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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
61568
|
Is it safe to eat raw green beans which have been in brine at room temperature?
I've had some raw green beans in a brine solution for about one week at room temperature. Are they at risk for botulism? Can I put them into a vinegar solution and pickle them, or should I cook them first?
What type of brine solution, and what were you attempting to accomplish?
https://www.pinterest.com/recipes/pickled-string-beans/
If you are at about 3-4% salt or higher and this sat around for a week, you probably have some lacto-fermented green beans. They are technically pickled. Botulism will not thrive in a salt/acid environment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.877550
| 2015-09-07T23:47:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61568",
"authors": [
"Barb Walker",
"Barbara O'Connell",
"Danita Ferguson",
"Katherine Bryant",
"Mandi Roberts",
"Pam Church",
"Roger Wilkinson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77514
|
How can I thicken heavy cream without changing the flavor?
I am trying to make a thickened heavy cream that would be the same texture as "Creme Fraiche", but have not yet come to a desirable solution. As you guys know Creme Fraiche has a tangy taste similar to Sour Cream which is not what I am looking for. Please advise how I can make thickened heavy cream (not whipped cream) either with any available cultures in the market or individual experiences. Thanks everyone.
There are simple ways to make Creme fraiche at home (just google it)
@Max he does not want the flavor of Creme fraiche
your right about that ( i thought it was only the sour cream taste0
If you live in Europe, you can try looking for "double cream" which might suit your needs. If not, @Max's answer suggesting Mascarpone would absolutely get you the results you're looking for.
@SomeInterwebDev double cream is equivalent to US 'heavy cream'
@canardgras US heavy cream is about 35% fat while double cream is about 48% fat. Might be a little thin but they're certainly not equivalent
Changing texture always changes the flavor :)
There are several ways to thicken without turning it into whipped cream or imparting other flavors:
Boil until reduced to desired thickness (whisk constantly, do not burn which will cause the flavor to change)
Add and incorporate gelatin
Add and incorporate corn starch or flour
Your desired thickness will dictate how long you boil or how much you incorporate.
Thanks Caleb. I will try to use the gelatin first and see the result.
Boiling or heating milk or cream will change the flavour, even if it doesn't burn at all. For that reason I would go with the gelatin option
I was thinking about that yesterday.
You could mix the cream with a little bit of Mascarpone or any other "Fresh" cheese (like Faisselle)
Absolutely this. Good call.
You could try making clotted cream. There are a couple of different techniques.
Alton Brown uses a coffee filter to remove some of the water from the cream in his recipe. I haven't tried it, but I think it would preserve the flavor of the cream better than recipes that involve cooking.
A more traditional approach is to bake milk or cream until it thickens. See examples here and here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.877667
| 2017-01-16T23:09:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77514",
"authors": [
"Babak",
"Caleb",
"ChefAndy",
"Max",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71300
|
Can I substitute white wine vinegar for balsamic vinegar in a steak marinade?
I am following a recipe for a beef marinade. It calls for 1/4th cup of balsamic vinegar. However, I only have red and white wine vinegar and cider vinegar.
In case any is around: Chinese Black (Chinkiang) vinegar is a closer substitute for balsamic than wine vinegar.
Balsamic vinegar is quite sweet, fruity and tangy, and not easily compared to other types of vinegar. The substitutes will work better if you're replacing a relatively little bit, especially in a recipe that uses other strong flavors... but the more important the balsamic flavor is to the end result, the more the substitution will show through. It still might be pretty good, just expect it to be different than the original.
One substitution I found that's a little more specific is one tablespoon red wine vinegar and half a teaspoon sugar, for one tablespoon balsamic, another one is a tablespoon of cider vinegar and half a teaspoon of honey. It could be substituted with sherry vinegar and a little honey (though this recipe was "to taste" instead of specific ratios). Your choice might depend on which vinegar or sweetener you have on hand, which one you like more, or which goes better with the rest of the recipe.
I also saw a substitute with equal parts lemon juice and molasses (or brown rice syrup) with a dash of soy sauce. This is a little more work, but because of that I expect it's a closer match to the flavor profile (or else it wouldn't be worth the extra effort).
Also white spirit vinegar (or distilled vinegar.) is generally speaking the strongest type of vinegar. I would use at least 10 percent less white vinegar if I'm substituting it with any of the milder types of vinegar.
White vinegar is the most prone of all the vinegar's to have an overbearing flavour so best to use it sparingly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.877867
| 2016-07-09T01:59:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71300",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68089
|
How do you get garlic to stick to green beans?
When sautéing green beans (or snap peas, asparagus, etc) in butter with garlic, how do you get the garlic to stick to the beans?? I've tried varying the amount of butter up and down, and I've even tried adding corn starch, but nothing seems to get it to stick like I've seen in restaurants.
Is this more an issue of flavor or appearance? I would think that cooking the garlic in the butter would be sufficient for getting the flavor into the beans. If it's just not garlicky enough, maybe you should add more garlic.
Minced, pureed, diced or sliced garlic?
How are the beans prepped before they're sauteed? stir-fry has the beans steamed and evaporated-dry before hitting the oil and garlic.
I'm going to guess that you're using fresh garlic, because I had that problem with another dish. I solved it by toasting my chopped fresh garlic for five minutes at 250°F on a pre-heated cookie sheet first lightly sprayed with Pam with Olive Oil. That way, it's dry on the outside (and thus more prone to sticking), but still moist and tender on the inside.
I use a microplane zester/grater to essentially reduce my garlic to very fine shreds, almost a paste:
This produces fine enough pieces of garlic that they essentially become part of the sauce. It also really maximizes the flavor because of the increased surface area.
The only issue with this method is that the very fine pieces of garlic can burn easily, so be careful about when you add them to the hot pan. It takes half the time or less to sautee garlic in this format than it does the chopped equivalent.
I've watched how hey do it at some restaurants by cooking the beans first and then putting them in a bowl and tossing them with garlic that is added at that point. This eliminates the potential of the garlic getting overcooked and ruining the dish while also making it easier for the garlic to stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.878035
| 2016-04-07T03:58:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68089",
"authors": [
"Era",
"Pat Sommer",
"Scott Downey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57708
|
Can I freeze dried rice noodles after they've been rehydrated?
I'm on a diet and am eating a lot of stir-frys. I use very thin dried rice noodles. Because I only want a specific amount, which is hard to judge when I pull the noodles apart, can I freeze them once they've been rehydrated? Many thanks.
Do you have a scale?
I do Catija but I was just curious as to wether I could cook a batch in one go and have it all weighed out seperatly then freeze
I don't ever have any luck storing rice noodles without having them turn to mush... but I haven't tried much.
you might be able to use 'em to make little rice balls (Tang yuan, Nuomici, etc) . (either intentionally, or by accident by just leaving them sitting around as they bind together on their own)
I can't see them freezing well, sadly. I think they will totally turn to mush in the freezer after you thaw them.
I think it depends on the brand/type of rice noodle, and how much you rehydrate them by. Only way to know for sure is to try it and see what happens. If it doesn't work out, it's not a big loss
As a Professor who teaches Asian Cuisines, I can assure you that rice noodles cannot be frozen. If you were to freeze them that would disintegrate immediately after hitting the water.
If you do have extra rice noodles consider using them in a noodle salad. There are many wonderful rice noodles salads that you can make with little effort.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.878530
| 2015-05-23T01:07:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57708",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cecil Joseph",
"Chris Halle",
"Chris Macksey",
"Daniel Chui",
"Grit Smolne",
"Harold Truelson",
"Joe",
"Joseph Walker",
"Linda",
"Luman C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58806
|
Can I substitute almond meal for breadcrumbs in meatballs?
I am gluten-free and want to make some turkey meatballs. I was thinking about putting almond meal in the mixture. Would that be okay instead of breadcrumbs? If not what would be a good substitute? I don't really want to buy breadcrumbs or bread for one thing of meatballs. This is not something I make very often.
Go right ahead and use the almond meal.
In its list of uses for almond meal, this source says:
Use almond meal in place of breadcrumbs in meatballs.
In fact one of the recipes on the site is for Meatballs Parmesan. It calls for ground meat without specifying a type, so I assume your turkey would be fine.
In addition, the description of this
almond meal product states the following:
Use almond meal in place of bread crumbs in meatballs, or as a coating for chicken and fish.
Breadcrumbs in meatballs (and meatloaf) will help to keep them moist by absorbing fat and juices that are given off as they cook. I don't think that almond meal would have quite the same effect.
I tend to add some extra moisture through additional vegetables (finely minced in a food processor, then cooked to soften them up and evaporate any liquid that they extract. (you'll still have plenty of retained moisture in there). I typically stick with the italian standards -- carrots, onion & bell pepper, but you could mix it up depending on what flavors you're trying for.
Actually, ground nuts can absorb some liquid - I grew up with sprinkling a nut-sugar-cinnamon mix over open-faced apple and plum pies. So while not as "absorbant" as bread crumbs, they will work to a certain degree.
Whilst bread crumbs are good, so is almond meal. I'm 50 been cooking since 8, and for 42 years I've used ground almonds in meatballs and only sometimes bread crumbs. Both do the same job but almond IMHO is the better one to use.
Hard to beat experience! Can you give some more info about why you prefer the almond meal (texture, flavor, whatever)?
There is no need whatsoever for breadcrumbs in meatballs, they are there only as a filler (to make more servings)
They are mistakenly labelled as binders (to make everything stick together), but they do not have that property
Most meats when finely ground are themselves good binders
Using eggs or milk is usually sufficient to hold a mixture of ground meat and herbs together
Adding ground nuts will add interesting tastes and textures, but they are just another filler that your binder will have to hold together
As Joe has pointed out, breadcrumbs definitely have a real purpose in meatballs: keeping them moist. True, that's not binding, but it's still a reason to use them.
@Jefromi Fat soaked breadcrumbs does not equal moist. Cooking ground beef a little longer and slower to reduce out the fat, not to keep it in, is quite normal
Cooked meat releases water, not just fat. And, well, this works, not sure what else to tell you. It also makes them a bit more tender; solid ground meat can cook up into a pretty firm ball.
Hot fat will displace water from bread. Yes breadcrumbs can make the texture softer (flour and fat tend to make anything softer), but it can make them over crisp too. Are breadcrumbs a requirement, or just what you are used too? Kefta are the grandfather of meatballs, they always had herbs and vegetables as softeners. Breadcrumbs where probably added to Kefta as the recipe moves into poorer neighbours (Greece, Turkey) many centuries ago. In some traditional recipes you still see flat breads being torn or shredded and added to meatballs
I didn't say they were required or the only good way, just that they have a clear, useful purpose beyond just a filler as you claim. Yes, it's true, there are other ways you can make them tender and moist. If you want to write a good answer about gluten-free substitutes for breadcrumbs, perhaps you should mention things like that, rather than saying they're just a filler.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.878714
| 2015-07-06T01:13:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58806",
"authors": [
"Brynna D",
"Cascabel",
"Dave Holt",
"Erica",
"Gail Stewart",
"Jante Keohohou",
"Juergen Riedel",
"Kathy Chandler",
"Miss Payne",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"Wisa Ho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"victor morgan",
"yemiloye omoyemi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61610
|
Will chocolate cake be edible if I added one cup of water instead of two?
What will happen to chocolate cake if I added one cup of boiling water instead of two, and I did not realize it until it was baking? Will it be edible?
Edible yes, tasty remains to be seen.
My guess will be it will be really dry(or burnt) on the outside before the inside is fully cooked. you might want to lower the temperature and raise the baking time to accommodate for the drier batter.
It would be helpful to see the recipe you were using. We would have a better chance of correctly determining what outcome you might face.
@Eileen - How did your cake come out? Can you answer your own question?
It shouldn't have affected the edibility of the cake....and there's no scope of the cake's being dry.... :)
Well, unless it comes out too hard to actually cut and eat.
@Jefromi Adding less than 1 cup or no water at all might cause it to be hard......
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.879160
| 2015-09-09T16:32:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61610",
"authors": [
"Alan Mills",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Dobrovolny",
"Darkgodacurza Father of death",
"David Howard",
"Debbie M.",
"Jay",
"Juanita Quijada Castillo",
"Noor E Siddika Swapnil",
"Sharon Forte",
"Stephie",
"Thomas Petersen",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63745
|
Can I finish cooking a stuffed pork roast if I turn it off for a while?
I am cooking a pork sirloin stuffed roast. It's been in the oven for 20 minutes but I have to leave the house for no longer then 1 hour and a half. Can I continue to cook it when I get back?
You don't want to leave it in the danger zone (40-140F) for longer than a couple hours. It sounds like you'd be cutting it pretty close, especially given that it spent some time in the danger zone before it went in the oven, and will spend some time closer to room temperature once it's done.
So the safe options are things like:
Reduce the oven temperature as much as possible, so that it doesn't overcook while you're gone, but stays above 140F.
