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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
126335
|
Silver-plating copper cookware
Back in the day, I had a friend who was a fine chef. Her best personal pans were silver-lined copper, and occasionally, she would send them away for re-plating.
Is electroplating to a culinary standard, or at least refreshing the plate, something that could be done at home with a brush-plating kit, or does the layer have to be thicker than can be achieved this way?
Hey, I don't think that SA is going to be a great place to find answers for this. Maybe try DIY or Crafts?
Are you sure they were silver-plated? Normally, copper cookware gets tinned.
Silver-plated cookware is a thing. So is solid silver cookware, believe it or don't. Silver is a really good conductor. https://duparquet.com/products/silver-lined-copper-cookware
@FuzzyChef Point taken .. I thought there was a chance that on this stack there may be others who specialize in the culinary application, but if a mod suggests this is off-topic, I'll transfer without complaint... rumtscho, yes, silver, and part of the reason for this q. was that, surprisingly, home-plating would work out cheaper than 3rd-party tinning, if a thin plate suffices.
It's not off-topic, I just don't know that we have a lot of metalworker types here.I'm probably the most knowledgable of our regular answerers, and I don't know the answr to this question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.846893
| 2024-01-10T18:00:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126335",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87969
|
How long will a Thai dressing keep in the fridge?
I use a dressing made from:
60ml fish sauce
juice of 1 or 2 limes
1 tbsp caster sugar
1 clove of garlic
3 fresh red chillis
How long will this keep safely in the fridge?
I have reviewed the answer to How long will homemade salad dressing stay good in the fridge? but chose to list the specific ingredients as it seemed the presence or absence of certain ingredients would change the answer.
Possible duplicate of How long will homemade salad dressing stay good in the fridge?
Perhaps too specific as a 'recipie' question. If rephrased as ' What components of a dressing (mixture) make it shelf stable...
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars, actually, recipes are often helpful. If the OP wants to rephrase the question to ask how to make it shelf stable, I don't believe it would be a duplicate.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars I listed the specific ingredients after reading the answer to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15553/how-long-will-homemade-salad-dressing-stay-good-in-the-fridge as it seemed that the presence of absence of specific ingredients could change the answer entirely
This particular dressing, unlike others that carry a botulism risk, only contains water soluble components. Oxygen will always be able to dissolve in here and prevent the botulism conditions, unless there is a TON of garlic at the bottom.
Garlic botulism risk comes from creating an anaerobic environment, where the bacteria can act under a protective blanket of oil, without oxygen from interfering.
The components you mention all are used in other instances to retard bacterial growth. Low pH for acid, sugar, and no oil. I do not have good data on whether capsaicin is a preservative, but it is certainly not a big risk.
Over time, since these components are exposed to Oxygen, there will be degradation of the flavors due to oxidation, but there is very little food safety hazard. The 60 mL fish sauce is so salty that bacteria don't stand a chance.
I keep, and have an Indonesian friend who has a similar jar out at room temp all the time. Lime rinds and garlic peels and odds and ends in that category go in it all the time and it is a staple.
That all being said, every precautionary guideline will say to follow temperature danger zone recommendations, so we also have to understand our bodies and immune systems.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.847040
| 2018-02-25T01:00:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87969",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Paul Carey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103950
|
Is this some kind of warming oven?
These are two chef's kitchens. In both images, there is a small oven(?) on the stainless steel shelf above the main oven. In each image, it appears to be the same device. Any idea what that is and who makes them?
Looks to be some sort of warming oven?
Its a salamander. Its just a small broiler like the one in your oven.
Well, generally higher-powered than the ones in home ovens, but that's the idea.
I guess if you are pro chef making specialty dishes at home, that is useful but probably overly excessive for the cook enthusiast? Seems like the oven broiler would do about anything you need?
Like @FuzzyChef said they can reach higher temperatures then the average oven broiler. I believe its something like ~800 vs ~500 degrees which some may prefer for cooking things like steaks.
Well, if you make a LOT of creme brulee, I could see wanting one, I guess. But yeah, I'd regard it as overkill for any home cook. Among other things, salamanders have no door and are on all the time, so they use a LOT of gas/power.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.847373
| 2019-12-06T20:01:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103950",
"authors": [
"4thSpace",
"FuzzyChef",
"Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79882"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34532
|
Preparing / pre-cooking hash browns / home fries
(Inspired by, but broadening, Can you parfry hash browns in advance? )
In American diners, when you order home fries or hash browns, they are cooked to order, but are brought to the table in much less time than it would take me to fully cook them at home.
How can I prepare potatoes, then pause cooking, so that they can be finished off quickly to a high standard of crispy home fries / hash browns? Is there a technique whereby I can freeze the part-made dish?
(Note, I'm talking about fried loose potato, sometimes with onions. Not the dense patty of grated potato that's labelled 'hash browns' in British freezer sections, or rostis which are also patties)
I'm a bit confused. Your question was to ask about home fries, but you seem to lay the accent on the hash browns. So what is the difference between your question and mine?
Yours is just about par-frying. I broadened it (for @SAJ14SAJ ) to encompass any kind of pre-preparation.
This answer is for sliced or diced home fries, such as this type:
Shredded style hash browns are much more difficult to pre-cook at home, since the shreds are fragile and go from under cooked to over cooked quickly.
Note that restaurants tend to simply have home fries on the griddle, in a warm section, essentially fully cooked. This is why they tend to be more cooked at the end of breakfast service than the beginning in many restaurants.
For home service, there are several effective techniques for making home fries cook more rapidly, or at least more conveniently.
Par-cook the potatoes
The easiest for pre-preparation is simply to par-cook the potatoes. In either case, the potatoes should be peeled (optional), and diced or sliced.
Cook them until they are just slightly under-done, but begining to be fork tender. This will depend on your type of potato. If you are using a waxy potato (such as a Red Bliss), you can cook them until they are fork tender as they hold their shape quite well; if you are using a starchy potato such as a Russet or Idaho, you want them just slightly resisting in the center.
After they are par-cooked, you may optionally refrigerate or even freeze them before finish cooking.
There are several methods which are effective for the par-cook, depending on your volume:
Microwave, suitable for a couple of potatoes. Put plastic wrap or a loosely sealed lid on the container so they steam as well, and stir them fairly frequently to be evenly cooked.
Steaming. Probably more work that it is worth, but very effective.
Simmering/boiling. Start the potatoes in cold water. Depending on the size of your dice or slice, they may be done about the time the water begins to boil; in any case, simmer them until done as described above. Drain well, or even dry with towels.
To finish cooking them, fry them on a hot griddle with generous butter (or other fat, to taste), salt, pepper, and other additions that you desire such as onions, peppers and so on until they are brown on all sides, and somewhat crispy. This will take about 5 minutes per side depending on your heat.
Hybrid wet-dry
This is the method I personally use the most, as the results can be outstanding, although you need experience to judge exactly how they should come out. It is also only for reducing the cooking time, more than for pre-staging some of the preparation.
Dice or slice, and optionally peel your potatoes
In a wide pot where the potatoes will form a shallow layer (preferably non-stick, or they will sick a little and form a lot of fond, which will make it harder to get them crispy), add the potatoes and water to barely cover. You will learn how much water over time for your cook top (hob), dice or slice size, and flame level.
You can also add butter, salt, pepper and such at this stage.
Cook the potatoes on high for about 10 minutes or until the water is gone. Ideally, if guaged correctly, this will leave you potatoes at the "almost done" stage described in the par-cooking method.
Add fast cooking vegetables such as onions or peppers.
Continue cooking on medium high heat, stirring once or twice, until the potatoes are nicely golden brown and delicious.
Oven hybrid method
This method can be used for pre-preparation. The finish cooking takes longer, but is hands off.
Prepare potatoes as usual, and pan fry them until browned. They will still be essentially raw inside. That is okay.
At this point, you can reserve and pause.
To final cook, place (with salt, pepper, slightly pre-cooked onions or peppers, and other enhancements) in a moderate oven to heat through and re-crisp. Depending on temperature, this can take 20-30 minutes.
This method will not give perfectly crispy potatoes like the first two methods, but is suitable for having a large quantity, as for a brunch party, ready for service at the same time.
Don't need to stir hash browns while par-cooking them in a microwave. If you put them in a round covered bowl, they'll cook into a neat, cohesive 'patty' that can be turned directly into frypan for browning.
But depending on the size/volume, may not microwave evenly.... and this style of hash brown is not usually served as a patty, although I imagine it could be.
The dense mushy patties labelled as hash browns in the freezer section does not speak to how a hash-brown should be, rather their unsuccessful attempt at making one.
The kind of crispy hash-browns that you're describing is similar to a Rösti but thinner. Chef Kenji has two recipes that can help you along in understanding what you need to during your preparation time and pick-up time.
In his Rosti method (with onions and all), he uses the microwave to accelerate the cooking of the potatoes.
Chef Kenji also broke down the art of making fries better than anyone in the public domain. In his perfect french fries method he explains how you can freeze the blanched and par-fried potatoes to help make them crispier (freeze dehydrate) during the final frying (pickup).
If you follow the fries process using grated potatoes (instead of the 1/4" fry-cut), you should arrive at a decent output. The modification I'd recommend in the case would to blanch them for a minute or two in boiling water instead of bringing to a boil. As SAJ14SAJ mentioned, the grated potatoes are fragile and take a lot less time to cook.
Otherwise, the Rosti method works for thinner patties to make great hash-brown as well.
Its Kenji (that is a given name) Lopez-Alt. I am not sure he would call himself a chef, although he is a great practical food scientist.
Omg! thanks. I used to call him chef over email a few years back and he didn't object iirc. His TEDx profile also calls him chef, and if Rachel Ray is a chef.... He did work at many restaurants so he's not just a foodsci guy. Thanks for catching the shamefull typo.
I guess I am one of those old school guys who considers a chef a role, not a profession. Julia Child never called herself a chef, in contrast to Jacques Pepin who certainly was. Working the line isn't the same :-) But I guess that old meaning is gone, and it just means "cooking professional" now.
@SAJ14SAJ yes, really old-school chef literally meant the chief of the kitchen brigade. Newer distinction is between a Chef and Cook, where a Chef can design a menu and cook is your cooking professional. I think Kenji qualifies for both defs. Certainly the respect for the title and earning it is becoming diluted in new-school. Old-school rocks, some of my all-time favourite recipes are 700 years old and comply with every trick in modern food science.
I'm not aware of any freezing techniques that are beneficial -- although you can buy them that way, the time required to thaw them slows you down more.
I do a home-fries style, and parcook the potatoes -- when I'm baking potatoes, I cook a few few extra, then let cool, wrap them in foil and stash in the fridge. I've held them for a week or more without problem, but Still Tasty recommends 3-5 days
When I want to make hash, I preheat a pan with a bit of oil, chop up the potato, and toss it in. I let it brown on one side while I chop up vegetables (onions and peppers, typically), then turn the potatoes over to crisp on a second side while the vegetables cook.
In my years of perfecting this technique, I've developed a few adaptations:
Only slice the potatoes for the first round; you can break 'em into smaller bits with a spatula later ... this lets you make sure you get everything browned on two sides when you go to flip.
Place the onion in the pan in a slab / single slice, rather than chopped into bits ... you get better pan contact to let it brown, then flip, brown again, then break up with the spatula.
If you're going to add meat, raw sausage needs to go down first, so it has sufficient time to cook; I end up pressing it out into a patty (again, so I don't have to tend the whole thing). If you're using something pre-cooked (I like kielbasa), you can throw it in later ... timing depends on how small you slice it.
I'm not sure on the exact timing, because I've varied the stove temperature through the years to intentionally have it take the same time as my getting ready in the morning:
Start the water for the shower, as it takes a minute to warm up.
Start the pan (14" cast iron skillet) pre-heating on the stove on medium heat, and take the potato out of the fridge.
Take a shower
Slice the potato, and put it in the pan
Get dressed
Turn the potatoes, add the onion and peppers
Shave
Flip the onion, break up the potatoes, then the onion
Serve
Optionally, you can crack an egg or two into it just before serving ... it gives the onion an extra minute or so to brown on the second side. (I kill the heat first; there's enough left in the pan if you're using cast iron ... also gives me enough time to put a tie on if it's a day w/ meetings)
This timing would likely not work unless you also live in an apartment or home where the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen are all near each other. (or you like running up and down stairs).
Melissa D'Arabian has a great recipe for Perfectly Crispy Potatoes that allows for you to partially make Home Fried ahead of time and finish them later. The potatoes are peeled, diced, and put into a med/high skillet with some oil, where they are stirred and fried for 5 mins. At the end of 5 mins., a couple of tablespoons of water is added and a lid is put on to let them steam for 3 minutes. It really makes the interiors fluffy. The lid is taken off the skillet and the potatoes are cooked until the bottom of the pan is dry for a minute or so (leave a little moisture if you are going to cook them later, because you don't want the potatoes to be too dry). Then a few tablespoons of butter or oil to the potatoes and mix them. At this point, you can either refrigerate the potatoes or finish cooking them by putting them onto a pre-heated cookie sheet at 375 - 400 degrees. Add a little more oil or butter if you think they need it for roasting. Roast the potatoes, stirring every 10 minutes, until desired degree of brownness (about 20 mins.) The par-frying, steaming, and further roasting makes for a crispy potato outside with a fluffy interior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.847520
| 2013-06-06T10:53:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34532",
"authors": [
"Ali123",
"Bridget Ash",
"Fanny",
"Hop Clover",
"John",
"MandoMando",
"McQuink",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wolverine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80514",
"pdbooch",
"slim",
"zwtyl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14969
|
Are Twiglets an “extruded snack”?
This is a question not about home cooking, but about working out how an industrial food is cooked — I’m not a regular here, so apologies if it’s judged as off-topic.
Extruded snack seems to be the technical term for manufactured not-quite-chips snacks like Cheetos, Cheese Puffs, Wotsits, Twisties, Cheezels… It comes from the way they’re manufactured, by extrusion from a press. It may also involve other technical details beyond this, I’m not sure.
Are the popular British snacks Twiglets an example of this, or are they produced in some other way? Also: pretzels? Rice cakes? Hula hoops? Pringles?
(Twiglets are rather love-it-or-hate-it, flavoured with yeast extract, so a bit like Marmite, except that even people who love Marmite may hate Twiglets.)
Carried over from this english.se discussion.
Pringles aren't extruded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ogZcvXBqQ I don't know about Twiglets, there are lots of other How It's Made segments on food production.
Indeed not sliced not chipped not extruded but rolled. Sounds yummy!
If I could vote to close I would do so as "too localized". Wotsits? Twisties? Cheezels? Twiglets? What the hell is going on over there, "across the pond"? :)
Sounds like this is all across the UK and beyond, so that's way too large an area to write off as "too localized" (although I suspect that was just a joke). I do think that there's probably a more general version of this question that could have been asked... do you really just want the answer for this one particular food or are you interested in the output of this process and how it's different from other processes? (The answer to that question would, of course, lead you to a more intuitive sense of whether or not a particular food was made that way.)
Maybe we just need this translated into English....er 'Merican
I added links to explain what these "weird" foods are for us 'Mericans who ain't got a clue.
@Martha F. et al: thankyou! Reading around further, Cheetos and Cheese Puffs seem to be well-known US examples.
@Aaronut: This question was my attempt to phrase it in a way that would admit a clear and definitive answer — but yes, I’d certainly be interested in the more general questions “What exactly does extruded snack mean?” and “How are Twiglets made?”
The additional technical details on extruded snacks are that they are not just extruded but do so under high pressure and temperature, so that as they come out of the extrusion nozzle they puff up and solidify. The rapid transition to lower pressure causes water in the dough to vaporize suddenly, creating air pockets (puff) and removing moisture. Since baking is primarily a process of drying this completes the cooking.
I haven't had a twiglet, but based on the little bit of info available they would appear to be made in the same manner as the bumpy sort of Cheetos, which would indeed make them an extruded snack.
It is conceivable that they are extruded at room temperature and pressure, and then deep-fried, which is the case with some Japanese snacks that otherwise resemble extruded snacks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.848427
| 2011-05-22T08:04:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14969",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Martha F.",
"PLL",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"raven"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11834
|
What is this fungus/lichen in my Garam Masala? (“Trifle”/truffle?)
I just bought a lovely bag of Garam Masala, and was all ready to grind some when I got home! But when I opened it, I found something I didn’t recognise — at first I thought something had gone mouldy, but there’s enough of this in there that whatever it is, I presume it’s supposed to be in there.
It looks to me like a fungus or lichen of some sort. The list of ingredients includes “trifle” — could that be a mis-spelling for some Indian species of truffle, perhaps?
That's just weird. I agree with Doug below that it looks like a wood ear or cloud ear, but what it would be doing in garam masala, I can't imagine! I don't believe either of those fungi have any common use in Indian cuisine. Where did you buy this garam masala? I'd be somewhat disinclined to eat it just based on the oddness.
I bought it at a small local Indian grocery store — it’s not a super-shiny sort of place, but I’ve not had any bad experiences there — they don’t routinely sell out-of-date items or anything. It’s Nirav brand — not the store’s home-made mix or something.
Actually, you found an ingredient that is considered extremely hard to find among fans of indian cooking outside india!
It seems to be an edible lichen. It looks very like one described online as (black) stone flower in English and dagad phool in Hindi, which seems to be a not uncommon ingredient in various spice mixes; e.g. on the left in this photo from an Indian food blog:
[Edit: photo removed as I’ve just realised the author of that blog specifically requests not redistributing their content. It’s a nice photo + site, though, if you follow the link!]
Having found these names, it’s now not hard to find a lot of websites mentioning it, especially in blogs/forum threads; but I can’t find any site in English that gives much detailed information. Even its purpose in the mix is a bit unclear: some blog commenters describe it as having a unique earthy, mushroom-y flavour; others, as being similar to star anise; Wikipedia even seems to suggest it might just be a bulking agent. (I don’t get any particular scent off it, at least not dry.)
So I think this is probably the right identification; and I’m reassured that it’s not something wrong with the mix; but I’m still quite intrigued, and would love to hear more about this ingredient from someone who knows it better!
That's fascinating! I'm glad you found your answer.
This spice is called "Kalpaasi" in Tamilian cuisine.
I use it in my chicken gravy, mutton gravy and for few vegetarian recipes too.
I use kalpasi when I season some of my chutney varieties.
It releases a strong curry smell the moment you add it in hot oil.
This spice grows inside water wells absorbing pure air (from what I heard from my aunt when I was very young).
If you made Biryani and wondered why you're not getting that "Restaurant Biriyani smell", it means you missed putting some "Kalpasi" when you prepared it.
If you wanted to try a distinctive Tamilnadu gravy using kalpasi: http://cooking.jingalala.org/2012/12/pakoda-kulambu-recipe-chettinadu-pakoda-kuzhambu-south-indian-style-gravy-varieties/
http://cooking.jingalala.org/what-is-kalpasi-what-is-dagad-phool-2/
Also "Kalpassi" transliterates to "foot-level moss/foot algae". (Not to be confused with any sort of foot fungus). if it grows in a well, I can definitely see that the name, paasi usually is used to indicate slimy algae growing on wet rocks or near wells.
Just found out from a friend..its also called Kalpasi or Kallupachi (literally Stone Flower / Moss) in Telugu and is a not so commonly used spice in Chettinad cuisine. So, probably it is not the very generic garam masala (which is more common in the Northern part of India than the South) but something very specific to use in certain dishes, say like the Punjabi Garam Masala. Also hear that it is used in Goda masala, something more common in the Western parts of India (goan and maharashtrian cooking).
This is an edible lichen which is commonly used in Indian spice mixture especially curry masala. I am using this everyday in my kitchen. it gives a very pleasant smell to the curry. About 100gm of this lichen is added to make 750 gm of curry masala powder. Around 10gm of curry masala powder is added to one liter of curry (this is apporximate quantity but it is in this range) so you can imagin how littel quantity is required.
The full name is lichen stone flower, in Indian it has many names as, patthar ke phool/dagad phool/kalpasi, and mostly used in North India, Goa and Maharashtra. It is used particularly in kabab dishes namely galauti kabab, kakori kabab and many other dishes, maharashtrian goda masala also have it. It is found in foothills of himalaya mountain, after monsoon, locals collect it and sell/supply.
At first I thought those were wood ears, but checking around, they look more like cloud ears. In answer to your question, yes, they are a fungus/mushroom that grows on the sides of trees. I've always cooked with them in Chinese cooking. As for the trifle, I haven't found any connection between wood ears, cloud ears and the word trifle, although depending on who was doing the translation, as you note, truffle could have become trifle, and cloud ears and truffles are both fungi (although the similarity stops there).
Thankkyou! Hmmm… looking around, though, the photos of cloud/wood ears I can find online don’t look quite like this thing — this is more like a lichen and less like a mushroom. I’ve never had cloud/wood ears, though, so I’m not sure…
Ah — after some more thorough googling than I’d done at first, I think I’ve found it online after all: it is an edible lichen, sometimes called “stone flower”, and can apparently be a reasonably standard component of garam masala. Will put what I’ve found into a separate answer. Thankyou for your help, though, in any case!
Yes , black stone flower , a lichen / moss , which only grows where the air is absolute pure . It disappears when pollution starts . I had never known one could use it in food before seeing it in a Hyderabadi grocery . I had used it for natural dying years ago , and the amazing thing was that wool dyed with this moss keeps the forest smell for years .This inspired me towards a special rice dish ; rice in rice-cooker with half water , half rose or orange-blossom-water , hand full black stone flower , cinnamon sticks , star anise orange and lemon peel .... The smell filling the house is unbelievable , as the taste .
You're using orange blossom water for half the water volume in your cooker? Either you've got pretty poor-quality blossom water, or it must smell like a perfume bomb just went off. Sounds a bit intense to me.
I once had a biryani at a Marathis friend's home and the taste was incredible. He mentioned that he used a fungus, specific to his region. For years I had looked for the name and never found it till finally I came across dagad phool randomly. Even Indians are mostly not aware of this - a very region specific spice.
छडिला किंवा दगड फुल हलबा सावजी यां लोकांना गरम मसाला used in purely non-vegetarian dishes. This type of food famous in Vidarbha region.
Dagad Phool: http://www.mamtaskitchen.com/board/showthread.php?thread_id=9512
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.848731
| 2011-02-05T21:07:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11834",
"authors": [
"Adam R. Grey",
"Alishia James",
"Autum",
"ChefJoAnna",
"Danny",
"Jeeva Subburaj",
"KIJO ALEX MURYE",
"Meetai.com",
"Michael Natkin",
"PLL",
"Parker",
"fraxinus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81301",
"logophobe",
"merilyn",
"moushi",
"rackandboneman",
"spicetruck"
],
"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
}
|
88956
|
When are pot lids useful?
When I do anything on the stove - boil water, make rice, make a stew for 3 hours - I always wonder whether I should be using the lid.
The conventional wisdom is that the lid makes water boil faster. Is this true? Sometimes I have oddly-shaped pots which don't have a lid so I try to find a substitute (a plate, a sheet pan) if the recipe says to "cover". Do I have to cover? When I use a lid with rice, it always boils over, leaving me wondering why I even bother with it.
When do I use the lid? Does the lid have to be tight-fitting, or can it be something loose that mostly covers the top? How do I decide whether I can ignore the "cover" directive on a recipe? How does the use of a lid affect the food itself?
I realize this is a very silly question but it has always baffled me, and caused me no small amount of consternation when a recipe says to use one and I don't have a way to cover.
Just to add one point - if the recipe says to cover it, choose a pan that has a lid before you start
Covering a pan slows down evaporation of the water. As evaporating water takes a lot of heat, covering a pan will make the contents boil earlier.
If the recipe tells you to cover the pan, it's to make sure there's enough moisture for the full duration of the cooking; without the lid, you might end up with a dry (and usually burned) mess.
When cooking rice, the proteins and starch dissolving in the water will cause the bubbles that form on boiling to be more resistant, so they form a foam that lifts up the lid and escapes. Usually after the first foam is destroyed, you'll have no more problems (but do keep the fire low). And for at least one method of cooking rice, you want to keep the pot well covered, as the amount of water you add is just enough to fully cook the rice (the water is absorbed by the rice and makes the starch grains swell, without water the rice would stay very hard).
It all boils down to how fast you want the water to evaporate.
"boils down to" is unfortunate (or a bad pun).
I generally agree with remco's answer. Lids will allow things to heat up faster, and they are useful for retaining moisture. Many recipes that advise you to use a cover are depending on most of the moisture to stay in the pan during cooking (and, particularly with things like rice, the proportion of liquid may be important).
That said, there are times when lids are also less important or even should NOT be used. For quick-cooking dishes, evaporation is often less of an issue. And sometimes you want to boil off excess liquid. If you don't mind the liquid/sauce/etc. being reduced a bit, you may be able safely ignore recipe instructions to cover.
Keeping steam in a pan will also lower the effective cooking temperature (and keep it around the boiling point of water), which may be less desirable in many situations. For example, if you're sauteing or trying to brown things in a pan, a lid is counterproductive. If you're going to put a pot in the oven to cook for a long time and want the surface to brown a bit and develop flavor (sometimes useful for stews and such in the oven), you might let the pan uncovered for some part of the cooking so the surface of the food can reach a higher temperature. (However, keep in mind that over a long time, evaporation will also carry some flavor away with it.)
A few practical answers to points raised in the question:
Rice (and many other grains) can actually be boiled in excess water --
like pasta -- and then drained. Some nutrients may be lost (though there's not a lot of nutrients in white rice anyway), but you don't need a lid to do it if you use that method. It can also be helpful for people who have difficulty burning rice or not cooking it properly. It doesn't work well with short-grained "sticky" rice, but it's common to cook this way in many cultures with medium or long-grain rice. And just like cooking pasta, you can easily take some out to taste and make sure the texture/doneness is to your liking.
Generally speaking, the need for "tight-fitting lids" is rare. Assuming the "lip" on your pan is level (and it should be unless your pan is damaged or warped), you can use lots of flat things to cover a pan or pot. For years, I had a single "universal" lid I used on many pots. A few years ago, I bought a cheap set of three glass lids of varying size which I use most frequently when cooking. (The glass allows me to see the contents, which is helpful sometimes.) They don't fit any of my pots precisely, but they're perfectly adequate for almost all stovetop cooking. I own many somewhat pricey pots (mostly copper) which I don't have custom lids for. Having a matching lid for every pot and pan in your kitchen is generally unnecessary and can take up a lot of excess storage space.
One tip if you are going to buy "generic" lids: find lids that are simply flat and have a little weight to them (to avoid "rattling" and letting steam out). It's generally better just to have a flat disk, rather than to try to use an ill-fitting lid with curved edges or something designed for a different pot. The key is just having a disk-shaped lid at least as big as the pot. The only time you'll get significant moisture loss is if you try to use an ill-fitted lid designed for a smaller pot.
All of that said, it's often good to have at least one or two pots with actual lids to fit them, particularly if you're going to be cooking stews for 3 hours or something. A well-fitted lid can have subtle design features to prevent excess evaporation, and that can be helpful for long simmering. But I also frequently cook brown rice for 45 minutes using a generic glass disk lid that doesn't fit my saucier, and it all works fine with seemingly little problem in losing water.
As for rice boiling over, make sure you're using a big enough pot. And watch somewhat carefully until the water is boiling with rice in it. Then make sure the heat is very low. (I usually just wait until the water returns to a boil after adding rice before putting a lid on anyway, which probably is common to many directions for cooking rice.) On any stove, it usually only takes me once or twice to figure out the appropriate heat level to keep rice simmering for a given batch size. If you keep the heat at a low level, it shouldn't boil over. (And again, if you have trouble with this, try cooking in excess water uncovered and then drain when it's done.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.849302
| 2018-04-07T03:57:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88956",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tim Lymington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87089
|
Working with a slack (sticky) sourdough
My background is in microbiology and I have fairly recently started making sourdough.
I have been working up my sourdough recipe getting lots of information from friends and the internet.
The recipe I have now put together is a 3 day process; the first 2 days are fermentations, and the 3rd day is the preparation of the dough, resting, kneading (stretch and fold), proofing and baking. I have finally hit the 'nail on the head' except for one thing that I need someone to help me solve. ( I have made 6 previous batches until I got here).
I have started to use a stickier dough (as suggested by 2 friends who make a lot of sourdough) mix which results in a dough which is quite sticky to the hands. I make 3 small loaves from this mix. Before proofing them, I coat the loaves in a light dusting of semolina flour and put them in their proofing baskets. This makes the dough much easier to handle (not sticky which is great). I then proof for 5 hours at about 21C. (my place is warm).
The loaf I get is very nicely risen and soft to the touch. However, when I took the first loaf out of its proofing basket (it came out easily) and put it on the pizza stone, it collapsed quite a lot. I put it in the oven at 500 C for 10 mins and then dropped the temperature to 450 for for 35 mins (golden brown) (also recommended by a friend who works with sticky dough). The loaf that came out had not risen really at all, but the texture of the loaf was perfect (nice air pockets, soft in texture and light, and the crust was great. For me it was the perfect loaf in texture and crust, but the rise I saw at the end of proofing (I wish I had taken a photo), was not seen in the final loaf.
My question is, how do I get around this issue? The previous week I made sourdough dough that was not as sticky. It made loaves that rose very nicely during proofing as well, but they did not collapse as much as the "sticky loaves" prior to going in the oven, and they rose nicely in the oven. However the texture of the baked loaf was more dry and only had lots of tiny airpockets.
I know now that one of the keys to a successful sourdough loaf is the stickiness of the dough, but how do I get a better rise using this dough (as I said, it rose nicely in the proofing baskets but collapsed when moving it to the pizza stone)? I am kind of mystified right now.
5 hours in a proofing basket? Was this in the refrigerator?
What kind of flour (brand and types) are you using, and what is your hydration %?
As you know, as the bread proves a matrix of bubbles is formed. And just like blowing soap bubbles, the bigger they get the more fragile the bubbles are.
When you bake in pans you can let bread rise a lot as long as you are gentle when you move them into the oven. If you are using bannetons, you can’t let it get so fragile and still survive being turned out. All that happened was that lots of your bubbles broke, and some joined up to make the bigger less structurally robust large holes.
So you got plenty of rise, you just inadvertently knocked the bread back. I’d suggest shortening the final rise.
Ahhh, so many factors to keep a meister on his toes... but I am only geselle.
Best guess is your sunken loaf was just a bit over-risen.
3/4 risen before baking is a good rule of thumb. Determining that is experience with your particular dough. The wetter ones aren't going to hold the same volume as the drier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.849893
| 2018-01-15T04:15:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87089",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60149
|
Pan vs oven cooking
I am 87, single, and do not want to heat up an oven to bake for a short time. Could I just put the 'baking' recipe in a top of the range pan, and accomplish the same results?
I'm not asking about cakes or cookies, but chicken dishes, roasted carrots, peppers, etc. For a single person, it seems to be a waste of electricity (and cost) to heat up an oven for 10-30 minutes of baking, for example fish, etc.
You need to be more specific about what you're trying to make. If you're baking a cake or cookies, no, you're not going to get the result you want. You might consider (for smaller things) getting a small counter top (toaster) oven.
Wow, it's so #EPIC that you are 87 and so tech savvy. Love it!
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19351/making-cake-without-oven, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22889/is-it-possible-to-bake-a-cake-without-an-oven, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58251/how-to-bake-cake-and-pastries-without-oven
No, not cakes or cookies, but chicken dishes, roasted carrots, peppers, etc. For a single person, it seems to be a waste of electricity (and cost) to heat up an oven for 10-30 minutes of baking. ie fish, etc.
No, cooking in the oven and cooking on the stove will not produce the same results. The distribution of heat is completely different, the cooking times will be different, and you will have to attend to the pan while cooking to heat things evenly. You are better off starting from a stovetop recipe with the same ingredients than modifying an oven recipe for the stovetop.
There are some nice (though expensive!) toaster ovens available now where you can bake things with timed cooking. I have one friend who cooked a duck in her toaster oven and was pleased with the outcome. I am not sure how these compare in efficiency to real ovens; although the space you are heating is much smaller, the insulation is probably not as good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.850189
| 2015-08-22T20:43:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60149",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Dawn Stuart",
"Deepak Aajola",
"Lori Schissler",
"Rita Ihly",
"Shiva",
"Stephie",
"Suzanne Ellicott",
"atinuke dudusola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37756"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63341
|
To bake a chicken in the oven
Is it safe to cook a chicken for 20 minutes at 250 degrees, Then take it out of oven and put back in refrigerator and then cook it thourghly the next day.
I stongly encourage you not to do this. You will get your chicken in the danger zone where bacteria multiply best for a really long time. Find more on the risky temperature range here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Oh, and gina, could you please add the unit for temperatures in future questions? We are an international site and some will automatically think '°C', others '°F' - can be really confusing! Thanks!
I'm not sure this is an exact duplicate of the linked question (since you're not technically leaving the food at room temp) but I agree with Stephie that this is a very bad idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.850369
| 2015-11-10T17:10:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63341",
"authors": [
"Adriana S",
"Allison Emmett",
"Beverly Riffe",
"Carol Scicluna Calleja",
"Caz Porter",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68647
|
What can I do to fix/improve a dry cake?
So a lot of times a cake is really dry, whether the recipe author intentionally does that or if I did something wrong I'm not sure (maybe it's how it's meant to be but it doesn't suit my tastes).
What can I do after the cake has been cooked and finished to make it not so dry?
And similarly, what can I do before it's been cooked to make it not so dry? I figure adding butter would help, but I'd rather not add more fat / calories, so I'd prefer an alternative.
Could you clarify please: what kind of cake are we talking about? Pound cake / sponge cake types or yeast-based cakes?
@Stephie happens lots of time, the most recent was a banana cake. I'm not really sure which of those classifications itd fit under
Add a few tablespoons of water and oil to the cake mix to make it moister. Try baking it with less time. Try using a few tablespoons less flour.
for fruit cakes, simply fruit juice works very well!
