a cake using a cupcake recipe, the baking time needs to change with the size of what goes into the oven full of batter, as there is more or less batter to be cooked through from the outside edge and bottom/top of the pan.
It might help to add that the changes in baking time do not scale linearly with the size of the item to be baked. In other words, baking a cake that is twice the size in one pan as the recipe specifies does not mean you should bake it twice as long. I'd estimate 10% - 30% longer in a case like that.
@ToddWilcox - yeah, the square cube law makes such scaling tricky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.810402
| 2017-12-09T14:14:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86212",
"authors": [
"James McLeod",
"Megha",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85561
|
Overly salted sauerkraut
I made two batches of sauerkraut. The first one turned out great and is already canned. In the 2nd batch I put too much salt, and it is not working as quickly as the 1st.
What I was wondering: if I put a couple of raw potatoes in the overly salty batch, would it draw out some of the salt?
I'd actually add more cabbage rather than an entirely different vegetable.
Despite what grandma believed, potatoes are not this magic salt-absorbing sponge: the advice to add potatoes to oversalted foods stems from the fact that more food with the same amount of salt equals less-salty food. In other words, potatoes don't absorb salt, they dilute it; and pretty much anything you add to a dish will serve that same dilution purpose, as long as what you're adding doesn't contain salt already. Thus, to dilute the salt in a vat of cabbage, I'd add more cabbage. Yes, this will result in some of the cabbage being more-fermented/softer than the rest, but depending on how long the sauerkraut has been going already, it may not be a noticeable difference in the finished product.
You can also try removing the salt by pouring off some of the brine that has developed and replacing it with water, but you'll be diluting the cabbage taste as well as the salt.
Another option is to just let the sauerkraut ferment, knowing that it'll take longer because of the increased salt levels, and when you're using it, rinse the bejeezus out of it.
Try pouring off some of the brine that the kraut is sitting in and replacing it with equal amounts of water. That's an easy way to lower the salt concentration without changing too many other variables.
Maybe not the answer you want but ; I would throw it out, salt and cabbage are cheap. I have put a sliced apple and a pinch of yeast on my Kraut to give it a fast start.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.810544
| 2017-11-10T21:22:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85561",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60160
|
Chocolate: condensation issues
I made chocolates in a mold but when I take it out of the refrigerator it starts melting and water accumulates on surface.
My process:
I melted the chocolate and poured it into the mold and then kept it in the refrigerator.
But when taken out afterwards it melts at 25°C also and condensation forms on the surface.
Is there a way to keep the surface dry at 25°C?
Welcome to the site! Could you explain a bit more what you did exactly? The more details, the better the answers... Again, welcome!
I melted the chocolate and poured in to the mold and then kept in the refrigerator when tken back after it gets melted at 25 deg also and moisture accumulates on surfaces is ther a way to maintain the surface dry up to a temp 25 Deg
ah nice, that's what I assumed. I was typing an answer while you added that.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21137/8305
There is very little information to go on, but the most likely answer from your description is condensation. Assuming that you kept it in the fridge overnight, then took it out and removed it from the mold, the chocolate will start "sweating" immediately.
If that's your problem: don't keep chocolate in the fridge. The proper temperature for chocolate hardening is 20 Celsius, try to keep at it as much as possible. If you are too much above, the chocolate can bloom, if you are below, it can condense. If you are not a perfectionist chocolatier, several degrees celsius difference in either direction will still produce a good enough result, but a fridge is always bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.810705
| 2015-08-23T06:33:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60160",
"authors": [
"Carol Doone-Ames",
"Debra Ridgway",
"Douglas Richards",
"Geoffrey Ryan",
"Jay",
"Muhammed Naseem",
"Paul Alsbury",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"robert smith",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71229
|
12-hour fermentation makes dough wetter
After bulk fermentation of my dough for 12 hours, I find that the dough is too wet or sticky. Should I bulk ferment for a shorter period of time, and retard it in the refrigerator?
I'm currently baking cinnamon bread with nuts. The recipe is 600g bread flour, 200g warm water, 200g warm milk, 150 grams chopped unroasted walnut or pecan nuts. 2 tsp active dry yeast, 10g salt, 30g sugar.
After combining the above ingredients, the dough looks and feels perfect and taut. I leave it to bulk-ferment overnight (not "overday") in room temps of 29-30 C.