Finish cooking before leaving, chill, and reheat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.879298
| 2015-11-22T20:43:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63745",
"authors": [
"Bob Corkill",
"Cyd Price",
"John",
"Lacey Bailey",
"Lori Phipps",
"Paulingen Lerio",
"april robitaille",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49893
|
Candied almonds made In a crock pot didn't harden, are still gooey
I made candied almonds In a crock pot according to a recipe. They did not get a candy coating on them. Now I have a large bowl of gooey nuts and don't know what to do with them. They are too expensive to throw out.
According to what recipe? There's more than one method, and people could provide better answers if they know what you did!
I'm not an expert on candy-making, but it sounds to me as if you didn't heat the sugar sufficiently. The temperature that the sugar reaches will affect the texture when it cools:
https://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/candy/sugar-stages.html
I'd attempt to heat it back up to hard-crack state (300°F), and see if I could recover it.
Being that I don't have a candy thermometer, I'd probably try something stupid, like spread it out on a sheet pan (on a silicone mat) and bake it in a 325°F oven 'til it got close, then turn the temperature down to 300°F and just let it sit for a while.
Candymaking generally requires pretty specific temperatures ... I'm not sure that I'd trust a crockpot unless it was one of those digital controlled ones with a temperature probe. (but I suspect most of those are intended for meat, and may not be able to handle temperatures above 250°F)
Depending on the recipe, they might also just need to dry out more, in which case you wouldn't have to worry about reaching a specific temperature, and you could just leave them in a moderate oven (even cooler than 300F if you're paranoid about overcooking) until done.
The sheet pan is a good idea. Given that most slow cookers max out around 215F, I don't think they get hot enough to really "candy" anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.879413
| 2014-11-18T21:27:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49893",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Scholz",
"Brenda Blackwell",
"Cascabel",
"Josh Jensen",
"Kate Purdam",
"SourDoh",
"Tammy",
"Vanessa Neale",
"chree taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128070
|
Dairy milk alternatives - any limitations?
There are many alternatives to diary milk, but are there recipes that these alternatives can't be used for, just because of the nature of dairy?
for example I want to make some millionaire shortbread slices ( but replace the caramel with fudge, normally I'd either buy a can of condensed milk or make my own condenced milk by heating whole milk and sugar until thick and gloopy but I'm wondering if the same condensing process would work with nut or oat milk?
I think it's a bit broad question, it would be better to focus on some recipe where you want to replace dairy milk or at least a single dairy milk alternative.
all of them, as milk and milk substitutes have completely different compositions
Hi Matt, thank you for clearing that up! Usually, we'd reopen a question that has been edited into an answerable shape. In this case, the actual answerable question is somewhat far from the original, and there are two existing answers which would be very nonsensical if we'd reword the title and reopen. So I'd suggest that you ask directly a new question about making condensed milk out of nondairy milks. Copying your last sentence to reuse as the body would be fine, no need to write a new text.
There are certainly recipes where the properties of the dairy itself are what makes the recipe work. For example, dairy will curdle when it is mixed with acid. This effect can be used to thicken custards and such, so any recipe that relies on that thickening effect won't work with non-dairy substitutes.
Two examples:
Posset, a custard made with just cream, sugar, and lemons which sets because of the above-mentioned reaction, and key lime pie, which.
Key lime pie was originally not baked, and was just made with lime juice, sweetened condensed milk, and eggs. It set/thickened because of this same reaction. These days it's usually baked because it sets better and because people in the US don't eat raw eggs as much, but if you wanted to make it non-dairy, you'd need to add some starch to help it set.
A bit of a flipside to Esther's answer - if we're talking "can't substitute directly without any changes to the recipe", plant milks curdle/denature at a lower temperature than dairy milk, so anything that involves adding milk to a hot liquid may at the very least require some change of procedure, or the use of plant milk that contains stabilizers (providing those don't interfere with the rest of the recipe).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.879604
| 2024-04-11T15:22:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128070",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122085
|
Canned and sealed jars of boiling applesauce now after two weeks a little mold on some jars. What do I do? Can it be saved?
Canning applesauce. It was boiling and jars sealed. After two weeks a little mold on some of the jars… do I have a problem? Can it be fixed now?
(From later information:)
The jars are completely sealed but on one or two there is a little discolored or s spot of mold. Not all of them
If dip that off the applesauce still taste good. I know years ago would skim off top of jams and still be ok.
On or in the jars? If you have mold inside, yes, you do have a problem and no they can’t be saved. If on the outside, clean the spills.
If you have mold inside, please give us details on what exactly you did and what process you were following. We can’t save this batch, but help avoid it in the future.
Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.
So did you jar and seal with no processing after putting the lids on? That's what this reads like.
If there's mold growing in your jars then something has gone wrong with your canning method. You may have bad seals or the processing has failed to kill off all microbes. Either way the food inside is unsafe and should be discarded. Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do to reprocess them, even if you kill all the microbes this time the food inside is likely spoiled.
Boiling water canning is only sufficient for applesauce where the acidity is high enough, the PH needs to be below 4.6. If your applesauce wasn't tart enough no amount of boiling would make it safe for long-term storage. Next time test your acidity and add some lemon juice if it's not acidic enough.
Hot applesauce into hot jars, lids on, then process in boiling water (or under steam pressure) is the "correct" method as far as I understand it. My reading of your post (awaiting clarification) is that the sauce was merely jarred and capped, with no additional heat processing step after capping.
Modern advice would have been to unjar, reboil, and (re)process if you had discovered the error within 24 hours, and is to discard, having discovered the problem weeks later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.879823
| 2022-10-23T11:51:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122085",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Ecnerwal",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
61950
|
Should I peel my tomatoes before making a sauce?
What are the pros and cons of peeling my tomatoes before making a sauce?
I basically make two different sauces a classical red sauce and a "pink" sauce that is a light alfredo infused with white wine and then chopped tomatoes are added and reduced.
When making my pink sauce you can see some skin afterwards but not much and most people like the texture. However I am talking to a local chef and we are picking tomatoes in his back yard and he tells me he skins them all... I have never had issues but ???
Note: I am getting a lot of feedback and I think there may be confusion. I chop my tomatoes into relative small cubes (let's say 1/3" cubed). There isn't much trace of skins and those left are very small slivers. Also is skin on vs skin off affecting taste? People love my pink sauce so I don't want to change the taste.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/804/67
It is unnecessary, however some people don't like the skins. They tend to curl up into tube sticks that don't chew very well and can hurt if you chew one accidentally and you have a sensitive tooth or gum disease.
Peeling it very easy. Score an x at the bottom of each tomatoe and blanch. The skin will curl back and leave you with a whole but peeled tomato.
Edit based on change to question:
The skins will have almost no affect to the taste either way.
or they get stuck in your teeth, which isn't fun either.
Yes, I think you should peel tomatoes, but I have a thing about tomato skins. In my opinion, you should either peel them or use a food mill to weed out the skins. If they don't bother you or your guests, it's an unnecessary step.
Even if the tomatoes are diced, some of the tomato skin will separate from the meat of the tomatoes and make a paper-like curl in the sauce. I dislike what that does to the texture of dishes, but it doesn't have any effect on the flavor.
Most canned tomatoes are peeled for that textural reason.
We cook down our tomatoes with skins on and then about half way through we strain the juice out to get rid of skins and seeds. Once we do that it goes back in the pot with our spices until it's reduced enough for our liking. We prefer smooth sauces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.880018
| 2015-09-22T19:04:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61950",
"authors": [
"Barbara Martin",
"Colin D",
"Jennifer Ridley",
"Joe",
"Julie",
"Michael Pickett",
"Rebekah Davies",
"Roger Skee",
"Rosina Morris",
"Ryann mar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147591",
"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
}
|
47632
|
Steel Pan non-stick improvement by polishing
I recently started to research into my cookwares and decided a stainless-steel pan was a good budget investment to learn to cook better my steaks and other items. I cooked my first steaks over the last few weeks and they were great, they didn't stick and came out delicious.
FYI: usually I cook the steak by seasoning it with some olive oil rubbed in then salting
and peppering it and letting it rest till it is at room temperature. To cook it I bring the
pan to high heat until droplets of water slip on it as if they were mercury, add a tbsp of
oil and place the steak on, reverse it after about 3min with tongs and remove after about
another 3 min. The cuts I use are often thin.
However there is one problem I have not been able to get over; the steak does not stick but its seasoning will and over the cooking period burns. This causes smoke and a real headache to clean while trying not to use a scourer side of a sponge or metal wire as I have been adamantly told it will ruin the pan's surface (this got me thinking... read on)!
So over to my question which may be a little out the box, I am a materials engineer with access to metal work machines, to my knowledge a perfectly flat surface offers less surface area to stick so if I were to buffet the pan until it were nicely polished on the surface (currently I can see all the circular grooves from the fabrication process such as you see on brushed steel) would this help reduce the sticking? Or can I simply improve the way I cook the steak and avoid the seasoning sticking and burning?
Curious if you tried it and how it went?
Hi @michael,so this was now a while back but as far as I remember the polish did actually have a positive effect on the pan's ability to resist sticking and cleaning thereafter. However it didn't last as long as one would hope. I didn't have a chance to test out a more thorough polish process that ensured uniformity. What happened was that over time, like with any pan, it developed sites that stuck more than others, and there it would build up pyrolysed material that would need to be somewhat scraped off. Over all though it was an improvement.
(1) It is worth noting that many people prefer stainless steel pans to cook meats on because they are NOT non-stick (meaning they stick). The fat rendered during cooking, along with the bits of fat and meat that stick to the surface are called "fond" and are used to make pan sauces to serve with the meat. This is a big selling point for SS pans.
(2) Polishing the surface of your pans to a mirror-finish won't make your pans non-stick. The sticking has more to do with the properties of the stainless steel itself rather than with the buffing of the surface. Some people have suggested that you can season a SS pan like you can a cast-iron pan to make the surface non-stick but that sounds fishy (but, admittedly, I have never actually tried that - I used different types of pans for different types of cooking).
(3) Some seasonings just burn very easily - like paprika. Seasonings that burn easily will most likely burn or scorch whether they are still on your meat, or if they have strayed to the pan. Any spices that might burn should be applied shortly before the meat finishes cooking or applied when you serve it.
#3 is likely the problem, as he specifically mentions the seasoning sticking. For those times when it does start to stick, you catch it early, you can deglaze to make a pan sauce before it cooks so far that it burns.
Thank you for the useful tips. Non-stick is a difficult topic to talk about without being a little misleading, I am aware of the sticking of the meat initially and am perfectly fine with it as after a good sear it comes right off, I did however completely forget to deglaze the fat and seasoning which caused the burning, something I will move onto learning. And as for learning the time to apply seasoning another perfect thing to start looking into! Is there any source you know of that covers what seasonings should be applied when as a rule of thumb?
Micro-polishing (or the later term I've seen from time to time: nano-polishing) a pan surface doesn't make it non-stick, but it does descrease the surface area dramatically, as the OP was pondering. I've been looking into resurfacing kits myself for such things. 10,000 grit aluminum oxide rotary sanding pads ARE available (a .0001" is 2.54 micro-meters), but there isn't much information online as to how well it works. Hope it does, because my SS Calphalon is hosed.
@tgm1024--Monicawasmistreated I'm curious what results you got with polishing it? Was it actually better at not sticking or was it simply easier to clean?
Whenever I am going to sear meat and use olive oil, I season the meat as you describe but wait until I am ready to cook and brush with olive oil just before putting into the pan. (Works especially well with lamb chops!) This allows time for the meat to take on some of the seasoning flavors, the salt will be mostly dissolved, and the pepper will stay with the meat better.
Regarding the pan surface, the smoother the surface, the better the result should be.
Thank-you for your answer, I hadn't considered brushing it on later, I think in my last cook the fact that I spread some presto onto the surface (which I find adds a nice flavour) may have been responsible for some of the burning. I will Polish it and see just how much it improves
The pesto could have been a factor. You might try spreading the pesto after cooking but while the meat is still very hot. And welcome to Seasoned Advice! :)
Again thank you, it seems that learning when to apply seasoning and how to deglaze and create a good sauce from the fond are my next big things to learn with my new ss pan steak cooking thank you so much
I had the same idea. I have taken a stainless steel pan from default circular brush mark finish to 100/200/400/800/1600 grit + automobile scratch remove kit finish. It really did improve nonstick properties.
It became more nonstick, and easier to clean. Especially I would get lots of burnt oil spots on the flared sides, this has subsided greatly. Although I should mention it is a pain in the ass to polish the sides.
Some kind of power tool is necessary. I used an oscillating multitool, and a drill for the scratch remover. You need to spend a lot of time on lower grits to make sure the original brush marks have disappeared. You'd be surprised how deep the factory brush marks go!
Thank you for sharing this feat! I had never gone far enough to get it super polished but one day I might as well try! Keep us updated on how it survives long-term use if you continue to use it. I would suspect a highly polished scratch resistant stainless steel could be a great pan when well polished!
Or can I simply improve the way I cook the steak and avoid the seasoning sticking and burning?
Polishing might help you some, but you may want to make sure you're doing things right before you go to the trouble:
Make sure that the pan is well-heated before you drop in the food.