Cut the cake into thinnish layers and lather it with plenty of icing/frosting/jam spread. If its too far gone, there's always using the cake as a component for trifle or fudge.
No matter what kind of cake you've made, if it turns out too dry, you can moisten it with an appropriately flavored liqueur or syrup. Use a skewer to poke holes every inch and a half or so, then use a pastry brush to paint on the liqueur or syrup getting more into the holes. Coffee syrups come in sugar free varieties if you'd rather not add more sugar.
As far as what is happening, since it is happening with different recipes, I suspect your oven. Is it running hot? Use an oven thermometer to be sure that you are getting the temperature you want. Also, check cakes frequently in the last 10 minutes of baking, using the method recommended in the recipe to gauge the doneness. Usually, the toothpick test works. Stick a toothpick into the cake and remove. If there is no batter on the toothpick (a few moist crumbs are OK), then the cake is done. Cakes that are overdone will always be dry.
It's well worth addressing the underlying cause. That would be worth +1 on its own, as would the ideas for this time.
I think you did a good job of pointing out that the OP needs to address the underlying cause. I didn't say anything about it in my answer but was going to mention it in a comment until I saw your answer.
First, you are not telling us the recipe(s), or your typical way of choosing and following them. Due to your reference to fat and calories, I suspect you might be choosing recipes with lower fat/sugar content than average, and possibly reducing fat and sugar in them. If this is the case, there is an important thing to note: your cake still has to be made up of mostly fat, sugar, and hydrated starch, with some eggs as binder. If the recipe creator or you added too much other stuff in order to reduce calories (which can also take the form of e.g. using whole wheat instead of the finest grade), you will get a drier, less cakelike result. If that's what you have been doing, you will need to get back to a more standard recipe.
Second, let's assume that you are using a standard recipe with sufficient sugar+fat. In this case, the most likely culprit is overbaking. You should be testing the cake with a toothpick or thermometer, not just sticking it in the oven for the time suggested in the recipe. Also, you might try to bake it at a lower temperature in case the outer layers dry out before the center is done. Assuming proper baking time and standard ratios, a cake won't be dry.
Third, let's assume that you are close to standard ratios but just a bit too far off, bake by doneness, and want to tweak just a little without getting more fat or pure sugar into the cake. In this case, you have two options (you can combine them too).
add trapped moisture. Adding pure liquid (water, milk) won't help, but fruit purees are good. Applesauce is the traditional one. Slightly dessicated versions will work better than freshly pureed fruit, and high-pectin fruit works best.
add emulsifiers. They make the cake feel moister. You can add yolks, pure lecithine or some other emulsifier if you have it in a pure form. The mayonnaise advice mentioned in another answer also works that way, as commercial mayonnaise contains chemical emulsifiers (physical ones won't work in a cake).
If all this fails, you can try a syruped cake as suggested by Jolenealaska, but while not unpleasant, it does have a very different mouthfeel from a standard cake.
What is an emulsifier in a pure form?
@johnny just pick any chemical emulsifier, there are about a dozen of them. "In pure form" was a wording I used to make the contrast to something like egg yolk, which is a common kitchen ingredient that contains emulsifiers. It is not a set term.
A plain sponge or similar can be turned into a lemon drizzle cake (BBC, many other recipes available). Although this adds some sugar, the actual amount is small compared to the rest of the cake. For a really dry cake you might want to make the drizzle a bit runnier (less sugar) anyway.
Variations on this are easy. Orange and lime are obvious choices, I've had success with whitecurrants (though the topping was a little jammy).
Otherwise splitting the cake and filing it with something compatible has to be the way to go. Almost anything you add will include sugar, most will include some fat as well. You can seek out low calorie icing options if you really want, but it's already a cake. Any way you can get fruit in the filling/topping will help with both moisture and calories, with the more calorific part just to hold the fruit together. For inspiration you could look at a fraisier (pics via google). Note that many of these options change the keeping qualities of the cake (it might even need to go in the fridge).
An alternative to moistening the cake itself could be to serve it with something moist. I usually make a glaze/frosting if the cake itself turned out too dry. Sometimes (not always) the cake will not feel so dry when you eat it. It depends on the cake, serving with sauce or ice cream can also help.
Concerning the cause, other answers have good suggestions, I would like to add that it could be related to the ingredients you use. Different flours vary in gluten and protein (I think that is the cause) and absorb liquid differently. For instance, if you replace some wheat flour with coconut flour, you should add more liquid to the recipe.
The best and easiest way to fix this problem is to put the cake upside down when you get it out of the oven. Let it rest till it's cooled down.
How is this going to fix a dry cake?
@Marti - maybe trapping the steam to keep the cake moister?
Add mayonnaise to the batter. Don't laugh, Google it.
Welcome to the site! As a new member, I recommend you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to learn more about the site. That said, your answer could benefit from "fleshing it out" a bit: why do you use majo, how much and in addition or instead of the other ingredients.... "Google it" is not the kind of answer we like here, we prefer having the information right here in the answer. (Linking outside for additional info is fine, though.)
How on earth can I say how much to use and in addition or instead of other ingredients? The OP never gave any specifics regarding his/her recipe. They asked, "And similarly, what can I do before it's been cooked to make it not so dry?" So I said, add mayonnaise which will work. If they want specifics, he/she will either need to add more info about his/her recipe or Google it like I said.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.850510
| 2016-04-29T10:57:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68647",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"Chloe",
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"EL MOJO",
"Marti",
"Megha",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"johnny",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64220
|
Cookie dough consistency problems
I have used the same rugelach recipe for years with out a problem. This year however, the dough is pulling apart and shredding when being rolled out and up. There are 2 different things this year, I used a different flour and we have been getting endless amounts of rain, so the humidity has been high. The dough is also very soft. Any ideas?
The recipe for the dough is as follows:
8 ounces cream cheese
1/2 lb butter
1/4 c sugar
1/4 tsp salt
1 tsp vanilla
2 cups flour
-> mix all, refrigerate at least an hour ( I did over night). When I rolled it out onto a floured surface, it fell apart and became almost stringy.
Do you measure your flour by volume or by weight?
Could you please post the recipe or at least the kind of dough - there are different rugelach doughs on the web.
I have seen brands of flour behave differently, and so I try to stick with the same brand. If a brand disappears and I have to use a new brand, I learn to adjust to it, but the adjustments have always been slight. Some recipes even call for a specific brand and tells you results won't be the same if you use a different brand.
By "different flour" do you mean brand, or type? Is the flour stale?
@MatthewRead even between brands of the same type of flour, I have seen practical differences. These are most easily noticeable in moisture sensitive recipes like American biscuits (not British biscuits aka cookies), or pastry dough.
The recipe is as follows: 8 ounces cream cheese, 1/2 lb butter, 1/4 c sugar, 1/4 tsp salt, 1 tsp vanilla, 2 cups flour; that is the contents of the dough, then there are different fillings used.......mix all, refrigerate at least an hour ( i did over night). When I rolled it out onto a floured surface, it fell apart and became almost stringy
no idea if the flour was stale, how do you tell?
flour brand was different; measured by volume, as i always do; the only real difference is the humidity has been around 100 % for the past week
Oh, I think you problem was how long you waited until you rolled it out. An hour seems like a upper limit to me to allow glutens to develop. Letting it stand overnight may have let the dough develop too many gluten chains.
This happens to me when I am in humid climates, worse still hot and humid climates. Moisture condensing out of the air on to the dough is the main cause. In a hot humid climate, taking a chilled dough out of the fridge only makes the condensation problem much worse.
I have tried estimating the amount of added water from condensation, but there are too many variables to make the results workable.
With your recipe, you do not have many degrees of freedom to counter the additional water from condensation. It is not as if you could control the moisture contents of butter and cream cheese. Perhaps you can begin by playing with more flour. Also, counter-intuitively, try not to have such a cold dough to reduce condensation. It is a balancing act in a hot-humid environment, not cold enough, the butter softens too much for a workable dough, colder, you get disproportionately more condensation and the dough becomes stringy.
This is in fact a constant nightmare with recipes when moving from one climate to another and one season to another.
The only rather unhelpful suggestion I have is that you have to keep experimenting with small adjustments and make meticulous notes, including relative humidity, kitchen temperature and dough temperatures at various stages of working.
--
Also, as @jay asked, it is best to use weight rather than volume. Did you change measuring cups?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.851097
| 2015-12-08T18:01:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64220",
"authors": [
"Deborah Dykstra",
"Escoce",
"Florence Fenner",
"Harald Podversnik",
"Jay",
"Karen Fakhrai",
"Matthew Read",
"Stanley Stevens",
"Stephie",
"Toby Lawson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87108
|
Storing fresh sourdough
I would like to know what is the best way to store fresh baked sourdough so that it maintains a nice crunchy crust and a nice soft, slightly moist, light texture? I usually store it at room temperature in a large tupperware with a loose fitting lid or on the countertop. I have finally succeeded in baking the perfect sourdough; I am very happy:) I now just need to know what storage method I should use. I know it stores well in the freezer.
I haven't tried that one with freshly baked sourdough breads, but: A wooden Bread-Box used to be my parents favoured method of storing bread. Have you tried that?
I don’t think it is possible to perfectly preserve both crisp crust and moist crumb. There is always going to be a degree of equalisation of moisture between crust and crumb.
The only way to have the experience of fresh baked bread every day is to bake it every day. That said, one of the joys of sourdough is its characteristic ageing. It’s perfect with butter on day one, by day two it’s good for sandwiches and by day three it’s perfect for toasting.
My preferred method for storing is wrapped in a cotton cloth and kept in a metal breadbin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.851392
| 2018-01-15T19:05:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87108",
"authors": [
"Layna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91691
|
Why do we use the term Quick "Bread"?
I know there are questions here already about Quick bread vs cake, or muffins vs cupcakes. But I'm not asking about the sugar, fat ratio thing. I'm more interested in the "bread" part of it. To me whether it is American white bread, or Italian or French bread, it is a sugarless loaf used to make a sandwich. Even biscuits and rolls that can be made with baking powder instead of yeast can be used for breakfast or lunch sandwiches with sausage and eggs. But you can't make a sandwich with banana or pumpkin bread, you treat them as a cake. so why "bread"?
Sweetbreads are gonna blow your mind, though you can make a sandwich with them.
If you never have bread without making a sandwich... you should!
Historically bread was often eaten plain, or with some spread, and/or as a side to another dish - even flavored or sweetened breads. Sandwiches are not all that historically common (filled or topped rolls being easier to make, travel with, and store, and sandwich-level bread needs quite specific levels of flexibility to sturdiness). I would suggest sandwich-ness is not a primary definer of what makes a bread. Maybe something between "baked grain starches" and "is a good primary food".
@Megha it's good but you have to be careful not to accidentally include pastry but possibly include pastries! To put it in a less confusing way: exclude a blind-baked pie crust, but include croissants.
I had a thought -- I've seen pound cake used for sweet sandwiches (nutella, jam, or other sweet filling, typically). Therefore, by the requirement of sandwich making, pound cake is bread. Also, cookies are bread because of ice cream sandwiches. (and I've had some 'sugarless' cookies that used fruit as the sweetener)
Cooking terminology is vague and has evolved to suit the avilable ingredients in various places at various times. This means that the categories are not clearly defined. Here are some examples to indicate the continuum between bread and cake.
There's a whole range of unsweetened soda breads (note: most yeast bread isn't completely sugarless). Many cornbreads fall into this category (though the one I make has some honey in it).
Teabreads, banana bread etc. are usually baked in a loaf tin and sliced like bread. They may be buttered; similar loaves are even served with cheese in case you're not confused enough.
But teacakes are bread, in that they're yeast-based. Not all have much sugar in the dough, though the recipe I've linked does. Chelsea buns are an unsweetened yeast dough with a sweet filling rolled and baked in.
Brioche is undoubtedly a bread (yeast), but is often sweet.
There are many different types of classification, and you can't use classical classification for most things, especially when the concepts have been around for a long time, and spans multiple cultures.
What often happens when two cultures have similar things is that to explain the concept more easily to their culture, a group will explain the concept in terms their culture will understand. So you come across a leavened, wheat-based baked product, it's a 'bread'. You may later add a qualifier to differentiate if the cultures mix (eg, 'yeast bread' vs. 'soda bread').
With classical categorization, you come up with defining characteristics of the group, and anything that matches is in the group, while things that don't aren't. This was my setup for my question about types of pancakes, and the resulting demonstration and presentations
The problem is, everyone can come up with their own defining characteristics -- people wouldn't have cared about defining bread by sandwich-making in the centuries before sandwiches were invented.
Most categories that aren't strictly defined for some specific purpose are defined by prototypes -- you may have a 'protypical' item, and you judge the categories by how close things are to the prototypical items. So penguins and ostriches are birds, even if they're not the first things that most people think of when you say 'bird'.
And in this sense, soda breads are breads. So are muffins. So are most cooked starch items that you can toast.
The problem comes as what you select as your categories that you're sorting things into. Is cake is own category, or a sub-type of bread? Well, that probably depends on why you're sorting things.
So, if you're really interested in 'sandwich breads', then you might consider things differently. Cake won't make a good sandwich, but tortillas would. But would everyone consider tortillas to be 'bread'?
If this sort of thing interests you, see if your library has/can get George Lakoff's Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Over at english.se: Is a hamburger considered a sandwich?
@ChrisH : Yes, yes it is. But is a hot dog? (hinged bun) or a german wurst at a festival? (bread is just small roll to hold it, does not encase it). People can make all sorts of arguments for/against, but then you start getting into the question of soft tacos, burritos, bao, pepperoni rolls, etc. on where you finally draw the line.
that was rather my point (and I suspect yours). English, and culinary English is a striking example, has few hard boundaries. I consider corn tortillas/soft tacos bread, but wrapping them round a filling doesn't make a sandwich (a burrito maybe). Oh, and what sort of muffin? English? Or the cupcake type? At this rate the OP will be more confused than they started.
@ChrisH : I was thinking of quickbreads made using the muffin method. English muffins aren't muffins. They might be a type of roll, though. :p
RE: tortillas. Surely they are a kind of flatbread?
@Joe so muffins are subject to a similar semantic vagueness to bread and are a good example of how culinary categories break down
Thus, you have authors of fantasy exploiting culture–shock for comedy in regards to ad hoc naming of uncustomary comestibles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.851825
| 2018-08-14T10:38:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91691",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"Spagirl",
"The Photon",
"Todd Wilcox",
"can-ned_food",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"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
}
|
92905
|
What is the difference in taste between stock and broth?
I am under the impression that stock should not really taste like anything. It should smell nice and have a flavorful aroma, but the taste should be very neutral. The idea is that when you add stock to something else, it will accentuate and add depth. Like sour cream!
Broth should be flavorful and have taste and seasoning. It can be consumed as its own thing or have ingredients added to it to make a different dish such as a soup.
Am I right in this way of defining the difference in taste between the two?
Sorry its not a duplicate. I am not questioning how to USE it. I am questioning what each should TASTE like.
This answer suggests that there is no difference between broth and stock, unless you're using broth as a synonym for soup, and that people who say there is a difference can't agree on what the difference is: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/92741
I rolled back the edit -- I understand that you wanted to make the point that this is a different question, but too much formatting makes it more difficult to read :)
It is a bit difficult to say if it is a true duplicate or not, because your question is based on a wrong assumption. You are suggesting criteria for the difference between stocks and broths (which you say are based on taste, but in fact you tell us as much about use as about taste) and then ask if you are right. The problem is, there is no single accepted way to define the difference, people use all kinds of criteria. We already have that other question, and it also mixes up both taste and usage. Having such a jumble of opinions in a second place does not improve anything. That's why I closed.
Bold words make it difficult to read? Heh. I think I will go elsewhere with my questions... this place is a little too tyrannical for me.
It was more the ALLCAPS you added to the title that I found difficult, the bold was simply unnecessary. I am sorry you found my edit problematic, collaborative things like that are how StackExchange works (have you seen the [tour]?) -- but I understand that is not everybody's cup of tea. Again, I apologize if you found it unwelcoming.
Even though I think they are essentially the same, based on general practices while you’re making stock you’ll end up with a high gelatin content, it will be thicker than a broth, as you tend to use mostly bones.
Stock is generally cooked and reduced longer compared to broth, so I would say stock would actually be more flavorful. However as you have noted, broth also involves seasoning and stock is on it’s own for later usage... They might have different flavor profiles based on how you cook and season them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.852412
| 2018-10-15T01:34:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92905",
"authors": [
"BauerPower",
"ChefHopeful",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69590",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113391
|
Does it matter if I sauté onions for high liquid foods?
Many (most?) recipes ask that you sauté onions before adding other ingredients when making soups, stews, or other dishes that contain lots of liquid (as opposed to something like a stir fry).
I'm not taking about caramelization -- I understand the purpose of that. I mean recipes that ask you to "sweat" the onions or cook them until they're just translucent, with no browning.
Cooking the onions this way makes sense if you want to reduce the moisture and concentrate the flavors. But it seems to me that if you're adding the onions to soup, for example, you're reducing the moisture just to put moisture back in it.
Does it really make a difference in a soup or stew, as opposed to simply adding the raw onion along with other ingredients?
Sweating onions by definition means "he gentle heating of vegetables in a little oil or butter, with frequent stirring and turning to ensure that any emitted liquid will evaporate." Thus, it's impossible to Saute onions in high liquid foods.
@RonJohn: I think a question title of "Why bother to sweat onions before adding to high-liquid foods?" would capture the what the question body is asking. Not suggesting trying to sweat in the liquid. Or since we know the answer, steer the question in that direction: "What does sweating do that wouldn't happen in soup or stew liquid?"
@PeterCordes I'm commenting on the subject.
@RonJohn: On the current title? Yeah, my point was the OP should retitle their question to reflect what they're asking, because the current title is confusing / misleading.
If someone can edit that to reflect the correct spelling of "sauté", that's too small an edit for my permission level
@njzk2: is sauté the correct spelling in English? (it is obviously in French). "Sauté" in French is an adverb, it can also be a noun in English (in addition to being an adverb)
@PeterCordes yeah, I hate it when the subject and the body are... different.
@WoJ not an adverb, but a past participe. And yes, the English spelling takes the accent as well.
I make soups both ways and there is a clearly different end result. I'm not sure the exact mechanisms going on but I'll list some hypotheses/thoughts:
I'm sure if you boil the soup for a very long time any differences will approach imperceptibility, but many soups aren't cooked for a super long time.
Anyone who has experimented with this knows that the texture of onions changes much faster when you are sautéing or sweating compared to boiling. Thinly sliced onions will still have some of their firmness even after an hour of a slow simmer.
Even on low heat the cooking temperature will be much hotter than simmering water. Although you aren't cooking them long enough for caramelization / obvious Maillard reactions, you will still be introducing some of those flavor compounds into the mix.
On the flipside, the heat of the initial sweat will also destroy some compounds present in raw onion, much like how raw garlic is different than sautéed garlic which is different from roasted garlic. Many recipes probably include a sweat purposefully to remove the "bight" you get from raw onion. Of course those flavor compounds may also be desirable for some dishes.
Sweating also introduces evaporation, but this probably isn't one of the bigger factors.
Finally, a lot of the above arguments also pertains to the oil as well. Olive oil that's been sautéed with something is going to taste differently in the end compared to just throwing it in while the soup is boiling. (As Anastasia Zendaya points out, the flavors of the thing you are sautéing will be added to the oil, but I'm focusing more on how the heat itself is changing the fat you are using).
It makes a big difference. The heat you can impart to anything by boiling is limited to 100°C (212°F). This is too low for some of the flavor magic to happen, like maillard reactions, which start about 140°C. A pan's temperature can get much higher than boiling water, which is why you saute them first. If you try to make onion soup without sauteing them first they'll soften, but they'll never lose that raw onion flavor, and you won't get the sweetness or depth of flavor from the maillard reactions.
You miss my point. I understand browning onions for onion soup -- mailiard reaction, caramelization, etc. I'm referring to recipes that specifically say to "sweat" or cook until translucent but not brown.
My understanding (I'll leave it for someone with more expertise to weigh in definitively) is that when you 'sweat' onions you are doing some of the same reactions, just to a lesser extent. Certainly the flavour changes significantly in the process.
Even just sweating the onions changes the flavor, making it more mellow compared to just boiling or simmering the onions. You can also boil onion for a decent while and still have that crunch. If you're making a soup as you suggest, and that soup doesn't have a long cook time, you could be left with semi-crunchy bits of powerfully flavored onions in it.
@RonTrunk boil a quartered onion, and see what happens. Maybe you'll like it.
@RonTrunk you're missing the point. Things happen to the onion when you sweat it which won't happen at lower temperature. Some of those things have to do with browning, some don't.
Some flavour changes do happen slowly. With long enough boiling (e.g. some recipes for British Indian base curry sauce only boil the onions) the flavour does mellow, but never becomes the same as onion gently sweated in oil. That would suggest that it gets to noticeably more than 100°C, but not hot enough to brown.
It flavors your oil. Notice how in many soups there's glistening oil floating on the surface? It makes the soup taste better, but simply drizzling in the (neutral, in this case) oil at the end of cooking won't provide the same delicious results.
At my household we often make tomato egg-flower soup (or as other people will put it, tomato egg-drop soup), and it involves frying up diced tomatoes in some oil, before filling up the post with faucet water and letting it bring to a boil.
Like what you addressed in your post, no caramelization happened on the tomatoes (and predictably so, as they are really watery), but you can clearly see the orange-color (and flavored) oil that floats to the top when adding in the water.
I agree with the answers noting temperature and flavor. Fat carries flavor better than water.
To add another perspective, Salt Fat Acid Heat notes why not to cook onions in acidic liquids. (That may be the case if you are making, say, a tomato heavy stew):
Anything containing cellulose or pectin, including legumes, fruits, and vegetables, will cook much more slowly in the presence of acid. [...] The acid in tomatoes explains why those pesky onions float to the top of a pot of sauce or soup and stay there, never getting soft, even after hours of cooking.
Funny enough, I had just read this section and ran a small experiment to see if I could confirm it.
I boiled two sets of 70g of diced Spanish onion for three minutes. In the picture below, the onions on the left were cooked in 2 cups water, and the onions on the right in 1.75 cups water + .25 cups white vinegar.
Onions cooked in the presence of vinegar had more of a bite.
While this doesn’t directly answer the question, I love the experiment and tangential information.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.852678
| 2020-12-26T19:46:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113391",
"authors": [
"BobKayser",
"Chris H",
"Peter Cordes",
"Ron Trunk",
"RonJohn",
"Stephie",
"WoJ",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90396",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95177
|
Why does plastic never dry properly in a dishwasher?
Whenever I get tasked with unloading the dishwasher, I'm always amazed at the amount of water that's still stuck (always in droplets) to our plastic kitchen utensils and storage containers.
We have a dishwasher with three racks, but it doesn't seem to matter which rack you use, plastic spatula's in the top cutlery rack, plastic containers or cups in the middle rack or our plastic cutting boards or plates in the bottom rack, all are equally wet when unloading the dishwasher, while the regular cutlery, glasses, metal pans and ceramic plates are all perfectly dry.
Why do the plastic kitchen utensils never dry properly in the dishwasher? And is there anything that can be done so the plastic does dry in the dishwasher? (besides using a towel or just waiting three days before unloading)
I recently got a new dishwasher which – to my immense joy and surprise – actually gets plastic items almost completely dry. So the obvious follow-up question then becomes: why does plastic dry in newer dishwashers?
@JanusBahsJacquet go for it...!
If you do dishes normally, then drying the plastic items takes more effort than metal or ceramic or glass/crystal items. So its not the drying cycle's fault, its the material.
Causes
According to this article the problem seems mainly two fold, conductivity and thermal inertia (among other factors).
During washing temperatures get relatively hot (depending on the particular program chosen) to promote sterilization and help with cleaning.
Conductivity: Different utensils are made of different materials which will absorb this heat at different rates. Plastic has relatively low conductivity compared to say a metal pan or stainless steel object, thus both gaining heat slower and transferring that energy to water less efficiently leading to less evaporation.
Thermal Inertia: Plastic objects are generally thinner and lighter, plastic is generally also less dense than other common kitchen materials, leading to retaining less heat, and conserving less energy, thus remaining warm for shorter periods, again promoting less evaporation.
There may also be other factors at work; such as surface properties of plastics like roughness and porosity that make it hydrophobic, which may cause water droplets stick more to its surface, or evaporate slower.
Possible Solutions
Briefly open the door
I have recently developed a practice that I feel helps getting most items (even plastics) almost dry.
After the cycles finishes, (the sooner the better so that the least amount of heat is lost), immediately turn off the dish washer and open the door.
Leave it open for a few brief seconds, long enough to let most vapor escape, but short enough that the minimum amount of heat is lost.
After that close the door again and let it sit for a while, no need to shut it tight, leaving it ajar will suffice. Ten to twenty minutes is probably more than enough if you are in a hurry.
This will ensure a lot of the humidity will leave the compartment while still remaining warm, promoting quicker evaporation, ensuring that most items will be either almost dry or have a minimum amount of water when you return to unload the dishwasher.
Shake Plastic Items
One other optional thing you may do in addition to the previous procedure, (if you can waste the time and have the energy) is, after opening the door while waiting for the steam to escape, individually grab any plastic objects and one by one give them a vigorous shake to loosen any droplets on its surface.
If your ratio of plastics to other materials is anything like mine those should be a minority so it shouldn't take too long. One or two shakes per item is generally enough, just let them splash into the sink, or even back into the dishwasher to get most of the surface water off. Then just put them back in and close the door again and let them dry along with other items, the remaining heat should take care of most residual humidity.
As mentioned in the comments, if you have no delicate items that might break, you can also just give the whole rack a shake instead. Items with intricate designs or crevices that pool water may still benefit from a good individual shake though.
Use Rinse Aid
In case you aren't already for some reason, using rinse aid seems to helps considerably achieving drier items after the cycle.
Backstory: After purchasing a new "fancy" zeolitihc dish washer we were told it needed no rinse aid since local water quality is satisfactory; so we didn't for a while, and were pleased with the results. In time however we found, that despite all the bells and whistles the new dishwasher seemed to achieved poorer results compared with the previous one.
So for a change we decided to add some rinse aid once and it made a very considerable difference in the wetness of all item types after a cycle, not only plastics but also, metals, glass and ceramics (in addition to considerably reducing cycle duration by 1/3 of the time, thus also saving energy).
Some newer dishwashers pop the door open at the end of the cycle and leave the heater running for a bit. Their R&D, our gain. I'm not really adding anything to this answer other than it's a valid approach that we can take advantage of.
I grab the entire rack and give it a shake instead of fussing with shaking individual items. Only works if nothing will break when you do this!
@elliotsvensson True that also works in most cases, though the individual shake is probably more effective, especially if the items have intricate designs with crevices or shapes that accumulate water
Tussle the Tupperware, shake both drawers and then pull them all the way out to finish drying.
Don't open the door all the way. Open it a little, shake the top rack vigorously, then leave the top rack pulled out a little so the door is ajar. This will let steam pour out while not cooling the inside as fast as having the door fully open. The darn good shake of the top rack also helps if there are hollows on the bottoms of mugs that have water in them.
The specific heat capacity ("thermal inertia") is roughly the same for porcelain and common varieties of plastics. So the heat energy stored in the piece is the same for the same weight. Quick check: porcelain bowl 3 x the weight of similar size as plastic bowl. My guess is that the drying cycle is set up so that porcelain dishes will be dry (otherwise customers would be upset), but it would be too costly to go to the point where all plastic dishes are dry as well. Also I find that lots of the remaining water in the plastic dishes is rather related to shape, i.e. puddles forming.
Along with leaving the door opened we also turn upside down cups, and other collectors of water. over to drain those areas then let them dry for awhile.
In addition to the lower heat capacity (see other answer), a main reason, quite counterintuitive, why plastics don't dry well is that they're hydrophobic. That's right: they keep water sticking to them because they're water repellent (but not completely water repellent).
The reason for this strange behaviour is that any small amount of water on the surface of plastics immediately contracts to a compact droplet. This minimises contact with the plastic, but also with air, which is the problem: for efficient evaporation, you need a large air-to-liquid surface. You do get such a large surface on glass, ceramic and metal, because these are (at least when freshly cleaned) hydrophilic, so the water stretches out to a thin film coating a whole lot of the surface.
Not so with plastics. Only with some shaking will the droplets start running down the surface, and may combine with other drops and then drip off. With super-hydrophobic materials you'd be ok again because even tiny drops would immediately pour down, but most plastics are exactly at the sour spot: too hydrophobic for evaporation, but still not hydrophobic enough for a lotus effect.
Melamine resins tend to be among the better plastics in this regard, as they're still pretty hydrophilic. Still, they tend to dry only incompletely, probably because of the low heat capacity.
Hydrophobic surfaces also explain why non stick pan's can have beads of water on the inside while the outside is dry at the end of the cycle.
@ChrisH, on the other hand, the hydrophobic coating of non-stick pans also means you can dry them with a quick shake. Plastics aren't hydrophobic enough for that to work.
This answer could be improved a lot if you actually explained the thermal issues as well. As it stands it seems very incomplete though very interesting. If this answer had both parts it would be a very complete and excellent answer.
@Rubiksmoose yeah, I actually intended this answer to be more of a supplement to Duarte Farrajota Ramos'. Didn't expect it to outperform that in the votes...
I'd give you a +1, but didn't to try to get Duarte's post back on top as requested.
There are several variables that go into this so I may not touch one the one(s) you are facing but I will try.
Some options to help in no particular order:
Use a rinse aid. (This would be my first suggestion) Rinse aids are designed to coat dishes and then repel water. It makes drying a snap. The lack of splotching is secondary to me.
Use the heat dry setting on your dishwasher. (If it has it and it works)
Unload the bottom first can help prevent the water on the upper racks spilling onto the lower dishes.
Load dishes carefully. Make sure when loading the dishwasher you aren't placing anything in such a way that it pools water. Also packing things tight so they don't shift too much and then pool water.
As to why. I can't answer that very thoroughly but many dishes have an enamel on them that is very smooth and dries quickly. I suspect your plastic dishware aren't as smooth. Especially as time progresses. I know some of my oldest plastics are very rough and don't dry so well. I usually put them on a drying rack after they come out of the dishwasher.
Took the liberty to fix, I think you meant upper racks. Feel free to roll back if not
Your suggestion to use a rinse-aid directly contradicts leftaroundabout's answer, where he suggests that repelling water is the problem.
Of course - but in this case, one of you must be wrong. I thought you might like to explain why it is not you.
Martin, actually a rinse-aid might help the water on a plastic in the dishwasher not stick to itself so much (inside the droplets that form), helping it spread out and dry up. https://thewirecutter.com/blog/dishwasher-rinse-aid-cleaner-drier/
I can confirm rinse aid really helps. We just got a new dishwasher recently and noticed this issue (and not just on plastics, everything was coming out wet). Having never bothered with rinse aid before we decided to give it a go and now there is hardly any water left on items. Plastic does still gather some droplets but nowhere near as bad.
Another confirmation on rinse aids: I got plagued by wet plastic for a long time, but just changed the rinse-aid recently, with a great effect: If it doesn't work for you (yet), try a different one. It's not perfect, but a lot better. I won't name the brands here, as they'll likely be very different in different areas of the world. Note: I'm using basic detergent tabs and liquid extra-rinse-aid that the machine adds late in the cycle, rather than the 42-features-in-one-tab cleaners that apparently include little gnomes scrubbing and drying your dishes.
@MartinBonner I took the liberty of rereading the other answer and they may not be mutually exclusive. In that answer it suggests that hydrophobic plastics arent hydrophobic enough. But with a rinse aid maybe they are. I don't know enough science to further expound on why they work. Just going on experience.
To answer you question, we have to take it from a scientific point of view. Its been a while since I did A level chemistry but i think i know enough to give you a simple enough answer. The atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in water, as well as hydrogen and carbon (and other elements which will form the plastic, while hydrogen and carbon are the main ones) give out intermolecular forces- van der waal/dipole dipole forces, hydrogen bond (still a force, but a strong one of that) and temporary dipole forces. They occur due to the attraction between atoms, which will all have different arrangements of their electron shells, number of protons and number of neutrons. Hence different atoms have different levels of attraction.
Secondly, static also builds up on plastics when put under energy, thermal in this case, so the water is attracting to the plastic in clumps. You can test this with a balloon rubbed over the carpet, then run under the tap. some water will remain.
To conclude, The plastic and water are just attracting to each other, by intermolecular forces as well as static forces. Think of it like the static collects at several particular points, then the intermolecular forces also help to keep it together.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.853295
| 2018-12-27T19:47:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95177",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Criggie",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Gilbert",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mark",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Mazura",
"Olaf Kock",
"Rubiksmoose",
"Stephie",
"Summer",
"adaliabooks",
"cbeleites",
"elliot svensson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71735",
"leftaroundabout",
"mlibby",
"user3190797"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96627
|
Fruit identification - Fruit bought in China
Does anyone know what this fruit is? I bought some from a lady in Yangshuo, China. It’s sweet and crunchy. Tastes a bit like an apricot mixed with a peach... Fruit and seed shown in picture.
I have asked locals who say it is a type of plum, and another who said it was maybe a hybrid plum-apricot. I was thinking it might be a loquat but the seed is too small.
For a Pluot ( hybrid from plum and abricot) the seed seems different : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluot
Thanks. Yes I came across a pluot, but the stone is mich smaller and also it doesn’t have a different coloured darker skin like a pluot does. The flesh of this fruit and the outer ‘skin’ just blend together.