Here's the problem:
After bulk fermentation, the dough is slightly wetter and thus too sticky. I could knead it for 15 minutes, and still wouldn't come-together. During the final proofing, it would spread towards the edges of my loaf pan, but wouldn't rise above the rim. In spite of scoring it 4 times and spraying it with water every 10 minutes inside the oven, the bottom still cooks much later and slightly dislodges the crust that set much earlier.
You are overproofing your dough. 2 teaspoons dry yeast, 600g flour and a warm rest of twelve hours sounds like a recipe for disaster to me - not to mention that half of the liquid is milk, which would warrant a closer look into food safety topics as well.
Also, any extended kneading (if used) is usually prior to bulk fermentation, possibly with an autolyse step before adding yeast, but not after a bulk rise. You might choose to "punch down" your dough depending on your desired crumb structure, but kneading renders the previous bulk fermentation moot.
Taking your recipe and environement into account, I would expect your first rise (= double volume) to be complete in under an hour. It seems that due to enzymatic and yeast activity your dough lost its internal structure and the gluten network started to break down. The fact that your dough tends to flow outward, not rise up is another indicator. You can slash and steam as much as you like, once the gluten network broke and the yeast is exhausted, an overprooved dough will not yield good results.
For cold fermentation in the refrigerator the rule of thumb is 1-2% fresh (cake) yeast / 0.33 - 0.66% dry yeast, based on flour weight. For your 600g, that means between 2 and 4 g (or between a generous 1/2 to 1 teaspoon). Use cold ingredients and rest for 8-24 hours. The shorter you want to rest, the higher the yeast ratio, obviously.
400g liquids to 600g flour means a hydration of 67%, which is rather high. Not too high by any means, but high enough that the dough will inevitably be rather sticky. But the main culprit is what Stephie indicated - letting the dough rise for 12 hours in such a warm environment (30°C) is much more than necessary, and will result in the gluten starting to degrade. What I would do is to mix together the dough, and let it rise for a short while to get the yeast started, and leaving it in the fridge overnight. Next morning, just form into the desired shape, and let it rise once more on the oven pan.
(Thanks @Stephie, for pointing out that a whole hour at such a high temperature is too much. I normally leave it for about an hour, but I don't have 30°C in my kitchen.)
With the original yeast content, an hour on the counter plus overnight in the fridge is too much. Remember that it takes a while until the warm dough is chilled enough to significantly slow down the yeast.
I misconceived the long fermentation from a certain cooking channel, since I was sold on fermentation as flavor. Thank you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.810869
| 2016-07-05T18:13:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71229",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63944
|
Freezing a chicken in a bag
I bought a chicken that you cook in the bag. I put it in the freezer, when I took it out to thaw, I read on bag "Do not freeze".
Will it be safe to eat?
As far as food safety is concerned you should be absolutely in the clear - frozen food lasts way longer than refrigerated.
But I see two points why the manufacturer might advise not to freeze the chicken:
Sometimes chicken is treated (aka infused) with water and spices which plumps up the meat. The excess water might increase the cell damage that is inevitable when freezing meat, leading to more water loss when thawing / cooking and ironically "drier" meat than untreated. This may or may not be the case. The manufacturer might just want to avoid the inevitable quality loss any meat faces when frozen. Especially as the "ready to cook" packages contain a lot of air, which may lead to freezer burn over time.
If the chicken is intended to be cooked in the bag, this means the bag is food-safe and heat-proof, but not necessarily freezer-proof. Plastic foils for freezing need special chemical / physical properties or they might become brittle at very low temperatures, causing them to develop small cracks or tears, which can favour freezer-burn or, in a later step, lead to a leaking package when preparing the chicken. You didn't post the instructions for cooking or roasting the chicken, just be aware of the fact that the package may leak a bit and use a tray below in the oven.
Note that some manufacturers / sellers give freezing instructions for their chicken packs:
Morrison supermarkets PLC writes
Suitable for home freezing.
Freeze on day of purchase and use within 1 month.
Defrost in a refrigerator overnight.
Once thawed do not refreeze.