Make sure that you have sufficient oil. You can either oil the food just before placing it in, or put a thin layer in the pan before adding the food. (if adding it to the pan, watch for the tell-tale shimmer before adding in the food)
Don't cook at too hot of a temperature (if things burn in under a minute, it's too hot).
Make sure that any coatings are well-adheared. (if bits shake off before you add it to the pan, it's going to fall off while cooking)
Between batches, pour off any extra grease, then deglaze to remove the fond (stuff that stuck to the pan).
Although steel wool or metal brushes may scratch up a stainless steel pan, the scrubbing side of a sponge isn't nearly as hard as the pan, and can be used safely. (although you shouldn't have to scrub if you deglaze the pan)
Thank you as well for all the tips, I now see what I should focus on to prevent stuck burnt fond and how to deglaze it to turn it into something juicy. I would like to accept your answer as well as correct because they are both helpful in many ways!
Depends on the "scrubbing side of the sponge". The ones I've seen that are green sided are actually scotch-brite and they will scratch the living beJEEbers out of your pan. The ones with the blue side seem to be much much softer.
I tried most everything but I'm glad I found this site, it has warned me about metal soap scouring pads. However, I have now found that if you use it fast enough after cooking this product;
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B074QLB1XK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
is very effective if used with a green pad to prevent scraping. I gave my son a perfectly good Fissler frying pan after I got sick of cleaning it. Too late to ask for it back now.
Please name and describe the product you're referring to, in addition to linking it. The link or the seller may disappear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.880255
| 2014-10-03T11:43:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47632",
"authors": [
"Alex Ignatenko",
"Cindy",
"David Rios",
"Ella Brown",
"Fiztban",
"Joe",
"Louis Carosella",
"Mary Jo Mercer",
"OKI PHILLIPS",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90794",
"michael",
"sheri cremona",
"tgm1024--Monica was mistreated"
],
"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
}
|
95392
|
Best way to cheat at hollandaise?
While I've been making it for years, hollandaise remains a fussy, error-prone sauce where the slightest error in technique, measurement, or timing results in an oily mess and a huge waste of expensive butter. I've tried the blender hollandaise, the immersion blender hollandaise, and of course classic double-boiler hollandaise, and all of these take way too much time and fail way too often (for example, Kenji neglects to mention in the 2-minute hollandaise that those 2 minutes do not include the 10-15 minutes required to clarify the butter, and that if you try to double the recipe it'll fail). And, of course, there are cheater hollandaise recipes that are completely reliable, except that they look and taste nothing like the actual sauce.
Is there a way to cheat at hollandaise, using stabilizers, additives, or alternate ingredients, that tastes approximately correct, always works, and scales up or down easily?
it all “boils down” to setting the sauce at the right temperature. To make it fool-proof, you need precise temperature control, which you can achieve with a sous-vide setup.
To make sous-vide hollandaise, you just need to combine all your ingredients together and cook at 75°C for 30 minutes (these figures are from a chefsteps recipe, you can play with the numbers to get to your desired consistency), and blend them while they are hot to finish your sauce.
Hmmm, this is an interesting approach, and looks like it would work with an improvised sous vide setup.
A very important thing is to add some water (or lemon juice/vinegar/stock) to the yolk before starting with the rest of the emulsification.
This is something that Ruhlmann explains in more depth in Ratio. The short version: A hollandaise is a oil-in-water emulsion. It is started from the egg yolk, which provides the initial water phase, and an emulsifier in the form of lecithine. But it also contains solids and other fat, giving you very little water phase to work with. So frequently, the emulsion "switches" and becomes water-in-oil.
The maximum ratio of oil to water was found to be 7 ounces to 2 teaspoons, or about 200 ml of oil per 10 ml of water. Use less oil to be on the safe side, and, as mentioned above, start with the water phase (liquid plus yolk) and add the oil on top.
The ideal temperature is 72 Celsius, and you are indeed working with small limits, especially if you are also adding acid. But they are not absolutely tiny, +-10 C is still entirely reasonable for making hollandaise. There is no way to work around the fussiness there. Just use good temperature control. A common failure mode here is to use a double boiler such that the outside of the bowl gets too hot, and the mixture that clings to the wall of the bowl cooks through, especially the parts smeared above the standard level of the bowl. For this, use a lower temperature water bath, not vigorously boiling, go with zetaprime's suggestion for sous vide.
I have read cooks who swear at 0.5% xanthan to get the perfect hollandaise every time. I haven't used it much, but it is worth trying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.880950
| 2019-01-06T01:39:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95392",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66466
|
How do you prevent salmon from falling apart when frying?
I have tried frying salmon filet and besides the fact it was very raw on the inside it fell apart when I tried to flip it over. Why?
*Skin was on.
I don't think this is actually a duplicate. The OP specifies salmon steaks. That is different from "fish". Salmon steaks are a royal PIA.
@jolenealaska I actually used Salmon Filet. Thought it's a steak because I fried it.
Ok so you said salmon fillet. So my first question is how big is the filet. Fish don't develop protein chains to hold together the same way red meat has. So the flakes don't really hold together if pulled too hard, so I wonder if your fillets are too big. When I cook fish, especially salmon I try cut the fillet into serving sizes portions, maybe 2 inches across (assuming a full sized fish here). This helps keep the fish to a manageable size.
There is also a tool that is very aptly named because it was designed for this use and it's called a fish turner. This is a thin and springy or turner that would better with fish because when scooping up the fish it doesn't force the fish to reshape itself to the more rigid spatula and therefore you get less fish breaking apart.
Do not turn the fish too many times. Leave it on one side and let it do all the cooking on that side that it needs, flip it once and let it finish.
This will produce a nice crusty finish. As far as getting it to cook through the center, well that takes patience. Cook on a medium low heat but cook it for longer, like 8 minutes on each side (experiment, don't rely on my telling you 8 minutes). Then when you take the fish off the pan, put it on the plate and let it rest for a few more minutes. The fish will still be cooking on the inside and will finish up if you don't serve it too early, but of course don't wait so long that the fish cools. You want to serve it while it's still hot, but not scalding hot.
The best technique I've found for frying fish is not to flip it at all. I start the fish on the stove, skin down, then I finish cooking it in the oven. You need an oven safe frying pan of course, cast iron or a high-temperature non-stick works well. You get a nice crispy skin this way.
If you are set on flipping then you need to be gentle, think of it as turning over, not flipping. Get your spatula completely under the fish and lift it off the pan a bit, then putting your fingers on top of the piece roll it over, last let it gently drop onto the pan - keeping your fingers off the surface of course.
This also applies to grilling fish, where flipping is even more precarious.
I basically use my fish turner for everything, except for fish.
are you keeping the skin on? If you take the skin off it's likely to fall apart. If you've kept the skin and it's falling apart I suggest it's overcooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.881319
| 2016-02-13T07:33:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66466",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Chris Manchester1 S",
"Da Man Arsenault",
"Ella Kerslake",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin Mccamley",
"Pam Taylor",
"Shawna W",
"Tim Perry",
"Will Rayner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"sdr",
"zoned post meridiem"
],
"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
}
|
61500
|
Can cashew milk go bad, and how do you tell?
How can you tell if your cashew milk has gone bad? If it is past the freshness code on package?
Yes, it can go bad.
The date on the package is one indication, but it may be a "best by" date and does not guarantee the milk will go bad by then. It doesn't necessarily mean it is guaranteed safe, either, although most stores will give you a refund on product that spoils early.
Look for the following signs (written for almond milk, but cashew milk follows the same rules):
the container seems abnormally bloated after opening
mold is present
any funky or pungent odors
the product has curdled or is visibly thick and slimy (observe the consistency when putting)
a change in color, as almond milk may appear more yellow when it has spoiled
Source
Smell it and you’ll know if it’s bad. They say regardless of expiration date, it’s good for one week after opening but I’ve had some 3 weeks after opening and it’s still good so I guess just smell it to see
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.881595
| 2015-09-04T14:52:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61500",
"authors": [
"Dan Lehr",
"Dorothy Knowles",
"Frank Graaso",
"Julie Anderson",
"Margaret Kelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145879",
"thomas higgins"
],
"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
}
|
62233
|
Freezing Egg & Cheese Omelet
A Super 8 motel we just stayed at had egg & cheese omelets on their breakfast bar. They said they get them frozen from Farmers Brothers. They are thawed on the breakfast bar and warmed up in the microwave. They were delicious, just like fresh made. Has anyone else ever heard of them?
I looked online, but they are a wholesale outfit for restaurants etc. However, I saw recipes listed for freezing your own omelets. I would like to try to make some.
Would it work to make omelets, freeze them on a cookie sheet, wrap them, and eat them later? I think it would be great for quick mornings breakfasts, camping etc.
A quick test is worth a thousand random peoples opinions online. Why not make a quick omelet and freeze it?
Quite surprising, but cooked eggs (hard boiled, scrambled and omelets) freeze particularly well. I keep large thin omelets for shredding over fried rice. Cheese and egg are mostly composed of fats and proteins that freeze well. I would think that most omelets composed of cheese would work well. I can also see a spinach omelet made with frozen spinach working well as well.
I would avoid trying to freeze an omelet that contained crispy/crunchy vegetables. Or maybe omelets with a saucy filling that may split during reheating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.881733
| 2015-10-03T01:06:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62233",
"authors": [
"Alex O'Donoghue",
"Alison Schmidt",
"Bertha Chavez",
"Cheryl Grey",
"Edmund Englert",
"Jeannette Barrie",
"Lyn Pflueger",
"Paul Schneider",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"user3008662"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68703
|
How long can I keep cannoli shells with no filling and how should I store them
How long can I store cannoli shells with no filling? What is the best way to do this? I am traveling 5 days to my destination.
Possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
@ElmerCat : if it's a duplicate, which category does it go in? (personally, I'd be worried about how to pack them so they won't crack in transit.)
@ElmerCat Along with what Joe said, "how do I store them" definitely isn't a duplicate, either.
I’m assuming you mean just the shells unfilled. If you made the shells yourself, line a cardboard box with paper bag material (cut up some) then just lay them in. They’ll be fine for a couple of weeks, probably longer. If you bought them, don’t worry about it they last just as long if not longer. Just leave them in their original container.
I found Saran wrapped individually helps.
We'd love to read more - for how long can you store them, what should be kept in mind when wrapping... Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.881902
| 2016-04-30T21:46:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68703",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElmerCat",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"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
}
|
81297
|
Can multiple slabs of ribs be baked at once?
I need to bake 10 slabs of barbecue ribs that will be finished off on the grill.
The recipe calls for baking each at 250 degrees for 2 hours. Can I bake 2 or more ribs at one time? If so, what adjustment should I make to temperature and time?
If the oven is large enough, you can bake as many slabs as will comfortably fit on one tray or oven rack without any adjustments.
If you need to seriously cut the total baking time, you could use even two trays at the same time, but in this case, you need to make sure the ribs get enough heat from all sides, which means swapping trays and turning the ribs occasionally and probably baking for a bit longer - I'd guess fifteen to thirty minutes - to compensate for the less-than-ideal heat exposure. I'd leave the temperature setting unchanged unless you notice excess or too little browning halfway to the parbaking.
Not part of your question, but probably worth mentioning, as I assume you will be serving the ribs to many people:
Whatever method you finally choose, note that such a large amount of ribs that will be ready for further processing will need some extra actions to ensure all the meat stays safe and not in the danger zone for more than two hours. So you might want to think about either keeping your meat hot (above 140F/60C) or cooling it down quickly (below 40F / 4C). Find more details and useful links in our canonical post.
A fan (ie. convection) oven would be the best choice for this as the fan will distribute the heat evenly, just make sure that the airflow is not restricted.
@GdD thanks for spotting it - I had intended to add a paragraph about this! (Will probably edit later.)
And if you're going low & slow in the oven -- there should be no change in time or temperature. So long as the oven can maintain the temperature, they will cook in exactly the same time, so long as you don't stack the racks directly on top of each other. (and it helps to stagger the sheet pans as much as possible, but still leave an inch or two of clearance at each wall)
If you're not doing the pouch method, you might be able to roll them up into a circle and skewer through them, as J.Bergen mentioned -- this allows there to be heat coming from both sides of the meat ... but I've never tried it in the oven, so I don't know how effective it is without the convection from the grill. You can sometimes get as much as 2-3x as many racks of ribs on the grill this way.
You might also want to consider a vertical rib rack, which allows you to fit more racks into the oven if you're going to be doing this on a regular basis. If you have two 5-slot ones, and your oven is tall enough, you might be able to cook all 10 at once without much problems.
Also to note -- I once did pouch cooking in my oven, but plans fell through, so I drained the pouches (which was slightly acidic), put the pouches in the fridge, then reduced the liquid into a barbeque sauce. The next day, I heated the ribs through on the grill.
If you have a small grill, and need to heat things faster, you can often fix two racks on a sheet pan, and put it under the broiler (top heat)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.882038
| 2017-04-29T16:00:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81297",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99203
|
Anise Cookies: Why 12-hour rest before baking?