What sort of texture is the seed? If you still have any fruit and the seed, could you post with some scale and other perspectives (e.g. edge towards camera, top towards camera etc. If at all possible photos of the flowers as they are often the key to identification of plants.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.854343
| 2019-03-01T10:44:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96627",
"authors": [
"Daniel E.",
"Laura",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73173"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96455
|
What substitutes work with a capsaicin allergy?
I recently found out that I'm allergic to capsaicin, so that means no spicy Mexican food, which I love. Are there any substitutions that I can use? I can have black pepper, but too much black pepper and that's all you taste.
Very related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33534/chili-and-bell-pepper-substitute-due-to-allergies?rq=1 (Not a duplicate though, because capsaicin is not contained in bell peppers so the asker of that question is apparently allergic to those too, so must be something different contained in all capsicum.)
also related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/64382/67
@leftaroundabout Just to cite what Judith White wanted to reply with (but couldn't for the lack of 50 rep): "To tell someone with an allergy to Capsacin that there is none in bell peppers... you would be dead wrong. As it was I did end up in emergency. There is some. But almost none is not none. Things that I have been playing with instead: wasabi, basil, black pepper, garlic and oregano as well as the recommended Cumin."
@AnastasiaZendaya some allergy cases are extreme, but as the OP just “recently found out” they're allergic to capsaicin – but loves Mexican food – this does not seem to apply here. Anyway, my remark was not to suggest that bell peppers are a safe thing to try for someone with known capsaicin allergy, but to point out that the other question is probably not about capsaicin allergy but about something different (unfortunately not clear from the way it was asked).
You could try other piperine containing types of peppers (Piper genus), these include P. longum (long pepper) and P. retrofractum, as well as white pepper P. nigrum, though any member of the Piper genus should contain some piperine, but amounts and hence spiciness will vary.
You could also try ginger (Zingiber genus), as well as mustard seeds and shoots/leaves (Sinapsis genus and Brassica juncea), all of which are objectively "hot", though also with different (and strong) flavours and heat levels.
Wikipedia also has a list of peppers under their Template:Herbs and Spices, which includes such things as Alligator pepper (Aframomum), Schinus genus, Sichuan pepper (Zanthoxylum), and a couple of others.
You can also get 95% piperine concentrate, extracted from black pepper, which could give you the heat of black pepper without the full flavour. Not sure exactly what it tastes like though as it's sold as a supplement rather than an ingredient.
You could ramp up the heat by adding more cumin rather than more black pepper. It's commonly used in both Indian, and in Mexican cuisine, so the flavour shouldn't be too strange. It can make spicy dishes feel much more fiery.
Other possibilities are to use other warm spices, such as cloves, cinnamon, ginger, Szechuan pepper corn, mustard seeds, etc . . . but then again, these might affect the flavour in ways that make the dish taste more Asian, rather than Mexican.
If you're looking for something to mimic the flavor profile of chili peppers, to give you familiar-ish tastes in your food, the best I've found is sweet or smoked sweet paprika.
Sweet paprika is made from bell peppers would contain no capsaicin, since bell peppers do not. Hot paprika, on the other hand, is made from capsaicin bearing peppers and would not be safe - and some paprikas are made from mixed batches of peppers, so it may take some label-reading and deciphering to make sure you get a pure-bell-pepper paprika. I've only seen smoked sweet paprika in my area, though it seems that smoked hot paprika is available elsewhere.
I'm pretty strongly intolerant of capsiacin, and this works for me to get the flavors in food balanced well when working with recipes that call for chili peppers. It will of course still be different, but it can be flavorsome and very good. I would suggest caution, though, when trying paprika at first as tolerance levels can vary a lot - mine is severe enough that I consider sweet paprika safe enough for me as safe to recommend, but there's always the possibility of individual differences.
If what you're missing is not flavor-profile-stuff but the actual spiciness, bob1's answer on foods and flavorings with other spicy compounds may work well.
Or you could maybe just try eating your food while really boiling hot, to replicate the scorching of one's mouth :)
If you're suggesting smoked paprika I assume you mean sweet smoked paprika. The hot (picante) kind definitely includes capsaicin (I have both, for different things)
As it is the answer is wrong. And since OP is dealing with allergy, a lower limit is difficult to be established and even sweet paprika might contain capsaicin as for capsaicin absence relies on perfect removal of seeds and perhaps other parts of the fruit. I support the above comment.
@ChrisH - I've only ever seen the smoked paprika that's made from sweet paprika in our area, I didn't realize it was available elsewhere - thanks for the heads up!
@Alchimista - Paprika made from red bell pepper would be safer (bell peppers have no capsaicin), that's sweet paprika. Hot paprika does contain capsaicin - and I will edit in a warning about smoked hot paprika, I just hadn't run across it before. As for relative tolerance, bell pepper is widely assumed to be safe for capsaicin intolerance or allergy (see leftaroundabout's unchallenged comment above, not to mention a score of other sources I found when researching), and I know it is edible even with my own very severe intolerance - though I will edit in some additional warnings for that, too
I see that bell pepper do not contain capsaicin. By other sources I was convinced that there is some capsaicin in all capsicum. As it is your answer is better, especially more clear. I didn't down vote even before, by the way.
@@ alchimista - your comment helped a lot. I wasn’t clear enough - didn’t include the sources - and forgot to include label-reading warnings cause I’m so used to it. It is useful to be reminded that I need to check if I’m being clear, so thanks :)
Black pepper is in the Piperine family, and is safe for me. I actually have been replacing all cayenne and paprika with sumac. It is not spicy, but it has a tang like lemon and has the bright red/pink color you expect from paprika, red pepper flakes, or cayenne. If your allergy is as bad as mine, I feel for you. It is in EVERTHING. Most foods list "spices" as an ingredient, and 99% of the time, that means there is something that I can't have in it. Good luck to you!
I also use fresh ginger, radishes, garlic, and horseradish to add heat to my food. I'm going to try the long pepper next!
Welcome! I edited your answer to remove some health advice, which is off-topic for this site.
add Sichuan chili oil (no relation to chili peppers) to list. Warm numbing glow pairs well with western dishes too
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.854490
| 2019-02-20T20:27:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96455",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"Pat Sommer",
"Richard",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"leftaroundabout"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55812
|
Does incorporating whipping cream in a chocolate syrup extend its shelf life?
We bought a box/carton of whipping cream a few months ago and it sat on the freezer for some time and we used it earlier to create a chocolate sauce/syrup for a cake. However, we didn't need everything so there was some left in the carton. We looked at the carton and it says that the whipping cream would expire in 2 days (the 20th of March).
What would happen if we decided to use it all up for chocolate syrup? Would our chocolate syrup's shelf life extend beyond the 20th? Or it wouldn't, since one of the components would expire already?
I'm not sure if the whipping cream was the type supposed to be refrigerated, not frozen in the first place, or was to be shelved. I have found that when one freezes whipping cream, the butter seems to separate and the product becomes a mess, my experience, and the product doesn't work as well as it should. More clarification is needed but since you have used the product and hopefully tasted it before you used it, and it was ok, then you should be ok. A few days beyond the expiration date is also ok because usually it is the "sell by the date" and you have a few days to still use it.
Lots of times when you use a dairy product, you should not keep it more than a few days after it is used even after its expiration date. You did put it into the freezer but again it may have changed the texture of the whipping cream. You need to taste it and look at it as you have defrosted it to see if it as come out creamy or lumpy out of the container it was in. Good Luck
When did you break the seal on the container? That starts a timer independent of the shelf-life for dairy & many other items. (you can have months left on UHT dairy, but if the seal was broken weeks ago, you should dispose of it)
@Joe I broke the seal 2 days ago when I used it. I placed it back in the ref after using it.
If you have an ingredient which is supposed to be cooked through, and cook it before it expires, the shelf life of the now cooked dish would be the standard for all cooked dishes, 3-5 days, no matter if the expiry date of the ingredient falls within these 3-5 days or not. Assuming that your syrup is cooked, and your cream is still good, I think it is safe to use that rule.
But in your case, the problem is that you already opened the cream "some months ago". This means that you bought UHT cream with an expiry date months in the future. The important point here is that this date assumes a closed container. UHT is a sterilization technique, similar to canning. Just like you can't open a tin of beans and expect them to sit in the open and stay good for months, you can't expect the cream to stay good. UHT dairy, once opened, should be treated like any other perishable food: refrigerated and used up within 3-5 days. Most people don't care about this, as it doesn't change its taste for over a week outside of the fridge, but keeping it out is not a safe practice. In any case, sitting at room temperature for months is way too long.
You mention freezing: don't freeze dairy, it doesn't work well.
Bottom line: When you open cream, you have to use it up. Whether you make syrup with it or not, it has the same shelf life from the point of opening.
OP didn't say he opened the cream some months ago, he just said he bought it some months ago and froze it.
The OP said "and it sat on the freezer for some time and we used it earlier" which I took literally: that it stood at room temperature on top of the freezer, and was opened a while ago, probably closer to the date of buying than to today.
That is true - he said 'on' not 'in'. But I believe he means that it remained closed until they used it recently (ie earlier in the day) to make the chocolate syrup.
I didn't actually open it until I had to use it. I'll check the smell and taste before using it again cuz if either of those two are off, it means that the double cream is bad already.
I gave you my comment above. The best advise I can give you for next time is buy heavy whipping cream, refrigerate it and use it in a timely manner with all your ingredigents fresh as possible. You may have lumpy chocolate cream this time but...again it may be your luck it turns out perfect for you. Many times when I make something new, and I am not suggesting this is something new for you, make is first for you and your family and friends, try it out and if it comes out good to great, then make it for your guests. On the other hand, if they are great sports, do it for them and if it does not turn out great, break out some ice cream, popcorn, cookies, or make some french toast very decadent with jam, ice cream, whipping cream, powdered sugar, cocoa powder, chocolate shaving or sprinkles or candy, powdered sugar etc. That is a show stopper. Good Luck.
As a rule of thumb, fat-dominated food will go rancid as it goes off. In general it's not dangerous, but tastes successively worse long before it becomes a health issue. This is a chemical reaction, rather than a biological one, and is not slowed down quite as much by refrigeration.
The chocolate will probably overpower the (so far pretty low concentration of) butyric acid for quite a bit longer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.855116
| 2015-03-18T03:45:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55812",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jerome Sikes",
"Joe",
"Joe Bale",
"Karen S.",
"Mike Polino",
"Razgriz",
"Ron Hall",
"Tosha Wilson",
"angela gordon",
"grndzro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"tammy ireland",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123285
|
Substitutes for Sabra liquer
I am making a simple torte, just eggs, walnuts and shredded coconut. After is baked and out of the oven I am to pour 1/2 cup orange juice mixed with 1/4 cup Sabra liqueur. What other liqueur can I use?
The flavor profile of Sabra liqueur is described as rich chocolate and orange.
So if you have it, chocolate liqueur and orange liqueur would be the straightforward substitute.
If you don’t have chocolate liqueur, you could instead either add chocolate into the batter, dust with cocoa or add a chocolate glaze.
If you don’t have orange liqueur, consider orange peel either in the batter or on the cake.
If have neither and substitute both elements, you should decide whether you want the alcoholic component or not (use a fairly neutral kind in the drizzle).
As a liqueur contains sugar, you may or may not have to add some to the drizzle, depending on how much sweetness your substitutes bring.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.855579
| 2023-02-05T02:21:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123285",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49622
|
I failed to make yogurt, what have I made?
In the past I have successfully followed the instructions at makeyourownyogurt.com to make yogurt using siggi's as a starter for the first batch and from then on used the last of the previous batch as a starter. This worked great for a few batches.
For my latest I used some milk that had just gone off. It was at that stage where it smells a bit off and will separate in hot liquids. The end result was not yogurt. It was very liquid, but smelled like yogurt. A night in the fridge and it was separated into a white solid and a pale yellowish liquid. I poured off the liquid, and noticed the solid smelled and tasted like strong yogurt. I squeezed the solid through a cheesecloth and have obtained a crumbly cheese-like solid with a strong yogurt tang. I've used it in my oatmeal. I would put it on a cracker and serve it.
What have I made? Pot cheese? Queso Seco? A mess?
Is there anything I could have done to fix the mistake?
Was he off-milk the likely culprit, or a dead starter, or something else?
The white part is curd and the yellow part is whey. They can be separated in milk by the presence of acid, and helped along by enzymatic action. More acid typically yields better separation. Fresh cheeses are produced by directly adding acid such as vinegar or lemon juice. In cultured diary products such as yogurt and all other cheese, the acid is produced by bacteria like Lactobacillus. The reason fermentation acts as a short-term preservative is that many harmful pathogens do not fare well in an acidic environment, and when fermentation proceeds properly the "good" bacteria will simply outcompete the "bad."
When milk starts to "go off," that's because it's actually going off in the sense that most other people understand the term: it's starting to go bad. Whatever small amount of bacteria was in the milk has started to multiply, and has started to lower the pH. Coffee is not acidic enough to curdle fresh milk, but if the milk itself is slightly acidified then coffee will curdle it.
The fact that your yogurt separated so thoroughly is a sign that some acid-forming bacterium did serious work on your milk. I like Siggi's but I'm not a microbiologist, so I can't say whether you just had a weird batch of yogurt or there was already something living in your milk. It's probable that whatever turned your yogurt into cheese is in fact harmless. But it's also not improbable that something very unpleasant grew alongside it.
I think you got lucky. This is probably how our ancestors figured out how make different cheeses, but it's not exactly a reliable method. It doesn't help that commercial milk production is potentially a less sanitary process than it might have been in the past (although this might depend on historical place and time), and that the bacteria living in your refrigerator are probably very different from the bacteria living in animals' stomachs and wherever else people used to store their milk in prehistoric times. I don't know if they had listeria back then, but we have it now and it is something you absolutely do not want inside you.
Throw it out. Unless you know any microbiologist friends, in which case you should bring it to their lab and have fun seeing what's in it.
"I don't know if they had listeria back then, but we have it now and it is something you absolutely do not want inside you." :D
Never use spoiled milk. You don't know whether the milk has safe cultures or the milk is going to kill you. I am assuming that you use UHT milk. Then you have curdled milk which is very likely spoiled. I think you made a kind of yogurt-flavored casein-based plastic / play-doh that is inedible ;)
I didn't use UHT milk, it was whole homogenized. The milk has no visual indication of being spoiled, but the smell was a bit off and it separated in hot tea. It would have been fine in cereal for another day or two. The result is certainly edible and has a crumbly consistency, it's not plastic at all.
@Schwern I thought you meant by "milk that had just gone off" that the milk is spoiled. I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker ._. Otherwise I would have said that spoiled milk does not have necessarily a visual indication.
@ChingChong "Gone off" sure sounds like spoiled to me too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.855684
| 2014-11-08T20:35:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49622",
"authors": [
"Amen Precious",
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"Christelle Fourie",
"Heather Lowry",
"Schwern",
"Selena Escobedo",
"Stephen Ijewere",
"Warehouse Flooring LTD",
"fectin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99055",
"zarina mamoojee"
],
"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
}
|
122823
|
Is it dangerous to stack stainless steel cookware?
I have a set of stainless steel tri-ply cookware (non-coated). To save space inside my cabinets I stack fry pans and saucepans inside each other (smaller in bigger ones). I wonder is that safe?
They are all made of steel, so I imagine they can scratch one another. Instructions for my cookware set recommended to avoid using metal utensils to avoid scratches.
If the inside of your pans has some kind of non-stick coating (for example containing PTFE), it's advisable to avoid scratches.
There are pans with no coating, like many cast iron pans or uncoated stainless steel pans; scratches are not an issue with them, except for deeper scratches, which might cause sticking of proteins or might be hard to clean. Since your instructions tell you to avoid scratches, I'll assume your cookware is coated.
To avoid scratches while stacking, many people use some kind of felt mats to protect the coatings (for example these) or anything else which cushions the cookware.
Thank you for the detailed answer. My pans are non-coated; the inside is pure stainless steel. I updated my question to be more precise.
Potholders make good padding between pans, and it's the kind of thing many people have more of than they really need for holding pots, so it's a good alternate use for them.
In order to scratch cookware you would need something that is both metal and has pointy edge somewhere. Other steel pots are clearly metal but don't really have pointy edges. So I wouldn't worry when stacking the pots inside each other, they are just not shaped in a way where one could scratch the other.
Two metal pots stacked on top of each other could have a tiny bit of quartz or other foreign substance stuck between them, so that when they move slightly, the sand scratches both pans...
@Mr47 a) Do you usually have quartz or some similar sand in your kitchen in or around your pots? b) For all the pots I have, if I stack them, the handles of the smaller pot will rest on the rim of the bigger pot, the bottom sides of the pots do not touch each other. One can construct theoretical situations where pots will scratch each other, they just aren't relevant in practice.
a) As a matter of fact I do; it's rather easy for a single speck of sand to wind up in the kitchen. Vegetables from the garden are a notorious (but not the only) source. b) That prevents this issue completely,, so you are lucky that way :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.856058
| 2022-12-28T16:50:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122823",
"authors": [
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Mr47",
"Robert Kusznier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47250
|
Hard dry crusts on frozen bread
I have always frozen my bread with no noticeable difference. Some fridge freezers seem to impart a stale freezer burn flavor to lots of things, but I've never had that issue. I'm guessing it has to do with the freshness/cleanliness of the freezer, how things are packaged, how long they are frozen, etc.
I'm having suddenly having issues with the crust, sometimes just part of the crust, becoming extremely hard and tough on store-bought sliced bread that is usually frozen no more than 3 weeks.
The only variable that has changed is the style of deep freeze--we just received an upright, self-defrosting freezer, replacing our very old deep chest freezer that was not self-defrosting. Perhaps the newer one is removing more moisture from the air in the freezer, hence drying the bread. That makes sense, however, I used to freeze bread in my refrigerator freezer, which is also self-defrosting, with no issues.
I've tested lowering the temp of the freezer, and storing the bread on the shelf instead of in the door. Neither have made a difference. I'm planning to get a plastic tote with lid thinking that might help reduce drying air exposure.
Perhaps my question is more related to the functionality of this freezer, manufacturer's performance issue, or simply a variability in freezer styles. I just find it odd that after freezing food for 40 years with no issues, this has suddenly become a problem.
What sort of bag do you store the bread in before you put it in the freezer?
I have never double wrapped the bread, and never had a problem until now. That's why I'm thinking a tub with a lid so I can put multiple loaves in, not have to hassle with double wrapping, and not waste bags or wrapping material.
What you describe here is very clearly starch retrogradation and not freezer burn. Basically, it's the same process as the bread getting stale, but for some reason it is only parts of the crust. The retrogradation happens most quickly at temperatures just above freezing (that's why bread shouldn't be stored in the fridge), so it is probably something during the defrosting cycles. But I can't guess why this is happening in this freezer and not in the other defrosting one, and I don't know enough details about the process to tell you which detail is making it occur so badly.
Just found out why!
The bread was frozen when it got to the supermarket. This is the bread company's way of having fresher bread loaves on the shelves!
So in the end we are freezing it for a second time. A hard crust is the result of the second freezing.
The likely culprit, so to speak, is not just the freezer but rather the mill of the bag within which the bread now comes. Any relatively thin sheet of plastic is actually porous at the microscopic level. That's why you can smell right through some of these bags and detect what's in them, or detect the poor or better condition that their contents are in. Who for example cannot identify raisin bread with nothing more than a whiff of the bag? So even the slightest reduction in the mill [of a plastic] can yield an exponential increase in its permeability.
Now it may be, yes, that you noticed this change at or around the time you replaced your freezer. This concomitance is probably not irrelevant. Nonetheless, the marketplace is always looking for ways to cut costs, especially in the United States. And when you think about the sheer number of plastic bags that are involved nationwide for annual bread sales, the slightest change in the mill of the bag equates to some very real dollars.
I noticed quite recently here a change in the packaging of my milk cartons, (half-and-half actually), obvious because of the dramatically different color. But the carton is now so thin you can feel it caving in as you pick it up. I also noticed that the screw-on lid was lighter in weight as well as thinner in its construction, (bendier and more translucent), and that the amount of turn required (and therefore allowed) was reduced. In short, it was a complete overhaul.
Okay, that synchronized cluster of changes didn't just happen for no reason. There are always motivations at play, especially when multiple changes have to be authorized by multiple layers of individuals at multiple levels of responsibility. What were those motivations? Was my grocer's provider (dairy) just feeling generous? Did they mistakenly ascertain that I as a consumer (speaking generally) would pick up this flimsier version of a container and respond in something of a positive manner?
Of course not. They didn't do it for me (us). They did it for themselves (profit). That's the pattern. That's the die that is cast. And that's more probably what accounts, at least in part, for the difference you've noted and shared. In my example, the carton supplier [to the dairy] could increase its profit margin over time and still manage to offer the dairy a slight reduction in cost for, say, every gross of cartons. Not complicated. Everybody wins but the consumer. Same deal for the mill of your plastic.
Certainly I don't mean to force this as an only explanans. The freezer too is bound to play an important role as follows. You did say it's a newer model frost-free, meaning newer than the frost-free you said you had before. On that note alone, here's what seems a likely scenario.
A frost-free works, obviously, by drawing not only the heat but the moisture out of the freezer. It does so nearly constantly, and on a very low level. That's all that's needed. So heat's being drawn out by the compressor (cold is just the absence of heat). And moisture's being drawn out by way of an evaporator and one or more fans.
The use of an outward drawing fan action creates a slight negative pressure. This pressure builds over time and then peaks, because the fans are only just so strong. By dint of this, note that the freezer door can at times be surprisingly difficult to open. A pressure differential has formed between the two sides. So anything in the freezer from which water can be drawn is going to be subject to these forces and will, of course, capitulate ...or as the Wikipedia article on the subject states,
water can evaporate out of containers that do not have a very tight seal,..
This fact in combination with the risk of too thin a mill in plastic, (where too great a porosity is synonymous with a poor seal), would serve to perhaps best explain the results you've experienced. The solution as you've suggested is to contain the loaves of bread yet further, probably placing them in large freezer bags. Beyond this, no doubt there remains something to be said for the kind of refrigeration which does not worry itself over the matter of frost build-up. Anathema!, I know.
Another consideration is the possibility the bread is being quickly transitioned from a decidedly warm environment (such as the trunk of a hot car), straight into the freezer. This itself would cause slight condensation, (difficult to notice as it's absorbed by the bread), as here the permeability if the package works in reverse, initially drawing in water from the freezer. (There's always evaporated water in the air, air which can enter the freezer whenever the door is open, including for example water from our own respiration.) In short the noticeable brittleness of the bread crust would follow not only from having the moisture pulled out by the freezer, but from the fact that it was actually pre-moistened one step prior.
I appreciate the entertaining commentary, and agree, to everyone's frustration, there are constant tweaks to products resulting in lesser quality and better profits for the manufacturer. In one such case, I think the frozen bags of hash browns has decreased from 2 lb. to 1 lb. 10 oz. at one of my grocers, resulted in a rather soupy outcome in a recipe I recently made. I worked in a bar where they changed all the beer glass sizes down 2 oz. in order to increase their profits.
i think it is that you are letting the bread touch the sides of the freezer. same thing happens if i let the bread touch the sides of the refrigerator. the whole loaf will be fresh except whatever side was touching the side of the refrigerator. so just store the bread in the middle, with other things on either side, and i bet it fixes the issues. i know this is late, but i was looking and goolging for WHY bread goes stale just because it touches the side of the refrigerator. and i still have not found the answer to that though. but it does.
I have put a piece of paper towel on top of bread loaf before freezing. It seems to help with the crust.
You mentioned the freezer, the packaging, and the length of time. It has to do with all three, but primarily the packaging.
Some freezers are better than others at creating the conditions for freezer burn. Set the temperature to zero, and do use the flash-freeze shelf. That will help.
However, you must protect the bread. That is by far the most important thing. I assume your bread is in a plastic wrapper. Leave it in the plastic, and wrap the whole thing in foil, as tightly as you can without squishing the bread. Then, pop it into a resealable freezer bag, and try to squeeze out as much air as you can as you seal it.
Time is a factor regardless of the other circumstances, but wrapped in this manner, your bread should be good for several months.
This seems different than freezer burn. There are no ice crystals; no off flavor. The center of the bread is fine, just parts of the crust have become hard. This is store-bought bread. We go through at least 2 loaves a week. I'm not freezing for extended periods of time. The thermometer says 5 degrees, so I moved the dial to colder. I would never have the time or patience at this time in my life to double wrap a store-bought loaf of bread that I'll be using within a month, that is not realistic for me. I'm thinking the tub with a lid might be best, even though air will be enclosed with bread.
I do not believe my upright freezer has a flash freeze shelf; I googled but saw commercial freezers. Do you think a residential freezer would have one?
This has been happening to me lately as well. It's really pissing me off bc I've never had this happen before. The side of the bread that gets hard is the side touching the freezer wall (I keep my bread on the door) the side touching the door seems to be the problem. So when I take the bread out to defrost I wet a paper towel and slide it into the side of the bread bag that's hard. This helps a little. Then when I make the sandwiches I put extra mayo on that side so it soaks in. But I need to find a way to make sure it doesn't happen anymore. I'm gonna try wrapping it with more than just the bag it came in.
I too froze bread in the freezer or stored it in the refrigerator and never had the hard crust problem until last 2-3 yrs. I decided the problem was with the bread, or the wrapper or both, not my refrigerator or freezer. Here's the solution. Keep bread in original bag & place loaf in a second bag. Squeeze air out of second bag, wrap tight, & place in freezer or fridge.
Because some times it my get hard in a cabinet if the bag is open and you will half to put it in the freezer and let it get cold for like five or six minutes hang take it out and put it in the refrigerator
Can you try to clarify this? It almost sounds like you're suggesting that the problem is keeping the bread in a cabinet, but the OP is pretty clearly stating that's not the case.
This is regarding freezing bread, not issues in cabinet storage or leaving wrapper open. Also, I have a really hard time understanding the rest of the meaning of this statement.
In addition, two things I would never store in the refrigerator are bread and tomatoes--it destroys the texture in both cases.
the bag must have no air. also i would advise slicing it since then you could use some time in oven or toaster to make crisp but not impossibly hard to work
It is store-bought sliced bread for the most part. I have never had to take these steps before; must be the newer freezer. I think I'll try a plastic tote with a lid to help counteract damage from the air. Even though all air is not removed, perhaps it will provide enough protection to solve my issue; and if not, I have another storage tub for another use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.856326
| 2014-09-19T13:34:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47250",
"authors": [
"Aaron Taylor",
"Betty Mcgarity",
"Charity Dugger",
"Daniel Chui",
"Janet Shirley",
"Kathleen Morales",
"Ken Weiner",
"Keymar White",
"Laura Rodgers",
"Mikael ADNAN",
"Mike Smith",
"Opelya Aperdo",
"Tanya C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"logophobe",
"paul talbot",
"rumtscho",
"watch dog"
],
"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
}
|
47196
|
Using a Jelly Bag
I am attempting to make Sea Buckthorn jelly (as in jam jelly rather than gelatin jelly), but am having an issue with straining the juice.
Here's what I have done so far:
freeze the berries on the branches (this makes them much easier to pick)
defrost the berries, this resulted in some liquid already in with the berries, so I didn't add any more before boiling
boiled the berries for a few minutes, about 10, to break them up a little
pushed the berries though a coarse sieve to crush them and remove seeds & pulp.
I'm now on the stage where I'm supposed to strain the resultant juice through a jelly bag - I have left the mixture in the bag overnight and it doesn't seem to have moved.
I suppose the bag is clogged with fruit pulp, and the rest of the juice most likely will not go through.
Is there anything I can do a make the remaining juice go through? I have been told never to squeeze the jelly bag as this will make the jelly cloudy.
I am happy to accept cloudy jelly on this first attempt if there is nothing that can be done; but in that case, what can be done in the future?
I don't know about your berries, but I have squeezed juice out of raspberries using a cheesecloth, and the jelly didn't become cloudy. No idea if there is something special about other berries though.
I noticed this with Pomegranite. Ran the seeds through my mega-juicer, and the resulting liquid was cloudy. It took FOREVER to go through the jelly bag, and had to run it through a coffee filter as well to get clear jelly. It is probably too many micro-particulates clogging up the holes in the bag. Probably better to just give them a good mash and let them sit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.857425
| 2014-09-17T08:21:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47196",
"authors": [
"Bonsai",
"Etson Daniel",
"Hendry van der Heever",
"JSM",
"Jen Leglend",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"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
}
|
94582
|
Clear soup with snow globe flakes
I've been searching for years to no avail for a clear cauliflower and blue cheese broth soup.
It looks like those Snow Globes, the one's you shake. The cauliflower snows in the dish each mouthful.
I presume it's cauliflower stalk broth with a vege stock, then baked florets are blended? Somehow with blue cheese.
Each time I try it isn't clear or when it is the cauliflower doesn't snow flake. The problem is if I blend it too fine it goes mushy and grating it creates slithers not flakes.
I think I need help, how do you do a snow flake soup dish?
If you post you current recipe, people here can help you modify it for the desired effect. As your question is right now, it's a recipe request which is off topic here,
Have you had this somewhere and want to emulate it, or is it an idea that you haven't perfected? Certainly sounds pretty :)
It was a cabin in the snow, she was a chef and wouldn't give me the recipe. It was so good. For years I've been looking at images for clear cauliflower soup and there's nothing. I thought maybe if I just described it's texture and content and the problem with the flakes part someone might be able to shed light. Its really delicious especially in cold climates.
It is not difficult to produce a clear broth or consume. Traditionally, an egg white raft is used to capture solids, and one can remove the clarified broth. There are more modern techniques for liquid clarification, which can easily be found online. For example, agar can be employed to gel the broth. The gel can be broken, and the clear liquid can be drained. Remember though, clear does not mean without color. So consider your soup ingredients as you think about the color of your final product.
For your soup, to me, the issue is the blue cheese, which will cloud your clear broth if added as pieces of blue cheese. So, I would experiment with getting the blue cheese flavor into the broth.
Then, chop cauliflower in a food processor, as if you were making cauliflower "rice". The cauliflower would have to be raw, perhaps being cooked by the soup once added. I am guessing these small pieces will sink in your bowl of clear soup. Stir them up and it will "snow".
I've never made cheese rind stock, but it's a thing. I wonder if it would help here
Thanks, this gives me (a cooking novice) some pro tips to try and look into.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.857625
| 2018-12-08T12:29:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94582",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"Jeremy Thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86448
|
What is a substitute for spry?
I have an old fruit cake recipe and it calls for spry, what can I substitute for spry?
Years ago I also used spry. But now I use Crisco and it works exactly the same!
Use any other shortening, Spry is just a brand name (not being produced any more).
We discussed Spry just a while ago in this post: Mystery ingredient in cookies with cream tartar
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.857831
| 2017-12-16T17:50:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86448",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95600
|
No Demerara sugar
I have just made an apple pie with a crumble topping for friends coming to lunch. The recipe specified Demerara sugar but I had run out so used dark soft brown instead. I think soft has more moisture in it. Will swapping sugars be a problem in the crumble topping? What differences should I expect?
I usually make my crumble with a mix of 2/3 caster and 1/3 soft brown sugar - i don't personally like the crunch of Demerara sugar-crystals... yours would taste a little more toffee-like than mine, but this is a matter of taste, so not an answer. It won't be 'horrible'.. :)
Hi @KateBatlin. The question as written will probably be closed, because whether or not it will be "horrible" is a matter of opinion. I would suggest altering the question so that you are asking for a replacement for demerara sugar.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/39508/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42496/67 . And in my experience, it's pretty difficult to mess up a crumble topping
Thank you! It was actually quite nice - thank you for taking the time to help x
@RobinBetts after the edit, I think your comment is actually a starting point for a nice answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.857899
| 2019-01-13T10:27:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95600",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kate Batlin",
"Robin Betts",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72086",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94435
|
Do we really need to salt eggplant in order to remove the bitterness?
Do we really need to salt eggplant in order to remove the bitterness out of it, or will only peeling remove its bitterness?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.858015
| 2018-12-02T08:16:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94435",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92503
|
When to add marzipan?
I want to bake a cake with the following ingredients:
200 g butter
200 g sugar
200 g grated marzipan
4 eggs
50 g flour
This is a classic recipe were you cream butter and sugar, add eggs one at the time and fold in the flour. However, I'm in doubt when to add the marzipan for best result.
Is it best to mix sugar and marzipan first, then start to cream with this mixture?
Is is it better to cream butter and sugar first, then add marzipan and stir until smooth?
What should I do?
I would cream together the butter and sugar then add marzipan, eggs and flour in that order
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.858054
| 2018-09-27T16:43:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92503",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93776
|
How can I make shami kabab without chana dal
Shami kabab are patties traditionally made with minced meat and chickpeas (chana daal).
What could be a substitute for the chana daal that still produces reasonably similar results.
Just a few hints how you can easily improve your posts: Add some explanation about the topic. Use the English names, at least in addition to the local names. Explain what you want to achieve.
More than likely another bean that has a firm texture like Chickpeas. People use black beans for vegetarian hamburgers because or their firmness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.858135
| 2018-11-10T13:23:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93776",
"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
}
|
73947
|
If a large can is divided into smaller containers, is it still shelf stable?
Everyone knows that buying in bulk usually saves money. My question involves buying and saving bulk canned veggies and items of that nature. Can you divide a bulk or industrial size can of say green beans or nacho cheese into mason jar, vacuum seal the jar with my Foodsaver and it still be shelf stable without traditional "canning"? I don't want my "nacho cheese" to go rancid on the shelf but I don't want it taking up valuable fridge space either.
No. You can freeze items like that, and they will stay safe indefinitely in a fully functional freezer, but once you break the seal on the can, items like that are subject to same 2/4 hour shelf safety rules as any other cooked item.
See: How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
I'd add the caveat that not all items are suitable for freezing without suffering texture changes after thawing.