That won't be an issue as far as the safety of the chicken, if anything it might negatively affect the quality. It's never a safety concern to freeze anything that was safe before went into the freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.811154
| 2015-11-29T08:52:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63944",
"authors": [
"Alex Terry",
"Andrea Oat",
"Carol Madonna",
"Gabriel Catolos",
"Karen Anderson",
"Katrina Hayes",
"Rudy Perez",
"cj h",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152356",
"julie guyton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77155
|
How should I decorate a Spanish Epiphany cake?
I live in Spain, however, being a Brit, Jan 6th really isn't high on my list of holidays - but what the heck!
Tonight I have a few Spanish friends coming over, so I have made a bit of a buffet, laid down quite a bit of alcohol and want to make the cake that they all seem to think is obligatory for Epiphany - help!
I have a whole raft of ideas in front of me, the basic cake is not the issue, it's the decoration and any significance to the decoration - I really don't want to offend anyone...
I don't think you can offend good Christians by trying your best to show respect to their holidays and traditions. So whilst I can't really answer, I wanted to point out that you shouldn't worry too much, even if you will make some mistakes it shouldn't be any issue, maybe a bit of friendly laugh.
Just been edited again. I am trying to explain that I do not understand the difference in culture, but am trying my best to please my friends from my host nation. Is the edit because I pointed out my nationality? Which by the way is British, my host nation being Spain.
Edit clarified you're asking about decorations and didn't affect the meaning of your question, as far as I see.
You should be able to get the information you want by doing a Google search. I did a quick search for a Spanish epiphany cake and got tons of results. I saw a lot of different recipes and lots of cakes decorated in many different ways. You may want to look for something that is specific to your region in Spain.
We are a food site, not a culture site. If you have religious etiquette questions, they don't really fit here. I edited your title because it was not descriptive of your actual question. Titles should themselves be questions, not just a group of keywords. Please stop thinking of edits as criticism. We are trying to help you succeed.
disagree, but what the heck I will take this to meta as my thoughts are not welcome here.
If you do a google image search for roscón de reyes (Spanish spelling) you'll find them usually decorated with candied fruit, either just red (glacé cherries), red and green or red, green and orange. Sources vary, whether the fruit are supposed to stand for the jewels, the Three Wise Men brought to Bethlehem or for the jewels on a crown per se. Coarse sugar and chopped / slivered almonds are also rather frequent. Overall, there seem lots of different layouts and decorations, so I think, if you somewhat stick to "(alternating types of) candied fruit arranged on top", you're good to go.
If you do have a bit of a perfectionistic attitude, remember that the traditional decoration may vary from region to region, even from family to family. While I personally believe that your friends are probably already deeply moved by your gesture (otherwise I'd have them bring the cake), if you want some inspiration, I suggest you take a walk and check the window displays of your local bakeries - they'll have what's considered "the right" version in your place.
Not a perfectionist, and yes, I have seen what is in the windows and the supermarkets, but I like my friends and want to do something a bit special but not offend them. As suggested to me, this is not cultural, however, culture plays an integral part in cooking, and in no way should be ignored. I have made my cake (hence the time I have been away from this site), and hope that my friends enjoy it, I trust that this is the end of this discussion, it was only meant to ask a question, not start a war.
Also, and I in no way wish to diminish anyone on ANY site, anyone can do a google search, if that was the way forward then why have this site?
@dougal because not everything can be googled. This site lives from real problems that need real people to understand the questions and answer the specific problem. So while google might give a bunch of answers for certain key words, we trust the comunity to pick and vote for the answer(s) that solve the specific problem. And sometimes we have to ask for details in comments, which is also hard to do via google.
@dougal And I certainly agree that cooking happens in a cultural context (remember our chat about the pretzel?), so yes, your question is perfectly fine imho. I don't think the roscón de reyes is loaded with too much symbolism in the decoration, though. Have a nice party and of course we'd love to see the finished cake in the [chat]!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.811376
| 2017-01-05T12:31:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77155",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Mołot",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27868
|
Does a double walled glass mug really keep the liquid warm?
I saw some double walled glass mugs like this one and I am wondering if that really works in keeping the liquid warm.
If not, is it just for the looks and marketing spin?
Is there a vacuum between the two walls? Does it help in keeping the drink hot for longer?
Whether or not the double walls and/or vacuum exist, pouring hot water into the mug for about five minutes (I usually do it twice, as the coldish mug quickly lowers the temp of the first water batch)helps keep the liquid warmer for longer.