I have a recipe for an anise cookie that I've made several times. The ingredients are: flour, baking powder, salt, anise, eggs, vanilla. No butter or oil. The dough is rather sticky. The unusual thing about the recipe is that once the cookies are put onto a parchment-lined sheet, they sit for 12 hours (not in fridge) before baking. The results are excellent, especially for a no-fat cookie. After the 12 hours, they still rise during baking and result in a delicious, chewy (not soft) cookie, my favorite cookie texture.
My question is: Why does it require a 12-hour rest on the counter? What is the purpose of the wait period? What creates the chewy texture?
[Today I decided to make them with 50% buckwheat flour. And I only let them rest 6 hours rather than 12. The result is tasty but not chewy. Buckwheat doesn't have gluten so this makes me wonder if the chewiness has to do with gluten development. Did I just answer my own question???]
Have you tried making them with regular flour and a shorter rest period? For a normal (with fat) spice cookie recipe the rest has more to do with letting the flavours develop than the final texture, but it may be completely different for a non-fat recipe.
I normally make them with either AP or whole wheat pastry flour. Both resulted in the desired chewy texture. While the rest period might be good for flavor development, my gut feeling is that's not the purpose of it. I could be wrong!
You might be interested in this question. I realize it is different, chilled vs room temp resting, but it may have some relevant information anyway.
Although part of the intent might be in how it rises as gretel_f mentions, you're right in that it will affect the chewiness -- letting it sit will provide gluten development, like in no-knead bread recipes.
There are different types of anise cookies. One particular type is a common guest on my German family's Christmas cookie tray. The recipe I use calls for a over night rest, too, and has a similar ingredients list to yours, so i assume you want to achieve this kind of cookie. It basically looks like a french macaron.
The resting time allows the cookies to dry out a bit and build a kind of skin. This is the reason for the chewiness, as the moisture is preserved during the baking time a bit more than it normally would (same as in bread making). However, it also creates a little signature "foot" (see french macaron). During the baking the cookies rise a little bit, but can't expand as they usually would, because of the skin. So instead they create the little foot.
My grandma was a very impatient person and didn't let them dry over night. She instead dried them in the oven at a low temperature (<100°C) for about 15-20 minutes before baking. However, I like the texture more with the longer drying period. I find it produces a better moisture to crispiness ratio.
What a great answer. I was really hoping to hear from someone who had experience with this cookie. The forming of a skin holding in the moisture makes so much sense. And I love the story of your impatient grandmother. I wonder if this method would work for other cookies to achieve a similar texture. I have some experimenting to do! Thanks so much.
Well, I don't know about cookies in general, but there are several in my book, that require the resting time. Those are mostly egg white based, low/no fat cookies. Any type of maracon for example (the german type are a bit different than the french ones. They all require drying periods, though). Maybe it has something to do with that. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I've been on a quest to try recipes with no fat and have found a few. Although some have nuts so they probably don't count. Would you be willing to share (or give a link to) some of the recipes with a resting time and no/low fat that you're familiar with (except the French macaron which I can easily find)? I'm curious about the German macaron.
sure! I have quite some favorites, actually. Most of them are with nuts, though, but i wouldn't say that they have nearly the amount of fat that normal cookies have. It's mostly sugar and protein, i guess. I have to translate them to english first, though. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.882322
| 2019-05-28T04:41:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99203",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"Gretel_f",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20590
|
What is the significant difference between pastas?
Possible Duplicate:
Why are there so many different pasta shapes?
What makes a pasta shape pair with a sauce?
When getting ingredients for a soup recipe, I couldn't find the type of pasta the recipe called, so I just bought a spiral type pasta. It seemed to work fine in the recipe, but it got me thinking about pasta. Forgive my ignorance, but it seems like most pastas taste the same.
The only thing that seems to make them unique is there size and shape;
Is there any reason I should use one pasta over another if it is relatively the same size as the type of pasta a recipe calls for?
Do certain pastas cook better in soups, and others require to be drained from liquid?
I realize I am asking a bunch of questions, but they are mostly to support expanding answers to my main question: What is the significant difference between pastas?
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7722/why-are-there-so-many-different-pasta-shapes and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11152/why-do-different-pasta-shapes-taste-different
Pasta as you know is a simple egg and flour mixture. You can add flavouring to it to give it a different spin or even a colour but at it's root it's just an egg dough.
The different type of shapes are "meant" for different types of sauces in a traditional sense. I don't want to imply that you MUST use one type of pasta with one type of sauce. What I'm saying is that a particular style of noodle shape just lends itself better to certain suace types. I.E. penne, rigatoni, macaroni work really well with a sauce that needs a place to sit and hide so that each mouth full gives you the right amount of sauce to noodle ratio. Mac & Cheese is a great example of this.
In a soup or salad the type of pasta you choose is probably going to reflect the need of the guest and how you plan to serve the dish.
With a soup you want to have a spoon that will carry the right proportions of broth, vegetables, pasta in each bite. Because of that you select a small pasta shape like orzo. However, as cooking is all about using what you have on hand, if you don't have orzo but you have fetticini then use that but break it up first so it will work the same way.
Hope that helps.
The kind of pasta you buy dry at the store doesn't normally contain egg; that's more common in fresh pasta.
Mine does. I look for it. Tastes better but costs more.
@Jefromi Probably depends on the store's background. North European pasta is normally made from soft wheat flour and egg, Italian pasta is made from hard wheat (durum flour) and water. Stores here sell equal amounts of both kinds, there may be regional differences in availability.
Okay, let me expand then: in the US, pasta most of the time refers to Italian pasta (e.g. penne, rigatoni, macaroni, as mentioned in this answer), and that doesn't generally contain egg. The things that do contain egg are generally either specialty products or actually sold as "egg noodles".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.882665
| 2012-01-19T02:44:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20590",
"authors": [
"Axel",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Shatayu Darbhe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"rumtscho",
"user45222",
"ѺȐeallү"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9460
|
Why is my gravy opaque?
I only started making gravy a year or two ago, so I don't fully understand the process, although I appreciate the taste. As I was making gravy for Thanksgiving, I noticed that the color was significantly yellow and it wasn't clear, but milky-opaque. I know from this question that the yellow color is from using the fat I skimmed off of my stock to make the roux. (I made a combined chicken and turkey stock.)
But what makes the gravy appear opaque and almost milky? The color came almost as soon as I mixed my stock into my roux.
(Incidentally, my stock wasn't hot when I added it to the roux. Would that make a difference?)
Could you post the recipe/process you used for the stock and roux ?
Gravy is opaque. If you want a clear gravy, use starch in your roux rather than flour.
For the stock, I started with some turkey wings and chicken bones. I roasted them at 450 until they were light brown. Then (after skinning the turkey) I covered them in lots of water and cooked them at about 180 for a couple of hours. I roasted onions, celery, carrots, parsnips, turnips, and parley root, and added them to the stock and cooked for another hour. I drained and chilled overnight, then skimmed the fat.
For the roux, I measured the fat I got from the stock, and added enough olive oil to make 1/4 cup. I cooked that over high heat for a minute or two to cook off the liquid that I'm sure I got with the stock fat. Then I added 1/4 cup of flour (a bit at a time) and cooked over medium heat for about 3-4 minutes until it was a darker golden brown -- starting to really turn brown in spots. I added about 4 cups of stock along with some fresh thyme and salt and pepper.
You might want to back off on the heat a bit. A darker roux is fine, but it is usually approached much more slowly than 3-4 minutes. I would expect a very light roux in that amount of time, just enough to cook off the raw flour taste, but not add any real color.
As a northerner in the UK, your gravy is opaque because you're making it right! If it's translucent it's far too watery.
Gravy is supposed to be opaque and is a result of using flour as the thickener. If you want clear gravy, like what you would get in a Chinese restaurant, then you need to use corn starch or arrowroot as your thickener. But the opacity is considered to be a good thing. It's the canned stuff you buy in the store that is clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.882922
| 2010-11-25T16:21:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9460",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Karen",
"Martha F.",
"Matt Taylor",
"bjstone",
"confused-in-the-kitchen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76446
|
Why can't I get my new Misto Olive Oil Sprayer to spray?
I received a Misto for Christmas. I cleaned and waited for it to dry. When I put the oil in it and pumped per the instructions, nothing happened when I went to spray it.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Did you try reading the instructions?
I have never heard of a Misto. Is that a brand or a generic name for a kitchen item?
I googled it and came up with a canister-like product. It can be filled with oils, vinegars, juice from lemons, and other things that flavor food. It looks like you can spray it on a pan to keep things from sticking, and also directly on food. You fill a canister, pump it hard a number of times, then spray. I'm going to put a link to it, at the Misto website, into the question. It has instructions and video. Pamela, if that's not the product you're talking about, let us know. It looks great, I hope you get yours working!
Also, if you were able to get it to work and can share that with others, we'd appreciate it. It appears to be a fun and helpful new kind of product, and maybe other people are struggling with it too! (Now you have me wanting one!!)
I just found this related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17852/how-to-clean-a-clogged-misto-oil-sprayer-spritzer...
If it's unrepairable, and you get store credit for it ... I highly recommend getting one of the sprayers with a clear container : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/11404/67
Does this answer your question? How to clean a clogged Misto oil sprayer/spritzer?
The soaking in hot water is typically to deal with oil that's congealed inside the mister after use. Soap shouldn't have the same problem unless you were using bar soap.
There are two main things that can go wrong :
The vessel won't pressurize
The pressurized vessel won't spray.
First, we need to figure out which one it is. To check pressurization:
Fill the container half-full with liquid (oil or water). There might be a 'max fill' line (I haven't used a misto in over a decade), but if there is, you'd likely need a flashlight to see it well.
Reassemble the mister.
Make sure the ring around the top is tightened down well. After it spins down freely, you want to try to get it another quarter turn or so.
Put the top on, and pump it up about 10 times.
After the first few pumps, you shouldn't hear any hissing. If it's hissing after 10 pumps, it's a sign that it's likely not holding sufficient pressure to spray well (or spray at all)
Pump it about 30 more times.
If things are working correctly, it should get harder to pump after a while.
Towards the end, you should hear a bit of hissing after each pump. You can stop when this happens. It's a sign that the pump is pressurized, and the safety valve is working.
Remove the top and slowly unscrew the ring.
You should hear a hiss once you've loosened it enough to let air escape.
If you do not hear a hiss, the vessel isn't holding air. Repeat the process, but try to crank down the ring a bit harder, and try to pump 60 times this time (and make sure they're complete strokes).
If it's still not pressurizing the second time, you can take a look at the gasket attaching the pump portion to the bottom. Check for any damage or bumpiness that would prevent a good seal.
If the vessel did hiss, re-tighten the ring and pump it back up to the same level as the last time.
Remove the top, point the nozzle towards something that you don't mind getting wet or oily, and press the button down.
The button should actually move some. If it doesn't, that's a problem. There might be something physically obstructing it that can be removed through scraping or cutting, but be careful.
If the button moves, but nothing comes out ... loosen the ring again. If there's hissing, it means that there's a blockage somewhere in the spray mechanism.
You could try taking a pin and making sure the business end of the nozzle is clear. If you can pull the nozzle from the stem (which I can't on mine), you can also make sure it looks okay inside where it attaches to the pump part, and there's nothing in the tube coming from the pump.
You can also try looking for blockages in the feed tube that gets inserted into the liquid to be sprayed. (which also can't be done on mine, as there's a filter at the bottom to reduce the chance of blockages)
If none of that works, you'll have to look into returning it as defective.
Make sure the black round gasket that fits at the bottom of the mechanism is in place and it hasn't slipped off when you have cleaned it.
Aasuming the issue is a clog, here's from MISTO instructions:
We always recommend washing you MISTO® using directions included in the instructions booklet to keep the internal assembly clean and working properly. Usually MISTO® will need to be cleaned approximately every 6 to 8 weeks to keep it working smoothly.
Fill the MISTO® 1/2 full with hot tap water
Add one drop liquid detergent and shake to mix.
Pump 10-15 times
Spray for ten seconds
Allow the soapy water to remain in the sprayer for several hours or even overnight. This will allow it to break down any oil that has solidified in the sprayer.
Rinse, repeat the sequence above with fresh hot water.
It's possible some soap got clogged in the sprayer when you cleaned it. If so, this should take care of it.
Put the silver top on and pump it up and down several times to prime the pump. Took me a while to figure it out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.883174
| 2016-12-14T01:17:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76446",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Joe",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"beausmith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73059
|
How can I easily get water to a desired temperature?
I have a number of teas, some of which require a lower temperature for steeping than others (for instance, I have a particular Green Tea which asks for steeping at 70°C, 158°F).
I was wondering how to get the water to this temperature, and I can think of 4 different methods:
Heat the water gently until it reaches that temperature
Boil the water, then add cooler water until it reaches that temperature
Boil the water, leave it standing for a couple of minutes until it reaches the temperature
Boil the water, transfer it from vessel to vessel until the temperature drops sufficiently.