@KristinaLopez but if it's already been canned, it's unlikely to go through additional changes, as cooking and freezing generally have the same effect of breaking down the cell walls.
No, it would not be safe to do so. You can divide it up and freeze it. That is the best and safest method.
I would not, for the sake of safety and not making someone sick or worse, re-can anything without being an experienced canner.
And even if you were an experienced canner, the time and cost involved would completely evaporate the amount of savings you made by buying in bulk. If you have any questions about canning in general though, please contact your local University Extension Service. They have information on USDA approved methods and cannning or otherwise preserving most foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.858211
| 2016-09-14T12:53:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73947",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Kristina Lopez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"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
}
|
84278
|
Some advice on knives
So my parents got a knive set from St. Moritz, and wanted to give them to me. I'm an hobby cook, who just likes cooking simple stuff. I have barely any knowledge about knives or treating them, so here I am. I just had some questions about the knives, since I'm not sure if these are legit.
Here's a picture of the knife set:
Whenever I google the knives, I only get shady sites and stories about people being scammed. Is this brand legit? The booklet that's included says the entire set is worth around 730 euros, but I can't find anything online.
And assuming the knives are legit, are there any tips on treating/using them? Can these be put in the dishwasher when cleaning, or should I refrain from that?
I have a magnetic bar on my wall to store knives, but is it bad to put 'good' knives on them?
They are kind of blunt at the moment, but I have barely any experience sharpening them, should I bring them to a special shop or something?
Thank you for your help! Just figuring out how to use these, if they're legit to begin with.
Like anything else, things are worth what people are will to pay for them. But the booklet claiming it's worth a given amount is ... suspicious. I know people who like Cutco knives ... I can't stand them. I've never seen a really sharp one -- I don't know if they just come dull, or they dull easily. (In one case, I was told they were brand new, and they were dull already)
I don't think magnetic bars are bad/do harm to knives, but I never liked the idea of having very sharp weaponry suspended in air by magnetism alone.
Welcome! It's usually best to ask separate questions separately, so people can focus on giving good answers to each. The magnetic rack one is probably already answered here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/79264/1672
Reasons not to put knives in the dishwasher: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1804/1672
@Jefromi sorry about that, just new to knives and this place in general :P
Are these new? If they are and they're dull then tell your parents to take them back.
Legit new knives, even pricey ones, sometimes come dull or not sharpened perfectly, see what I wrote about that below...
BTW: The low resolution photo hides a lot - do these blades continuously thin towards the edge bevel, or are they actually flat steel plates with just an edge bevel?
@Joe there is a big difference between a) knives that actually have a significant manufacturing cost (partially or fully handmade, and/or using hard to work with but great steels including the higher abrasives cost), b) knives that are of type a) AND are tied to a single person or small team of persons as a maker AND that are under a demand that exceeds possible supply by that maker - this seems to be the case with Shigefusa and Takeda), driving a high markup ... c) knives that are made from inexpensive materials in an inexpensive, scalable process and sold at an obscene markup.
@rackandboneman : I completely agree. And sometimes you get C, but they put the obscene price on it, then have a great 'sale' where it's still outrageously priced for what it is. And Cutco offers free lifetime sharpening (which is likely what the cost is to cover) ... so I wouldn't expect them to ship dull knives.
@rackandboneman I'll take a better picture after I get home. GdD: They did not buy them, we have recieved them from an aunt, who had them lying around for a couple of years.
@WillemvanRumpt this magnetic bar is really strong, and has kept my old knives there for years of use. I still see what you mean though, thanks!
"San Moritz" is the name of a line of culinary knives by the well recognized brand Messermeister. HOWEVER, the knives shown differ notably in design from that line and are likely a cheaply made product trying to capitalize on the name of that line.
Knives that are actually sold aboveboard (and perfectly worth the money) at ~$100 and higher apiece will usually be of a well recognized brand (eg Herder, Zwilling, K Sabatier, Chroma, Global...), or small-batch/handmade pieces bearing the name of the artisan or responsible workshop leader (eg Heimo Roselli, Jürgen Schanz, Sirou Kamou...).
Often (with a legit expensive knife), the steel type used will be clearly named (either by an industry standard name like VG10, 1.4116, 420B, AUS-8A .... or by a manufacturer-specific product name that describes a combination of steel and proprietary heat treatment method, eg Global "Cromova" ), and sometimes the hardness range will also be specified (eg 60-62HRC would be typical for VG10, 55-56HRC for 1.4116). A steel type and hardness do not signify the quality of the steel alone, since the way the steel is processed makes significant differences. A cheap knife is likely going to be of 420B at 55-56HRC, which CAN be a decent steel but often is not.
Out of the box sharpness is a highly brand dependent matter in all price ranges, for different reasons - a very cheap brand might not bother to sharpen well since it is costly (good abrasives are not that cheap), a high end maker assumes that the user is knowledgeable and will either know sharpening it or know a trusted local professional, and have their own idea of HOW they want it sharpened (there are tradeoffs to be made in sharpness vs durability, and different edges are best for different applications). BTW, for culinary knives, cutting behaviour is a combination of actual edge sharpness and blade geometry.
I see.. I think I can assume they're fakes though, since I've been looking at the knives and haven't seen any specification of the type of steel or hardness. I'll still take them to a sharpener, since I have no experience of doing it myself. Thanks!
"Fakes" is a subjective term here ... but I seriously doubt these would be considered worth $800 a kit among serious users or collectors.
BTW, be aware that there are ACTUAL counterfeits (designed to be mistaken for the original) of some popular knife brands (eg Global) in the wild.
I've heard of San Moritz but St. Moritz sounds like a ripoff of a good brand.
The knives shown do not imitate the San Moritz line, though - so i'd be reluctant to call them a hard fake/counterfeit. Neither would I call that brand honest or expect good quality. BTW, just for orientation: $800 spent on a single knife would get you something from the second-highest tier regarding culinary knives (highest grade sanmai, honyaki or true handmade damascus from blacksmiths that you could consider the top 100 but not top 10).
If one is just getting into into knife sharpening, the silver lining of having knives that are not as good as any "good knives" you may have is that you risk less when learning how to hand sharpen.
@C.C. I've been looking into taking some cooking classes. Mostly been winging it so far.
@rackandboneman I see what you mean, so basically these are decent knives which have the san moritz name on them (sortof), so they can up the price?
@rackandboneman I also just found something about the type of steel of the knives, I think. The booklet that's provided states the following: The knives are all made of stainless steel (X30Cr13) Does that say anything?
@AnonymousPerson they are as decent as someone who got away with murder this time - so, NO. And X30Cr13 denotes a knife of very basic quality - at a great heat treat, makes an OK $25 knife, at a bad heat treat, makes garbage.
@C.C. Cheap stainless like this is often more difficult to hand sharpen than better steels, and if the knife is expensive even if made of basic steel, the risk is the same :)
@rackandboneman okay not very decent, gotcha ^^
Over priced. Hot drop forged from a single steel. A better not great knife. Check the fork first. Can it lift ham with out bending? Forks are needed for lifting meat. The blades. All should know how to use a stone to sharpen. Takes practice but not hard to do. Start with a dull flat file about 6 inch's. Then your medium stone flat. Then your fine stone. Next you Onix stone to polish the blade. When you can dry shave the hairs off your arm perfect for use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.858392
| 2017-09-10T10:27:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84278",
"authors": [
"AnonymousPerson",
"C.C.",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52289
|
Olive oil is extremely bitter - has it gone rancid?
I recently bought some organic certified extra virgin olive oil from Tunisia. However
It is a cheap brand (only $10 a litre)
The manufacturing date is Dec 2012 so its over a year old
It is packaged in a heavy, dark green, glass bottle and states it is best before 36 months from date of manufacture
It is extra virgin and organic certified by EcoCert
It tastes extremely bitter (almost as bitter as bitter-melon - if you've ever tried it )
Has the oil gone rancid? Should I throw it out?
Isn't it over 2 years old as of now?
Good EEVO from young olive trees will have a green tinged yellow colour, be astringent or peppery tasting (astringent is different from bitter, as in lemons are bitter, spearmint is astringent)
The astringent taste is a mater of preference. In my experience most people don't like it
Olive oil that has gone rancid is yellow, smells more like peanut oil or just like old grease, and tastes bitter
Oil from Dec 2012 would most likely be rancid by now, unless it was stored in light and air proof containers
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.859302
| 2015-01-05T07:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52289",
"authors": [
"Anna Hamilton",
"Cleo Goodpasture",
"Ginger Waynick",
"Jessica Adams",
"Joseph Svoboda",
"March Ho",
"Mario Kiyukan",
"dk bone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90911
|
Best practices for using taps while avoiding cross contamination
What are the best practices when it comes to touching taps while handling raw meat? I have germ related OCD issues so I end up avoiding using raw meat at all costs because in my head the following would occur:
Cut meat > turn on tap > wash hands > turn off tap > get germs back on hands
While i could work with a one hand clean method this would not work for every situation, spatchcocking, keebabs etc.
I've had a google and looked for other topics on the issue, but they all seem to focus on washing up post cooking or how cooking shows cut out all the repeated hand washing. None seem to detail the best practices or governmental guidelines for washing hands and cross contamination from the act of washing (if there are indeed any).
I often use the method described in mech's answer - using food-grade gloves when handling raw meat. Both at work and at home.
A secondary option that I often employ is the overall cleanability of taps. Just grab those taps with your raw meat hands with impunity. Give your hands a quick rinse then lather them up with extra soap and scrub. Then scrub the taps. Then rinse everything again.
There are also taps that can be manipulated with elbows and I have heard of heat sensitive taps that respond to touch as well.
Just remember the raw meat can't hurt you if you just clean up afterwards.That might include the taps you used when cleaning up.
A common fix for this in food service is to use (usually disposable) food-grade gloves when handling the raw meat, and taking them off when you're done. You can buy them in huge packs for fairly cheap.
Gloves can be taken off by pinching one with the other (so you roll the first glove into a ball in your second gloved hand) and then slipping a finger of your degloved hand into the second glove, turning it inside out as it goes off your hand. That way you end up with all the raw-touched surfaces inside, and clean plastic on the outside.
I have always had single-handed mixing faucets in every kitchen I ever used regularly - they are the standard where I live. I would recommend installing one, even without OCD issues. I never have to touch it with a dirty hand and can easily operate it with my elbow or underarm. (The same principle as in hospitals when surgeons wash their hands before a procedure.) Also, adjusting the temperature and amount of water with a simple left-right/up-down movement is so much easier than turning two knobs.
If you buy one, make sure that the handle is long enough to operate easily and comfortably (but don’t worry too much, shorter ones will work just fine). A model with a rather smooth surface will make regular cleaning easier.
First of all, Taps usually are stainless steel, which kills of germs.
Second, normally you touch the opposite part to open it and to close it.
Third, if you have really dirty hands, you can wash your tap with sop-water while washing your hands.
In food safety seminars in Germany (which are a requirement for people handling food commercially) they teach to wash your hands with soap for at least 30 seconds, Dry them off, and then disinfect them. Commercial food producers/ Restaurants etc. are required to have disinfectant dispensers next to the employees sinks.
As Germany is generally considered a Country where food is pretty much safe, these procedures should suffice for you also.
"Taps usually are stainless steel, which kills of germs" - Will it kill germs in the 30 seconds or so that it takes you to wash your hands?
Plan ahead.
When I’m doing something like breaking down a chicken or gutting fish, I draw a basin of water before I start and have several sheets of kitchen towel already torn off the roll and placed handy.
I generally wash my hands in the basin first then turn the tap on to rinse them under running water.
I’ll quite often clean the tap and wipe down the basin with an alcohol cleaner when I’m done. I don’t like the way hand sanitizer gels feel, so I’ve got into the habit of buying large bottles of a non-gel sanitizer that I top up a small carry bottle from, but once I had the big bottle I found that it was handy for all sorts of stuff like this at home, even though it isn’t what it’s sold for.
The best option is to install foot pedal valves. Plenty of options can be found on Amazon.com. Search for "pedal faucet". There are many styles and price points. This way, of course, touching the faucet is not an issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.859443
| 2018-07-09T23:13:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90911",
"authors": [
"Sophie Swett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120163
|
How to preserve this agar based dish for humans?
I am a cook that created a dish with the following ingredients:
agar
a raw egg (remains uncooked)
bee pollen
honey
water
I want to be able to preserve this dish for months, because right now it starts to mold after a week in the fridge, even in an airtight container.
I know I can't simply freeze agar, so I'm either looking for ways to either make it preserve longer in the fridge (by adding ingredients? applying techniques?) or ways to still freeze the agar-based dish. (it's okay if it becomes a little more mushy.)
Is the final product a gel? Aside from your preservation issue, Agar gels typically undergo syneresis after a short time; that is, the liquid separates out. This happens in a day or two under refrigeration, but if you freeze, will certainly happen during the thaw.
@moscafj It is jelly-like, yes. However, it didn't lose that form after more than two weeks. It molded before any signs of detoriation was visible. But yes, I expect it to happen during thaw. Hence, the question.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
Very simply: you can't.
The shelf life of food is "built in" into a recipe. If you want something which lasts for a long time, the whole recipe has to be created around it being long-lasting. For example, if you want a piece of meat to last a long time, you have to turn it into salami, or pastrami, or something else that is durable - but you cannot have a piece of meat that does not spoil. Similarly, for your recipe, there is nothing you can do. If you keep it in the fridge, it has a shelf-life of 3-5 days, and after that it is officially unsafe. There is nothing you can do about it.
If it lasts for 1 or 2 weeks at a time, then I'd suggest making 1 to 2 weeks' worth at a time. Alternatively make the whole batch, but divide into small portions and invest in a vacuum sealer to remove all oxygen before freezing. The vacuum bags provide convenient freezer store as well.
But.... Thing is that just reducing the risk of mold won't stop your highly nutritious human food from decaying in other ways. Once eggs are out of the shell, they don't last long. Something with high water content, honey/sugar, and potential bacteria from the raw egg, not to mention the environment, is going to start fermenting, and agar is straight-up used to make those little culturing plates used in labs. Fermentation will still happen at fridge temperatures, even if it takes longer. Your sludge sounds like a great substrate for nightmares, as you've evidently witnessed on the mold-front, so for the sake of any human interacting with this stuff, I'd honestly recommend preparing smaller portions.
You can do that more easily by blending the egg to really liquify it, then weighing the egg and the other ingredients. Once you know the weights of everything, scaling the recipe is simple, and the liquefied egg is easier to measure.
The egg liquid can be preportioned and frozen (use a silicone ice cube tray if the amount of egg per portion is too tiny. Then just put the egg cubes in a freezer proof bag for long-term storage and hope for the best.) The ingredients can be combined/frozen where appropriate.
Alternatively,you can try powdered eggs, which are reconstituted with water. My concern would be that the drying (or pasteurization) might affect the proteins in a way that these humans like even less, lol.
But as rumtscho said, this food is simply not intended to last. Barring some kind of commercial preservative/mold-inhibitor approach, you're going to have to prepare it differently, prepare less, or decide if it's still cost-effective to make your own with the amount of loss each month.
To be fair; the agar component in bacterial/fungal plates is generally non-nutritive, it is merely there as a substrate for the culture to be inoculated on top of. It also doesn't freeze well - disintegrates when thawed.
Thanks for the useful answer! Unfortunately (for reasons I'm not allowed to state anymore by the mods of this SE) I think using part of the egg is not an option, because it would require me to use less than a 20th of the egg. Even when frozen, that's pretty impractical. Using powdered egg would solve this indeed, but you are right that the "humans" might not eat it anymore then.
I already own a vacuum sealer and have considered using it for this. It's just that I'm not very sure how I would apply it best for sealing tiny portions. (I use the size of a quarter twice a week)
@Opifex 1/24 of a large egg is still ~2 grams. Which is tiny, yes, but it can be done. Also consider the possibility of using a syringe to drop the egg onto parchment squares which can be transferred to a baking sheet in the freezer... They also make scales that are precise to a tenth if a gram.... Point being it can be done, but only you can decide of its worth it lol. Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.859916
| 2022-03-27T11:05:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120163",
"authors": [
"Opifex",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91329
|
In bakeries, what are the factors that make breads become hard?
If breads are reheated in a bakery, will this cause the bread to become hard?
What exactly do you mean by 'hard'? Are you talking about the interior structure? The crust?
@mrwienerdog I would assume that the OP means the crust
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.860295
| 2018-07-30T10:14:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91329",
"authors": [
"Jesse Cohoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47971",
"mrwienerdog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101189
|
Can ganache with butter be frozen, thawed and reused?
I have made a batch of ganache with butter in it. The recipe was supposed to be for chocolates, but I want to now use it on top of a cake. Can I freeze it, then thaw and use it in about a weeks time?
Freeze before or after it's on the cake?
I have frozen ganache and used it later as a topping with no problems. Just ensure that it is warmed enough to become semi-liquid before you use it for topping your cake.
As a note - it's also delicious scooped frozen from the container. Perfect with icecream.
I've never actually found it necessary to freeze ganache -- just refrigerated it. Good to know! Out of curiosity, how do you warm it up? Microwave, or just let it sit out for a day?
@kitukwfyer, just a gentle microwave, but I usually bring it to room temp first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.860366
| 2019-09-06T00:20:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101189",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107375
|
Is there a way to make bacon a decent substitute for pancetta in Italian dishes?
I live in a place where Pancetta is really hard to find, and when I do, it's completely overpriced. When I make some Carbonara or Gricia, both recipes from where I come from, I have to improvise it with good old bacon, but it never ends up the same as nonna did. So I ask, how can I make bacon a better substitute for pancetta?
It's kind of impossible to answer, IMO, nothing will taste the same as nonna do.
In the UK it's possible to buy both 'back' and 'streaky' (also I think sometimes called 'side'') bacon. The latter is somewhat like pancetta: both are belly part of the pig, both are cured. As user29568 says below you should buy unsmoked bacon.
It's not the same, but it can certainly work. Guanciale is a great substitute as well if you can find it.
I just made carbonara last week with bacon. I used this recipe. It came out pretty well. Using water in the initial cook makes the bacon come out a little more chewy.
Also, I use a zester on my pecorino, and it comes out grate that way.
If you think pancetta is hard to find and expensive, wait until you find some guanciale. I looked for years and finally found it in the Italian part of Providence, RI. Price was no object, it was for my dad, but it was stupid expensive.
Guanciale is another no go. Even more expensive than pancetta, but at least it's easier to find. I found out a good way to use bacon, though. As @myklbykl said, using water to cook it a little more evenly, letting it more crunchy, then I remove some of the fat it releases so that the pasta doesn't get too greasy
You can substitute bacon for pancetta. The main difference between the two is that pancetta is unsmoked, so if you can find bacon that is unsmoked, go for that. If you only have access to smoked bacon, you can blanch the bacon before you use it in your recipe to reduce the smoky flavor. Check your local butcher they usually have pancetta, if you haven't already checked.
The most common cured meats to use in either of these dishes would, traditionally, be guanciale or pancetta. Both of which are fairly different than your standard grocery store bacon. But I don't think that means you're entirely out of luck.
The main difference, although there are definitely others, between guanciale and pancetta is that guanciale comes from the jowl or cheek, and pancetta the pork belly. The main difference between bacon and the above two, though is that bacon is typically smoked in addition to being cured. This changes the flavor considerably, and I don't believe smoked bacon would make for a desirable flavor profile for carbonara, gricia, or anything else calling for the above ingredients.
But what if you used unsmoked bacon?
Unsmoked bacon, while substantially less common than the smoked version, might be possible to find, and should have a much more similar flavor profile to guanciale and pancetta. If you can't find it at your grocer, finding a local butcher and asking if they have, or could make some as a special order for you might be an option. According to this link you can discern whether it's smoked or unsmoked by the following method:
A shopper can tell whether it’s been smoked by the condition of the flesh and the rind if it’s left on. If it’s been smoked, the rind is deep gold, and the flesh is deep pink. If it is unsmoked, the rind is white or cream-colored and the flesh is pale pink. Unsmoked or “green” is hard to come by.
If unsmoked bacon proves too hard to find, and you don't have access to a butcher willing to prepare some you have another easy option as well:
Look at other cured meats
While distinctly inferior to carbonara made with guanciale or pancetta, I remember growing up that my mother would exclusively use ham to make carbonara as a cost cutting measure. Dice the ham up and prepare as usual.
If available in your area, I've also heard of people using prosciutto for this purpose, although this is by no means a cost saving measure. At the very least, it's closer in flavor profile than bacon or ham.
If neither of the easy options suit your needs, you could try a few more labor intensive options as well:
Widen your search on where you buy
If you really want an authentic flavor, this is your best bet. There are some companies that allow you to purchase fresh/cured meats online for delivery, and I know I've had good luck buying interesting cured meats at craft fairs or larger town's farmer's markets in the past. You might also be able to look for a community with a high amount of ethnic Italians or a larger city in general if you're willing to travel for it. In which case, I would recommend bringing an insulated cooler/ice packs along with you.
If you have any Italian restaurants in the area, you could even speak to them and explain your predicament, ask them if they would be willing to order or share a certain amount of what they typically get with you, and pay for it. This will usually work best if you know someone who works there or worked there yourself at one point, but it's possible. You would likely need to order a larger quantity in these cases to be worth your while or to get the restaurant to agree.
Or, if you're truly dedicated, consider making your own
This is no small undertaking and not something I can personally advise on, but if you're determined to get an authentic flavor, don't mind waiting for it to cure, and are prepared to research the process this may be a possibility for you.
My mom would occasionally use a mix of bacon and ham when making carbonara. There are people who harp on ‘traditional’, but this is poor people food… you use what was available and cheap. (Although I would still try to stick with pork unless you’ve got dietary restrictions that prohibit it)
Pancetta is bacon that has been hanged until it has lost 30% of it's weight. This process of hanging it after it has cured makes it possible to eat pancetta like ham. Without cooking it. If you are willing to cook the bacon before you use it then bacon is a fine substitute. It is pretty much the same thing, to be honest.
Use old bacon, the ones you might find a little bit smelly but not rotten. Don't worry the cooking kills all bacteria. This works for me.
It doesn’t necessarily kill all bacteria, as some can survive at high heat. More importantly, cooking doesn’t denature many of the toxins that the bacteria produced while they were still alive, and some toxins (like botulinum) can really mess you up, even in small amounts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.860476
| 2020-04-07T20:29:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107375",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Marcello Fabrizio",
"Mark Wildon",
"Max",
"Tim Nevins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80872
|
Making molasses cookies less soft
I have tried molasses cookies with the following recipe:
3/4 cup molasses
1/4 cup white sugar
3/4 cup yoghurt
2 tbsp oil
2.5 cups flour
1/2 tsp baking soda
cinnamon and spices.
The cookies are soft and cake like. How can I make them less soft?
The original recipe called for 1/2 cup white sugar. I reduced it to 1/4 and still find the recipe too sweet.
I want to keep the recipe eggless.
Thank you for the help.
I edited your question a bit for clarity. If I misunderstood anything, feel free change it back. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Both the oil and the yogurt are helping to make these cake-like. The easiest fix might be to find a different eggless recipe which calls for butter (or shortening of some kind) and no yogurt. Maybe look for "ginger snaps", and if you don't want the ginger you can leave it out. I'm pretty sure ginger snaps without the ginger would have to be called "molasses cookies". The following will probably get edited away since exchanging recipes seems to be a no-no, but I did find one recipe here http://www.spiceupthecurry.com/eggless-gingersnap-cookies-recipe/#wprm-recipe-container-26703
If you want to tweak the recipe you have, my first recommendation would be to substitute butter for some of the oil. Evidently you are open to a little experimentation since you already modified the sugar quantity.
Which brings up sugar quantity: not sure if you want "less soft": brittle and crispy ? -- or "less soft": hard ? White sugar promotes the brittle and crispy characteristic, and flour promotes the just-plain-hard characteristic. So if you want crispy and less sweet, maybe removing some of the molasses would be better than removing white sugar. Losing some of the liquid from the mo. in the batter might also help with getting them less cake-like.
I have made ginger snaps that came out real hard and clunky (sort of like the cheap ones in the box at the supermarket) just by putting in a little too much flour. If that is what you are going for, a little more flour is your answer.
Keeping the cookies in the oven just a teeny bit longer can also harden them up a little.
Of course changing stuff will require a little trial and error to get a good balance, but keep an eye on the dough as you tweak things to make sure the consistency remains reasonable. If you already decided to go ahead and halve one of the ingredients just to see what happens, then it sounds like you are ok with experimentation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.860979
| 2017-04-13T07:21:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80872",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79581
|
How can I make a last-minute birthday cake without using artificial flavor or color?
My dad's birthday party is tomorrow, and I do not know how to decorate his cake. He does not eat foods containing artificial flavoring or coloring. What are some methods I could use to accomplish this last-minute effort, and still suit his dietary needs?
His birthday is on April Fool's day? This sounds like the perfect opportunity to decorate his cake with ghost-chilli icing :-)
@Richard Jokes aside, imagine for a moment how awful it would be to have your birthday on april fool's day. Instead of celebrating nicely, people would forever be pulling stupid pranks on you and expect you to be ok with it, as if you'd actually asked to be born on that day.
The options are very wide. You are not telling us what kind of cake you have in mind, so I'll be making a few assumptions here. But once you start thinking outside the box that equals "birthday cake" with "cake with different colours of icing", a whole world of options opens up.
Birthday cakes need not be (multi-)coloured.
A one-tone cake that plays with texture can be very elegant, from luscious glossy chocolate ganache to swirls of light and fluffy frosting. You don't even need great piping skills (although it's a neat thing to master some day), heaping on the frosting and texturing into big fluffy "clouds" either with a spoon or a knife can be very beautiful and even my 7yo can produce very impressive results.
Find edible decorations for that pop of colour.
A bright red strawberry or raspberry on a white frosting, a few sprigs of mint or chopped pistachios for a touch of green. Some lemon or orange zest, perhaps. Even some jam or a fruit compote will do, put on top or served as a sauce on the side. Or go for a nature walk and find edible flowers.
Choose non-edible decorations.
Birthday candles aren't edible, so you can add more non-edible elements. Little flags on toothpicks or even a small garland held up by two or three large skewers come to mind. Perhaps spell out "HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAD" on bunting? Print a photo of your dad and mount it on a skewer or two? I have in the past even used toy figurines as cake topper. As long as everything that actually touches the cake is food safe, you needn't worry. You can use some parchment or plastic wrap to create a barrier under a topper, if necessary. The flags in the picture below are made from origami paper, masking tape is very handy, too, because it needs no extra glue.
Because the OP mentioned food colouring, I didn't even think of other decorations. I like your idea! Although it's too late for the father's cake, it's a great option for others. There are many edible flowers too! I wrote a booklet with photos for a friend of edible flowers and ways to prepare them. Lots of ways to use them in sweet items.
With edible flowers or herbs, you can candy them, or just the petals or leaves (soak in hot sugar syrup and dry). It also occurred to me that even if flowers were not the desired theme, a mosaic of candied petals and leaves could be quite versatile - making fancy patterns or simple pictures, depending on skill and available edible foliage.
@Megha true, but I tried to keep the suggestions relatively simple. Lovely suggestion, though!
Since it's last-minute, I'm guessing it'll be tough to work out natural colorings, so I'd avoid doing color-based decorations altogether.
You can use chocolate chips or shavings, nuts, fruit (fresh or dried), crumbled cookies, or anything else you like as toppings. I think even just an even coating of chopped nuts looks pretty good, but you can get pretty fancy with patterns, especially if you use more than one thing.
Or if you want something you can pipe on, make frosting and a ganache (or another frosting) in different colors - plain white and chocolate, or caramel, or maybe even fruit if you have something strongly colored you can puree.
What you are seeking are natural food dyes (or natural food colorings).
These are commercially available and you may find them at a local health or natural foods store or even a quality grocers.
They can be homemade, if you have the time and can get the ingredients.
Examples of their effects in buttercream:
(from Nourishing Joy)
Be careful not to end up with natural fabric dyes without careful checking, as many of these are toxic or bad tasting.
That last statement makes me worry that you've actually done that in the past, or know someone who has.
Aren't you going to be able to taste these? I can't imagine spinach powder combining very well with cake.
@Erik Many of these colorants are very potent; the amount needed to colour something is too small too taste (although I don't have experience specifically with spinach powder). Jude also mentions this in their answer. Sugar has a much stronger taste and - in most cakes - is present in a much (much) larger quantity.
I have tried going that way and almost all colors I have used have changed the taste at amounts which made the final product more on the pale than on the overcolored side.
@Pharap Fortunately not! But there were a couple of fabric dye sites in the search and, as my wife is a rug hooker and sometimes uses natural dyes, I am aware of some of the colour sources :)
@rumtscho I have to admit I'm what science calls a 'weak taster'. I need/like food that has a real punch to it as the flavour/taste of many foods is insipid for me - unless I disilike a certain food then I can taste or smell it in a very low concentration. --- It's possible you're a 'strong taster' and so would notice the difference more. So in the end, I guess it would be up to the person eating it and whether any of the foods used for colouring is disliked by the one eating it.
@Erik - I've seen spinach powder sold as natural green food coloring, and the example recipes and pictures included cupcakes and icing. I would guess in the amounts usually used to give color, the flavor of the powder isn't strong enough to clash badly with all the sugar. Not to mention most foods can be made savory or sweet, depending on context.
Takes very little turmeric to give a bright yellow colour - not enough to have a noticeable taste, especially if you use flavouring. Got any beets around? They give a lovely magenta red colour to food. Diluting would give a pale pink. Mashing fresh peppermint leaves will give a green juice but since you couldn't use much without thinning down the icing, it would likely be a pale green. I know of nothing that gives a blue colour since even blueberries cook a purple-red.
So forgoing blue, you can play around with those three shades to make some varied colours. None of this is helpful though if you don't have these ingredients. Hopefully, someone else may know of others.
You may be able to get blue by adding a bit of baking soda to the purple from blueberries, grapes, red cabbage, etc. The purplish colors of these plants come from anthocyanins, which change color depending on acidity. The exact color will depend on the specific types of anthocyanins present, and on what else they're mixed with, so some experimentation may be needed. Also, mixing such a blue with acidic ingredients can turn it purple again, so you may need to adjust the color with more baking soda.
@IlmariKaronen I suggest raspberries -- I know the colour is string enough to get a good pink (was going to suggest under Jefromi's answer), and I know it reacts as an indicator quite readily.
Turmeric also enhances other colors in the red/yellow/orange spectrum since it is flourescent!
While less readily available in most kitchens, spirulina and butterfly pea flower can both produce beautiful blue hues.
Suggestions:
Using a stencil, a seive and some icing sugar, you can create simple decorations known as cake dusting
Consider using chocolate icing
Fruit can be arranged on top to make wonderful toppings/decorations
(source: stylemotivation.com)
Indeed, actually explaining what you're suggesting with icing sugar would be way better, but suggesting chocolate icing and fruit is an answer.
Thank you for adding photos! That really helps explain your suggestions.
Jam or Jelly
Got a jar of jam or jelly in the fridge or pantry?
For jam, you may want to run through a sieve to remove seeds. You may need to add a bit of water or liquor to thin it out enough to press through. If too thin, simmer briefly on stove to evaporate.
Mix well to your batter or frosting for a bit of color.
Or swirl. After apportioning batter to the baking pans, plop some jelly and swirl with toothpicks or a thin knife.
Ditto for frosting, but you may want to practice first on a plate or waxed paper. If too thick for the frosting, thin a bit with water, liquor, or real maple syrup. Heating in a pan briefly can also help to thin.
Another alternative: Drizzle a series of lines across the top of the cake, then swipe across the lines with a toothpick to get the fancy effect seen commonly on Napoleon pastries. As seen here or seen here.
To prepare cake at last minute, i would make vanilla or chocolate flavoured pancakes or red velvet pancakes. For red color, I would use color from beet. Just grate and squeeze color from it and use how much you need.
Layer the pancakes by adding some whipped cream or chocolate ganache or cream cheese frosting which goes so well with red velvet pancake.
Top it with some more frosting and fruits of your choice. You can definitely play with flavours and look of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.861234
| 2017-04-02T04:31:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79581",
"authors": [
"11684",
"Allison C",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Erik",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Jude",
"Megha",
"Pharap",
"Richard",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"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
}
|
83226
|
Will old coffee in the refrigerator keep for 2 days?
I like the acidic taste of old/stale coffee.
I left my coffee at my desk over the weekend, and on Monday morning I took a sip. It tasted good. I did not heat it up, I drank it at room temperature.
But I read it is not advisable to drink coffee left out at room temperature because it is a medium for mold.
If I left it in the refrigerator for 2 days will it be safe to drink?
Try drinking it chilled, it's much nicer that way.
If left at room temperature it would certainly become a pool of mold, but if you refrigerate it, especially for just a few days, it should be fine. You would do well to put in a sealed container and probably adding ice to chill it faster would be 'better' but just set in the fridge for 2-3 days (depending on what else is in the fridge) should be ok.
Beyond that, taste is a personal thing and if you like it that way...go for it.
Cos Callis, FYI, unless maybe you live/work in a very moldy place(?), it would take an awfully long time for coffee to become a "pool of mold". My experience is many days or possibly weeks for even the tiniest dot of mold on the surface of the coffee, especially black coffee.
A long weekend in a warm office can be enough for strong sweetened black coffee to grow visible mould.
I am drinking a long black with 3 sugars brewed on Monday evening, added 1 teaspoon of sugar extra and reheated in a microwave. It is Saturday morning. It tastes beautiful and I'm not dead yet.
...It was kept in the fridge
Anecdote is not evidence -- just because you did not get dick does not mean it is "safe"!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.861982
| 2017-07-24T18:13:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83226",
"authors": [
"Bruce Cole",
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75942"
],
"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
}
|
50305
|
Turkey stock in refrigerator
We boiled the carcass of the turkey and let it set in the refrigerator for about 5 days. When I took it out to prepare the soup it was like gelatin. I know that's OK, however at the bottom there was white stuff. Could that be fat? I always thought fat was on the top!