Since I don't know this product, I can only answer with (my) common sense:
Air should be a much better insulator than glass, so even if there's no (good) vacuum, the insulation should work pretty well.
One thing to keep in mind is what is mentioned on the Wikipedia article on vacuum flasks
Heat transfer by thermal radiation may be minimized by silvering flask
surfaces
and observing that a normal vacuum bottle isn't translucent. That means that I would expect some loss due to radiation, since the glass isn't covered in any way.
We have two coffee press pots. One with a double wall and one without. The double walled one keeps the coffee warmer far longer.
Turns out that due to convection, about 5mm is ideal for the glass separation. Obviously I can't tell from the photos, but it looks like theirs enough to allow at least some insulating effect, vacuum or under pressure. Same principal as for double paned windows in homes. There, they sometimes fill the gap with a heavy gas like Argon. That helps a bit more.
Yes, they work.
The reason they work for keeping liquid warm is because the air pocket slows down the transfer of heat from the liquid to the glass to your hand. Air has a lower thermal conductivity than glass does, which means that it slows down the loss of heat from your drink. (The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/m/°C, while the thermal conductivity of glass is anywhere from 0.96 - 1.3 W/m/°C, depending on the type of glass.) It's the same reason that windows in modern homes are usually double-paned.
The space between the layers of glass are not a vacuum.
That being said, glass double-walled thermoses are popular mostly because they look cool (they give an optical illusion of the liquid being suspended in air). If your primary concern is keeping your beverage warm for as long as possible, it's better to go with a double-walled stainless steel thermos, which will retain heat much longer than a glass one. MargeGunderson is right, too - preheating the thermos, regardless of material, with hot/boiling water for a few minutes before putting your drink in it will be even better than pouring your tea into a room temperature thermos.
The thermal conductivity of air probably isn't the right thing to compare to - I expect convection might be dominant - but the principle here is of course right.
@Jefromi You're right, if there is a vacuum between the walls, like in a proper Thermos brand thermos. :) I don't think there's a vacuum in glass-walled insulated cups, but you've got me wondering now and I can't find a definitive answer at the moment.
I'm fairly certain there's air, and that's what I'm saying - if since there's air there, convection is likely dominant over conduction, because air is generally much better at convection than conduction. So the thermal conductivity of air isn't necessarily pertinent, but even air convection will be much less heat transfer than conduction through glass.
@Jefromi Yes, you are correct; my jetlagged brain is not using words properly today. We are on the same page, I think. If you would like to edit my answer to explain better, feel free.
I use a double walled stainless steel mug. It works very well and keeps 500 mls of water hot for more than an hour, and yet still handles like a normal mug. The walls are separated by air, there is no vacuum
I would expect there to be more thermal losses with glass, but I would still imagine it to perform well. I have noticed over recent years the popularity of double walled glass in China. They like to walk around with their tea all day, so it must work well enough
I am actually doing this is school now, the thermal cup keeps it warm, because it is a better insulator meaning it doesn't transfer heat much. So the heat will stay in the cup and not spread out in the air, the air pocket is to slow down the transfer of heat.
I recommend this type of cup, if you are looking for one to take to work, or just keep it warm.
Heat is transferred from one object to another by conduction, convection, evaporation, and radiation. #3 is the only one to mention radiation, which is key to the old thermoses I brought to school that have mirrored/silvered glass on the inside. They also shattered if you dropped them, which dramatically reduced their popularity since no one wants to drink crushed glass! The mirrored/silvered surface works by reflecting the radiant heat, which consists of light in the infrared spectrum, back towards the liquid. Think of the night vision goggles used in movies and the military that "see" the infrared heat coming off of your body. The thin, silver, emergency "blankets" sold now work the same way, reflecting your body heat back to you. To keep your coffee warm the longest time, you want to block all 3 pathways. The double wall reduces heat transfer by conduction and convection. A vacuum middle layer would ideally block both these processes much longer, since there are no molecules in a vacuum to transfer the heat. Interesting comments that the double steel wall mugs work better. I think steel is a better conductor of heat than glass or ceramic (which can have tiny "microbubble" air pockets in its makeup). Think of the steel fins in car radiators, air conditioners, as well as laptops and computers, used SPECIFICALLY for their rapid transfer of heat!