Is there any difference in the result of those methods, as to the quality of the tea it'll end up producing? Will it make a difference if the water (or some of it) never reached the boiling point?
The "quality of tea based on temperature of water" part of this question is already answered here.
Don't boil - heat to 70C then remove. If you're always using roughly the same amount of water in the same kettle you can measure it once and then do it by ear afterwards. 70C happens usually somewhere in the pre-boil rumble - there's a crecendo of rumbling that happens as the water heats which then becomes quiet before reaching full boil. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28069/why-is-boiling-water-loud-then-quiet
@J... Please, if you want to answer the question, use the answer section.
@Catija If I did, I would. The information above is tangential and is not an answer to the question. The (brief) part that is an answer is already present in one of the existing answers below.
Just for what it's worth: Electric kettles exist that can give you a range of "ideal" tea temperatures at the push of a button. Hard to beat a smart thermostat.
There's even (expensive) tea makers that will let you choose the temperature and how long you want to brew and handle it by lifting the tea container after the desired time ( http://www.brevilleusa.com/the-tea-maker-onetouch.html )
The method we use (for coffee) is pretty simple (though it requires some compatible equipment):
Fill kettle.
Shove probe thermometer through "whistle" hole in kettle spout.
Heat until desired temperature is reached.
Pour water into vessel.
If you don't have a kettle or your thermometer won't work, you can do the same thing with any pot and a thermometer that has a clip (so you don't have to hold it for 10 minutes while the water heats)... but be sure the thermometer is heat safe (candy thermometers are good for this if they have a high enough temp range).
You'll want to keep a couple of things in mind...
The temperature of your mug will cool the water when it makes contact. This is unlikely to make a huge difference but it's something to think about. If you really want to brew your tea at exactly 70 C, consider heating sufficient water to "warm" your cup (or teapot) by filling it part way and swishing the water around to heat up the cup first and then pour the water down the drain. Alternately, you can heat your water to a slightly higher temperature (72 C).
As to your other methods... I'm sure any of them would work just fine... they'd take longer, though, because you're waiting for something to boil and then you're waiting for it to cool off or you're futzing around with getting it back down to the "right" temperature by adding cool water or tossing it back and forth between cups.
Provided you have standard, municipal water that you're comfortable drinking from the tap (or filtered), I don't know why boiling it first would matter.
I'm also skeptical about the pickiness of tea being steeped at exactly 70 C. I have a feeling that there'd be little discernible difference (to the average consumer) were the water at 80 C or even 90 C... It'd be an interesting thing to test, I suppose.
As this relates to oxygen loss due to boiling, which has been mentioned in some of the answers. This related question actually discusses that already and the general consensus is that lower oxygen levels in the water is actually bad for the taste of the tea:
Dissolved oxygen is reactive, and will most likely extract more substances from the tea leaf, than without it. If these are the good flavour parts of tea, I do not know?
And:
This person found that increased oxygen in the water resulted in milder, less tannic tea.
So, it sounds as if not bringing your water to a full boil is actually preferable to the flavor of the tea (assuming you don't like the tannic flavors) because the oxygen is beneficial to the brewing process.
Boiling the water has not only the effect of killing any germs and, obviously, increasing the temperature, it also changes the chemical composition somewhat, in particular it purges much of the solved oxygen and CO₂. I do think this is relevant for the outcome of the tea – some people in fact swear it's essential that the water has boiled entirely and is only cooled afterwards. I'm not sure about this, somebody should do some blind tests...
@Catija I'm also skeptical about the pickiness of tea being steeped at exactly 70 C-- temperature can make a huge difference. If his tea calls for 70C and he uses 100C, its (most likely) going to come out bitter and disgusting. Anecdotally, I have done this myself-- green tea at too high a temp is not good drinking.
For baking a rapid-bake loaf in my breadmaker a fairly precise temperature is required (enough to get the heat going quickly, not enough to kill it). This is easiest to obtain by mixing hotter-than-required water with cold water, stirring using a thermometer. If your cold water temperature is stable you can get really rather close by known proportions of boiling and cold. This may be good enough for you. But of course don't mix it over the tea (or yeast).
I'm lazy -- I run the hot water tap against the inside of my wrist 'til it's warm, then fill up my container, and it's in the 105°F to 115°F range. (this assumes you're in an area where the hot water tap is potable)
@Joe my hot water could be considered potable but I'm more impatient than lazy and the kitchen is a long pipe from the HW tank.
Boiling water reduces the amount of dissolve oxygen, and this will affect the taste of the tea. So boiling then cooling will result in different water than just heating to 70C.
Letting the water cool from 100C to 70C should keep the oxygen content low, but if you add fresh water, the oxygen content will rise again.
I don't think methods 3 or 4 will result in a taste difference, just a time to get there difference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12lz2q/about_boiling_away_oxygen_from_water_when_boiling/?st=irqnuldo&sh=c9af40eb
Yes... but how long do you have to boil the water for these effects to actually occur in any volume that is noticeable? The average user boils water until the kettle whistles and that's it. If you're suggesting this is the case, we're going to need info on how long the water needs to be boiled for any significant loss of gasses.
@Catija Oxygen is essentially insoluble in boiling water. And boiling is such a violent process that I think it takes what's left of the gasses out extremely quickly. My guess would be that, by the time you've decided the water really is boiling, the gasses are gone.
@DavidRicherby That's why I'm asking... I have no knowledge. All I could find is a graph on Physics.SE about how much oxygen is in water but it only goes up to 50 C... which, interestingly, it's already lost a lot of water (from room temp)... so it makes me wonder if the difference between the amount of oxygen in 70C water is really that great of a difference as what's in boiling water.
@Catija Googling for "oxygen solubility in water with temperature" gives solubility curves up to boiling, where it's essentially zero. It falls from around 9mg/L at 20C to around 4mg/L at 70C, which is quite significantly different from zero.
The simplest way is to 1/3 fill the cup with cold water (from the tap/faucet), then fill with boiling water.
The water from the faucet isn't at exactly 0 degrees (being slightly warmer), but equally the water from the kettle isn't at exactly 100 degrees, so the two will balance each other to within a few degrees of 70c - close enough not to care.
It really is that simple. The difference in oxygen content will be negligible, as 70% of the water is still being boiled, and the other 30% is oxygenated by the act of pouring water into it.
Boil and wait to cool is extra time and energy.
This is a trick I use with wine. I have old thick milk bottles I leave in the freezer. Then I just pour warm wine in the bottle.
However, pouring boiling water into untempered glass such as a milk bottle is likely to shatter it.
Use a thick metal vessel you leave in the fridge. Let water get to temp or higher. Pour into like a small cast iron tea pot at room temp or fridge temp. Hopefully it over-cools and just keep adding hot water until is gets up to temp. You could steep in the cast iron tea pot. It would also hold the temperature.
On the comments on O₂ and CO₂ it is going to lose gas just heating. Gas is less soluble at high temp and solid is more soluble temp. It take very little time at that temp.
I have a kettle (Breville) with buttons on it that heats water to different temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.883749
| 2016-08-11T15:40:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73059",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Thibault D.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"keshlam",
"leftaroundabout",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52042
|
My french bread dough did not rise on the second rise after forming the loaves
My dough looked great after the first rise. I punched down the dough and formed into long loaves and used a jelly roll pan, not loaf pans. They did not rise fully, I went ahead and baked them. The final product was dense and not chewy. I'm not sure what may have happened.
How long did you give them for the second rise? How warm was the room? How long did the first rise take?
What kind of flour are you using?
How much yeast did you use? Did you add any sugar for the yeast to feed on? How warm was the room?
There are many variables that could be at play here - some of the obvious ones have already been suggested, e.g., ambient temperature. The yeast fermentation process is very temperature sensitive, and can vary 100% in time for a change of less than 10 degrees Celsius, depending on your yeast strain. Other factors might include moisture level - if the dough is too loose, it will not "rise" in a jelly roll pan, but rather "spread" as it expands. There is also a possibility that if the dough has over-fermented (too much time spent on the first rise), the gluten breaks down, and cannot sustain the subsequent rise - this is sometimes known as the dough "going to rags" (excuse my English). In the case of lower gluten flours, particularly rye, the second rise may actually occur, but not seem as evident as it did when in the bowl.
If you are working in winter in a particularly cold or drafty kitchen, you can raise the temperature of the dough slightly if you very carefully turn the oven to 100-110 degrees Celsius (gas mark 1/4 - 200-225 F) for a short time, 4-5 minutes MAX, then TURN THE OVEN OFF. Cover the dough with aluminium paper to keep the crust from drying out, and place dough in the warm (NOT HOT) oven for an hour or so - this boost in warmth gives the yeast a wake-up. The interior of the oven should be no more than 50-55 degrees Celsius, or you will kill the yeast.
Some ovens have a dough-proving setting. I still turn mine off when it's up to this temperature because the fan makes for an uneven rise, but it exists.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.884496
| 2014-12-28T14:53:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52042",
"authors": [
"Adele Benkovitz",
"Chris H",
"Jessica Cox",
"Jessica Mompoint",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kinna Glaspy",
"Sappa Satish",
"Sudha raman",
"Vivian Kaplan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"mrwienerdog",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56452
|
When should I add proofed yeast to a bread machine?
I like to use proofed yeast when making bread. I want to use a bread machine but all
the recipes call for adding dry yeast to the dry ingredients before adding the liquid. Since proofed yeast is basically a solution of water and dry yeast, when and where should it be added to the ingredients?
IMO- it sounds like you want to incorporate artisanship with modern day technology. Your the future innovate... Trial and error my friend.
What are you trying to achieve? The whole point of a bread machine is to have a "push a button and forget it" device which delivers less-than-stellar bread at a fraction of the effort. Proofing the yeast first will add effort, but it won't make your bread taste better. If you have doubts that your yeast will work and want to watch it go up first, there is no need for that: it was an issue in the early home-use dry yeasts in the 90s, but by now, the technology is mature enough. I've never had yeast fail in the last decades.
It depends on why your bread machine is having you keep your yeast dry:
If it's because you're putting a bunch of ingredients in the night before and setting the machine to have bread ready for breakfast (e.g., on a delay), then you have to use dry yeast. The yeast needs to stay dry so it doesn't start growing until the machine is ready to start.
If its because the machine does a preheat cycle to warm up the flour/water/etc. before mixing, then add in the proofed yeast when mixing is about to start. That also means you'll probably want to wait until shortly before that to proof your yeast.
If its just to make mixing easier, then combine it with the wet ingredients instead.
Remember to count the water/sugar/etc. from proofing the yeast as part of the total in the dough (e.g., if you proof in 100g of water, add 100g less water than the recipe calls for).
Add all dry ingredients as ordinary, when it's time to start adding liquid ingredients, add the yeast starter and make sure to subtract an equal amount of water from the recipe.
It's that simple.
As above poster says, but I add liquids in first, which includes yeast starter. I never get a good a rise if I just added yeast to flour , I really need a good activation in a jug of water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.884731
| 2015-04-06T23:53:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56452",
"authors": [
"Chef_Code",
"David Glassey",
"Ellie Tyers",
"Liza Lyndsey",
"Marie Stadler",
"Mike Bailey",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jgyamakawa",
"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
}
|
62560
|
Why would a steam rice cooker suddenly make my dad sick?
My dad has owned the same rice cooker for years and it always worked fine. Recently, every time he makes rice, which is all it has ever been used for, he gets sick to his stomach almost immediately after eating it. No amount of cleaning and rinsing to make sure all soap is out of it makes any difference. It also doesn't matter what brand of rice, even the same ones we have always used. What is the problem? The unit seems to work just fine.
Can you describe what's actually wrong with the rice? Bubbly and making someone sick isn't very specific. What do you mean by bubbly? Also, has anything else changed? Is he okay with rice cooked elsewhere?
Also, is he eating the rice immediately or does the rice sit for some time before being eaten?
Is anyone else feeling ill from eating the same rice?
Could it be the fault of something else he commonly eats with the rice?
Can you just try cooking the rice in a different pan and seeing if that works?
How about taking him to the doctor and checking for allergies?
I'm going ahead and finishing closing this, since it's obviously pretty tough to answer based on the current detail. If it were just your dad getting sick, it could be a lot of human things (a couple bad batches, now he expects it and it's psychological); you mentioned it getting bubbly which could possibly be a real difference but you didn't give enough detail to really tell for sure.
The big question is: what changed? Some possibilities:
The rice cooker isn't being cleaned properly. Doesn't seem likely that the residue on an even poorly-cleaned metal pan would significantly contaminate the results.
The water or other cooking ingredients. Doesn't seem likely since the water is probably the same stuff you drink, and generally there aren't any other ingredients when using a rice cooker.
Your dad. Has he developed some sort of allergy or reaction to the rice?
To check on the allergy-thing: you seem to have tried everthing cooker-related and everything type-of-rice-related. Have you tried cooking the rice in a pot? If that STILL causes the reaction: yes, most likely some sort of allergy.
@Layna excellent idea.