The stuff at the top is fat, as oil floats on water (arguably one of the best things ever for a chef :))
The stuff at the bottom, is a collection of proteins, meat juices and all other sediments left in the stock after straining.
Personally I'd scrape any fat from the top. Then depending on the solidity of my stock I'd either ladle out the clear stuff from above the sediment or if set well enough I'd turn the container over so I had a big lump of jelly on my counter and slice the bottom portion off with a warm knife and discard.
It'll not taste great if at all and will make your soup, gravy or broth a little grainy.
On a side note, 5 days in the fridge is rather long. Food hygiene wise you'd usually not keep cooked meat products much longer than 3 days though a boiled stock will likely last a little longer. I'm not 100% sure what the actual guidelines are but I live to a 3 day rule on everything cooked in my work kitchen to keep the 'environmental health organization' happy...
Fat is good. Yes, you may want to separate it and so use the correct amount in whatever recipe where it is called for.
I'm not sure about the white stuff. Anything remotely water soluble should have gelled with the gelatin. If you pick through it, I'm betting you will find that it is gelatin mixed with small particles of meat or stuffing residue.
As a side not to the side note above: Safe keeping times are very dependent on temperature. I try to keep our fridge just above freezing. I find that the keeping time of anything rises dramatically. I have routinely keep ground meat for 2 weeks and not even had it discolour.
Restaurant guides are more stringent for several reasons:
When they screw up, lots of people get sick.
In a restaurant with people going in and out of the cooler every minute, it's hard to keep the temperature cold enough.
Restaurants are much more likely to do things in larger masses. This makes for longer cooling and heating times, which means that the food has spent more time at microbe breeding temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.862238
| 2014-12-03T22:12:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50305",
"authors": [
"Angie Ventimiglio",
"Dianne Dominguez",
"Georgette",
"Katherine Day",
"Mary Ann Guinto- Basa",
"Steve Wong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120520",
"siding4u"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50313
|
How long will my homemade marinade with orange juice last?
I have a question regarding a marinade that I made. It contains juice. How long will it keep in the refrigerator? I have the final marinade in a air tight glass jar.
Here are the ingredients:
6 Scotch bonnet or spicy habanero peppers (seeds and stems removed)
6 scallions (chopped)
4 cloves of garlic
1 yellow onion (chopped)
1/4 cup vegetable oil
1/4 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup white vinegar
1/4 cup orange juice
3 tbsp of fresh thyme leaves
3 tbsp ground allspice
3 tbsp soy sauce
1 tbsp fresh ginger (chopped)
1 tbsp fresh ground black pepper
1 tbsp kosher salt
1 tbsp fresh lime juice
1 tsp nutmeg
1 tsp ground cinnamon
That sounds really good. Hot (very hot), and awesome.
It's impossible to give an exact time, but given the sugar and vinegar, probably a couple of weeks. Don't quote me on that - it depends on several factors, not least the cleanliness of the jar. If you boiled the marinade and put it in a sterilised jar it would probably keep for months.
Hello Tony D, welcome to the site. It's very good that you state the ingredients, but please clarify how you prepare the marinade. Boiling everything vs. just combining the ingredients raw should make much of a difference.
2 weeks minimum. If it's in an air tight and sterilized jar which isn't constantly being opened and closed. I'd push more for a couple of months maybe longer.
All the acid in there, sugar and salt work as great preservatives and the spices also will help. The 2 things you need to be watching for are either the oil going rancid or the juice fermenting. Fermenting if probably the most likely. Both should be quite easy to spot.
Fermented sauce will start bubbling at the top, and if you shake the jar it'll fizz up like you'd expect from a bottle of soda. Also if the jar "pops" when you open it this is also a good sign fermentation has begun.
Here's a link for helping spot rancid olive oil the same rules apply pretty much to all oils http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/05/olive-oil.aspx
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.862458
| 2014-12-04T08:08:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50313",
"authors": [
"ARETHA WHITE",
"Bill Karr",
"Carl Sauve",
"ElendilTheTall",
"John Taylor",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michelle Joy Atamu",
"Stephie",
"hi5cars.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107465
|
Use Stand Mixer for Scone
I tried for the first time to bake scone. I used a stand mixer to mix the ingredients based on a recipe. But I have some questions:
Is it ok to use a stand mixer to mix them? I used the beater to mix them as it did it very quick.
The dough was very runny and I was not able to shape it at all. I added more flour (I used self-raising) but it did not help.
After I baked it, the smell and taste were good but they were not crumbly. They were more bread than scone as they were stiff. Did I mix for too long?
Scones should really be mixed very minimally, in order to avoid developing the gluten structure. Over mixing will result in less crumbly end product. So, in this instance I would not recommend a stand mixer. Instead, just mix by hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.862653
| 2020-04-11T09:24:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107465",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117523
|
Making bread using potassium bicarbonate
I am thinking about making bread using potassium bicarbonate instead of yeast.
Can I use potassium bicarbonate as a substitute for yeast? Would I just use a regular yeast bread recipe?
Or can I use it in place of regular baking powder? Are there any adjustments necessary?
For example, I would like to use Hain Featherweight Baking Powder, Sodium Free.
This is a type of sodium-free baking powder which contains potassium instead. It seems appropriate for people who are on low-sodium diets and want to supplement their potassium intake.
Do you have any reason to suspect that you can't use it as a direct substitute for sodium-based baking powder? There are plenty of soda-bread recipes out there.
Recipe requests are off-topic here because they aren't a good format for this site: StackExchange websites work best with questions that have one answer rather than lots of equally-valid responses. However, a question about whether potassium bicarbonate can be used as a direct substitute in recipes calling for sodium bicarbonate would be on-topic.
I'm holding off on a VTC as this is a new user with an interesting underlying question - but as it stands it's not answerable within our standards, so this is meant as a delay to allow editing
Chris, welcome! If you take the [tour] and browse through the [help], especially [ask], you will see that recipe requests are not a good fit for the site. However, there’s a very interesting question hidden in the use of the non-regular baking powder, so I took the liberty to make a drastic edit instead of just closing it. As a hint, start with these questions to get you started in the right direction for switching from yeast to baking powder: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/89004/28879, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/102767/28879, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/103652/28879.
@bob1 for substitutions, listing the health reasons for attempting to substitute X are fine, even recommended - see the tag description.
@bob1 "how can I use Y instead of X, because I can't eat X?" is absolutely fine, and I didn't ask for that to be removed. The off-topic bit is the recipe request
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.862752
| 2021-10-15T14:25:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117523",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129005
|
How Can I Fix Overcooked Noodles in My Pasta Recipe?
I recently tried making a new pasta dish using Trader Joe's Squiggly Noodles, but unfortunately, the noodles turned out overcooked and mushy. I followed the package instructions, but I think I might have left them in the boiling water for too long.
I’m looking for some advice on how to salvage this dish or how to prevent overcooking the noodles in the future. Specifically:
Salvaging the Dish: Is there any way to rescue overcooked noodles and improve their texture? Can I repurpose them into another dish or make the best of the situation?
Prevention Tips: What are some best practices to avoid overcooking pasta? Are there any specific timing or techniques I should follow to ensure the noodles remain perfectly al dente?
I don’t have any experience with it, but I’ve heard that Hawaiian pasta salad uses overcooked pasta… but I think it’s usually macaroni
One other thought on over cooked pasta… fry it to get some texture. Maybe yakisoba, or mie goereng, or pasta pizza (the Italian leftovers dish… see https://www.cookingchanneltv.com/recipes/david-rocco/pizza-pasta-1958995 )
Please don’t post AI-generated content.
Unfortunately, you can't uncook noodles, if they are too soft there's nothing you can do to improve their texture. You may be able to improve the texture of the dish by adding another ingredient, in this recipes's case more vegetables would be the most likely choice. You'll only get so far with this though, overcooked noodles will still be very noticeable.
As for how to avoid that, when it comes to any noodles (including pasta) start timing as soon as you add the noodles to the water instead of waiting for the water to boil again. Then use the instructions as a guide, keeping in mind your desired texture may mean cooking for a shorter or longer time.
The kind of freeze-dried noodle you are using cooks quickly and can overcook in not much time at all. An extra sixty seconds may not make that much difference with a thick pasta but with thin noodles it means mush. So, be ready and get the noodles out as soon as the timer goes off - remember water does not have to be boiling for pasta to cook!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.862929
| 2024-08-12T17:48:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129005",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
}
|
29180
|
Is using chocolate instead of royal icing for a gingerbread house more difficult?
Heston Blumenthal's recipe states royal icing or melted chocolate to build his gingerbread house.
Until now I've used an eggless substitute for royal icing with adequate results, although it's trickier. Am I asking for even more trouble with the chocolate?
I have some experience dipping truffles in tempered chocolate. I won't burn or tighten the chocolate, but I don't know if it will hold up.
Tips?
Just went for it by following directions here:
http://www.taste.com.au/good+taste/article/good+times/make+a+gingerbread+house,635
I will say that "Set aside for 3-5 minutes. The chocolate sets quickly" was very optimistic.
Needed to balance roof on supports til chocolate was hard -an hour! Yes, it cooled quickly but did not become hard til then. Used 50% dark chocolate (no milk)
About as tricky in the end as eggless icing but less messy, funnily enough. Seems secure enough now. My gingerbread sections are already absorbing some room moisture so we shall see how the whole thing holds up...
After tearing the house apart the 12th day of Christmas, choc was yummy addition. really held up fine. next time will coat the backsides of all pieces first guaranteeing no leftovers after demolition
A light touch of melted chocolate on the roof never hurt anyone. I already tried and the house holds up very well!
on the roof or as cement holding roof together? wanting to replace the icing not decorate
I don't think it would hold as cement but as icing it's awesome! Gives that taste royal icing wouldn't give you.
I recently made a thick simple syrup to reattach the limbs of some broken gingerbread men (I put a thick coat on both ends, pressed firmly together, then let sit to harden). I also make frosting with just powdered sugar and warm water; it doesn't have the same cementing ability as the syrup did, however. In my experience, melted chocolate has very little cementing ability. Good luck! :)
I'd love to hear how that works out! I've never made a gingerbread house, and your question made me want to try, so I just found his recipe online.. :)
24hrs and still standing. Made playdough of leftover store-bought white frosting warmed and plenty of powder sugar kneaded in: just the ticket for kids to attach sweets. Can be peeled off in the first minutes to rearrange before it hardens. Also used same simple piping icing as you for details like icicles http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellienickpat/DSC05076-001
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.863133
| 2012-12-15T00:52:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29180",
"authors": [
"Anne Gallagher",
"Eddie",
"Farid",
"Hannah",
"Janeen Marko",
"Mokshada lokhande",
"Pat Sommer",
"ambrose coulliette",
"cardeol",
"daisy_ann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67771",
"jasmine"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47398
|
Is there a way to tone down the flavor of celery in an Oyster Mushroom Chowder?
I just created an oyster mushroom chowder with a cashew-cream base for my vegetarian wife who can't do dairy.
It turned out OK, but I overdid the celery and it tested strongly like cream of celery soup. Is there any way to cut back the flavor after it's finished besides adding more cream and veggie broth, which would throw off all the rest of the flavors which I nailed?
Just to be sure I understand you - your goal is to suppress the celery flavor, without affecting any of the other flavors in the soup?
Yup, that's correct.
I'm going to step out on a limb here and declare that you'll need to add more of the other ingredients. Even then, you're likely to throw off the overall balance of flavors because they have not all cooked together.
Here's a study abstract that suggests there are about 6 compounds that primarily contribute to the flavor and aroma of celery. However, as a home cook, I have no idea what any of these are or how to suppress them specifically. It may be possible to do so, but that solution is likely to be impractical for the home chef.
Another problem is that celery has a very flavor-enhancing effect; this is why it shows up so often in traditional vegetable bases like mirepoix and trinity. Here's another nifty article summarizing a paper that identified the specific compounds responsible for this; the odd thing is that these "phthalides" are largely tasteless. In short: the balance and overall tastiness of your soup might have been reached specifically by adding so much celery.
I think you're going to have to chalk this one up as a learning experience and adjust your recipe next time. One thing you could try (if you're not already, which would surprise me a little) is sweating the celery. I find that this makes the flavor overall a bit milder, with less of the vegetal-bitter flavors while still getting the umami-enhancing effect.
Alright. It wasn't a bad learning experience. The soup was delicious, just not what I was imagining, and now I have leftovers that are a perfect base for any recipe I find that requests cream of ____ soup. I usually skip those recipes since my wife can't have them...
I've had success using Chinese hot mustard to diminish the flavor of celery. I usually dip the end of a fork into the hot mustard and use whatever sticks to the ends of the tines -- in other words, not much; a drop or two.
Caveat: I usually do this with stir-fries, and while the mustard flavor isn't strong, it is detectable. I'm not sure how well it would work with your soup.
Ha ha! Pretty sure mustard would taste really odd in a chowder. I've also been wrong before. Thanks!!
You'd be surprised; to me, mustard is one of those magic spices. A tiny bit can transform a dish without imparting a noticeable mustard flavor, while a little bit more can be overpowering. Cayenne and bay leaf are similar.
I believe the mustard would work! Very small amount. And try white wine, a Chablis.
I used tomato paste in a broth with cabbage, potatoes, and too much celery. After adding the small amount of tomato paste I could taste the cabbage. I added Chablis, too, and now it’s yummy.
yea there is!
I find that Irish potatoes, and tomatoes(are the two things l keep around to) diminish celery flavor, if it ends out overpowering a cooked recipe. Using it freeze-dried, and grinded into powder! Sprinkle a bit of each, into your warm oyster mushroom chowder, and stir in to taste.. then heat up to full temp & serve..
Hm, this is a white chowder. Potatoes sounds totally reasonable, but tomatoes would change the look and taste entirely...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.863381
| 2014-09-24T23:54:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47398",
"authors": [
"Bridget Helmick",
"Brittany Tatman",
"Bronwyn Joshua",
"Carole Harrison",
"Chris Pfohl",
"Claire Weaver",
"Hally Swan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76491",
"logophobe",
"user76491"
],
"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
}
|
59106
|
How do I smoke on a propane grill that has a separate smoker attached?
My friend has a propane grill that has a separate smoker attached to it, and there is a rack that can be raised or lowered under it. It is a huge grill with the smoker compartment on the side. How do I use it? I want to smoke a brisket but she doesn't have instructions on the grill. Do the wood chips and water go on the rack? Does the meat go on the grill or smoking compartment? Help me please!
Generally speaking you should soak the wood chips overnight, for at least a few hours, then place them over a flame in a metal container.
Basically there are 2 types of smoking. "Cold smoking" uses really low heat while keeping the food away from direct flames/heat. With the other, "hot smoking," you're cooking the food while you're smoking it.
You probably want to hot smoke brisket, but you still need to keep the flame low or else the outside will be done long before the inside.
In case it's not obvious, the wood chips need to go into a metal container without water. Wet wood chips smoke better then dry, but you don't want to boil the wood chips.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.863706
| 2015-07-16T14:47:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59106",
"authors": [
"Chris Leo",
"Jennifer Percival",
"Jerry M.",
"Michelle Vilniskaitis",
"Rick Guior",
"Todd Fitch",
"VKat Thornton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141182"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67176
|
How can I remove bitterness from custard after adding pineapple to it?
I recently made custard with a huge amount of milk, custard powder and sugar. After boiling it for few minutes I added vanilla essence to it. After it was settled I added apple and pineapple. Then I placed the whole mixture in the fridge and the custard was tasting fine at that time. But after a half hour of cooling, when I tasted the mixture it was bitter. I googled about the issue and found out that milk and pineapple are not good friends, but I don't want to waste the whole thing now. Is there any way to reduce the bitterness?
You can't. This is caused by an irreversible chemical reaction. The bitterness is there to stay.
If it is just a tad too much for you, you can try diluting: make more pudding and mix it into the bitter pudding. But if it is the strong bitterness I know from mixing milk and fruit enzymes, that won't help either.
got it. thanks. Will try separating all the pineapple pieces and then diluting the mixture a bit. Hope that brings down the bitterness level.
Indeed, the reaction happens mostly at the place where the pineapple touches the milk. If your pineapple was rather dry, scooping out a generous amount of pudding from around the pieces can help. If the pineapple's juice got mixed throughout the pudding, it won't be enough. You'll have to taste and see.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.863838
| 2016-03-07T15:28:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67176",
"authors": [
"Arjun Riyait",
"Delores Darby",
"Kitty Roberts",
"Kodin",
"Luna",
"Oraya Boonchouy",
"Precious Wilson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73668
|
Why is my Buckwheat soba noodle dough crumbling?
I am trying to make Buckwheat noodles (Soba). The recipe involves nothing but buckwheat flour and water. I am failing to make the dough solid. It crumbles apart. I was trying to adjust it by adding more water or more flour, but it always crumbles. Could you give any advice on how to make it? I suspect it might be easier with different ingredients but it should be possible to make it with just buckwheat flour.
The crumbly texture is, apparently, quite common when working with an all buckwheat dough since it doesn't develop gluten - one of the reasons why many home-made soba noodle recipes use a percentage of wheat flour to make the dough easier to work with.
If you have your heart set on a buckwheat-only soba noodle, be aware this is a common problem. You might try boiling water and rolling and cutting a little thicker so they don't end up so fragile, mentioned below. I also saw that the brand of buckwheat flour may be important (using a Japanese style, rather than American style buckwheat flour, apparently makes a big difference). Check that the flour type is correct, that may help.
Another recipe I saw "pre-soaked" the flour (making a dough with water and a bit of lemon juice, and letting sit under a wet cloth overnight) to give the dough time to hydrate the flour. I'm not sure whether the lemon juice or the extra long resting time was the relevant factor, but she doesn't seem to have problems with the dough.
And the last suggestion I found involved "beating the buckwheat", that is, mechanically working the dough long enough for the water-soluble parts of the flour to dissolve into the dough and let it become elastic that way (this extra working may be related to the extra-hydrating time of the last hint, or perhaps actual, mechanical thumping might be helpful in working the dough - it is used in some kinds of recipes to make dough behave).
From an article I found, here:
Not only does a dough of 100% buckwheat flour tend to crumble and break while you work it, but it also dries out incredibly quickly and the resulting noodles are very fragile. Glenn Roberts of Anson Mills recommends using boiling water when making soba with 100% buckwheat to gelatinize the buckwheat starches and help the dough hold together. Roll the dough a bit thicker than recommended in the recipe below, and once made, cook and eat the noodles immediately before they dry out.
I managed to roll the dough out and to cut it thoug it was crumbly. But when I put it in into the sauce pan it dissolves into water. I suppose it might be because the dough is crumbly?
@German - I would guess so. Without something binding the dough, it's just a paste of flour and water, and it has no reason not to dissolve when more water is added. Hopefully one of those tips will help you figure out how to get the binding agent out of the flour into the dough.
You should try the pre-gelatinization method whereby you dissolve the salt in boiling water and pour that over your flour and knead well to encourage formation of structure prior to rolling. Should always use light buckwheat flour strictly avoid dark buckwheat or black buckwheat flour as this will only lead to frustration and failure in the dough. Typically you want to add 30% white flour to 70% buckwheat flour to give you some room for mistakes but without compromising the flavour of the noodle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.863998
| 2016-09-03T15:02:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73668",
"authors": [
"Gherman",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"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
}
|
60329
|
Can I use whole eggs instead of egg yolks in a lemon bundt cake?
My lemon bundt cake recipe calls for 8 egg yolks. Can I substitute 4 whole eggs instead of just egg yolks? I don't want to perhaps waste 8 egg whites or use 8 eggs when 4 would do.
You don't need to waste the egg whites. Make meringue!
Freeze your unused yolks and whites in ice cube trays, use them for custards and, yes, meringues
In principle, you'd probably be able to find a recipe that uses ~2 eggs with a similar net volume, but it may not be so easy to retrofit your existing recipe, as it's reasonable to expect that the recipe is relying on some property of the yolk (emulsifying power, fat content, etc). You may find the result satisfying, but it is likely that you will produce a different texture than the recipe intended.
Given my experience with cake baking, I can say it's likely easier to substitute whole eggs for yolks than, for example, trying to use whole eggs in place of whites. Egg whites foamed into a meringue structure can be used to provide structure to a cake in place of leavening, for example, but whole eggs will not replicate that structure without being separated.
On the other hand, since an egg yolk does not generally provide structure as much as it does flavor, other than the extent which emulsifying power constitutes structure, it's fairly likely that you can get a pleasing cake that will perhaps be less dense than the egg yolk-only version.
Keep in mind that the egg white constitutes approximately 2/3 of the weight of an egg; the density should be similar, however. So it's quite possible you'll need only 4/3 eggs to provide similar volume of egg product; it's up to you whether you'd want to split the egg, round up to 2 eggs, or use one egg plus one yolk.
I should add, though, that there are plenty of ways to use up surplus egg whites if you make the recipe as written:
Angel food cakes typically use egg whites and no yolks.
Meringues, and variants such as marshmallows and French macarons (and American macaroons), use egg whites.
Traditional sours, cocktails with lemon or lime, liquor, & bitters, typically use one egg white per serving; when shaken, the egg white foam adds a pleasant froth.
You can freeze egg whites in ice cube trays if, like me, your best intentions to use up the surplus are likely to be delayed for whatever reason.
The short answer is yes (although it would be less than 4 whole eggs as answered by @JasonTrue )
The change would be to the texture and flavour of the finished cake, and possibly the rise. Using yolks only will give a much denser, creamer, richer tasting cake. If you replace with whole eggs, you just get a regular cake. Personally, i'd keep the recipe as is and make macaroons - any excuse for coconut macaroons ;-)
One other difference - the yolks will add a very yellow colour to the cake - not sure how important presentation is to you, but its appearance will be altered if you swap out for whites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.864371
| 2015-08-29T03:09:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60329",
"authors": [
"Alan Vandiver",
"Ann Kalchthaler Jenkins AJ",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Esther oluwafunmi Anthony",
"Michael Davies",
"Rita Westbrook",
"Sunflowermom",
"Tritium21",
"ashley cochran",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"rob bourton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20053
|
How do you protect a pizza peel?
I got a pizza peel that feels like it is just plain wood. How can I protect it? I thought I heard somewhere to use some sort of oil.
Wood for culinary uses should be oiled with food grade vegetable oil
The olive oil from you pizza dough should be enough to keep it fine for many years
When not being used, make sure it is stored some where dark, dry, and not too warm. Make sure it is 100% clean and dry before you put it away
Of all the possible oils to use, olive oil (especially EVOO) is probably one of the worst, since it oxidizes readily and will go rancid in a very short time. If you insist on using a vegetable oil for equipment seasoning then one of the refined types (e.g. Canola) would be a better choice.
@Aaronut Most good wood oils don't go rancid; almond, linseed etc. Olive oil transferred from the pizza making process is transferred continuously, so should not become a problem. Unless you only make pizza a few times a year, but then why would you bother with a wooden peel etc?
Linseed does go rancid, and very easily, unless it specifically has antioxidants added. Not altogether sure about almond. I'm not sure what you mean by "transferred continuously" but the gradual accumulation of rancid fat is as much of a problem for wood as it is for cast iron - that's one of the main reasons you're supposed to season them first. You can probably also eliminate that risk by washing with soap and water, but that's obviously not good for the wood.
@Aaronut All vege oils go rancid. Trace amount stuck in the wood fibres and heated in a pizza oven on a regular basis tend to transform into polymers that do not go rancid. Use boiled linseed or tung oil if you are worried about it. These has been used for hundreds of years without problems! A busy peel wont need extra oil
I don't do anything for my peels. I only wash them if they get sauce on them, and then only with hot water and a gentle sponging. Never soak them with water. If you want to add a bit of water resistance, you could use some cutting board oil (a.k.a. mineral oil) to add some protection.
I didn't know if basic cleaning would ruin the unportected wood or not.
A note on mineral oil: if you need some, buy it at the drug store, not the kitchen store! Kitchen stores will sell it to you at 3 or more times the price that the drug store will charge, and it's the same product.
@MichaelKohne: It is not the same product. "Mineral oil" is a generic name for many different oils and only some of them are safe for food preparation.
Wood is actually a pretty good bacterial inhibitor. Wood will last a long time - but not forever. We have a pizza peel that is 5 years old and it is used every day. It still is just fine without mineral oil or any other wood pampering.
Walnut oil does not go rancid. It dries fast and has been used for wood preservation since centuries. It's pretty expensive but hey, how much do you actually need?
i use mineral oil, sometimes olive oil if i'm really out of everything else. if you happen to have an Ikea near you, a lifetime supply of mineral oil will cost you a couple bucks. i also clean it immediately after using it, so that nothing sits on the wood too long.
Mineral oils should NOT be used in food preparation. Many are known human carcinogens
@TFD: Many, but not all. Most types of white mineral oil are FDA approved for use in food, so it's definitely OK to use them on equipment. Just don't use mineral oil from the hardware store, get it from a culinary store or distributor that sells it specifically for seasoning chopping boards and other food equipment. Vegetable oil has its own problems, mainly rancidity.
Mineral oil sold in a pharmacy is what you need. It is safe for human consumption (it's in the pharmacy because its a laxative) and does not go rancid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.864645
| 2011-12-29T14:57:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20053",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Delmer",
"Herb",
"Himanshu P",
"Kathy Tobacco",
"Kilauone",
"Lilie Chavez",
"Michael Kohne",
"Mike Wills",
"Ryan Wu",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/955",
"mr_tuner"
],
"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
}
|
13536
|
How to serve oranges so it is easy for guests to enjoy them?
Usually I just cut them into 6 pieces (see image), but it's kind of messy to eat them this way.
Is there a better way?
Hi Tech Method: http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/03/23/enzymatic-peeling-hell-yes/ (note they got a giant bucket of the enzyme and will sell you all you need for a long time for $20)
A bit too hi-tech for my liking. :) Thanks anyway.
I usually cut all of the rind off. Then quarter the orange, cut out the seeds by cutting the inner corner out of the quarters. Then slice into as many pieces as desired. This leaves a little bit of the fiber on the orange, but nothing you have to remove before eating. It's slow the first time, but with practice, it can be done very quickly.
Sounds good. Will try.
For special guests you can 'segment' citrus, but I've always found it a thankless chore that wastes a lot of fruit, so I don't undertake the process lightly. This process is especially nice if you are using the citrus in something like a dessert or salad where the texture of the tough membrane can throw off the dish. However, as is the case with a citrus salad, the time adds up. To do it easily, it helps to have a really good paring knife, and a nice piece of fruit.
Start by cutting the top and the bottom off, just enough to expose the familiar star pattern of the segments. Then, cut down the orange from top to bottom, removing the entire rind by section. Leave none of the white stuff, it only gets in the way. The smaller you make each strip, the more fruit you can conserve. You should be left with a bald, juicy looking thing.
Now the membrane, which separates each segment, is exposed. To dislodge the first piece (always the hardest), slide the knife just membrane on either side. Once the first piece is freed, you have the room to peel back each membrane in turn. You be left with the essence of orange on one hand, and the deflated (and nutritious) husk of membrane on the other.
Thank you for mentioning the term 'segment' by which I found a video of the process you described.
It actually goes by two terms, the other I had forgotten: to "supreme" a citrus. That sure seems like an appropriate term to me!
I like serving them as half moons. I first wash them and then cut the 2 ends off. Make slices as thick or thin as you like, then stack the slices and make one slice down the middle making half circles. They are very easy to eat out of hand as you pull the slice open, all the litter segments pop up into little triangles that are very easy to eat with no mess. This only works well with Navel Oranges as they have no seeds.
It seems to me that you are complicating something which is inherently quite simple.
Oranges come prepackaged in bite-sized chunks.
Peel the orange by cutting the top off (about 1/8th of an inch, no more), scoring the sides with a knife (no deep cuts) and removing the peel and rind.
Once the orange is peeled, you can open it from the middle into two parts, using your fingers. There's a strip of pith in the middle that should be discarded.
Then you separate each segment and serve as-is.
The segment membrane of oranges is edible and pleasant, there's no need to remove it.
This is not true of grapefruit/pomelos/sweeties though, where the membrane is much tougher and very bitter.
I agree ... as you can then eat the segments by biting into a smaller cross-section, it's not nearly as messy. The only issue is that some oranges (not sure which species) have seeds inside the segments, not just in the pith down the center. Also, I just cut an 'x' in the blossom end rather than slicing the top off.
If I leave membrane then the look is not as appealing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.865217
| 2011-03-28T23:15:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13536",
"authors": [
"Carol Hodgerney",
"Joe",
"Matt Broerman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76933",
"timmyp",
"z-boss"
],
"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
}
|
58068
|
Ribs burned to a crisp following directions. What does "medium high" mean?
I'm learning about grilling by making mistakes. The instructions on some pre-seasoned "St. Louis Ribs" say the following:
Remove ribs from package. Preheat grill to medium high. Place ribs on grill and cook on medium high for 12-15 min. Flip ribs over and cook for an additional 12-15 mins. Finish cooking ribs on indirect heat on medium high for an additional hour to hour and a half temperature should reach 175 degrees.
They seem quite clear that everything should be at "medium high" the whole time.
I thought things were going well when I flipped the ribs the first time. But when I went to flip the ribs the second time they were on fire and quite black.
Oops! This is a new grill, so I'm a little unfamiliar with it, but I actually had the dials set at about the halfway marker. I would expect that to be somewhat closer to "medium" heat than "medium high". But all nuance is lost when the food catches on fire! Should I have ignored the directions and done the initial searing for less time, or at a lower temperature?
I have another rack, and I'd like to try again tomorrow. What should I adjust about these directions to prevent setting St. Louis on fire? (And even with indirect heat, is medium high the right idea for 90 minutes of cooking?)
The instructions only have you flipping the ribs once. Grill for 12-15 minutes, flip, grill for 12-15 minutes, then cook on indirect heat. You only needed one burner on to cook those ribs for either cooking stage. My guess is that it was flare ups that ignited your ribs, but I've never had meat catch on fire like that.
"Medium high" does not mean anything. Or rather, it means a temperature at which the ribs are getting done neither too slow nor too quick, no matter what setting this is on the grill. If you are experienced enough to recognize a "medium high" setting, you won't need to read package instructions anyway.
I love the fact that you took the time to take a picture while the ribs were on fire on your grill.
The grill was off, the fire was under control. Nothing to do but let it burn out.
The best thing to do with flare-ups is to close the lid and any vents; depriving the fire of oxygen will put it out quickly.
Ribs should not be cooked with direct heat, generally. The directions on the meat are VERY defective. You should turn the left burner on, and put the ribs in the right side of the grill. You should cook at a temperature between 250-300F, typically for 4-5 hours. They're done when the meat pulls back from the bone and when you can easily tear the meat between bones, not when they hit a certain temperature.
Check out amazingribs.com, and also get your money back. The instructions on the packaging border on fraud.
+1, the package instructions are terrible. "Medium High" on a grill is almost meaningless, there is no standard heating capacity for grills. Medium-high on one grill could be the same heat output as medium-low on another.
I am not sure if you're talking of pork ribs or beef ribs but I can usually get them done in less than an hour... Not burned nor rare, just yummy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.865563
| 2015-06-07T00:00:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58068",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Federico Poloni",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sthembile Promise",
"Theodora Kyriakou",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"chris jones",
"chuck dragoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5096",
"kojiro",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56834
|
Seasoning, freezing, thawing and then deep frying chicken
I plan to season chicken parts (wings, legs), then freeze, then thaw them out to batter them, and then deep fry them. Will they keep their flavor? Is it safe to do this?
Safe? Yes, of course.
Wise? Probably not.
When you thaw the chicken, the surface of the meat will get wet, from both condensation and thawing ice chystals. Yes, proper handling minimizes this, but it can't be entirely avoided. So when you dry off the meat before battering (which you will want to do to make the batter stick), you will probably wipe off the seasoning applied to the surface too. With "wet seasoning" like brine that is supposed to "soak into" the meat, this will be less, but the main parts will be on the surface as well, as Jolenealaska pointed out in her excellent experiment here.
So seasoning when you are ready to prepare the meat is the more efective way - and IMHO you won't be saving time by pre-seasoning if that's what you are asking about.
1+ for IMHO exactly you still have to thaw
I have a different take on this because I sometimes season chicken pieces before freezing them and I have good result with well seasoned, juicy meat.
First, let me say that this practice is safe. Next, people choose their method of seasoning based on their personal preferences or a certain result they want to achieve. Different methods could be sprinkling seasonings on, a dry rub, marinating, or brining. My goal is to get the flavor into the meat, not just on the surface, which is what happens if you season immediately before cooking.
Personally, for fried chicken pieces I sprinkle with salt and sometimes pepper, cayenne, or other spices and herbs of my choosing. I also sprinkle the same under the skin where I can. (I typically use small thighs, approx. 3 oz. each, or small whole wings.)
I then let the chicken sit for 20 - 30 minutes before breading or battering. This allows enough time for the salt to dissolve and the flavors to penetrate the meat. (Some people would say it takes longer but remember that these are small pieces.)
I think this would work well for you. You could simply season all of your chicken, let it sit, then package what you want to freeze and cook the rest.
And while I haven't tried it, I have read that this works with marinated chicken as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.865868
| 2015-04-21T07:30:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56834",
"authors": [
"Chef_Code",
"Dhanesh Kumar",
"Eddie Strickland",
"Joost Commissaris",
"Kathleen Lieb",
"Kevin Martin",
"Tom Passmore",
"Vanessa Varela",
"Yvonne Searle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87653
|
What's the key to making thick soups?
I looove soups, but I mainly eat vegetables and I do not use any store-bought spice mixes or "stocks". I also do not eat dairy for other reasons. And I also do not fry things.