Lastly, the steam coming off of your fresh mug of hot coffee (that makes it look so good!), is evaporation taking place at the coffee and air interface, as energetic water molecules break loose and launch into the air. Evaporation sucks a whopping 540 cal of heat from your coffee per gram of water evaporated. Much faster than when the coffee looses heat by direct contact with a cooler surface (conduction), which is only 80 cal per gram of water. A simple lid cuts the evaporation way down here. But then it still condenses on the underside of the cooler lid surface, giving its 540 cal to the lid. But, this is still better than losing it all to the air in the room. SO, the best coffee mug would be a double wall of material with the lowest heat transfer rate, WITH a vacuum between layers, AND with a lid. Actually, I failed to mention one other factor. The heat conducted from the coffee, to the bottom of the mug, to the table surface, which is the only place the mug physically contacts another solid material. This is why all coffee cups have a raised lip around the bottom, since this reduces the amount of coffee mug touching the table. To be extreme, you could make your cup with little spiked legs that would reduce the surface contact by 90% or more! To go even further, two inventors shown on the Sharks TV program, designed small cubes of a material that initially absorbs heat from the coffee, and then slowly releases it back to the coffee as the temperature of the coffee goes down. yes, my BS was in Biomedical Engineering. And as a doctor now, heat transfer is key to treating hyperthermia and hypothermia.
Since there is no thermal break between the inside and outside glass, the heat of the liquid will transfer through the glass as if it was a twice as large cup, so pre heating cup should help.,
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! ;-) This answer already states that.
yes it does because the is no particles in the vacuum in between the glass.
There is no reason to think that these mugs have a vacuum between the walls. The link in the OP is dead, but this is a very similar product, possibly a newer version of the same product and brand activiTEA. Even in the video, there is no mention of a vacuum.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.811999
| 2012-10-17T03:14:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27868",
"authors": [
"Beeford",
"Cascabel",
"Emily Delambo",
"Fabby",
"J. Doe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laura",
"Mara Porietis",
"MargeGunderson",
"Melvyn",
"Owen J",
"PUCKMEISTER",
"PortableGourmet",
"Rob",
"SMiller",
"SoLo K. Donovan",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bouncyball",
"chris dalpiaz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"liz",
"user63988"
],
"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
}
|
21962
|
When a recipe calls for X cooked amount of something is that before or after it has been cooked?
I think I know the answer to this and realize that it is similar to this question about nuts, but I wanted to verify my instinct. When a recipe calls for 1 ½ cups cooked X, is that recipe calling for that ingredient measured before or after cooking?
possible duplicate of When a recipe calls for a cup of chopped nuts, should they be measured before chopping or after chopping?
@Mien if you read my question you'll see that I referenced the question about nuts. I'm kind of an interloper here, so if you want to close the question by all means do so, but I felt like this provided a significant enough difference (cooked vs uncooked) to warrant the question.
I know you linked to that question, but in my opinion (and when seeing a lack of close votes, I guess I'm alone in this), the reasoning/answer/explanation is totally the same.
@Mien I see where you are coming from, including that in your original comment would have been helpful. Alone the comment looks like I didn't read your question, but did you see this one. :)
Yeah, I understand that. But the comment was made automatically. And you asked your question because you didn't know for sure the same reasoning applied. I can live with it ;)
Recipe-speak is very particular about order.
half a cup of butter, melted means you measure the solid butter (probably with a butter ruler) and then melt it
half a cup of melted butter means you melt some larger amount of butter and then measure (probably with a liquid measure)
Obviously there's no difference between 3 carrots, roasted and 3 roasted carrots. Nor between 2 eggs, hardboiled and sliced and 2 hardboiled sliced eggs. And in many cases the volume of things isn't much affected by cooking. In some cases it is easier to measure before or afterwards, and the recipe-writer wants to point you in the easier way. But in some it really matters. Rice, for example. 1 cup of raw rice yields roughly 3 cups cooked, so recipe writers need to be super clear which you are measuring.
In your example, 1.5 cups cooked X, you cook it and then measure it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.812686
| 2012-03-03T17:35:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21962",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4875
|
Are there any techniques to "cheat" at cooking a risotto?