The OP said "It also doesn't matter what brand of rice, even the same ones we have always used." suggesting that they've tried at least a few.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.885230
| 2015-10-16T03:36:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62560",
"authors": [
"Angela Moran",
"Cascabel",
"Cat Tellez",
"Connie Stern",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Debra Larratt",
"Divi",
"Erica",
"Gayle Ferguson",
"Kellie MacDonald",
"Layna",
"NadjaCS",
"Renee LaClair Bolos",
"Troy Hanson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"lemontwist",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64327
|
What German product is the equivalent of cream in a recipe from the United States?
I'm looking at a Bolognese sauce recipe from a US cookbook and it contains the following ingredient:
1 cup cream, half-and-half, or milk
Now I'm wondering what exactly the german equivalent of cream is, as there are many different types.
Does cream in US recipies generally refer only to regular cream ("süße Sahne, Schlagsahne") or to sour cream ("saure Sahne, Schmand") or Crème fraîche as well?
I'm mostly wondering because I read that sour cream or Crème fraîche are especially suited for hot sauces as they don't curdle easily.
I'm interested in both, what is usually meant by cream in US recipies and which type of cream would be appropriate for something like a Bolognese sauce or similar hot sauces.
If you're cooking Bolognese sauce, you don't need any cream at all. Drop the recipe, it's rubbish. Bolognese sauce is meat, sofritto, tomatoes, herbs, wine. But surely no cream.
In the US, "cream" (without any other modifiers) is usually synonymous with "heavy cream," which is legally required to be at least 36% milk fat, but is usually 40% and can sometimes even approach 50%.
@eckes Kenji from Serious Eats: " Almost all modern recipes for ragù Bolognese call for dairy in one form or the other, whether it's milk or cream... it's clear that adding milk is a good thing." He quotes Cook's Illustrated for the science of it. http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/12/the-food-lab-slow-cooked-bolognese-sauce-recipe.html
Sure. He also adds gelantin powder. Another classic ingredient to bolignese sauce. He must be a true expert for italian cuisine.
@eckes The official recipe for ragù alla bolognese registered in the Accademia Italiana della Cucina includes dairy. I don't think the Serious Eats recipe claims to be traditional, but it does claim to be delicious (and in my experience cooking their recipes, that is likely the case).
"Cream" is most certainly süße Sahne. A modifier gives you knowledge about the fat percentage. Half and half refers to 20% fat, which you could mix yourself if needed, but few recipes are that sensitive, so you can use milk (Vollmilch, 3.5) or whipping cream (Schlagsahne, 30 to 35 percent). The only problem is double cream. That's Konditorsahne, at inner 40 percent, and not available retail in Germany. If it has to be whipped, you have to find a high-ish Schlagsahne (33 instead of 30), drizzle some Sahnesteif, and cross your fingers.
If the recipe needed a cultured product, it would have specified Greek yogurt (10) or sour cream (10 to 20, use saure Sahne or Schmand for that). Creme fraiche is not used in traditional American recipes, as it is a rare and expensive imported product. You can use it in a recipe calling for sour cream, obtaining a product with a richer mouthfeel and less tanginess.
The "what type of cream is suitable" question is unrelated to terminology and should be asked separately. Briefly, the answer is "all of them".
Isn't crème double actually Konditorsahne? Both have about 40% fat. Creme souble is definitely available in retail.
That's what I said, "double cream", and "Konditorsahne" are terms for the same thing, 40% fat. I have never found it in Germany, and the Internet indicates others have the same problem. Maybe I would have to go to a special cake supply shop, but I'm not sure there is a brick and mortar one in my town.
Huh, I found crème double at a "real"-market. http://www.oetker.de/unsere-produkte/kochen-verfeinern/creme-fraiche/creme-double.html IIRC crème double is quite expensive compared to normal cream.
For some reason, this one is categorized under "creme fraiche", so it could be cultured creme double. I don't know for sure though, will look around if I can find it.
I already bought one of these really tiny cups. :-) It's real double cream, it says "Sahne mit 42% Fett, wärmebehandelt" and tastes more like normal cream than like crème fraîche.
Creme fraiche is indeed not often used in American recipes but it isn't particularly rare or expensive.
@briantist I have heard the opposite, could be a regional thing, or a matter of the place you prefer to shop. I have heard the "rare and expensive" part from several people until now, no idea how representative that is.
@rumtscho you're probably right; it will vary greatly by region.
Also not uncommon: "Kochsahne" (15%), probably similar to "half and half".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.885488
| 2015-12-12T09:58:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64327",
"authors": [
"Ching Chong",
"ESultanik",
"Family Doctor Bay Ridge",
"Jason Ramos",
"Jolenealaska",
"Pauline Peach",
"briantist",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"michelle messinger",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"sunilbabu K M",
"weilun huang"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113601
|
Can I soak liver overnight in milk?
Can I soak liver in milk overnight? And if yes, does it matter if I soak it for 2 hours or overnight, or will there be no difference?
In my personal humble opinion there's no discernable difference between overnight, 2h and no soak.
On one hand there is theory that keeping the liver in milk overnight (in the fridge) let it get more tender and flush bitterness even better than for two hours.
But if it was the "success rate", the overnight soak would be the advised time for soaking.
The main times for soaking I've seen are "kissed" when you cut the liver in small pieces and soak for 30 minutes. The second is whole liver for two-three hours.
When leaving in milk for overnight I usually see adnotation that it help cook it quicker as liver is "fluffier" thus helping the heat go through it.
Do “fluffy” things heat up more efficiently?
I'm not ready to cook my beef liver til the next day so I am soaking mine in milk overnight covered in the fridge. Just easierm and to get it out of the package and I don't think it would hurt any being in fridge overnight.
But is there a difference? soaked / not soaked, 2h, overnight? I think covering these points would make a better answer than just an anecdote. Check [answer] for more info
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.885875
| 2021-01-05T00:12:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113601",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"SF.",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114851
|
Preheating oven increases temperature?
I use an old convection oven. I usually preheat at 180°C for 10 mins. Recently I bought an oven thermometer and found that the oven temperature after the said duration was higher than 180°C, around 210°C-220°C. Is this normal?
For how long did you measure? An oven is meant to stabilize its temperature after running for a while, but after a short preheating phase, the internal temperature is still very dependent on whether the heater is on or off in that moment.
Like many things with a large heat sink & a thermostat, there is a great tendency to overheat the first cycle, as the thermal mass is still not up to temperature. You'll probably find the instructions on your steam iron say don't do anything delicate on the first cycle, for similar reasons.
Think about how you'd build an oven (and remember cost is very much an issue). If the user sets the oven to 180°C, the sequence would be: turn on the oven heating element, wait till your temperature reaches 180°C, turn off the oven heating element. As you probably noticed with stove elements, they stay quite hot after you turn them off. Same in the oven, and while it's hot, it's adding heat to the system. Then consider that the manufacturer probably considers overshooting safer than undershooting and that he's doesn't want to spent to much on accurate measurements...
@rumtscho i measured it after 10 mins. it was still on
Because you say your oven is older, it probably has a dial theromstat -- There may be a small screw on the side of the knob, and after loosening the screw you can adjust the knob to the "correct" temperature of your choosing. If it's loose, it may have actually slid in the past.
The temp going above the set temp is a desirable feature when it comes to preheating the oven. It would take much longer for the oven walls to reach your set temp if the air temp in the oven was never above the set temp. It's the same idea behind frozen meals telling you to let them rest x minutes after microwaving -- it's much faster to cook some parts to a hot temp and let the heat distribute than slowly bringing the whole thing up to temp homogenously.
Sadly, yes.
Your oven most likely has been running too hot for a while and now that you are actually measuring it, you noticed it.
We have a lot of Q/As on the site that recommend using a separate oven thermometer whenever an oven behaves strangely. Thermostats can fail or be generally incorrect, like too hot or too cool. Plus many ovens fluctuate quite a bit.
If you noticed that your recipes didn’t turn out the way you expected or were used to, getting that oven thermometer was a smart move. Either adjust the temperature to the desired value, if possible (and note down what setting that corresponds to), or consider having the oven serviced or repaired. In some models, the temperature knob can be adjusted, which would be a super trivial thing and may even explain why the oven is set to a wrong temperature.
If your question was wondering more about the still rising temperature - ten minutes preheat is on the shorter end of preheat time, especially for old ovens. You can be dealing with quite a bit of thermal mass.
thanks! yes i noticed my cookies got burnt from bottom and remained uncooked that's why i bought this thermometer. so as i understand i should note when the temperature reaches 180 C. i didn't get the part about thermal mass though
Thermal mass means that ovens usually have a certain amount of material (typically steel), that helps retain the heat once the oven is fully hot and during operation. (The heat usually switches off and on repeatedly.) But you need to get the entire oven up to temperature and that can take a while especially in older oven.
Yup! Inaccuracies can even happen in the other direction: mine runs about 15 degrees cool. I don't have an oven thermometer, but all my baking attempts failed before I started fiddling with raising the temp.
Also, during preheat the oven thermometer is getting direct heat from the elements, but the regulating sensor is usually near a wall or colder corner. The whole point of pre-heating is to get past that big transient stage where the oven walls are still cold but the food is getting blasted with radiant heat from the elements (ie : burnt bottoms configuration). Until the oven is fully pre-heated, thermometers in different areas of the oven will read wildly different temperatures because the heat distribution is extremely uneven during this phase.
@sachin for cookies keep in mind the type of cookie sheet you are cooking them on makes a very big difference.
It is entirely possible that your oven runs hot, many ovens do. But right now, you cannot say anything about it. A single temperature measurement at the tenth minute is a pretty useless piece of information.
What your oven does is to turn its heater full-blast on, then off, in a predetermined pattern (the whole time, the oven indicates that it is "turned on", that's normal, I'm speaking of the heater inside). The temperature knob determines the ratio of time the heater is on vs. off. This means that the temperature will oscilate a lot in the beginning, meaning that the temperature is quite hot while the heater is on, and quite cold when the heater is off. With time, the oven is supposed to get properly preheated - that means that the whole heavy iron mass of it gets hot, and starts steadily radiating energy into the cavity. With a properly preheated oven, the food isn't getting cooked as much from conduction from the hot air, as from radiation from the oven walls. The heater still goes on and off, but in a smaller amplitude, and its effect is anyway "overtaken" by the effect of the oven's thermal mass.
You may be thinking that you have preheated your oven, but you certainly haven't given it enough time for that "proper preheating" I have described. While it is impossible to define an exact moment when it happens, it takes at least an hour, preferably longer. At the tenth minute, your oven walls are still quite cold, and what you measure is just one random point in the oscilating heating cycle.
This doesn't mean that you cannot use your oven after ten minutes, you just have to be aware that at this point, it is acting more like a toaster oven than like a classic oven. The temperature is even less precise than in a classic oven, and changes quite erratically. Luckily, most foods can tolerate that reasonably well.
If you are bothered that maybe your oven runs hot in general (that is, that the steady-state temperature it reaches after a proper preheating is higher than what the knob shows), then you should preheat it for a long time, maybe two hours to be on the safe side, and preferably with some added thermal mass like a pizza stone, then take a series of readings without opening the door. If it turns out to be hotter than the set temperature then, you can start calibrating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.886048
| 2021-03-17T06:22:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114851",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"Aww_Geez",
"Flydog57",
"J...",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91932",
"rumtscho",
"sachin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112841
|
How do I increase the amount of store bought peanut butter from 1/2 cup to 1 cup in a peanut butter brownie recipe?
I have a chewy peanut butter brownie recipe that uses 1/2 cup JIF peanut butter. The recipe also includes 1/3 cup butter; 1 cup flour; & 2 eggs.
I want to increase the amount of peanut butter to 1 cup, so that I end up with a significantly higher percentage of peanut butter in the brownie, but the same amount of batter. What adjustments do I make to successfully increase the peanut butter to 1 cup? Since I am ONLY doubling the peanut butter how will the measurements of flour, butter, & eggs be affected?
I also have a fudgy brownie recipe that is my go to. Can I just match the measurements of the peanut butter brownie ingredients to the measurements of the fudgy brownie recipe with the exception of the amount of butter? The quantity of butter (I do use real butter), used in the fudgy brownie recipe is 1 1/4 cups. Would decreasing the amount of butter from 1 1/4 cup to 3/4 cup and adding 1/2 c of peanut butter work?
I want a chewy & fudgy peanut butter brownie.
Are you trying to make it a higher protein recipe? You might try warming the second 1/2 cup so that it’s runny enough to drizzle over the mix once it’s in the pan nut before baking. Swirling the drizzles with a skewer might give you thin veins of peanut butter through the brownies.
I don't know JIF peanut butter & how it may differ from any other. Google tells me it's an American product, apparently. Doubling any 'regular' peanut butter in that recipe would make mush, which may or may not set as it cools.
I want to thank you for answering my question. I did edit my question/post so that it is more specific. I have a fudgy brownie recipe that I am dedicated to & want the same texture in the peanut butter brownie recipe.
Recipes are create so that they work "as-is" for normal home cooks, if you change the proportions of the ingredients, you will change the recipe and change the intended result.