I remember my grandma making nice, thick soups, ones that are not so watery... But I really don't know how to make them! My soups are either watery or they're overcooked.
So what is the key to making a soup that is thick and isn't overcooked? Or is there no key, it just depends? If that is so, then I want to know what it depends on. :-)
Did you grandma use starchy ingredients (rice, potatoes, pasta...)?
Re. your grandma: it’s not unlikely that she cooked the vegetables longer than you do, or at least some of them.
All the micronutrients leave in the steam?
You could probably just remove the nutritional claims here and just say that you prefer not to overcook the vegetables. That'd sidestep discussion about what you do and don't lose with cooking and let you focus on the soup. Is that okay?
She probably used a meat based stock. See my answer below.
@Cascabel Yeah, I have a tendency to overexplain things... Sorry about that.
@Stephie That is possible, yes.
@Paparazzi If you leave the pot uncovered, a lot of the micronutrients do leave with steam, yes. Not all, but a big part. When you overcook, they also simply break down.
@Jack Not buying and not going to argue with you
@Paparazzi You don't have to argue, you just have to spend 10 minutes googling up some research at one of the websites that publish them. :-)
Still not going to argue with you. I have trouble with the concept of a solid be vaporized.
@Paparazzi Some nutrients do not, most do. Especially vitamins. If you'd like to know more, just look up actual scientific studies. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you're talking about or something, but I am just saying to look into it (because I did) instead of just sharing a belief. Facts are important. :-)
@Jack I am not just sharing a belief. I have a degree in chemical engineering. Still not going to argue with you.
@Paparazzi Alright. All I'm saying is that it's nice to read scientific research on open-pot cooking. I have done that a couple years back. I will actually look into it again just out of curiosity tomorrow, I'm writing it down on my to-do list. I suggest you do the same unless you don't care about the subject but holding your ground.
Make your favorite vegetable soup. Remove 1/4 and puree in blender. Return to the rest of the soup. If it is not yet think enough, increase the amount you remove and puree until you find the consistency you are looking for. If you don't have a blender, you can use an immersion "stick" blender, or even a hand cranked food mill. Alternately, if you have none of these devices, simply put the veg. in a bowl and mash with a potato masher.
Is there a way to do that without a blender? I don't have one and I'm not planning to spend extra money on one... Also my grandma never used a blender because we never had one, so there must be some other way to do that?
@Jack, I edited my answer for you.
@Jack : For stews, once I get the vegetables cooked to the level that I want, I'll take a potato, and shread it on a grater straight into the pot. It's so thin that in 2-3 minutes of cooking (near a boil), it'll turn into really running mashed potatoes, significantly thickening the sauce. It's possible that this might work with other starchy vegetables. No blender required
@moscafj Thanks, that actually works somewhat. :-) That's what I've been doing for past 2 days without reading this, hah. I had some computer problems and could not get to it...
@Joe That's also a great idea, it's the same idea as using starch from a pack except much more creative. I'll definitely try that next time I make soup!
Almost all of the thick soups I make contain pulses. I use a variety of dried pulses, but generally no more than two types in one soup.
Try experimenting with split peas which come in yellow or green, dried green peas or varieties of lentils.
Other thickening ingredients include potatoes, sweet potatoes, chestnuts and pearl barley.
Pulses, depending on variety, can take a while to collapse, so if you want a thick soup without the rest of your veg being overcooked consider only adding onions at the start and add the other veg as the soup base gets thicker.
Thank you, that actually makes sense. I think there was always some type of pulses in the soup, now that I think of it. Or sometimes maybe I didn't notice it because it was cooked up in a separate batch or something like that.
Thickness in soups generally comes from reducing the liquid, starch in the broth, pureed components, and very importantly gelatin or collagen. Soups that use rich animal based stocks have a thickness or richness that is not easily duplicated.
Another option, besides those stated is to reduce your broth by straining it when the other components are close to desired doneness. You can then firmly boil the broth to concentrate the flavors and thicken. You can then add the other ingredients back in and adjust seasoning and herbs, etc...
+1 ... for mentioning collagen. I'm surprised so many others were focused on starches. (a lot of vegetable soups start with a stock made from animal bones or trimmings)
@Joe Right. We had to change soup protocol a few years back at a restaurant I worked in to 'no hidden meat' specifically b/c many folks assumed a soup with a vegetable name was vegetarian. Anyway, to me that is #1 in getting thickness in soups and sauces.
Do you think collagen bought in a bag work instead of boiled down bones?
@Jack Sure. Collagen is collagen. Like corn starch or powdered 'gelatin' these will all work. The bone simmering is just traditional, but shelf stable collagen will work.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Well, the problem is that I cannot get decent type of bones here and that cooking for a long time is not possible due to the type of stove I have... I know that collagen is really healthy though, so I am trying to find cheap substitutes, and if I cannot do that, then I just skip it entirely. :-)
To thicken a broth based soup (chunky, not pureed) even if it has potatoes/or other starchy vegetables in it, I will dissolve a big spoon of corn starch in cold water and mix it into the soup. Thinkens, and is controllable - too much cornstarch add more water, not thick enough after a couple minutes add more cornstarch.
Just make sure you stir it in well, something it gets clumpy (the cornstarch).
Otherwise, try making a roux ( https://www.thespruce.com/how-to-make-roux-995452 ) or add flour (1-2tbsp) to your sauteed vegetables (usually onions, celery or leeks,carrots, et al) prior to adding water or stock. The flour will act similar to a roux without requiring all that butter or actually making a roux.
Once you have mixed the starch and cold water, you can add a ladle of the soup to the glass and stir. This makes it easier to distribute evenly.
Yes! Tempering. Makes sense!
When I want chicken soup that’s rich and creamy, I temper one or two egg yolks with a little of the hot broth, then stir it into the soup. It gently thickens the soup and gives it a velvety texture that is superior to roux-based cream soups. You didn’t say if you egg issues, though...
Okra added, chicken feet & heads added, or shark fin. Will thicken soup. More American. Corn starch or flour. European. Crushed lentils or peas.
Good ideas, but using complete sentences and giving explanation will improve the perception(and votes) of your answer.
Well, it gave me an idea of American and European ways. Though I'm curious what's the first category? Asian?
@Jack Okra= Cajun/Creole in USA, Chicken feet is old school worldwide, particularly asian. Shark fin = hard asian.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.866169
| 2018-02-10T12:28:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87653",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jack",
"Joe",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Max",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"noumenal",
"paparazzo",
"soup4life"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55534
|
What causes egg-covered puffed rice cakes to become soft when pan fried (and how to control it)?
While recently making fried bread slices dipped in egg (both white and yolk), I've run out of bread. Since I've already had everything else prepared, I've decided to go ahead and replace the bread with (Western-style) puffed rice cakes.
Anticipating the result would be not very palatable, I was instead surprised that the crispy and brittle (even after a long dip in the eggs) rice cakes became soft and mostly chewy during frying — turning out to be quite a viable substitute for this type of snack.
Interestingly, I've later tried to reproduce this process of softening up with just temperature and temperature and cooking oil, without success, implying that the egg dip has to be a factor in the transformation.
My question is: what in the combination of eggs and pan frying causes the softening of the puffed rice cakes, and what are the influencing factors in the context of controlling this process?
For completeness sake, some additional information:
the egg dip used was completely unseasoned, just egg white and yolk briefly stirred together with a fork,
the rice cakes were composed of puffed "pure grain brown rice" and 0.9% of "sea" salt (hence no seasoning in the eggs),
the cakes were submerged in the eggs for up to a minute (without losing rigidity),
they were pan fried on a Teflon pan in a small amount of rapeseed oil, near its smoking point, for about the same time you would fry bread.
My best guess is that you are simply frying them, just like French fries, and it is the steam which softens them from the inside, as with any other thing fried in a crust. But I have the nagging suspicion that this may not be right, given how low the moisture content is of these cakes. Anyway, if this is it, you can't expect the same effect with the naked cakes, because tehy have nothing to form a crust to trap the steam.
@rumtscho : my thoughts' exactly, although puffed rice does have a low density, so probably not a lot of hight-temp moisture needed to get it softer. Well, we'll see if someone comes up with a definitive answer, in some time I'll probably experiment with a partial egg dip/covering.
French toast (what you seem to have been making with bread) traditionally uses stale bread, the goal being to make it edible again. It sounds like the same thing is happening with your rice cakes. I'm bit surprised they didn't lose their form, but they would've absorbed a lot of the egg, and moisture along with it.
@RossRidge : good point. It's plausible we're dealing with the same process, although your surprise that the cakes don't disintegrate is telling - they really don't absorb any of the egg's mass, they simply appear to be coated by it (the fact that they are probably less porous than your typical bread might be a contributing factor).
They get softened up when the moisture from the egg gets hot enough to bathe the rice cake with steam, and rehydrate the starches with moisture and heat.
The rice cake was absorbing moisture while it was sitting in the egg - not too much if it still seemed light, and clearly not enough to start disintegrating, but some. The texture of such dried products is open, but the strands (of gluten, or starch) are dried hard - the crumb can be heavy with moisture if soaked long enough, but it drives out the air not soaks into or softens the starch. They will still be stiff (and dripping) after soaking, and they won't ever become soft and chewy from all the way dried out, with only added moisture.
Add heat, though, and the combination lets the inner structures absorb the moisture from the surface, reconstituting the starches to a chewy consistency (the brittle stiff structures swelling, and becoming flexible and compressible like bread and not just brittle or mush like soaked crackers) - and it becomes flexible enough to let the steam wick upward through the rice cake to bring the combination of moisture and heat to transform the interior. If the moisture form the soak hadn't reached the center, though, it can remain dry and stiff - especially if the edges also hadn't soaked enough to get water for the steam, which helps mobility (turns it from soggy-edge and dry-center to moist all through).
This process isn't limited to eggs, or to rice cake. If you have bread that's gone bone dry and hard, soaking will soften the edges to mush but it won't reconstitute it to a bread-like consistency without heat. Soak it in water or milk, though, then pan fry or toast it - and the heat and moisture will make the gluten absorb the water, swell, and become flexible again. I have rehydrated bread, rolls, or pastries this way (usually with water, it changes less) if they become totally dried out without otherwise spoiling - soaked in water for a while, then heated to transform from wet-and-brittle to soft and chewy.
You should see similar effects in your rice cakes (becoming soft/chewy) if you soaked them in water or milk or whatever, before frying again, to those you got when dipping them in egg first, and again similar effects from using a toasting or using an oven rather than frying. The combination of heat and moisture makes a difference in re-hydrating starches, not just the specific combo of egg dip and ricecake (disclaimer - obviously, there will be different results from using egg, water, milk, or alcohol, and rehydrating rice-cakes, breads, and other dried starches - just, similar kinds of results from moisture, heat, and starches)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.866806
| 2015-03-08T14:05:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55534",
"authors": [
"Cillian Raftery",
"GarethJ Lloyd",
"Nishin Oommen",
"Ross Ridge",
"Shannon Brown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mikołak",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55610
|
Non-glass baking containers for both microwave and oven use
Are there any lightweight baking containers that can be used in both microwave and oven. I have bought prepared meals in these but have never seen them for sale. I do not want glass.
Paper can be used up to 400 degrees F in the oven without issue and maybe 425 if you have a really good oven.
The material you'd want is silicone.
For example, there are silicone baking molds. They are often used in professional kitchen settings, but I'm sure you find find some online. Here's an example.
There are probably other kinds of silicone containers that can handle oven well, and they can definitely handle microwave.
Most silicone molds can withstand a temperature of nearly 300°C so even in your oven (provided most ovens reach 250°C) they should work just fine
You could go with a lightweight tempered glass product like vitrelle (aka Corelle). They make bakeware that is lightweight like their dinner plates. You would get all the benefits of traditional glass, without the weight.
The other thing you might be thinking of is the plastic carryout containers that are oven safe up to 400 degrees (or whatever its rated for). Search "Oven Ready Plastic Bakeware" on the web.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.867366
| 2015-03-11T15:06:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55610",
"authors": [
"Andre Visser",
"CHRIS NAIDOO",
"Ctrl Alt Del",
"Dick Wallace",
"Juan Carlos Cruz",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Noldor130884",
"Sue Ball",
"Sue Garrison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110962
|
How to make a good pie dough like the industrial one?
Whenever I follow a pie dough recipe the result is not great. The dough is tearing easily while rolling it, impossible to make it as thin as the on you buy in the supermarket.
And when it's cooked, it's crumbling very easily. The texture in mouth is rougher and "sandy".
The last recipe I used was:
200 g flour
½ cs salt
100 g butter room temperature
0,5 dl water
Mix flour and salt, add butter, mix well.
Add water, knead until smooth looking.
Keep it in the fridge for 15min.
Roll it out.
At this point, moving the dough from the the work surface to the baking sheet was tricky due to how fragile the dough was.
How is industrial dough made to be so different from the homemade flour+butter+salt+water ?
The industrial one most likely has chemicals and preservatives to force the dough into what you want. In no way is it better otherwise but, with practice, you can make it the way you want it.
Have I just led a sheltered life? I've never heard of pastry being called 'pie dough' before. Is it a regional term?
So first things first, a short crust pie dough is usually made with cold butter and ice water. This leads to a flakier, more tender dough. You also typically don't want to knead the dough. Too much gluten development leads to a tough, chewy crust.
A more typical shortcrust would start with cold butter cut into cubes. Put the flour, salt, and butter in a food processor and pulse just until it looks like wet slightly clumpy sand (there should still be intact bits of butter in the dough). If you don't have a food processor, you can either use pastry cutters or a couple of forks to cut the butter and flour together or my favourite method: freeze the butter and grate it before rubbing it into the flour with my hands. Slowly add ice water until the dough can be shaped into a rough, shaggy ball. It should not look smooth at this point. Cover and let it rest in the fridge for at least an hour.
Then you take the rough, not smooth looking ball of dough and roll it out on a floured surface. The first time you roll it out, it will be very crumbly. Just roll it out as well as you can. Then you can fold in the rough edges and roll it out again. Repeat as needed. I typically need to do two or three fold+roll iterations before I have a smooth, easily workable pie dough. Folding and rolling will get you a smooth dough without as much gluten development as if you kneaded it smooth and you will keep the little bits of butter that give you flakiness when the pie bakes.
There are of course endless variations on shortcrust pie dough recipes. There are people who swear by using lard or vegetable based butter substitutes, use vodka instead of water, or add different flavourings to the dough. But the basic method for shortcrust is cold fat + cold liquid + minimal handling. And industrial recipes add various preservatives and chemicals to force certain reactions that are hard to get hold of as a home cook. However, you can still make very good pie dough at home without those additives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.867520
| 2020-10-01T12:02:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110962",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112373
|
Can containers that held spoiled food be cleaned and be safe again?
Came home from trip to a broken fridge and spoiled food in both glass and plastic containers. All was a lukewarm mess. Can I clean the containers and reuse them, or should I throw them out?
Plastic containers are usually inexpensive and fairly porous so I would personally throw them out without giving a second thought. The glass containers are certainly washable and re-usable but their lids may or may not be salvageable.
I have reused plastic buckets with mold in them for brewing after cleaning and sanitizing them (StarSan - phosphoric acid).
No they must be incinerate
If you can stomach opening the containers and the associated smell, most plastic and glass containers can be re-used with appropriate washing/sterilization.
I would discard the contents, rinse out the debris and scrub out any residue, including removing seals if possible. I would then soak in a 0.25% available chlorine solution (most household bleach is approx 4% available chlorine, dilute appropriately) for 30 min, then rinse the bleach off, wash in warm soapy water and dry. Bleach is very effective against bacterial and fungal contaminants. However, this approach can damage some components of containers, such as rubber seals, so treat with caution. Silicone seals/lids should be fine.
Plastic and glass containers can take up smells from the contents, as can the seals, so it would be worthwhile to give them the sniff test afterwards and see if you can smell any unpleasant smells that might be passed onto food subsequently stored in them.
Glass won't take any smell @bob1.
@GdD kimchi begs to differ. I've personally washed the same glass jar several times that had contained kimchi and retained a faint but definite smell after the repeat washing, admittedly some of that smell may have been retained by the lid seal, but even after swapping lids the smell remained.
Kimchi does have strong opinions, doesn't it? The glass itself won't absorb odors, but microscopic imperfections in the glass surface can retain traces. Simply washing won't remove the smell, but soaking in a bleach solution probably will. If all else fails, baking the glassware in an oven at 400 for a few hours should take care of it.
When using bleach for any purpose, be very careful that it does not get mixed with any other cleaning product. Bleach and ammonia will form toxic chloramine gas if mixed, and many household cleaning products include ammonia. In general, dilute bleach with water and nothing else.
Imagining the smell from opening those containers is making me queasy.
That's a unpleasant experience to come back to! You can re-use your containers, the hard part is going to be opening them and getting the spoiled food out. I'd suggest doing this outside if you have the space, preferably standing upwind of your garbage bag. A rubber spatula is a good tool for this.
If you have dishwasher safe glass containers they can go into the dishwasher, just rinse them first and put them on the most thorough cycle you have.
Once you have the plastic and non-dishwasher safe containers scraped out wash them very thoroughly in hot soapy water, changing it regularly. Lids can sometimes have a rubbery gasket in them, this should be pulled out if possible so you get at any food behind the gasket and clean the gasket thoroughly. If it won't come out that's fine, don't force it, use an old toothbrush to get in there and get any gunk out (this is a good idea whether there's spoiled food in it or not every once and awhile).
Glass containers won't take on any smells, if you have a smell from a glass container it's because it hasn't been cleaned thoroughly. However, plastic can take on smells from food, even when completely clean. I've tried wiping containers with both a distilled vinegar and a baking soda paste, mostly successfully. Just leaving the containers out and open for a few days has worked as well.
I do not recommend relying solely on a dishwasher for sanitization purposes unless the dishwasher has a "sanitize" setting. Note that ansi-compliant sanitize settings use higher temperatures (typically at least 150°F), so they should not be used for "top rack only" dishes like plastic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.867780
| 2020-10-29T02:58:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112373",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Brian",
"Chloe",
"GdD",
"Kevin",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Z4-tier",
"barbecue",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127774
|
fermentation even after bottling the kombucha
Even after pasteurising the kombucha / tea brew, we are facing the fermentation in the bottle which is resulting in increase in gas production inside the bottle. we are now in concern w.r.t addition of preservative or should we look on any other alternatives apart from addition of preservative .
Please suggest few things that we can control the growth of yeast even after pasteurising .
Please edit in a detailed description of your Pasteurization process and equipment. A process temperature profile that works in a commecrial pasteurizer with an efficient heat exchanger would require rather different timing to be effective on filled bottles, for instance.
You have not actually Pasteurized it.
You have a flaw in your process. Try again.
Check the calibration of your thermal sensors and/or alter the process parameters to apply more heat.
Attempting to Pasteurize it is about as close as you appear to have gotten. If you had succeeded, it wouldn't be fermenting afterwards.
If we're talking a few bottles for home use, refrigeration may slow the process adequately if there's not too much sugar left and you don't mind fizzy. Releasing the pressure may be required if the bottles are weak or there's plenty of food left. If you're doing industrial quantities, you have a grave error and need to get the process parameters properly adjusted.
(I don't do much with kombucha but I have loads of experience with intentionally fizzy beer, cider & and mead. I highly recommend re-using champagne bottles if you want one that will take more than the usual amount of pressure...but you need to avoid making bottle bombs, whatever bottle you are using.)
The whole point of pasteurizing is to kill off the microorganisms within the beverage. If it's still fermenting after the pasteurization, that means the bacteria survived the pasteurization process. So pasteurize it again*, and do it properly this time.
As to why the pasteurization failed, it depends on your actual process, but my first guess would be that you didn't heat it hot enough and/or for long enough.
*: Note that if the bottle is sealed and the continued fermentation added enough additional gas, you might need to break the seal and let some or all of that gas escape. Otherwise, adding heat to an already over-pressurized bottle might cause it to explode.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.868142
| 2024-02-28T06:49:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127774",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62822
|
Why pour water over the covering plate while cooking okra?
When my mom makes okra, she adds okra in the pan with all the masala. When she covers the pan with a plate for the okra to cook, she pours some water over the plate. She says it helps it to cook faster or something, but she doesn't know any scientific reason. It's more like advice passed down from others. Is there any reason we should?
When you say 'put some water over plate' do you mean in a bowl?
The reason she puts water on the plate is to weigh it down so it seals better. Weight will press the plate down, less steam will escape so the okra will cook at a slightly higher temperature. It works, but it's not as good as a tight fitting lid on a good pot.
So a low pressure pressure cooker?
Yes, exactly. I've seen rocks used on lids for the same reason.
MMmmm, stone soup! Just remember to throw away the okra...
The rocks go on lid not the soup cave man!
You're not the boss of me! ;)
Ok, put rocks in your soup, see how I care.
Well, they're bound to be better than Okra. (Sorry, maybe I'm having too much fun with this little conversation... )
@GdD - minerals are good for you. So is okra. :-)
I guess it is to protect the plate which is used to cover it. The water will absorb the direct heat and protects the plate from cracking.
Please, if you have something which answers the question, add it as an answer. Even if you're not sure that it's correct (then indicate so). Answers in comments are discouraged.
As a chemist a "lid" on a pot would not raise the boiling point of the water. You'd need a pressure cooker to do that.
A "lid" would help keep steam inside the pot when you cook something like dumplings which are above the fluid level. Having any sort of unpressurized "lid" on the pot would also allow the steam from the pan to condense and drip back in the pot. This could help keep the pan from boiling dry.
So "faster" depends on the fluid level to the okra pods.
To me the extra weight of the water would help keep a light plate from "bumping" up and down on the top edge of the pot. Not so much a "better" seal from a pressure point of view but a less noisy one. Moment of inertia thing.
@blokedownthepub - Exactly. A stack of plates should have the same effect if I'm right. // As far as moment of inertia its convoluted. Let's look at it this way. If you could suspend the stack of plates 1 mm above the pan, then the plate wouldn't rattle on the pan. Think of using three paper clips on the edge of the pan to just hold the plate above the edge.
Interesting. After your answer, I agree that the water-weighted plate does not create a pressure cooker, despite the claim of the top answer. But seeing how upvoted the top answer is, it seems that people readily believe it (it fooled me at first too). So it may very well be the actual reason behind the practice, due to cooks telling the story to each other, even if the belief behind it is false. So I'm very confused about whether the top answer should be upvoted (because it's a good candidate for explaining the reason) or downvoted (because it promotes a false reason)...
Well an uncover pot and a cover one are different. With a covered pot you end up with a steamer "above" a boiling liquid, but is not a pressure cooker. Chicken and dumpling is a favorite of mine and you must use a lid to get the dumplings to rise. I'm not thinking of dense noodle like dumplings but ones cooked on top of the liquid that have an fluffy interior like a biscuit.
Yes, multi-purpose. To trap steam and distribute heat inside like a pressure cooker, yet protecting itself. A pressure cooker has a thick wall, but a thin top cover can otherwise get overheated.
I don't quite understand that final sentence - can you elaborate?
If a thin stainless steel plate is used as an unconnected lid it will become excessively hot. So a thin sheet of water at top limits temperature reached. But a thick aluminum pressure vessel wall connected on all sides would not get that hot as there is better heat absorption due to heat transfer by conduction.
The reason is to keep the okra from cooking to fast and cooks evenly. The plate and water keep it from getting too hot too fast. Okra is a fibrous plant seed pod and needs extra time and would burn other wise.
I think everyone is done with the answer.
Now my point of view is...
When you pour water on lid,the outside temperature will be always little low than the inside, which in turn allow faster raise in temperate and pressure inside.
2nd think, if your recipe Has become dry then you can pour this hot water instead of cold one or wasting other water and heat.
And there no sense in protecting lid lol, it's mean to be longer lasting. I haven't seen any lid having cracks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.868379
| 2015-10-26T08:09:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62822",
"authors": [
"Adam Davis",
"Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні",
"Dewey Waldron",
"Duke Riggins",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Jennifer Bond",
"Jordan Jackson",
"Laura Alexander",
"MaxW",
"Michael Olander",
"Michael Weaver",
"Narasimham",
"Nivia Solera",
"Shannon Blackmon",
"Shari Perfetto",
"derick wong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"sumi k"
],
"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
}
|
65322
|
Which cream should I use for cream sauce?
I was making a cream sauce last night to put over tortellini. My choices of cream at the store were heavy whipping cream and half and half. I used both and it turned out watery. Which should I have used?
I agree with what @Escoce says in his answer. However, there could be other reasons depending on other ingredients, cooking time, etc. If you could edit your answer to give us more details we may be able to give you more help. For what it's worth, I use cream if I have it on hand, but more often use half and half simply because we always have it on hand.
In most cream sauces, there's some sort of a thickener -- a roux, eggs (carbonara), cheese (alfredo), etc. In some cases, you finish cooking the pasta in the sauce, so you'll get the starch from the pasta as the thickener. You generally want to thicken it 'til it coats the back of a spoon. (even better, if you can swipe a line with your finger across the spoon, as the line stays)
What were the other ingredients in your recipe?
Why would you use half and half? It's half milk... Which isn't cream.
Tortellini is a typical pasta from the region on Emilia in Italy, a stronghold of Italian dairy. It is the region where Parmigiano cheese and the company Parmalat originated, for instance. It is also the region of Parma ham. No surprise this recipe brings all of that together.
The traditional recipe asks for Panna fresca liquida, which in Italy would look something like this, and would be in a refrigerated area in the supermarket. It has between 20-30% of fat and is fairly liquid.
The traditional recipe asks for cooked ham (optional), butter, Panna liquida fresca, Parmigiano, nutmeg, salt and pepper. Thus no flour. The trick for consistency is on the right quantity of Parmigiano (a lot!). After cooking the tortellini, drain well and mix in the sauce over low heat in a hob until the right consistency. The starch coming from the pasta will also help to thicken the sauce. One way to gauge is to first cook the pasta, add to the cooked cream and add Parmigiano over the low fire until you get the desired consistency.
The consistency is of course a question of taste. For example, in this recipe the famous Emilian chef Massimo Bottura uses 300g of Parmigiano (24 months) for 200g of cream. Very intense!
I can only guess based on what happened to you, but usually when a recipe calls for "cream" and don't distinguish, it usually means heavy whipping cream.
Why would it be whipping cream, if the recipe is not about whipping?
The whipping cream I've seen in my supermarket tends to have extra stuff to ease the whipping, like thickeners. Though maybe this depends on the country...
The only reason heavy whipping cream is stabilized is to prevent clotting in shipping and storage.
I said thickeners, not stabilizers. In my experience, the creams that are sold as "whipping cream" have additional, specific additives, different to those in other creams. So it is not about "preventing clotting in shipping and storage".
I use 35% whipping cream or 35% heavy cream for sauces (dairy section as well). If you want a thicker consistency, I have found adding arrowroot powder or flour is the best. You only need very little.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.868855
| 2016-01-12T14:03:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65322",
"authors": [
"Alison Woodward",
"Andre Kersbergen",
"Angela Flores",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"John Kilgallen",
"Karen Quirk",
"William Hayles",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"liz mckay"
],
"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
}
|
75297
|
What can I use as a substitute for canned refrigerated biscuits in monkey bread?
I'm making monkey bread and I need refrigerated biscuits. I don't have any, however, and I don't really want to go buy them. What could I use instead of refrigerated biscuits?
Welcome to the site! I know you've been around the network a bit, so we're glad you stopped in here. I'm glad your monkey bread worked out, and hope you'll be back with more questions/answers about cooking!
Using refrigerated biscuits for monkey bread is actually just a convenient shortcut - if you don't have pre-prepared biscuit dough at hand, you can simply make your own sweet yeast dough from scratch, that's the classic (pre-Pillsbury-can) recipe.
Either find a recipe that uses sweet yeast dough from scratch or substitute your favourite sweet yeast dough. (The Wikipedia page linked above has a link to a recipe, for example.)
Canned biscuits aren't a yeast dough, this makes Your answer is a bit confusing.
@DebbieM. I know, but the classic recipe is made with sweet yeast dough, hence a reasonable substitute. I'll clarify.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.869155
| 2016-11-06T16:33:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75297",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Stephie",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68323
|
Does handling a lot of flour cause fingernails to break?
I recently started baking bread, including every day for the last month. (I give it away.) Since I began baking so much bread, I've had severe issues with my finger nails. They've have been peeling, and breaking, even all the way until they're super short. It's very uncomfortable.
I'm trying to understand what's happening. Is it possible that handling a lot of flour can cause my nails to break?
A single observation does not make an answer (and we don't do polls here), but no, I never had problems. Excessive dishwasing, perhaps a bit, but nothing flour / bread-related.
Meta on possible closure: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2236/1672
Are you really handling raw flour a lot by hand, or is it just the dough (kneading etc)?
If this has never happened before and only seems to be an issue with your fingernails (versus excessive dryness in other skin or areas) I'd say it's either:
a. Flour will absorb moisture from your hands if you're spending a lot of time handmixing or kneading.
b. You're probably washing your hands a lot to remove the flour (and other food particles) and excessive washing with hot water and soap will also dry out your hands.
There are moisturizers that you can purchase specifically to help with your nails. Might not hurt to apply those after you're done with your baking for the day. Also try wearing a thin glove that will allow you to manipulate the dough but keep your hands from being directly in the flour and food. If neither of these things help, you'll want to see a doctor.
Flour is abrasive.
Its small radius particles will grind away softer material like nails; and will get in places you would not expect.
Flour will also absorb moisture and dry out your nails, making them more brittle than usual.
I recommend that you remove nail polish before kneading bread for that reason alone.
The problem with nail polish and kneading is probably more just that if it's starting to wear off, the dough could pretty easily pick up little chips of polish. Maybe not a huge deal for periodic baking but if it's every day...
Flour absorbs moisture. Dab oil on your nails after you work with flour. The world-record holder for longest nails (Lee Redmond) soaks(-ed) her nails in warm olive oil once a week.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.869380
| 2016-04-16T21:59:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68323",
"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
}
|
11228
|
Why does frozen bread sort of taste different?
If I buy a packet of bread:
And put it in the freezer, in it's packet, when I take it out to defrost it tastes different, sometimes drier as well. Why is this? I would of thought moisture would be locked into the packet.
Is your freezer self-defrosting? Can you sense an odor in the freezer?
Over the short term moisture is "locked into the packet". As bread freezes moisture from the bread often condenses and freezes on the inside of the packaging. If you then defrost the bread slowly in the same packaging this moisture is reabsorbed. If you only defrost a few slices at a time this moisture is lost when you take those slices out of the bag. These ice particles can also end up in your freezer rather in the bag.
To keep the moisture level closer to the original: freeze bread in portions you are likely to defrost them in and make sure any bags or wrap you use is suitable for the freezer. If you freeze whole loaves double bagging them or wrapping in some way helps.
These steps will also stop other flavours from your freezer being absorbed which should help.
Also, it could be because you are actually RE-freezing it.
Many breads come into the stores frozen. The way to tell is in the dating. If the date is printed directly on the packaging or clasp, then the vendor stocked the bread, and it's most likely it was never frozen after baking. If there is a use by sticker placed on the packaging, then it came into the store frozen, and was dated when the store placed it on the floor.
You learned me something. I would never have thought of that, but it makes so much sense.
In general freezing any food will cause some degree of structural damage as the water contained in internal structures forms crystals and expands breaking those structures*. Some times the structure was holding the water in place, like the cells in a strawberry and after thawing the water simply leaks out of the holes. I don't know enough about the how water is typically held in packaged breads to say specifically but if the freezing process breaks enough water out of the rest of the bread, than during thawing it is more likely to leave the bread than when the bread was fresh.
*Packaged frozen foods often get around this by freezing food rapidly preventing large crystals from forming.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.869576
| 2011-01-19T12:07:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11228",
"authors": [
"DragonFax",
"Emilio Gort",
"Miguel",
"Radu Balaban",
"Tanya C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68662"
],
"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
}
|
8658
|
How to marinate cheese
In the answers to this question Jerk vegetable?
one of the suggestions is to marinate some cheese.
This is not something I have heard of before. I was wondering what cheeses are suitable, and are there any special considerations that need to be made?
A lot of cheeses are naturally brined (feta, for example), and marinating cheese is not much different. For the best effect:
Pick a porous cheese
Cut off the edges if the cheese has a skin
Cut into smaller pieces to increase the penetration
Press it dry with towels (or paper towels)
You can inject the cheese to get more flavour in it
Marinate in flavours that compliment the cheese
Let the cheese soak for at least 4 hours (more for less porous cheeses)
If the cheese is really wet (like feta), add weights to the drying process (like a pot or heavy plate), and let it drain until the surface feels dry.
Note that many cheeses are already salty, so balance your marinade with this in mind.
Note that this is how you marinate tofu as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.869809
| 2010-10-29T13:04:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8658",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Bruk Habtu",
"Vahid Mehrabi",
"autonomy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"thunderpants"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8624
|
Jerk vegetable?
I have some friends coming over and will be cooking jerk chicken. As asked in my other question.
Definitive Jerk Chicken
However some of them are vegetarian. I would like to make them jerk X with X being a vegetable which could be cooked in a similar way which would taste good in jerk sauce.
Any suggestions as to what vegetable could be used?
Along with justkt, I wonder if you'd be willing to go with a vegetarian protein, rather than a vegetable--I think of seitan (made from wheat gluten) or paneer (a mild cheese, used in a lot of Indian cooking). They're both remarkably easy to make, delicious, pick up flavors well. They both have hearty, tooth textures that would be satisfying.
Paneer is absolutely wonderful!
Seitan may be more work that they want to do.
Actually, I have ordered in some Haloumi, could that be marinated too?