Cooking a risotto takes a fair amount of attention and work, adding stock a ladle at a time with almost constant stirring. The chemical process behind this makes sense to me. Are there any ways to short cut this process though? I'd like to be able to make a risotto with a little less attention. I'm wondering if some hybrid technique of early attention and later just adding liquid and letting it boil (or maybe the reverse) might provide a similar result with less work.
I know I know, but it's risotto, if it's not made with love, tenderness, and care, it's just not risotto anymore
My mother loves her pot-stirrer for ease of risotto-making (something like this: http://www.amazon.com/StirChef-Saucepan-Stirrer/dp/B0000TPBYG). It won't lessen the time it takes to make risotto, but it might help free you up some.
Actually I've found that constant stirring has little to no affect on the final product. You can simply stir rigorously at the last minute and achieve similar results. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself and you'll see.
Another trick is pre-cooking your rice. Just follow a standard risotto recipe but stop cooking the rice about half way through the process (about 10 minutes in or just before aldente). Strain the stock from the rice and pour it out onto a baking sheet to cool quickly. You can refrigerate it for up to a day. To finish it, just pick up where you left off and - presto - you've just cut out half the cooking time.
Cheers!
I generally agree with this. I stir more than Derek, but certainly not constantly. Maybe 20 seconds out of every 3 minutes.
Technically, you've just spread the cooking time over two days in your second case...
I assumed you were preparing it for guests or diners. Believe me, they will think you're a magician.
Other than that there is no really "easy" way to shortcut the process. The rice has to cook. Plain and simple. The only other thing I can think of is to cover the rice with stock and chuck it in the microwave for a few minutes before completing it the traditional way.
Mark Bittman thinks it can be done more easily, see here. It comes with a video.
so do you think the trick is the additional fat? The amount of broth? If I wanted to try and translate it to another kind of risotto - say a corn risotto appropriate for this time of summer (at my latitude, at least), it seems like it ought to work, but I'm curious.
Looks like the closest you can get is to add lots of cheese and butter (for the cream) and stir less often. This recipe follows that trick, using the lid of your pot unlike a traditional risotto.
If you have a pressure cooker, you can also coopt it to do some of the work for you, as seen in this recipe. The trick there as suggested by many similar pressure cooker risotto recipes appears to be to start with high pressure and quickly release steam.
If you Google for "risotto oven baked" you can get a lot of recipes and comments. The general consensus is that it's not quite as creamy as the constantly stirred stove top version, but that most people would never know it wasn't made on the stove top if you don't tell them.
This gets my vote as the most "set it and forget it" method, but it really doesn't come out like proper risotto in my experience. It's nice, and easy, but not proper.
There is one recipe for risotto that doesn't require that much attention: "Risotto alla pilota". Basically you boil the rice in salted water and then stir-fry it with a particular shredded Italian sausage meat (called "pesto", but it's not that pesto). You then add Grana or Parmigiano.
Although this isn't exactly a "cheat," it can help expedite the making of the risotto. You par-boil the rice, so it is partially ready when it is time to actually cook it.
Ever wonder how they get the risotto to cook so fast on shows like "Hell's Kitchen?" Par- boiling.
Here's a link to how it's done: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/601758
If you add the right amount of liquid after the sauteeing, you can leave it alone until it has mostly cooked down. At that point, make sure it hasn't stuck.
You don't have to stir "almost constantly" and you can add the liquid in larger amounts, I guess, for a less perfect risotto, for less effort. But I still think you should add liquid evenly throughout the process.
And lots of butter stirred in at the end, once it's off the heat, is the quick and easy way to a creamy finish.
If cheating like this were really possible, people'd be doing it that way. That said: I've tried to shortcut risotto myself. It's possible: make the batches of liquid larger and you'll still get a tasty rice dish. It just won't be as good as it would have been otherwise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.813001
| 2010-08-11T14:17:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4875",
"authors": [
"Anagio",
"Crates",
"Derek Hunziker",
"Iuls",
"Kelly",
"Levander",
"Michael Natkin",
"Trevor Boyd Smith",
"WinePaul ",
"bikeboy389",
"ciphor",
"coms",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9635",
"justkt",
"masud7827",
"user20236",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51869
|
How do I substitute canned pumpkin for canned pumpkin pie filling?