Why do you want to do this? Knowing the reason will help us suggest substitutions that will best suit your goal.
I have a fudgy, chewy brownie recipe that I am dedicated to & want the same characteristics in the peanut butter brownie recipe I have. The fudgy brownie recipe has 1.1/4 sticks butter; 3/4 c. hershey's special dark chocolate cocoa powder; 1/2 tsp. vanilla extract; 3 large eggs; 1 tbsp. strong coffee; 1/2 c. all-purpose flour. This is the best incredibly ooey-gooey fudgy, chewy brownie I have eaten up to this point. in my life! I want to adapt my peanut butter brownie recipe so I can have the ooey-gooey, fudgy & chewy. character that my fudgy brownie has with an intense peanut butter flavor.
If the goal is simply 'more peanut butter', you could add swirls of peanut butter : https://www.pillsburybaking.com/recipes/peanut-butter-swirl-brownies-8799
@TexasGal if your goal is to make a peanut butter version of the brownies you like, then why are you specifically looking for recipes with one cup of peanut butter? I think you aren't asking the question you really have.
It is possible to substitute regular butter with any nut butter (like peanut butter), it will add a nutty flavour of course but this shouldn't be an issue since there's already peanut butter included. The difference is the fat content however, have a look at this post that explains it quite well.
They mentioning adding oil to the peanut butter and mixing it to get a more butter-like effect. So you could add 1/2 cup of peanut butter (this is in addition to the 1/2 cup that's already included making it 1 cup of peanut butter total) with 1/2 cup of oil (I recommend coconut for best flavour with baking) and change the amount of butter to 1/4 cup (removing 1 cup as the substitute).
1 1/4 cup butter = 1/2 cup peanut butter + 1/2 cup oil + 1/4 cup of butter
This gets pretty complicated but is likely the most accurate. If you're open to experimenting a bit, I would honestly just try it without the oil and see how they come out, hopefully the difference in texture isn't noticeable enough.
I appreciate the link & the time you have taken to respond to my post. I want my peanut butter brownies to have the ooey-gooey chewy texture that my fudgy brownies have and I want the peanut butter brownies to have an intense peanut butter flavor. I am going to go back to the link and read it again. I inevitably missed something on the 1st time around. Sometimes, a 3 year old pays more attention to the details than I do. Lol.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.886758
| 2020-11-26T17:48:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112841",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kat",
"Max",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"Texas Gal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89836"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109523
|
Reusing butter used as a frying agent
I often use butter to cook most of my dishes. I tend to spice this butter with various things (chili seeds, herbs etc) and it will naturally absorb some of the flavours of whatever is being cooked.
Could this flavored butter mix be cooled and frozen for use at another time?
i.e. I do a bacon fry up and want to use it again for scrambled eggs another time.
If so, would it be as simple as waiting for it to cool, putting it in a container and freezing it?
Edit
This answer seems to be what I am looking to accomplish, I just would like to know if my understanding of the storage is correct.
In principle you could proceed as you suggested. However, a few small tweaks may improve the overall results.
1. Straining the remaining fat.
Small particles of whatever is floating in the fat (either added on purpose or just pieces of water food you were frying) will be tasty in the first round of frying, but probably just burn and turn bitter in subsequent rounds. Just remember how most recipes will warn against letting garlic fry too much lest it becomes bitter. Burned herbs aren’t pleasurable either.
And fat will extract flavors, so what is a nicely aromatic mix in the beginning may become overpowering after a few days of storage if you leave the crushed garlic clove, peppercorns or twig of rosemary in the butter.
2. Letting the fat cool down or at least float to the top in a jar or jug and then draining off liquid at the bottom / skimming off just the fat.
Depending on your cooking process and ingredients, your food may have exuded quite a bit of liquid. If you try to fry in a fat + liquid mix, you will inevitably get a lot of splattering.
If you cook off the liquid, you will get leftover particles, which tend to burn (see 1.) If you want to reuse the flavorful liquid, freeze it separately and add it to a sauce or finished dish.
Even without aromatics, the butter contains milk solids. When you heat the butter, they will solidify and can be removed (so that they don’t burn), so that you get clarified butter, which is very good for frying and quite stable in storage.
If you have sufficiently clarified and filtered your butter, storing it in the refrigerator instead of the freezer will suffice (unless you plan to keep it for months) and it will be easier to scoop out if you need just a small amount instead of the whole jar.
Yes, I let mine cool and put the hard butter part in the fridge to fry in again. The liquid goes on the dog's food, he loves it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.887093
| 2020-07-07T15:55:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109523",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128059
|
Can anyone identify this garnish?
I'm looking at an article about frisée salad, specifically at the very first picture, which is the one dish of course for which no recipe is given.
The little white flakes look so pretty, but I'm at a loss as to what they could be. Parmesan is yellowish, or is there a variety that's white like that? Or some other cheese that makes little white flakes like that? Or is this something else entirely?
Shavings can look whiter than bulk material, even with cheese, though they have to be quite thin. Combined with stretching the contrast of the photo that could be enough for parmesan or a similar cheese
Are you referring to the really small white specks like near the top of the plate, separated from the rest of the salad, or the rather large whitish things all over the middle of the salad?
As far as I can tell, all of the white stuff is identical, in other words all the same thing… Does it look different to you?
@VeryAmateur I think there are some very pale leaves as well.
You realize that this won't be so pretty when you make it at home, right? This site's style is clearly geared towards making a pleasant impression, rather than conveying information. The food photography they use is very elaborate. Somebody probably spent hours placing each leaf with tweezers, then it was photographed under perfect conditions, and then somebody else did a lot of postproduction on the picture, to turn it into a supernatural stimulus. Some of the food may even be fake props. If you make the salad, it will probably be very tasty, but not as eye-catching.
It's some kind of cheese. Impossible to know which, without more information from the author/publisher. Pecorino romano would be a good thing to try, or crumbled chevre.
Yes, it's very white. However, if you look at other articles in Food and Wine with cheese on salads, you'll notice that they seem to be "whitening" cheese and other off-white ingredients in the photos.
The flakes don't look at all like crumbled cheese, chevre or something else. The closest match for the shape would be tete de moine for me. I agree that it's impossible to say for sure though, and that the whiteness isn't relevant.
You wouldn't use tete de moine on a salad, though, or break it up into such small flakes. My first thought was salt, actually, but who would put that much salt on a salad?
Maybe it is salt flakes, for appearance in the photo and not for eating. Because it does look a bit like something drier and more translucent than cheese
So inedible and just for the photo? I'd buy that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.887323
| 2024-04-10T06:44:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128059",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"John Doe",
"Very Amateur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97648",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119733
|
Chocolate choux pastry
I've been trying to get a working recipe for chocolate choux pastry.This basic recipe is aproximate:
80g all purpose flour
18g cocoa powder
65g butter
28g sugar
135g liquid (70g milk; 60g water)
150g eggs
I find that they don't rise really. They come out more like thick cookies. The recipe cautions that the cocoa is heavy and they won't rise as much - but this is pretty extreme.
My recipes for normal flavored ones come out fine.
Also, do you recommend cooking the flour and chocolate together in the sauce pan? I was thinking instead of mixing the chocolate in after at the time I'm mixing in the eggs...
Welcome! This is at its core a very interesting question and I am looking forward to the community‘s suggestions. Please note that recipe requests are off topic (so I have removed this part), asking for the principles however is perfectly fine. The [tour] and the [help] will get you started.
@M.K reminder: recipe requests are explicitly off topic. The question is fine otherwise.
I've seen recipes with and without milk, but the ingredients seem fine (150g eggs means 3 eggs?).
The importance of this recipe is the methodology:
Boil the mix liquid (or water) with butter, and reduce to simmer in a saucepan.
Sift cocoa and flour and sugar, and add it to the saucepan, combining it until it forms a dough that comes away from the sides. Then put away from fire and in a bowl.
Mix the eggs somewhere, and add it to the dough in 4 times, mixing.
The final batter should be dense but remind you to the middle point of a chocolate ganache and a chocolate frosting. Now with a piping bag, add the batter and make the shapes (you can make a ball) in a tray laying cooking paper, and bake! Depending on the ingredients, I'd say generically, in pre-heated 200C, 30 mins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.887574
| 2022-02-03T11:07:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119733",
"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
}
|
93440
|
Is there any way to make jack-o-lantern pumpkins worth eating?
Background: For the holiday Halloween in America, we make decorative lanterns -- Jack'o'Lanterns -- from large pumpkins. These pumpkins are bred to be large, durable, and dry to make them easy to carve. This also results in them being fairly mealy and tasteless as food.
Question: is there any food preparation I could make with a surplus jack'o'lantern pumpkin that wouldn't be a waste of the other ingredients? Some way to prepare it that would make up for its dry texture and weak flavor?
I've tried roasting one (Afgan-style) on previous years, and it didn't help; it was dry, mealy, and roasted. And yes, I do clean and toast the seeds, which are tasty. I'm looking to do something with the flesh.
Do you know the name of the pumpkin breed that is used for Jack'o'Lanterns?
I don't, sorry.
@Marzipanherz
Connecticut Field Pumpkin is one, plus "Howden or Howden's Field, a cultivar selected from Connecticut Field for improved production and uniformity of fruits, is 'the original commercial jack-o’-lantern pumpkin'." (from the wiki link)
I would not recommend eating a decorative husk of a pumpkin that sat outside being trod on by mice and insects
In the US, Jack-o-lanterns are typically common field pumpkins and many of the larger and specialty ones are actually gourds. I cannot talk to some of the gourds, so if you are looking at some of the white ghost pumpkins and they very warty ones, use may vary. But the common field pumpkin is certainly edible, but not usually be best choice. The are hard, stringy, dry, etc. To use the, I would recommend roasting, steaming, microwaving or boiling then running through a food mill to break up the stringiness. Boiling of course will remove a share of what flavor they do have. At that point, you would have a puree that could be used in cookies, pumpkin bread, cake, etc. Flavor-wise and texture, you will probably be more satisfied to use what in the US we would call winter squash, butternut is highly recommended, for savory, and pie pumpkins for dessert applications.
You can use the Jack if you simply do not wan to waste it or have some you want to use, but in my mind, roasting, grilling and such will likely lead to the least satisfying results. If you do, lots of spice, as sauce, and lean towards applications you can use a food mill. My experience is it will end put being a much less consistent flavor and more of a base for your spice though. For consistent results, go with a culinary variety. Jacks will typically give the mealy, tasteless leaning results you have encountered.
Cinderella is one variety I know that is large enough for carving but is still recommended for culinary use. It is a very stylized and gets its name from the story. If really that variety, it is of French origin and is a deep orange flesh. It looks great as a decoration on its own, can be carved and works either savory or in deserts. I have seen it grilled with just a bit of spice and olive oil and is very tasty that way. But, many people sell less tasty pumpkins as that variety just because they have the right shape.
ETA: If you have, or know someone with farm animals, they tend to love field pumpkins, as do deer.
To summarize : decorative pumpkins aren't particularly great for eating, as they're not bred for it. They're grown for color, shape, size ... not flavor. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/476/67
@Joe and it is sad because culinary pumpkins really are not more difficult to grow and some are pretty interesting too. Many even have better color and shape. Size they tend to fall short on,
I suspect part of it's due to using determinant varieties (so they're ready for harvest at the right time, rather than risk having them rot before it's time for halloween) And there's what the demand is ... I didn't really see white pumpkins at halloween 'til painting started becoming popular. And that's one option -- paint a pumpkin that's good for cooking, then you're more likely to be able to cook it after halloween.
Moose love Jack-o-lanterns. Alaska will hit you with a $350 fine if one gets caught eating the one on your porch.
Sadly, I found out when I carved my white pumpkin that I should have kept that one and carved the orange one. The white pumpkin was thick and juicy, and could have been cooked.
@dlb I find that the muscat pumpkin is a great example of a pumpkin which is both culinary great and reaches good sizes. Also, it looks good, if you want aesthetics - although not a classic jack o lantern style aesthetics.
@rumtscho That is an interesting one that I have seen before and forgotten. I may need to check growing days and see if I can do it here. Shaped similar to a Cinderella, but colored more like a Dickerson which is what is used in most canned pumpkin and it may hold up well for non-desert applications. Nice call on that one.
Admittedly our carving pumpkins in the UK are smaller than yours, which may affect the texture, but this year and last I made:
three been and pumpkin chilli
pumpkin tagine
pumpkin spice cupcakes
pumpkin curry
pumpkin, pepper and mushroom fajitas
All of these get most of their flavour from other ingredients. All were successful.
The chilli, curry, and tagine all start by frying the diced/roughly chopped pumpkin until nicely browned with tasty ingredients (spices, onions, and plenty of garlic), before quite long simmering. The curry was last year but I think I went for quite hot, with a sauce based on tomato, coconut, and mango (I certainly did when I made it again this year). The fajitas were cut into strips and fried, just like the other veg, though I did the pumpkin first and reserved it, to be sure it was cooked through. Again, plenty of spices, garlic etc.