Haloumi could definitely be marinated. It's going to have a stronger, saltier flavor than paneer, though, so you'll want to make sure you think your jerk marinade will compliment it. Where paneer has an extremely mild flavor, haloumi stands on its own more.
While it does require kneading, seitan's not really hard: mix, knead, boil. (Homemade paneer: boil, drain, squeeze.)
Seitan's the first thing that came to mind for me too.
I ended up using Haloumi and it worked great, thanks.
Rather than vegetables, how about roasting up some tofu or tempeh? Both will pick up the taste of the marinade easily.
If you want to stick with vegetables, marinate different colors of bell peppers, zucchini or yellow summer squash, eggplant and portobello mushrooms in the jerk marinade and make vegetarian kebabs.
agreed: eggplant and porotbello's were my first idea's
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.869941
| 2010-10-28T13:23:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8624",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Gringuita",
"Halima Lagerdien",
"In the Booley House",
"Jeremy French",
"MarcoCabazal",
"Nathan Koop",
"Roel",
"Tara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25894
|
Sourcing and storing avocado
Possible Duplicate:
What can I do to help my avocados ripen?
How can I choose good avocados at the supermarket?
I live in the UK and have a difficult time getting hold of good avocados.
They are generally of two types in the shop, hard and tasteless or soft and brown. I sometimes try to buy the hard type, after a while sometimes they are good, sometimes they seem not to ripen and others they are rotten by the time they are soft.
They are not cheap either getting on for a £1 each.
I would really like to know:
How to choose good ones from the shop? Are there types which ripen well, does the shape or color help determine what will ripen well.
How to store while at home? I tend to put in the fruit bowl with Bananas should they be warm or cold in the dark or the light.
Are there good stores in the UK for buying them from (possibly too localized|localised?)
Question seems to be a duplicate of a few other questions here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3662/how-do-i-pick-an-avocado
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18917/will-avocado-stay-fresh-longer-if-stored-in-the-refrigerator
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1257/how-can-i-choose-good-avocados-at-the-supermarket
Another: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89/what-can-i-do-to-help-my-avocados-ripen
@talon8 this does look like a dupe of that. Can't believe I didn't see it.
I it's cause you searched for av'a'cado. :-)
I usually buy green, hard avocados to use them in a couple of weeks. When I'm looking for an almost ready avocado for my guacamole at the supermarket, I look for a not-so-hard one and pop off the stem: this is a tip I found over the internet and it really works. Pulp under the stem should be greenish and not brown or dark, otherwise it's probably rotten. You can usually find your ready-to-enjoy avocado with a couple of pop offs.
Take a look to this link for a more in-depth explanation about popping off the stem:
http://www.nwedible.com/2012/05/never-buy-a-rotten-avocado-again.html
Regarding storage, I put them in a bowl on counter top to let them ripe slowly; in a bag with apples or bananas to speed up things. Once ready, I store them in the fridge. Once opened, I put them in Tupperware: they stay perfectly green.
Keep in mind that if you place fruits near apples or bananas, which naturally produce ethylene, your fruit will generally ripen faster.
Get the hard green ones, and store them in a brown paper bag on the counter top until they ripen. Once ripe, you can hold them at that stage in the fridge for a few days. The sad truth about avocado is that it is nearly impossible to buy one to eat "Right Now!".
Now, that being said, the soft brown-skinned ones are fantastic for guacamole or other creamy avocado based dips/spreads.
I agree, it can be hard to buy ones that are edible right now, although we have special (usually extra expensive) ones marked "ready to eat" that are not always, but usually ready to eat. As to using brown/beige ones for guacamole, I have to disagree: I don't like that at all (have tried it several times, out of necessity). I need fresh, green/yellow but ripe avocados for my guacamole!
@Cerberus I think we're not talking about the same brown. I was referring to a brown/black skin (which may or may not be what OP was talking about.) Usually these are ok inside, but you may have to cut off a little bit of brown flesh.
Ohh, the skin! I thought you meant the inside. And by "soft" you mean the skin itself, not the ripeness, right? Then it makes sense. I believe these are all different (sub)species, and I think they can all be fine for almost any dish, as long as they aren't over or underripe.
Buying avocado in the UK is treacherous: likely they have been treated like potatoes and bounced around insuring bruises once ripened.
Try to get them directly from their packing box. Buy the whole box if necessary and split amongst friends once semi-ripe.
Bury each avocado in a sack of flour about an inch or two surrounding. Store away from high heat and humidity -room temp or cooler is great.
A typical Hass (dark alligator skin pear) will ripen this way in 2 - 5 days to barely fork tender. Closely observed final ripening in fruit bowl til desired tenderness is advised. A few hours can be the difference.
Once ripened, they keep up to 5 days in fridge without darkening. Still, give them support/cushioning to avoid bruises and to absorb condensation.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6975833_ripen-avocados-flour.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.870138
| 2012-08-28T13:46:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25894",
"authors": [
"Brandon Harrison",
"Cerberus",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Jeremy French",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89087",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56949
|
I followed the instructions, but my food still stuck to the wok
I bought a very expensive Stainless Steel Baccarat Wok only last week. I followed instructions as told by the shop assistant (to wipe with a small amount of oil before I started to cook), but when I started to cook my wok had gone all brown like burnt and all my food was destroyed. Where have I gone wrong? Is there any way to keep this problem from happening again?
Stainless steel woks burn and stick very easily and are expensive and can't really be seasoned however they last forever. They are only used for foods that would attack a normal carbon steel wok and give the food a metallic taste, e.g. acidic foods.
Carbon steel woks are used by Chinese chefs and after proper seasoning they are like non stick but able to handle extremely high temperatures that Teflon can't.
This sounds as if you have only cooked in non-stick pans before. They are very forgiving, and you can throw any food at any temperature into them.
On a stainless steel pan, you have to cook it at the proper temperature, using the proper technique, so it does not stick. For a wok, this is a piping hot temperature, enough oil (not just wiping it), and moving the food constantly around, shoving the almost-through pieces up the rounded wall, where it's colder than in the middle of the hot bottom.
For other stainless steel pans and other types of food, there are other techniques. In every case, you have to be aware of what is happening in your pan, and what you can do without it sticking. This is mostly learned through experience and experimenting.
As for the "going brown" part, your description is too short to be sure what it is. Pictures will help.
If by "brown" you mean it looks like this, then you mistakenly seasoned the pan by wiping it with oil first. Follow the advice in the linked question to clean it.
If you mean you have a film of burnt-on charcoal, you'll have to soak it in acid before scrubbing it off.
If the wok simply darkened from the intense heat, there is nothing you can, or should, do. Woks are taken to very hot temperatures, which discolors the metal. This is normal, and does not cause problems.
Did you clean the manufactures clear coat sealant off before you started seasoning it? I actually have a nice wok sitting waiting to be seasoned, because I haven't had time to scrub the clear coat off of it yet it takes a bit of time! You just need a brillo pad or such, then heat add oil wipe out with paper towel till there is no more brown color on the paper towels! Thats the instructions that came with mine. I've seasoned pans before, but its been just about 15-20 years! So thats what i'm looking for now is how to season a SS pan insert for a electric pressure cooker. Everyone keeps saying oh it doesn't need it...YES it does! I don't want everything sticking and it turning ugly colors! I hope this helped a bit!
This is about a stainless steel wok not a carbon steel/cast iron wok, they do not take on a seasoning and there is no reason for the manufacturer to put on a sealant.
Stainless steel is an unusual Material for a wok; an idea or recipe calling for a wok will probably assume and work best with:
a seasoned carbon steel/cast iron/wrought iron wok (which would be the right choice for high heat stir frying, or deep frying technique. Nonstick with some but not all things you might throw at it.)
OR
a nonstick wok (best for handling starchy stuff with little oil at moderate heat, eg certain noodles, or for braising stuff in aggressive sauces that will stress the seasoning).
Stainless steel is the same surface you have on normal, old school cookware, with the same limitations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.870501
| 2015-04-26T05:02:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56949",
"authors": [
"Alan McKirby",
"Chhotu Bhai",
"Colette Bechard",
"Colette Byrne",
"Dan Sedwick",
"David Perrin",
"Dwayne Hallett",
"Frank Cortese",
"Janet Crawford",
"Katherine Knowler",
"Mij Orchard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"josh brown",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86622
|
Anybody know where I can get some Stanley spatulas?
Back when Stanley had home parties, the demonstrator would hand these out as a hostess prize or thank you. It’s my absolute favorite spatula and I cannot seem to find one anywhere! It’s a soft, pliable, probably nylon spatula.
That looks very similar to the Kenwood flexible plastic spatula of which I have two (you can find them cheaper I'm sure)
Having looked online and using the excellent Google image matching facility, this appears to be an antique item, circa 1950. The closest match I could find was on an auctioneers valuation site, which suggests not only are they rare, but valuable as well [1].
I can't recommend these spatulas enough [2], they are not cheap, but they are a joy to use.
[1] https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/maid-honor-spatula-slotted-spoon-1854740164
[2] https://www.dontwasteyourmoney.com/products/di-oro-heat-resistant-nonstick-silicone-rubber-spatula-3-piece/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.870828
| 2017-12-22T12:07:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86622",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"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
}
|
86813
|
What function would tartaric acid play in the making of gummy candy?
I just made my first successful batch of gummy candy after trying 5 or 6 diff. Recipes. The problem is that 95% of "gummy" candy recipes are basically glorified jello jigglers....not what I'm looking for. I finally found a British recipe (that was uber annoying as I had to weigh everything in grams). I finally got the texture and consistency right, thank God. The question I have is, during one of the last steps of the process, once everything was mixed and had cooled to 122°, the recipe called for 5g of tartaric acid to be stirred in. What function does the tartaric acid play in the candy? It didn't seem to make any visible changes to the solution and I'm wondering if I could have just done without it? Any help would be great. I'll include my ingredients below, in case one of them plays a role with the tartaric acid.
Gelatin (bloomed to a syrup in a water bath)
Equal parts glucose (corn syrup) and caster sugar (I just used regular sugar as I couldn't find my blender) 25g of both.
Once I mixed and cooled everything I added essential orange oil for flavoring and orange food coloring.
Then I mix the tartaric acid in. Is this a necessary step? If so, what does it contribute to the end result?
5g seems like you should be able to taste it, so perhaps you should try batches with and without for flavour. On the other hand I'd expect citric acid would be more likely in an orange recipe.
So, the recipe I used did not specify orange flavoring, it's just what I used. The actual recipe just mentions using any essential oil flavoring. I'm familiar with using tartaric acid with eggs but I've never seen it used in candy before. You're right in that 5G seems like enough to taste. I bought a small shaker of it and used about 1/3 of the entire shaker in the recipe. Unless I get another answer (that satisfies my curiosity,) I'll make another batch today or tomorrow, sans tartar, and see what happens.
My mother always put some ( 1/2 teaspoon) in fudge to prevent or reduce crystallization of the sugar ( she said).
This sounds like the answer im looking for! Thanks!!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.870939
| 2017-12-31T15:29:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86813",
"authors": [
"AdamH",
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64108"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52155
|
How long do sharkfin melons keep?
I read somewhere that sharkfin melons (Cucurbita ficifolia) keep for years, if kept dry. Is that really true? It seems an awesomely long time. I have some seeds on order, so even if no one else has experience here, I plan to find out.
FYI: I grew some since I asked this. Mine kept for just over a year. With improved storage conditions, they might have lasted longer. The unripe ones ripened in storage (the seeds even matured). They looked and tasted kind of like tangy rice noodles.
It's definitely an unusually long-lasting melon, although sources list a few different timeframes.
Sowing New Seeds says
if kept in a cool, dry, frost-free place, they keep very well for several months, and reportedly over a year.
The Curious Gardener increases that:
If kept dry after harvest, a fruit can last several years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.871112
| 2014-12-26T11:27:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52155",
"authors": [
"Andrew Jones-McGuire",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Craig Davidson",
"Jean n Ed Wimmer",
"Judy Virtue",
"Kim Belt",
"Mary Ann Olson",
"Vernald Frank",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188"
],
"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
}
|
58824
|
Polenta instead of breadcrumbs?
I'm making flamenquin this evening and don't have any breadcrumbs available (apart from under the toaster, but some are suspicious). Has anyone ever used polenta instead of breadcrumbs to coat meat?
Thanks!
I've never used it in place of breadcrumbs. I've made cornmeal batters when frying stuff, but the cornmeal has a chance to soak up some moisture so it's not overly crunchy. I've had fried fish where there was an obvious crunch from cornmeal and it wasn't necessarily bad, just different.
I've coated tilapia in dry cornmeal with some seasoning and then pan fried it and it's fine... I mean, it's definitely got some added texture but it didn't break my teeth.
You can use definitely use polenta/cornmeal for breading, but it'll tend to be noticeably more crunchy than breadcrumbs are.
An obvious comparison is cornmeal fried fish. People make it multiple ways: some just dredge in cornmeal so it'll add a definite crunch, while others use a batter which will soften it up. The moisture from whatever you've coated matters too. I'm guessing pork loin isn't going to release a whole lot of water, but if you're marinating it perhaps you'd get some from there.
Since polenta is coarser, I'm guessing you might want to err on the side of caution, to avoid crunchy turning into gritty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.871235
| 2015-07-06T18:06:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58824",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jake Rea",
"Joe",
"Michael Fowler",
"Richard Chang",
"Stephanie Van Dee",
"corinne grevin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69461
|
Baking on a rocket stove
I'm wondering if it is possible to bake on a SilverFire rocket stove, ie. by attaching a metal box to the top, or any other way? I have researched it- Google search, YouTube etc, but can't find any relevant info.
You must not have tried very hard, research-wize: Try "rocket pizza oven" or just "rocket oven" for your search term, and we'll see you in a couple of months. http://www.woodfiredpizza.org/rocket-oven-construction.html and https://youtu.be/h4WDZMmkDeo
Thanks! I couldn't think of phrases to search. Though I'm looking for ways to utilise my current stove, which I probably should have mentioned is a silverfire stove, and these are about making one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.871364
| 2016-06-04T08:47:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69461",
"authors": [
"Corsara",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43983"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71660
|
What is the difference between Dutch Pie and German Pie?
I've seen several recipes of the two pies and even then I don't know if there is an original.
Usually in Dutch Pie in Brazil, picture here, I see it based on a dough made with melted butter and crushed crackers. As filling a crème pâtissière and a dark chocolate ganache.
In German Pie in Brazil, picture here, I never found something "canonical", but usually see it surrounded with chocolate-covered cookies. In fact, I don't know which is used in this pie filling and which procedure should be taken to do it.
You do realize that there is no traditional "German pie" in Germany? At least not as far as I know and I am German...
Yes. This is the question. Here in Brazil commonly exist both of these pie were named as well.
I think those are both Brazilian dishes. Interesting side note, at least in the eastern US, a "dutch pie" would be a Dutch apple pie, named after the Pennsylvania Dutch who are from Germany (not the Netherlands). Presumably from Deutsch being changed to Dutch over the centuries. I wonder if something similar has occurred in Brazil.
OK, I am deleting all comments pertaining to there not being Dutch pies in the Netherlands and German pies in Germany. It is normal that people call "exotic" forms of a food after the land in which they have had it, they don't call their "standard" form after their own country. If somebody needs to discuss the linguistics any deeper, it will need a new question.
The one called, "Dutch pie" is typically a very smooth pie on a cookie base. The one called, "German pie" generally has a layer of crushed nuts on top of the smooth chocolate icing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.871448
| 2016-07-25T19:15:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71660",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Suhany",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37988",
"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
}
|
56000
|
How can I tell the difference between instant yeast and active dry yeast?
I have a jar containing yeast but I'm not sure whether it is instant or active dry. Is there any way to tell the difference?
Thanks.
Nope. Not without buying some of one of the two kinds of yeast, then making identical amounts of dough with each and seeing if they rise at different rates.
Write "I will label the jars I put stuff in" 100 times on a chalkboard. Sometimes the yeast is a different shape of pellet/granule, but that's likely brand-specific (if it's even consistent over time within the brand.) For the ones I've used both, the instant tends to be more sausage or rice shaped, while the normal active dry yeast is balls.
You can't really tell by looking, at least not without a known sample of the same brand.
The good news is that they are usually interchangeable 1:1. Make a recipe you know well. Does it rise as you expect? Or does it take more or less time? That will most likely give you your answer.
If the dough behaves as usual, it's a good bet that you have what you usually have to make that bread. If it rises fast, it's instant yeast. If it's slower, it's active dry. For the majority of loaves, the only difference you're likely to notice is the time it takes to rise and proof.
Joe says his answer, "When it doubt, treat it as active dry yeast, and proof it first", he's absolutely right if your recipe calls for proofing active dry yeast (not all do). If the proofing seems more vigorous than usual, that's a hint that it is instant. Get it into the dough right away, don't dilly dally while your yeast expending its life force.
King Arthur Flour gets into potential substitutions more detail. One thing they noted is worth mentioning here:
One time when you might not want to use instant and active dry yeasts interchangeably is when you're baking bread in a bread machine. Since bread machines use a higher temperature to raise dough, substituting instant for active dry yeast 1:1 may cause bread to over-rise, then collapse. When baking in the bread machine, and substituting instant yeast for active dry, reduce the amount of instant yeast by 25%.
So if you do both bread machine and traditional bread making, you might want to do a traditional loaf first using your unknown yeast.
There's only onw way that I know to tell the two apart without using it:
granule size
Instant is (typically?) smaller than (most?) active dry yeast. However, unless you have a magnifying glass, and maybe some source of yeast for a comparison, it's going to be very, very difficult to tell them apart.
I don't know how much granule size is a function of the manufacturer, so it's possible that one brand's instant yeast might be close in size to another brand's active dry.
When it doubt, treat it as active dry yeast, and proof it first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.871962
| 2015-03-23T20:28:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56000",
"authors": [
"Brian Snowdon",
"Bruna Trentini",
"Ecnerwal",
"Eileen Sastre",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kharmma Rae",
"Levin Douglas",
"Maria Cabrera",
"Matlhogonolo Shadreck",
"Meg Monahan",
"Paul Crowe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"samantha sinclair"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56165
|
How can I make caramel that will hold its shape, without using refined sugar?
I am making my own ice cream pops. One flavor I'm developing is Peach Cobbler. I've been trying to include some caramel in the bars, yet I can't seem to make a type caramel using coconut sugar, that will harden enough to stay in "pop form."
My results are delicious so far, but the caramel in the pops doesn't harden enough and the pops fall apart where it is.
How can I make a "freezable caramel" that doesn't involve refined (white) sugars?
Hello and welcome to the site! Please note: I realize you already tried a few variations, but still - could you please post the recipe(s) you have tried and, if possible, the different outcomes? As there is not "the" recipe for anything, we'll need to know what you did in order to come up with ideas for what could work instead.
i tried: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/a-sweet-primer/?_r=0
i tried: http://nyti.ms/1ypLhgJ - that one was delish but not hard enough to stabilize in pop form. same with http://bit.ly/1fB1Z1R and then i tried the "wet method," replacing the coconut sugar for regular sugar. and spread that out on a parchment paper covered pan to be broken up. that one was disgusting - it just tasted too strong.
Hmm - since the issue is falling apart where the caramel is, could you pre-freeze the caramel as "rods" or "strings"and cut one or a few of those to insert into the pop before freezing the whole thing, so that they would not constitute a failure plane? Or is it too gooey when frozen to contemplate that?
As a norm the amount moisture in the caramel could cause it not to freeze correctly, and also form ice crystals. Try the recipe below which has no dairy in it, and uses coconut sugar. To make it thicker I would omit or reduce the water. The coconut milk and lemon juice should help things liquefy, if not then just add bit of water.
Healthy Caramel Recipe – (dairy-free)
1 cup coconut milk (full fat or light)
½ cup coconut sugar
? teaspoon sea salt
1 teaspoon vanilla
2 tablespoons water
½ tablespoon fresh lemon juice
INSTRUCTIONS
In a small pot over medium heat, mix coconut sugar, water, and lemon juice and bring to a boil.
Immediately add the coconut milk (pour slowly), sea salt, and vanilla. Simmer for about 15 minutes until the liquid becomes thick and dark. Be sure to stir occasionally and scrape the edges of the pot with a rubber spatula to avoid burning.
Remove from heat once it’s thick and cool it down to room temperature.
For best results, store it in a sealed jar in the refrigerator overnight before using it.
Use it for:
caramel apples, popcorn, drizzling over frozen yogurt/ice cream, or add it to other baked goods.
Don’t forget:
The consistency of the caramel looks and tastes BEST when you refrigerate it overnight before using it.
http://wakethewolves.com/healthy-caramel-recipe-dairy-free-and-great-for-apples/
you could try the vegan raw version of "caramel". It is date caramel. It is done by processing fresher soft medjool dates into a vitamix blender(works best really),pinch of salt, coconut butter and water to slightly thin out. The outcome will look very similar to caramel. Using a vitamix will result in a smoother creamy texture. This should freeze well too. Best of luck
Hello KillerTofu, I know you are new to the site. Please note that we take questions very literally here. The question wasn't what to use as a substitute for caramel, but how to make a caramel substitute using coconut sugar. We don't know why the OP insists on coconut, but if she were looking for substitutes, she should have written a different question. For now, everybody who finds this question expects to read what it says on the tin - methods for making coconut caramel - and we can assume that methods for other caramels are irrelevant.
actually, i am just looking for a caramel that will freeze and doesn't involve white or refined sugar. so thanks to KillerTofu. I will try that! (And I guess I should have worded my question better)
@rumtscho That's the problem with this SE sites, bad assumptions, and no flexibility. Case proven here. Time to rethink the "rules". Voting alone should suffice for these cases. The OP's are never going to write a life story, so all credible answers should welcome. In other SE site, they just delete answers and comments like this, it's horrible. The officious mods would have ensured that the OP would have never seen this excellent answer
@rumtscho Imagine the "new inventions" SE of 1902, Wilbur Wright's answer for the Question "Can hot air balloons ever go faster than the wind?" would have been deleted since is mentioned things other than balloons, even though it probably solved the real issue the OP wanted to solve!
@rumtscho Reading between the lines, the OP mentions "doesn't involve refined (white) sugars", this would put them in the alternative to mass produced rubbish foods category, like this answer suggests
@TFD No, answers should try answer the question as asked. That's the only way a site like this can work. Otherwise more often than not people are going to make a lot of bad assumptions about what the questioner really meant. Also remember this site doesn't exist to merely to help the people who ask questions. Good answers help more the original poster. If the answer doesn't match the question, then its ability to help other people is greatly diminished, as rumtscho explained. For people wanting to know how to make coconut sugar caramel this is a bad answer, making it a bad answer overall.
@tfd the SE model depends on people being very literal in their meaning. It assumes that the question expresses what they need. Of course, people don't (and sometimes can't) express them so clearly, and the problem is noticed when the first comments and answers come. When this happens, the author can edit the original question or ask a new one which is more in line with their information need. But as long as a question asks X, we should try to come up with solutions to X and not to Y just in case the author wanted Y but did not ask about it.
@rumtscho the first step in problem solving is; no answer is a stupid answer. This is because, no matter how precise people are crap at asking accurately what they want, they always miss a important item out. And as per "Wilbur Wright", they don't know what question to ask, because it's outside their paradigm. This question is a case in point. In general, the people mucking around with coconut sugar, are not main stream, and are not looking a standard solution
@TFD This site doesn't work that way. Stupid answers get down voted. People come here looking for expert answers, not brainstorming, random guesses or stabs in the dark. The ultimate goal isn't to help the person asking the question, but to provide good answers to good questions. That's why this site has a QA format. If the goal was only to help the questioner, a simple web forum would do the job much better. (Also note that the original poster never accepted this answer, so it's not clear that this answer did in fact solve the actual problem.)
@TFD http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92107/is-stack-overflow-a-forum
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.872252
| 2015-03-29T00:17:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56165",
"authors": [
"Bhavana Vutukoor",
"Dale Collier",
"Dylan WILD",
"Ecnerwal",
"Funeral Homes Flatlands",
"Linda Henson",
"Lori Gabelmann",
"Rakhi Singjali",
"Rebecca Rosen",
"Rolly Talisic",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sean",
"Sid T",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"leslie santos",
"nico",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46341
|
Will mustard seeds soften in a sauce?
do mustard seeds melt into a dish if they are an ingredient in making a sauce? if not, would they be strained out after a specific lenght of time? Do they get softened in liquids?
I wanted a sauce that reminded me of a sweet and sour sauce from a chinese dish and would compliment the meatloaf but not be too thick like a flour or starch based gravy.
Cranberry and Red Pepper Sauce:
2 thinly sliced red peppers
1 cup red wine
1/4 cup red wine vinegar
1/3 cup sugar
2 tsp mustard seeds
3 tbsp dried cranberries
To make the Cranberry and Red Pepper Sauce return the frypan to a low heat and cook the red peppers for 5-6 minutes until soft, then add red wine, red wine vinegar, sugar, mustard seeds and dried cranberries. Simmer 10-15 minutes until reduced by about two-thirds. Cranberry and Red Pepper Sauce can be made in advance and reheated when needed.
I am familiar with pickling spice and use of mustard seeds in a scratch made recipe for Sloppy Joes my mom made and put the mustard seeds in but do not remember if the seeds were even noticed and know that the only crunch in mom's recipe was from celery.
What sauce are we talking about?
They will not "melt" into the sauce, but I think your desired effect depends on how long they cook in the sauce. I frequently make "pickled" mustard seeds, which result in a softer seed that pops in your mouth, rather than remaining crunchy. A great garnish or condiment. Not crunchy at all. There are two ways to do this: 1. bring to a boil, then strain, repeatedly 8 - 10 times. This removes the tannic notes, then the seeds are placed in pickling brine. Method 2 brings seeds to a boil in pickling liquid and simmers them for 30 - 40 minutes. Method 3 makes use of a pressure cooker. All result in mustard seeds that are not crunchy, but soft and pleasant to eat. You could certainly obtain the same result in a sauce. In fact, I could see it adding an interesting textural component to the dish.
No, they will not melt or soften. If your recipe doesn't provide any step for smoothing the sauce, then it is probably meant to stay chunky.
If you don't like it that way, you have three options to make it smooth:
strain it, as you suggested. It will work as long as the sauce is reasonably liquid. The taste will be less strong than intended.
puree them, if you have a high-powered blender. They are tough enough that in a standard blender they might stay as smaller but annoying particles. You can still try it with a normal blender if you don't mind risking a batch. Also, this won't work with emulsion based sauces, you risk to break the emulsion.
substitute a smooth mustard paste from the start. This will change the flavor a bit, because mustard-the-condiment contains vinegar and other things beside mustard seeds.
good answer! my go-to tool for breaking/grinding things like mustard seeds is a cheap electric coffee grinder
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.872837
| 2014-08-12T18:08:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46341",
"authors": [
"Alan Shaw",
"ElendilTheTall",
"J Pen",
"Jerry McNamara",
"Ken m",
"Larry W",
"Sheree Johnson",
"Victoria Ngov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103769
|
Fresh turkey cooking for 2 hours but no juices appearing in pan why
I have been cooking a fresh 25lb turkey at 350 degrees for 2 hours so far and there are no juices in pan. What’s the reason and is that a problem?
There is no stuffing in turkey and it is not in a cooking bag.
Is the turkey covered?
Is the turkey okay now ?
Juices start to build up in the roasting pan fairly late in the roasting process. Turkeys are big, and so it takes a while for the inner parts to heat up to the point where they release moisture.
If you are cooking the turkey in an open roasting pan (with no roasting bag or tented foil), it will take longer for juices to start building up, because they will evaporate off the surface of the turkey immediately. Even with tented foil, the high temperature of the roasting pan will delay the appearance of collected juices. A turkey in a roasting bag will show built up juices earliest, but even with a bag it won't happen until the turkey is pretty far into the cooking process.
If the turkey is stuffed, juices will take longer to appear, because the turkey will take longer to cook and some of the juices will be absorbed by the stuffing.
If you're worried about having stuff to baste with: Whether basting is necessary at all is a matter of opinion, but even if you are determined to baste, melted butter will work just fine.
If you're worried about having enough juices to make a good gravy, and you're starting to panic: If you've got the neck and giblets, simmer them in 2 cups of water for as long as you can, ideally with some onions and other vegetables, and the resultant broth will make a fine gravy. For that matter, feel free to break off part of the wings and stick them in the broth too. You can also use chicken stock, either by itself or as a substitute for the water in your broth. I won't tell if you don't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.873107
| 2019-11-28T15:54:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103769",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126047
|
What do the numbers mean on a pack of ciabatta buns?
I saw this photo of buns on a Costco Canada fan blog and want to know what does “36'S” mean in "ITALIAN CIABATTA BUNS 36’S 1.400 kg"? Is it a kind of measurement?
Not related, but by god I’d be happy if I could get 36 ciabatta buns for $6 here. I bought a bag of ciabatta buns yesterday – factory-made ones, mind, not freshly baked like these – for about $6, and that contained four buns.
Never mind the S. What about the ominous backtick, \``, just before it where an apostrope, '` , might be incorrectly expected? I'd say it's a clueless label designer supplying buns in thirty-sixes.
It’s a large pack of Italian-style ciabatta buns with
36 buns in a pack: the French text clarifies “unités”, which is units in English.
and a total weight of 1.4 kg, so that each bun weighs a little under 40g, which is on the smaller side.
What's the apostrophe-S for? I think I normally see the word "count" in that context (i.e. "36 count") here in Montreal.
@wjandrea no idea. I simply went with the French labeling, because it must describe the same thing.
@wjandrea Probably the person who created the label hadn't read the advice from the accepted answer to Is “ ’s ” ever correct for pluralization?.
Thank you all for your explanations!
Think about multiplication. Suppose we were counting in multiples of three, then we would say "one three, two threes, three threes, four threes", and so on.
For our bread rolls, counting in multiples of third-six, we would say "one third-six, two thirty-sixes, three thirty-sixes, four thirty-sixes", and so on. To make this easier to read, "thirty-sixes" is represented by "36's".
Note that some people will say this is not grammatically correct. If you wrote out the numbers, "36's" would turn into "third-six's" - that is, "something belonging to third-six" - which clearly is not the meaning. According to this thinking, it is more grammatically correct to say "36s" without the apostrophe, or perhaps "36es". But this thinking has missed the main point that written language is intended to convey meaning. Not only is "36's" clearer to read, but it also avoids confusion with "365" when the letter "s" is not clearly smaller than the numbers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.873283
| 2023-12-10T07:21:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126047",
"authors": [
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Maurice",
"Stephie",
"Transistor",
"TripeHound",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896",
"wjandrea"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123980
|
What causes tea to foam?
Sometimes my tea has some foam on top. Is the "white" foam caused by denatured proteins in the tea leaves when heated?
And is there a method that I can always get this white foam, because to me the tea tastes better that way, I love it with foam on it.
@dbmag9 using the tools available to us, the mod team found no tangible evidence for a spam anchor. The question was in need of some gentle editing though.
I was able to find this article discussing the subject and even offering a few ideas for how to get tea foam intentionally:
https://www.dreamycup.com/why-does-tea-foam/
The ideas they shared were:
Pour your water from a significant height
Shake your tea vigorously in a bottle
I'm not sure if this will result in the same type of foam you enjoy so much, but they're easy methods to try.
Interestingly, they also note that the natural occurrence of tea foam was considered a treasure in ancient China, and a sign of imminent love in England. Some even say it means you're soon to come into money. So you are most definitely not alone in your love of tea foam!
it work thank you very much :)
That's great to hear! I'm going to have to give it a try myself and find out what all the rage is about.
Not a lot of people like green tea I love it with foam on top I don't understand why I do but it just tast a lot better...
The page you linked to had some good information, but I suspect that you left out an important part: “It isn’t unusual for tea to foam because it contains saponins.
Saponins are chemicals that produce soap-like foam when added to water.”
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.873503
| 2023-04-19T03:29:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123980",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Sumsuch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"redflagrun"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109877
|
Is there any substitute for butter (or oil) on puff pastry?
I tried to create puff pastry.
For medical reasons I should minimize the fat on my recipe. Puff pastry is mainly made by 3 important ingredients, flour, water, and fat (butter or oil).
Unfortunately, I learned that butter and oil, consist of 100% fat. I've successfully created puff pastry using oil in a pan before. It works! I create 2 doughs, one dough is formed using flour and water, the other one is using flour and oil. Then, I do the pastry folding.
So as no-fat alternative I tried using a flour-water dough and a flour-applesauce dough, laminated as for regular puff pastry. The result was crisp at the outside, but uncooked on the inside.
I baked twice as long, and the result were very thick hard crackers. I can see the layers with different color, but there is no air in between the layers.
I've also tried only using flour-water dough pastry, folded. Again I can see different colors of the layera, but no air in between.
I haven't tried making the second dough with egg yolks though. It may interesting to see the result, since egg yolks supposedly have around 63% of fat.
Research
After that failed experiment, I read some articles about the science behind the pastry. It says that the pocket of air is formed because of the boiled water that becomes gas, trapped between the fat layers.
I assume, it happens because the oil and water are not soluble. On the other hand, the boiling point of water is 100 C (212 F), yet the boiling point of oil is around 300 C (572 F). I see here that vodka has a boiling point around 78.3 C, which is lower than water. I haven't tried vodka for the mixture with flour because vodka actually is also soluble in water.
My question is:
Is there any food grade liquid that has boiling point over 100 C and is not soluble in water?
Reminder: We don’t supply medical advice. Including in comments. Yes, even when said advice is probably correct. Any aspect of how the asker‘s plan fits with the limitations connected to a medical diagnosis should be discussed between the patient(s) and their doctors, not here.
If you are prepared to go to 63% fat for egg yolks, why not go to 80% and use butter. Butter is not 100% fat, contrary to your assertion.
No. An edible organic liquid that does not dissolve in water, almost by definition, is an oil.