I have a recipe for a pumpkin french toast bake (think pumpkin bread pudding) that calls for 30oz. canned pumpkin pie filling. I have all of the ingredients for making a pumpkin pie from scratch, including canned pumpkin. How do I doctor the canned pumpkin in order to substitute for the pie filling?
I figure that I'll need to add spices and sugar, but I'm unsure if there is any egg or dairy products in the pie filling that I'd need to account for.
The most common, almost canonical brand of canned "Pumpkin Pie Filling" in the US is Libby brand. While the canned pumpkin puree is just canned pumpkin, the Libby "Canned Pumpkin Pie Filling" also has sugar syrup, natural flavoring, salt and spices. So I would add the spices, salt and condensed milk in @Phrancis's recommendation to 30 ounces of pumpkin puree (probably without the cornstarch, there is probably cornstarch or other thickener in the rest of the recipe, if not, consider adding it as a part of the next step I am recommending here), more or less of the spices and sweetener to taste. The eggs and dairy (other than the sweetened condensed milk, which would serve in the substitution as the sweetener) are most likely in your recipe, not expected to be in the can of "Pumpkin Pie Filling").
You want a texture pretty similar to the unadulterated canned pumpkin product. If your substitution is a bit thinner than the the canned pumpkin was (as it should be, with the addition of sweetened condensed milk) simmer it a while to reduce. That can get your volume down to 30 ounces and intensify the pumpkin flavor, making your substitution probably better than the stuff for which you are substituting. Libby sells the pumpkin puree in 15, 29 and 106 ounce cans.
BTW, America's Test Kitchen does that reducing trick to canned pumpkin just routinely to give it a more intense pumpkin flavor and to eliminate "the taste of the can".
Hopefully this helps. I found this recipe on the Food Network which has a section about making pumpkin pie filling from scratch. This is what is added to the pumpkin:
One 14-ounce can sweetened condensed milk 1/2 cup whipping
cream 2 tablespoons cornstarch 2 tablespoons molasses 2 tablespoons canola oil 1 tablespoon ground cinnamon 1
teaspoon ground ginger 1/4 teaspoon salt 3 large eggs
Of course it calls for fresh pumpkin rather than canned, so you may want to check the ingredients on your can so that you don't over-compensate with an ingredient that is already in there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.813428
| 2014-12-22T21:17:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51869",
"authors": [
"Anila Joseph",
"Claire Saverymuttu",
"Clara Campbell",
"Daddy Brown",
"Emmanuel Lee",
"Mms Master",
"The Flooring Installers LTD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123015"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84661
|
I accidentally put aluminum foil in my microwave, how can I clean the scorch marks?
I have a microwave/grill combo and I accidentally had aluminum foil inside when starting the microwave function. By the time I realized it was already sparking and left brown scorch marks on the inside.
The inside walls of my microwave look to be stainless steel or some type of metal. I tried scrubbing these with some soap but it didn't do much. Is there any remedy to this situation?
Check your microwave's owner's manual for a cleaning procedure and follow it.
If there isn't one, I'd try the procedure recommended by Samsung which I've summarized below:
Sprinkle baking soda over the interior of the oven and rub the entire thing with a damp cloth. Wipe clean with damp cloths.
Make a 1 : 8 vinegar to water solution by volume (at least 130 mL of this stuff) and microwave until its boiling rapidly. Leave in oven for 15 minutes then wipe down with damp cloths.
Use acetone (in many nail polish removers) on a cloth to remove scorch marks. Wipe clean with damp cloths.
Put some instant coffee powder in some water and microwave it until your microwave doesn't have an acetone smell.
You may have to repeat step 4 a few times; basically, just make something that smells pleasant a few times so the scent of acetone goes away.
For my motorcycle I am using Autosol bluing remover, a metal polish paste.
That works pretty good on almost any other kind of metal. Used for hood in a kitchen.
Stainless steel works pretty well.
good to know, but where i live I can't get this specific product
100% pure tea tree oil just removed my burn stains with no problem
do you mean tea tree oil to remove burn stains from inside the microwave? and I assume from the downvotes I'm not the only one who haven't heard of it before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.813675
| 2017-09-27T11:55:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84661",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"Lukáš Viktora",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"trying_hal9000"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.