That's not the important thing, though. Substances like mineral oil are edible yet non-nutritive; they pass through the body unchanged and would be compatible with any dietary condition. The problem is that, because they are not digestible and not water-soluble, they, ah... lubricate things. Down there. The amount you'd have to use for puff pastry would cause some real digestive issues.
Bottom line: there are no straightforward non-nutritive substitutes for fats and oils which do not cause diarrhea or loose stools.
You said there that "oil are edible yet non-nutritive". What is that mean? Is it safe to eat?
Food-grade mineral oil is safe to eat, yes, but with the understanding that it will "go right through you" (you should be near a toilet!). Since it is not digested, it has a strong laxative effect.
@PikoMonde Non-toxic, but not digested by your body.
Olestra (also known as Olean) is the non-nutritive food oil brand I know about. It's not actually mineral oil, instead being made from sucrose and food oils. It typically shows up on 'what were they thinking?' and 'top ten most epic product failure' lists. Lay's used it in their Wow! branch of potato chips in the US; it was banned in Canada and the EU. Later it turned out that the... uh... leakage... problems caused by eating them wasn't nearly as widespread as initially thought, but by then the damage had been done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra
I have never heard of anybody trying that, but beeswax may fulfill the role butter usually has in puff pastry. According to wikipedia and my own experience, "beeswax is edible, having similar negligible toxicity to plant waxes, and is approved for food use in most countries." This page suggests to use it instead of oil or butter to grease cookie sheets and baking molds. Beeswax is not as malleable as butter though, so I'm not sure whether it can be used like butter to produce the layers in puff pastry dough. (Try perhaps melting it and use a food brush to apply a thin layer, as if applying egg yolk).
Of course the texture of beeswax is more, well, waxy than butter. You certainly don't want too much of it in your cake. Whether the result is at all palatable is up to experimentation! I'd be glad to hear about your results in a later edit.
@rumtscho I'm not passionate about it, but why did you find the "health discussion" out of place?
I really can't see this method getting good results, but I'm not certain, and I'm absolutely fascinated by the possibility :-) Temperature and texture control would be key; you'd have to keep the dough warm-but-not-too-warm, and you'd need a lower hydration than for conventional puff pastry so that it wouldn't be too squishy at those temperatures. Also, you'd want to use very little beeswax, since its texture is so waxy. Perhaps aerosolizing it in some way?
@Sneftel Try it! :-)
@Sneftel Also, there are no good results without butter no matter what ;-). I was in Normandy (Northern France, Atlantic coast) in the 1970s and we ate Brioche with Butter from the cows grazing on the bluffs above the ocean... I didn't realize it back then but the art to produce such a wonderful, aromatic thing has disappeared from the face of the Earth, like the language of an Amazon tribe.
@Peter-ReinstateMonica it has always been out of place on this site. One of our oldest rules - and one I personally like too, because it is one of the most subjective topics you can find on the Internet (and, surprisingly, even in the expert literature).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.873673
| 2020-07-26T11:12:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109877",
"authors": [
"David Given",
"NSGod",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Piko Monde",
"Sneftel",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85870",
"nick012000",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56687
|
Can I swap sabji Masala for Tandoori Masala in this recipe?
thought I'd ask more experienced cooks on their advice for this recipe. Found it a while back on a Suhana sabji masala box. I made it and turned out fantastic. I want to make it again but I have all but the sabji masala and instead have tandoori masala. Is it possible to switch? I understand it would taste different but I'm wondering how different.
1 potato diced
2 medium Onions-chopped
1/2 cup of cauliflower florets
1 medium bell pepper
1 tbsp sabji masala < *
1/2 tbsp chili powder
1/4 tumeric powder
1/2 cup of water
3 tbsp of oil
You need to compare the ingredients between sabji masala and tandoori masala. I won't recommend substituting. Tandoori masala will have quit a bit of ginger and garlic to combat the game-y taste of meat. Sabji masala is more herbs,less in ginger and garlic .
Spice mixes tend to vary quite a lot from recipe to recipe. If you go to an Indian shop and compare a few brands of tandoori masala (or search online for different recipes) you'll probably notice that there are quite large differences in both the quantity and types of spices used. I've tried a few packaged tandoori masala and have tried a few recipes and they can definitely vary quite a bit in flavour. I'm sure the same is true of the sabji masala.
In all likelihood, most of the spices would be present in both mixes. Without knowing the specific spices used in your mixes, however, it's hard to say exactly what would be different. Some spices are quite distinctive - i.e. the sabji masala might have fenugreek leaves (kasoori methi) which have a pronounced flavour, but then again, some tandoori masalas also include it.
Whatever spices used, I think the tandoori masala will work fine in the recipe.
Depending upon the ingredients you can use any masala.
Essential spices in Indian cooking are cinnamon, coriander, cardamom, mace, peppercorn, and black cardamom. All these spices are dry roasted and then ground to powder to create the "sabzi masala" as they label it in marketing world, though there is nothing specific called "sabzi masala".
On the other hand, tandoori masala is something very much different. It's for use as a barbeque marinade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandoori_masala
It has many more to it then sabzi masala which may make it little too much for the potato recipe as potato absorbs too much too quickly
I'm a bit confused... you first say that you can use any masala but then say that tandoori masala is very different... which is it?
it depends on the ingredients can you post the ingredients of tandoori masala with you
You would have to ask the person who asked the question. You should be able to comment on the question directly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.874231
| 2015-04-14T20:28:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56687",
"authors": [
"Aashish Bhatnagar",
"Carol Castle",
"Catija",
"Deborah Young",
"Flowers In A Box Brooklyn",
"Ian feeney",
"Jess R",
"Kaushik",
"PWS Roof Rats Pest Control Ext",
"Paola Deane",
"Sithina Safiyullah",
"Tina Huff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9513"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55301
|
How do you quickly prepare tomatoes for pizza?
Whether is be homemade pizza or adding topping to the self-rising frozen pizza we love adding meats and veggies. We often have tomatoes at hand. I slice them thin and lay them on a paper towel and add them to pizza... Then 30 mins later I have a pizza with wet tomato puddles on top. What can I do?
Note: Is there also a "best" tomato for pizzas and any moisture/tomato seasoning tips?
Doesn't answer your question but this tomato could be interesting for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_tomato It doesn't have as much water as regular tomatoes.
@ChingChong - That is really good to know. Hardly ever have beefsteak tomatoes laying around but its good to know what to buy if that is the purpose.
Keeping pizza crust from getting soggy from fresh tomatoes
If I want to top a pizza with tomatoes, I generally only add them in the last two minutes of baking. The texture retains some character and they get warm to hot in that amount of time. Basically I just take the pizza out a minute or two before I expect the pizza to be fully cooked, top the pizza with sliced or chopped tomatoes, and stick it back in briefly.
Alternatively, if you don't mind the tomatoes being lukewarm or colder, you can slice them and add them just after baking is complete and serve. If I have particularly good quality tomatoes, I'll typically skip cooking them.
Your best bet is to oven dry your tomatoes a bit. This will remove some of the moisture which will mean no puddles on your pizza and more intense tomato flavor. Slice your tomatoes as you would like them, then put them on a baking sheet. Bake them on the lowest possible temperature, opening the oven door every 10 minutes to let the moisture out. How long to do this depends on the type of tomato (ie it's moisture content) and how thick the slices are, you'll know when you're there when the pieces firm up a bit.
Like JasonTrue, I add tomato slices at the very end, but generally I broil the tomatoes for the last two minutes in order to zap out moisture quickly. This also works for premade pizzas ordered in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.874501
| 2015-03-02T18:57:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55301",
"authors": [
"Brenda Rumbaugh",
"Ching Chong",
"DNK Health Hospice Consulting",
"Ivor Pick",
"Mark Leitzell",
"Suganto Sutjipto",
"Tammy Azgour",
"blankip",
"d fleury",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"loc nguyen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21086
|
How can I keep my split pea soup from becoming too thick during storage?
Every time I have made split pea soup, I have to try to estimate the amounts to be finished in one meal. If I store the leftover soup (in the refrigerator or the freezer), the soup thickens to the point that it's barely liquid anymore.
In Ham and Pea Soup with Whole Dried Peas, there's a passing comment that split peas break apart more to thicken soup. Is there any way of reducing this effect or simply predicting the amount of thickening that will happen? No matter how much liquid I add to the original soup, I can't seem to store the leftovers without getting a porridge-like texture.
This is not a defect but a characteristic of pea-soup. In Holland, the pea-soup is considered good when a wooden spoon can be put upright in the pot. I've never eating it that thick myself, though.
The starches and the gelatin will form a mesh when cooling, so the consistency of the pea-soup will always be thick when cold. On heating, do what Mien advised: add some water or broth to the soup to the consistency that you want.
You will have to heat slowly because otherwise the soup will stick to the bottom of the pan and burn.
Don't forget to thoroughly heat the soup and let is simmer for at least 10' to kill any unwanted visitors (germs) before serving.
You are absolutely right that it should be very thick. I didn't mention that because I thought the OP disliked that.
I'm afraid there isn't a lot you can do. You could use whole peas instead of split peas. But even then there will be some thickening. You could (evidently) make a thinner soup on day 1, so that on the days after, the soup would be of a normal consistency. You could do this by just adding more water and leaving the potatoes out, if you use them.
One tip that could help is to cover the soup as soon as possible, so that you don't loose a lot of steam (=water, which would also cause more thickening).
The only other advice I can give is to make it as you like it, and add some water each day you serve it, till it reaches the wanted consistency.
PH can have a significant impact on thickening potency, so you may want to try adding lemon juice or some other acidic element to see how much, if any, it helps.
Didn't use all chicken broth that I had. When reheating too thick soup add a
little more broth slowly to get consistency you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.874714
| 2012-02-06T17:11:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21086",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"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
}
|
84941
|
Nut-free "Almond Paste" filling
How can i create a closely matched "Almond Paste" (for croissant) without using almond meal/paste/butter/products/etc? I have a nut-free almond flavour that should be okay for the flavouring component, looking more for a texture match here.
Any ideas?
Nut-free almond paste is usually available as almond paste. Or to be more precise: Almonds are not nuts. What exactly is your problem here?
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo, if you're cooking for someone with a tree-nut allergy, even if you're standing on a stack of botany texts you shouldn't feed them almond paste.
I make a nut free frangipane using rice flour in place of almond meal. I think a mix of this with egg, sugar and butter would work. The rice flour has the same slightly gritty texture and doesn't add gluten to the mix.
I wouldnt't do a starch-based "paste" (it will be a pudding) because it will have a completely wrong texture, way too creamy.
My first choice would be a bean paste. Make it with white beans instead of azuki to get a color more suggestive of marzipan, and add more sugar than usual to distract from the bean taste. A close second, if this is compatible with the allergy, would be chestnut paste.
If these are not acceptable, you can also try a semolina pudding cooked in water, not milk. Some prebrowning as clurect suggests for his roux will help too. But this will not come very close.
Also since this is going as a filling in baked goods, you'd have to worry about starch pastes overcooking into, well, not a paste.
You could probably try one of a number of different nut-free flours mixed with the almond flavoring (likely water, ethanol, and benzaldehyde from a chemistry standpoint). Thinking about what I have in my kitchen, maybe rice flour? Cornstarch, tapioca flour, and potato flour would be too fine in texture.
You could try to make a roux and brown it for a nutty flavor. The texture might be about the same too.
Add sugar, you don't want it to turn to caramel, so try to add on low heat or no heat. That will account for the sweetness of the nuts.
I'd add the nut-free almond flavor once it cools.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.874961
| 2017-10-11T15:39:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84941",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"The Photon",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909"
],
"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
}
|
84940
|
How to raise the cake high for pound cakes
We are baking pound cake. I am all happy about the taste, but I have two problems, please help.
After we bake the cake and take it out, we observed after a week my top layer of the cake is moist and the bottom we see all the oil is settled down, making the cake look oily from bottom. The mid region of cake is very dry and not much moist. Is there anything I am missing to make my cake evenly moist and less dry?
How do I get high raise of the cake? It is a good raise but not as much as other cakes I have seen around, is there some magic needed in there to make my cake raise high?
Two (largely unrelated) questions -> two posts, please! (Hint: you might even get more votes that way.) And before you [edit] your post, please take the [tour] and browse our [help], this should give you some pointers.
And in my family the real problem wouldn’t be the condition after a week - it would be long gone.
I think I can help with your second question. Pound cake is not supposed to rise as much as other cakes. It is "heavy" not light and fluffy. A pound cake recipe has a greater proportion of fat than other types because it is specially meant to store for several days without drying out.
As for the soft top: the mushy, moist "crust" that forms after a day or two was our favourite part of poundcake and fruit breads.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.875144
| 2017-10-11T15:16:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84940",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"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
}
|
94849
|
How to stabilize soft nougat?
Which ways to stabilize soft nougat do you know? By stabilize I mean making it less sticky and preventing it from creeping. I emphasise, that I don't want to add nut flour into nougat, or make it harder in other ways. I want to preserve soft and sticky qualities inside while making it easier to hold in hands and store.
I tried to cover nougat with some powders:
Sugar dust. It doesn't work. Sugar is getting soaked into nougat in few hours.
Cocoa. Good taste (can save if the nougat is too sugary) and relatively not sticky. But doesn't keeps form.
Starch. Definitely reduces adhesiveness but doesn't taste good.
I also tried waffles - it's ok, but ... strange? And I know that chocolate is good for this purpose, but I don't like chocolate. Please, answer if you know any other ways, like maybe covering nougat with caramel.
What do you mean by "nougat"? Confusingly, in different regions, different substances are called by the same word.
Basically eggs + caramel, and often nuts.
In my own practice, I just cook the sugar to a higher temperature in order to make a nougat firm enough to not spread.
However, I have recipes suggesting the use of rice paper, and have eaten store-bought nougat that used rice paper on one or two sides of the nougat to hold it together (and minimize sticky fingers for the people eating it.) I can vouch for rice paper tasting just fine with the rest of the nougat.
The stickiness/softness/runniness of nougat is directly controlled by the temperature you heat the water/sugar mixture to. The boiling temperature of a water/sugar mixture depends on how concentrated the mixture is; the more sugar per amount of water, the higher the boiling temperature. As you evaporate the water the mixture will get more concentrated and the boiling temperature will rise. So, the higher the temperature, the less runny the results will be.
Once you've mixed in the egg whites, though, you've made your choice, and can't later decide to make it thicker.
It sounds like you want two different materials: a hard nougat for the outside, and a soft nougat for the inside. Perhaps you could make two batches, and dip blocks of the latter (heated to a lower temperature) into a still-melted bowl of the former (heated to a higher temperature)? It might be tough to get it all to work, though...
I tried to make nougat for the first time. The consistency was way too soft. I left it few hours. I just did not want to waste all those ingredients. I pour the way too soft nougat in a glass bowl and add a little bit of corn flour. I put the glass bowl over a pot with boiling water and stir and stir and stir. It reached a nice chewy consistency, and I spread it on a tray until it was cold. That way I could save the "flop". And the children finished the nougat within a few minutes.
..... A distinct option would be to make little sugar cookie cups to place the nougat chunks in. I wouldn't completely enclose the nougat in dough and bake it, but cookie bowls could make a pleasant, customizable delivery system if other options are dissatisfactory.
Just take a stiff, decorator-approved cookie dough, portion, and with a thumb or measuring spoon, press an indent into each cookie dough ball before baking. As long as the dough is designed not to spread too much, you should get a cookie with a little bowl in it.
You could similarly make meringue bowls, which might actually compliment the egg-white based nougat even better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.875279
| 2018-12-15T14:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94849",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61323",
"kelin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67249
|
Why are my apple fritters too doughy in the center?
I'm making deep-fried apple fritters, and the recipe I am using has me drop them into oil as batter (a bit runny). Dropping them in as batter gives them the kind of crispy-bumpy outside I like.
My problem is that they always end up doughy in the center, because if they cook all the way to the center, the outside will be burnt. I have tried making them more doughy (less water) but that gets rid of the crispy-bumpy outside, and makes them quite dense.
Is there some way for me to make them thinner so that they are not doughy, or how else might I be able to get the center well done, and not lose the crispy-bumpyness?
The overcooked exterior and undercooked interior indicates that your oil temperature is too high or your fritters are too large. You should be able to solve your problem by frying at a lower temperature and/or making the fritters smaller. 340°F-360°F seems to be the temperature used by many recipes for fritters.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.875548
| 2016-03-08T23:34:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67249",
"authors": [
"Angie Standridge",
"Bev Bredbenner",
"Christopher Jerrick",
"Gail Cobb",
"Rodney Bowden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161444",
"kim sheppard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19963
|
Mascarpone left outside fridge overnight - still usable?
I forgot the mascarpone yesterday, so it sat in my bag in the living room for half a day and the night, instead of in the fridge.
The question is, of course, is it still ok to use? It looks fine, of course, or I wouldn't be asking.
Cheese is a cultured product, so you should follow the advice in the question:
How do you know when a cultured item is no longer safe to consume?
Since it's been acidified and (if it's store bought) probably also pasteurized, it's very unlikely that any harmful bacteria would be able to compete with the "good" bacteria. Most cheese never go bad in this way - they just go sour, rancid and/or grow mold.
Which means that if it looks fine and smells fine and tastes fine, it should still be safe to eat.
Cheese is essentially preserved milk; it was originally intended to be stored at room temperature (before refrigeration existed), it just keeps its quality longer in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.875676
| 2011-12-25T12:13:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19963",
"authors": [
"4-K",
"Joseph Danyo",
"Melissa36",
"Praxiteles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43578"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74875
|
What's the formula for cutting vinegar acidity?
I have a vinegar based bar-b-que sauce recipe that calls for 3% acidity vinegar which cannot be found. How do I cut 5% vinegar to 3%?
Yes, cut it with water. The 1950's & early 60's in the UK were times of post-war austerity & shortages. Local chip shops looking to shortchange customers would heavily dilute vinegar which all but ruined the taste of a good piece of cod/haddock & chips. This reprehensible practice was confined to a minority of chippies but was almost always the case with mobile chip shops at sporting events, funfairs & places like Blackpool where hundreds of thousands of day-trippers & B&B guests made easy targets. Sarson's Vinegar was the best! "Don't just say vinegar. Say Sarson's", was the TV-ad's jingle
Cut it with water.
Commercial white vinegar is basically nothing but water and acetic acid.
3 units of 5% vinegar and 2 units of plain water give 5 units of 3% vinegar.
I know this is somewhat old. However, for conversion of a higher concentration to a lower concentration the classic formula is
V1.C1 = V2.C2 (or Vi.Ci = Vf.Cf)
Where C1 is your starting concentration and C2 is your final concentration. V2 is the volume you need and V1 is the volume you will take from your concentrated stock.
In your example you have 5% (C1) and you want 3% (C2). Lets say you want 4 fluid oz (V2) (or any unit you care to use, it doesn't matter in the slightest for use of the equation, so long as you keep the measurement type to be the same on both sides - i.e. don't convert from oz (at V1) to ml (as V2) in this equation).
Substituting in:
V1 x 5% = 3% x 4 oz
Solve for V1:
V1 = 3% x 4 oz/5%
V1 = 12/5 (cancel percentages and you are left with oz)
V1 = 2.4 oz of your 5% vinegar, make up to 4 oz with water or other liquid of choice in your recipe.
You asked for a formula
Let X bet the amount of 5%
The amount of water you need to add is
5/3*X - X
= 2/3*X
So if you have 6 cups
2/3*6 = 4 cups to add
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.875786
| 2016-10-20T14:31:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74875",
"authors": [
"Peter Point",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49585"
],
"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
}
|
36710
|
How long does it take to ripen tomatoes in a bag with bananas?
I read a tip about putting unripe tomatoes in a bag with a few bananas, and keeping them in a dark part of the house at room temperature. How long, more or less, does it take for the tomatoes to become fully ripe? How can one be sure they are good?
How 'unripe' are we talking about here?
It should be noted that there is evidence to support the fact that tomatoes that are allowed to ripen on the vine before harvest are more nutritionally rich and contain more antioxidants than tomatoes that are ripened off the vine to a similar ripeness.
I usually harvest my unripe tomatoes the night before the first hard frost. Anything beyond hard green, and into the yellowish/red stage, goes in a cardboard box with a ripening apple.
That yields me a steady supply of ripe and fairly tasty tomatoes through Thanksgiving, and some years up until Christmas.
Cover the box with a towel. Some of the tomatoes will go bad, turning soft and squishy, so you need to sort every week or so, and consider drainage in your storage spot, but the majority will eventually ripen.
Bananas are ferocious sources of the ripening agent, ethylene, so the time frame with them might be somewhat shorter. Temperature also changes the rate of ripening. Cooler is slower; a fridge is too cold.
Ethylene is heavier than air, so a closed container with a lid is all that's needed to keep it in.
Thanks. I wanted to know if I put, say, 5 tomatoes in a bag with 5 bananas and leave it over night, would this be too long or not long enough? I just would like to know how to prepare myself for getting my tomatoes ripe enough ahead of a big meal.
If they're already close to ripe it could take only a couple of days in your banana bag.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.875953
| 2013-09-11T12:47:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36710",
"authors": [
"CaseyJones",
"Donald Caul",
"ESultanik",
"Luxury and More Interiors",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"laxmi r nair"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66895
|
Is it safe to use a new microwave if I dropped it on the back corner?
I dropped my brand new microwave transferring right out of the box and before use. It landed on the back right corner. The frame is bent, but it doesn't look like anything else is wrong. I don't know if I can still use it; is it safe to just try it?
Welcome to the site! I took your name out of your question to protect your privacy. Feel free to put it on your profile page if you'd like. Check out our [tour] and [help] pages to learn more about our site so you can have the most fun here. Did your microwave come with an owner's manual? They usually have a phone number for you to call and ask your questions, just to make sure you're safe. I hope it's fine, but I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you!
If your question isn't getting the desired answers here, consider flagging it to ask a moderator to migrate the question to http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ or possibly http://diy.stackexchange.com. On either of those, more people might have relevant expertise.
I'm not sure whether or not this question is really on-topic here. But the basic answer is that microwaves generally have a lot of safeguards built in to avoid radiation leakage, if that's what you're worried about. The FDA states:
There is little cause for concern about excess microwaves leaking from
ovens unless the door hinges, latch, or seals are damaged. In FDA's
experience, most ovens tested show little or no detectable microwave
leakage. If there is some problem and you believe your oven might be
leaking excessive microwaves, contact the oven manufacturer, a
microwave oven service organization, your state health department, or
the nearest FDA office.
So, if only very minor exterior damage was done, and there was no damage to the door or seals, it seems unlikely there would be a problem.
On the other hand, WHO recommends:
The design of microwave ovens ensures that the microwaves are
contained within the oven and can only be present when the oven is
switched on and the door is shut. Leakage around and through the glass
door is limited by design to a level well below that recommended by
international standards. However, microwave leakage could still occur
around damaged, dirty or modified microwave ovens. It is therefore
important that the oven is maintained in good condition. Users should
check that the door closes properly and that the safety interlock
devices, fitted to the door to prevent microwaves from being generated
while it is open, work correctly. The door seals should be kept clean
and there should be no visible signs of damage to the seals or the
outer casing of the oven. If any faults are found or parts of the oven
are damaged, it should not be used until it has been repaired by an
appropriately qualified service engineer.
Basically, I can't know how much damage and/or what type of damage you did by dropping it. (And no one else here could know for certain either.) Microwaves are generally designed in such a way to prevent radiation exposure except in cases of severe damage or deliberate disassembling, but I have no idea what may have happened internally to your device by dropping it.
If you're concerned about other safety issues (electrical shorts, etc.), it would be even more speculative to try to address whether or not they could happen with these few details.
Magnetron shoots its microwave output down a waveguide into your oven. This gets nowhere near the back right corner. I'd use it without worry. If paranoid, you might want to tape a layer of aluminum foil around the dent. Be certain the door opens and closes properly. If that's gotten bent, you do have a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.876142
| 2016-02-27T16:33:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66895",
"authors": [
"Beverly Simmons Toburen",
"Caoimhe McConville",
"Jeff Henry",
"Jim Bonczyk",
"John Bradley",
"Lucia House Cerna",
"Missy Meade",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Tracy Mims",
"WBT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37150"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64237
|
How long should I blanch baby peas?
I have a recipe which calls for a cup of blanched baby peas.
Now, I know what blanching is. It concerns cooking the outer layer of green vegetables (James Peterson), but how long should I blanch baby peas?
It seems that even a few seconds would cook them all the way through.
15-20 seconds seems to be all it needs for me, and then scoop them up and shock them in iced water to stop them cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.876557
| 2015-12-09T05:20:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64237",
"authors": [
"Chikondi Mwanza",
"Holly Pelton",
"Sadia",
"V Ewing",
"Zenande Lukhozi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153131",
"jeanne lombard",
"pamela eason"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64210
|
What causes butter to make risotto shiny?
Why does the addition of butter make risotto shiny? Is there a chemical explanation? I was taught to initially saute onions and garlic in olive oil, then risotto Arborio rice with warmed broth until the dish is almost complete, when the rice is still quite al dente. At this point, I add butter, which invariably makes the risotto beautifully shiny. Without the addition of the butter, the risotto does not develop this sheen. I would like to know if anyone knows why? I am also interested in knowing if there is a specific chemical reaction associated with this process?
It's not just risotto this happens with. Sauces are 'mounted' with butter for richness and glossiness. I suspect it's simply the addition of fat that lends the glossiness, but as I don't know for sure I won't attempt an answer.
There is no special chemical reaction. Melted fats are glossy, look at any oil in a bottle.
When you add the butter, it coats the rice, and this coat of fat is glossy. That's all there is to it.
I don't know the exact explanation of why all oils are glossy, but it probably involves quantum physics. You could ask it on Physics or Chemistry SE, it is beyond our scope here.
Without digging into any deep chemical detail, the use of butter has a very specific purpose.
It's needed to make risotto creamy with a sheen effect and creates a kind of "glue effect" among rice grains in order to give the typical aspect to risotto.
Parmigiano Reggiano cheese (that is not Parmesan!!!) and Grana Padano Cheese can be used instead of butter and give to Risotto more intense cheese Flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.876646
| 2015-12-08T07:33:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64210",
"authors": [
"Claire Davies",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jack Curlin",
"Jennifer Stuart",
"John Michael Blackburn",
"Kim Paradis",
"Loretta Vandeventer",
"Lulu",
"Sara Mcmenamin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75263
|
To Preheat Or Not
I read a recipe that said don't preheat the oven when baking a pound cake. Why wouldn't you preheat the oven? Every recipe I've ever read said preheat the oven. This is really confusing to me.
Welcome to the site! Would you please include a recipe you've read that said not to preheat the oven for this particular cake? You can press on the gray word edit, or just on this [edit] and add it right in to your question. We're a bit different from some other sites, so since you're new, we invite you to have a look at the pages of our [help]. I find that [ask] is a good place to start. We're glad you're here and hope to be able to help you! Have fun!
I have seen (yeast) bread recipes that rely on an un-preheated oven and seem to take advantage of the slow heating process (give the leavener some time to act before incapacitating it by overheating). While pound cake is unlikely to use yeast, there was likely a similar idea on the recipe writers mind. Maybe getting a somewhat denser texture by firming the outer layer before activating the leavener in the core is the goal here. Such recipes tend to be unreliable because they make many assumptions about the bakeware and oven used.
EDIT: Another reason for somebody to develop a recipe that does not use preheating would be simply saving active time, especially for people having slow-to-preheat ovens - mix, put in cold oven, start oven, set a timer and step away.
One obvious reason is to avoid wasting energy. A lot of people tend to like recipes which avoid preheating for this reason alone.
But, assuming that there's more than that here, my guess is that the recipe is trying to use the slower heating as a way to achieve a greater rise. Whether your pound cake recipe relies on leavening (such as baking powder/soda) or whether it's a traditional pound cake recipe that relies only on the air bubbles beaten into the batter while mixing, a gradual temperature rise can in some circumstances result in more expansion.
Basically, baking is a race against time in crust formation vs. internal expansion. You want to allow enough time for the internal gas bubbles to expand and make the cake (or bread or whatever) lighter, because once the structure starts to harden (with egg coagulation, and then starch gelatinization), you can't expand any more. On the other hand, as a cake or loaf rises, it becomes increasingly unstable. If you wait too long to form a crust and then stabilize the internal structure, your whole cake could collapse.
Frequently, the inside portion of a cake or loaf continues to expand even after the crust hardens, resulting in cracking on the top surface (common in pound cakes, perhaps even desirable according to some). In extreme cases with things like yeast breads, it can even result in a "blow-out" where the pressure from internal expansion literally blows a big hole in the crust.
With pound cakes, this balance can be a particular problem. As already mentioned, hardening the crust too early can result in excessive cracking. But hardening the crust later can also be a problem if the internal structure is unevenly heated (and thus unevenly stable). If the crust hardens while the cake is rising very high (e.g., from rapid expansion under high oven heat), but the internal structure is unstable underneath and collapses a bit, it can result in the "crust separation" where there's an air gap between the top crust and the rest of the cake. It's possible that heating more slowly can make that less likely by heating the whole batter more evenly and ensuring the internal parts of the cake are closer to setting along with the top crust.
Anyhow, to generalize a bit more, one of the reasons to slowly heat a baked good is to try to allow more time for a gradual expansion. On the other hand, internal air within batter/dough will eventually "leak out." It's actually a continuous process, since batter/dough is permeable to air. With cake batter, you can often actually see bubbles rising and popping on the surface of a cake early in the baking process. So you need some structure and crust to form to prevent all that air from escaping and collapsing your batter too. The trick, again, is to balance the time given for bubbles to form/expand vs. how fast the cake sets (i.e., structure hardens). That's actually one of the primary reasons for different baking temperatures in different leavened baked goods.
While allowing expansion during preheating can sometimes be helpful, it's also hard to manage. Ovens don't preheat at the same rate. If your oven preheats too slowly, it could actually cause your batter to rise too much before it stabilizes, thus resulting in collapse. As pointed out in another answer, some ovens with radiant heat elements (especially electric models) can actually introduce a "broiling" effect on the outer surface during preheating, which could counteract the positive effects if the "broiled" crust hardens early and prevents further expansion.
Since it's less predictable, most recipes tend to recommend preheating for things like cakes and pastry. And no matter what, you'll have to monitor doneness more frequently the first few times you do a recipe like this in a particular oven, since the time window for being "done" will likely vary much more significantly for recipes that don't preheat.
Without seeing the recipe and likely experimenting, it is hard to know for sure, but a few thoughts on pre-heating:
The shorter a cooking time, typically the more important it is to preheat. If you are doing a 5 minute cookie bake, you are unlikely to get your desired results if you fail to pre-heat. If you are doing a 6 hour roast, well, you are probably just wasting energy preheating.
The general idea is, if your recipe calls for a temperature for 30 minutes, then it needs to be up to that temp and stable before you start. A counter argument is how can it be when you open the oven to put the item in and radically lower the temperature when you do that.
Part of the tradition of most recipes saying to pre-heat was wood stoves especially, but older models in general which heated slowly and one person's might take longer to come to temperature than someone else's. So, baking for 30 minutes in my stove that comes to temperature in 10 minutes would result in half cooked in someone else's over that took 20 minutes to come to temp, and burnt for someone else who pre-heated, so the pre-heat command put everyone on an even field. Today, most ovens heat up fairly quickly so it is less of an issue other than for shorter cooking times and things that need precision such as delicate pastries. BUT, and this is a big but, with many modern ovens which heat to temp quickly, they do so with higher power. So, if you put things, especially short cooking time items, rather than taking longer to cook, they will burn, but may also be half raw. While you have you oven set at say 350F, it may actually be pouring 500F heat at your dinner rolls until the full oven temp stabilizes, and you end up burning the surface while not getting the middle cooked.
Now, one reason I can think that a recipe might specifically say not to pre-heat would be to take advantage of this. That initial higher power while the oven is heating and stabilizing could help form a crisper crust and then allow the bulk of the cooking to occur at an effectively slightly lower temp, similar starting an item at a high temp and then allowing the temperature to fall as is sometimes done for a bread with a crisp shell like crust but delicate interior. The effect would be a lessor example of this.
I don't think ovens "overheat" when they're preheating... the heating elements are either on or off... there's no high power boost, afaik... If a recipe really wants to start off at a really high heat and then settle at a lower temp, the most consistent way of doing this is setting the oven for the higher temp (say 450) and then turning the oven down shortly after putting the food into it. This is consistent across all ovens.
@Catija - they don't "overheat" in the sense that the ambient temp throughout the oven is not going to be greater than the programmed bake temp. But there are plenty of ovens with exposed heating elements (more common in electric models, but also possible in gas oven broiling elements) where radiative heat during preheating is much greater than radiant heat while maintaining temp. And that can trump the smaller amount of heat conducting directly from the air, thus broiling the surface of food during preheating. For more sensitive foods in some ovens, it can potentially burn the surface.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.876836
| 2016-11-04T18:21:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75263",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Catija",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"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
}
|
62441
|
When freezing jalapeños, can I leave the seeds in?
When cutting up the jalapeño, can I leave the seeds in them if I just lay them on a tray, freeze, then put them in my Seal a Meal? Do you think I need to blanch them, and if so can I leave the seeds in?
You can certainly leave the seeds in (there is no food safety issue), but the peppers themselves will be affected by the freezing. Peppers have a tendency to be somewhat mushy when thawed out. That's usually fine in when they are cooked or put in something soft, but may not be great on something like nachos. Blanching is only needed if you want to peel the peppers or if you're cooking them after thawing them anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.877448
| 2015-10-11T02:51:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62441",
"authors": [
"Cathy Toney",
"Frank Marcinski",
"Frankie Montgomery",
"Jeanette Countryman",
"Joseph Duggan",
"Linda Killette",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148421"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.