The cupcakes (for which there are plenty of recipes online) started by microwaving and pureeing, and ended up similar to carrot cake - moist and popular. I added latte buttercream.
In Mediterranean cuisine there is a dessert made with pumpkins. You cut the pumpkin into large cubes, add sugar to them and wait overnight. They will release some liquid, and the next day you can cook them until they're soft and no liquid is left. Then you can add shredded coconut and/or walnuts and/or tahini to serve, depending on your taste. Lots of fiber is a plus, even if the taste is a little poorer than the pumpkins of middle east (they look same as American ones with a little more flavor).
Thanks for the recommend! I don't think this recipe will work for field pumpkins, though, since Afgan slow-roasted pumpkins didn't work either. They're just too dry and stringy.
I didn't try myself, I prefer butternut squash which is easier to handle in terms of peeling and cutting, but I have friends using these field pumpkins for this desert not to waste them after Halloween season. I tasted them and they are perfectly ok with slightly less tasty or more fibery.
In India, people use these huge pumpkins to make lentil stews. It goes a long way and is very delicious and nutritious. The bland taste of pumpkin is masked by the fresh seasonings and spices. The stew can be eaten with rice, but I like it just by itself as well.
The recipe, in a nutshell, calls for boiling the pumpkin cubes with yellow lentils(pigeon peas are preferred) and a pinch of turmeric and salt. Once the lentils cook, the stew can be seasoned with spices like cumin seeds, mustard seeds, and chilies (the red/green ones).
There is a detailed recipe on this page, https://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/pumpkin-sambar-recipe/.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.887772
| 2018-10-31T05:41:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93440",
"authors": [
"Arsak",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lily",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70920",
"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
}
|
84754
|
Braided bread: how to prevent ropes from springing back
I've been making challah regularly for years and would like to find a way to make the ropes longer before braiding so the end result can be a longer loaf, but they always shrink up. I've read that letting the dough rest will accomplish this but I have not had luck with that. My challah is always delicious and I'm happy with my recipe. I just want to have more flexibility in forming the loaves.
My method: I use a bread machine "dough only" cycle. I use either all AP unbleached flour, or half AP flour - half whole wheat flour.(I adjust the amount of water accordingly to make sure the dough isn't too dry.)
To make a rope, I either roll it on a floured board, or I hold it in the air and roll between my two hands.
How can I get the ropes to not spring back?
The only solution I've ever had for this problem is rolling the ropes longer than I want, braiding, and letting it relax back. Unfortunately, this is highly unpredictable and leads to loaves of uncertain length!
Patience, my friend!
If your dough springs back, you are in fact doing everything right. A good dough will be elastic, that means you can stretch the ropes to a certain point and beyond that, it will return to the original length - and after that, start tearing. If you leave the dough alone for a few minutes, the gluten strands in the dough will relax a bit, allowing you to stretch the ropes longer. Rinse and repeat...
Now I can see why working in intervals over, say, twenty minutes is not what you want. We want to get things done and probably have other stuff to do, right? But there are a few things that help:
Don't start with balls of dough, but with longish rolls. Take your dough portion for a strand, flatten slightly and roll it up lengthwise. If the dough is still flexible, hold your (left) thumb parallel to the long axis and (with the right hand) pull the dough over it section by section and seal the edge by pushing down. This will give you an even narrower strip to start with. (I posted some pictures in another answer, but work lengthwise, not crosswise as in that answer)
Alternate working on the individual strands. Always roll one only until you get just to the border where it starts to spring back, then take the next. By the time you are through your three / five / ... strands, the first will have relaxed enough to allow more stretching. Bonus: it's a lot easier to get all strands to the same length.
I like your suggestions. I do start by making a big log and then cut that into three, so the portions are already somewhat elongated. Thank you.
It's both amazing and educational to see what 10 minutes of "resting" will do for dough that has been stretched to the limit. Depending how much dough you are working with, you may need to just step away from it for a few minutes (if you get through the other pieces in 5 minutes, step away from the whole batch for another 5 before starting on the first piece again.)
@Ecnerwal absolutely. When I used to bake hefezopf for our kindergarten (for sale), we'd roll twelve to sixteen strands at a time. That was enough to get them to relax.
I am surprised to hear that you are rolling your ropes. All the traditional bakers I know don't roll them, they pull them. It is not a strong pulling motion like kansui noodles, it is more of a special "milking" motion which both twists and pulls at the same time. It is done repeatedly, starting with a ball and ends with a long uniform rope - you need practice for the "uniform" part though. It has the advantage of actually aligning the gluten sheets, letting them shear along each other.
If you try it that way, I'd say the most important thing is to not try to do it in one pull. With each stroke/twist motion, you only add a few centimeters before moving your fingers back to where you started and repeating. Resting is good before you start, but not necessary between the motions unless one part starts tearing through.
This is very interesting. I've never heard or read anything about this method for bread dough. I'll look for a video to see it in action! Thank you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.888384
| 2017-09-30T19:49:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84754",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99621
|
Need help I made this recipe and I doubled the recipe and it looked dry
I need help to fit these batches I already rolled them up can I go ahead fix it. what can I do to fix these batches so it doesn't crumble and look dry. i have I included the recipe I used. Like I said I doubled it . thank you
3/4 cup granulated sugar
3/4 cup packed brown sugar
1 cup butter, softened
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 egg
2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 package (12 ounces) semisweet chocolate chips (2 cups)
1 c
I'm not certain what the question is ? you want to double the recipe and it became too dry ? before or after baking it?
Did you refrigerate the dough? It may be too cold.
You're starting from the same ingredient list as Nestle Toll House Cookies but are rolling it out? Please add more information to your recipe: how are you preparing and mixing the ingredients? Do you let the mixture sit for a time at one or multiple stages? How are you doing the rolling? How big are the portions? The baking? What is the final product? How long did they sit and under what conditions before you tested them and found them too dry and crumbly?
It's hard to give good advice without more detail, but if you're ending up with dryer, crumbly product, things you might try:
Increase your brown-to-white sugar ratio (keep the total amount of sugar the same),
Instead of two eggs, use one egg and one (or two!) egg yolks,
Make sure your baking soda is still OK.
If you're shooting for something cookie-like, Dan might have some advice for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.888856
| 2019-06-19T23:27:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99621",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94827
|
How to make wafer paper?
I would like to make wafer paper like it is used as basis for some Christmas cookies or as used in church (oblates).
This seems to be too basic to be mentioned in usual recipes. Internet search results are so much spammed by recipes using wafer paper that it appears impossible to find clear instructions on how to make the paper itself.
I found only generic instructions like "Use flour and water, maybe sugar salt. Bake."
"Use flour and water" also applies to making pizza or bread and I would prefer to avoid too much experimentation.
How do I choose the ratio between flour and water? What type of flour should I use? How long and at what temperature to bake?
I know this requires experimentation, I am mainly looking for a starting point to reduce the parameters to try.
A search for ‘how to make edible paper’ brings up results which appear to be promising
That only seems to lead to recipes for rice paper like used for Vietnamese spring rolls. And also here, hardly any recipe is complete in terms of ratios. Thanks anyway!
As recipe writing is off-topic here, the starting point to reduce the parameters is to look for recipes containing "Sacramental bread recipe", "unleavened communion bread recipe", or even "edible paper recipe".
Just ensure to enclose the search items in-between double quotes (copy-paste the search terms above) and if you find a real church recipe, substitute the biblical grains like Spelt, Khorasan_wheat, ... by organic white flour without any additives if you cannot find the original easily and use a little less water.
Okay, these searches indeed contain something promising, but it is still very difficult to find the right thing. E.g. the unleavened bread mostly leads to things like this: https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/9/90/Make-Unleavened-Bread-Intro.jpg/aid1438939-v4-728px-Make-Unleavened-Bread-Intro.jpg which is not quite the goal. Christmas wafer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer) is a good illustration of the goal, however this does not yield a recipe beyond naming the "Main ingredients". I'll keep searching...
Unfortunately, this is not a recipe-writing site. If I would give you a recipe, the Q & A would be deleted as "off-topic"...
Yes, I know it's close to a recipe question and I also read the recipes-off-topic warning. However wafer paper is hardly covered by actual recipe writing sites. They perceive it mostly as an ingredient. I guess because it's mostly factory ware nowadays and proper machinery may matter a lot to get the right result. So, hints beyond a plain recipe might be required (or an industrial recipe book :/ ). I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGAi1YNAfVw promising to start so far. At least the result looks quite okay. Your hints are certainly helpful too!
What is THE most important part of baking oblates is how you bake them. You need to put them in tight space so they come out thin and crispy. The temp is usually described as "very very hot" as you bake them for a short time. Usual recipe is:
x spoons (soup spoons) of oil
5 times of oil measured in cups of flour
x+2 spoons of powdered sugar
Water - the amount of water should be used to make runny dough. a little more than crepes
So for example 3 spoons of oil is 1,5 cups of flour, 1/4 cups of powdered sugar.
The 'waffle maker" is usually heated over open flame and kept over that flame for the whole process, you just flip the press on the other side.
If you have pancake pan you can use it, just put a dash of the dough and spread it as thin as you can with some tool.
Perhaps a good use for a cast iron flat press to keep the heat + pressure!
Most americans would think 'belgian waffle' when seeing 'waffle maker', but you really want one for making Dutch stroopwaffels or waffle cones (for ice cream). You might also be able to use a pizzelle maker.
What you want to achieve is a very thin layer of batter that bakes to a crispy wafer. It's very comparable to baking Crêpes, where a rather liquid batter is spread out over a hot plate to create very thin pancakes.
I'd take the same approach here: Mix the given ingredients into a batter that is liquid enough to be spread very thin but thick enough to not run all over the place.
I assume (without having experiemented with it) that substituting some flour with starch may yield wafers more similar to commercially available products.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.889026
| 2018-12-14T20:59:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94827",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71342",
"stewori"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95140
|
High powered blenders (e.g. KitchenAid, 1800watts, 3.5 HP peak)
I'm not technically minded, but if the friction of the blades in high powered (& expensive) blenders creates the heat when making hot soup, why when making smoothies are the smoothies not hot?
What leads you to believe that "the friction of the blades creates heat" ?
Because the manufacturers 'blurb' says so. Do you suspect otherwise? I'm interested to know.
Can you provide a link to that claim, or picture of it, etc?
It very well could be the motor in addition to the blades. 1800 watts is a LOT of power for a blender, and some/a lot of that energy is going to convert to heat and transfer into the food if run long enough.
@Tetsujin apparently it is a thing! See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20981/17272
1800 watts is a Lot of power for home use. IIRC home space heaters are legally limited to 1500 watts. A lot of us still lives in houses with 15 amp knob and tube wiring.
I used to make hot cream cheese/milk dip with a mere early 60's hand mixer; a Subeam. Only took about 5min for things to get warm. Your granny's mixer ran at most a few hundred rpm.
It is well known that the blades in high powered blenders create so much force that it can heat the liquids inside. In fact, I can put a can of tomatoes in mine and they will eventually become hot enough to be eaten as a warm soup.
That being said, creating this much heat takes time and also usually works best if you're starting from something already at least room temperature. A smoothie will not become warm because:
Smoothies only take a few seconds to make, therefore not enough energy is transfered to make it warn.
Ingredients often start somewhat cold from the fridge and don't heat up enough.
Ice is usually added, which makes things very cold.
You could make a hot smoothie if you ran the machine maybe for 5-10 minutes, which I wouldn't suggest!
Well-known to everybody but me, so it would seem. Sorry about that - guess I've never run one long enough to find out :)
@Tetsujin it is an unpleasant side effect of most high powered blenders (and the named one is not that high on the scale, mine has 38 HP) and marketing people have tried spinning it into a positive "feature" - they advertise blenders as being capable of making hot soup on their own. For me, I prefer using the stove to heat things, and the extra heat is a minor annoyance, but as Behacad says, rarely enough to make that much of a difference.
Extra heat being formed by friction in the bearing can easily build to the point where the plastic around the bearing begins to melt. That lets the blade tilt and enlarge the hole in the lid that the shaft goes through. If you use these high speed devices for long time runs, you'll find yourself having to buy new blade assemblies and bases on a regular basis.
That sounds like a consequence of running these things for an outrageously long amount of time. Heating liquids is literally sold as a feature in these machines and some have "hot soup" settings. I very much doubt that would harm the machine!
@Behacad It does not always take that long to do damage. Attachments such as meat grinders can and often do put tremendous strain on the bearings and gears and generate excessive heat very quickly. I use a scraper blade in mine which I find wonderful for many applications, but ones which have butter than needs to remain cold it is not appropriate because even at the lowest speed and with a cold bowl with quickly heat the butter to near liquid from the silicon rubbing on the bowl generating heat.
Blenders are particularly prone, because there's no way to anchor the spinning blades at the top. At 20krpm, hitting even gram size chunks of whatever produces a lot of torque. -That's stress.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.889388
| 2018-12-26T14:15:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95140",
"authors": [
"Behacad",
"Erica",
"Marian",
"SnakeDoc",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71629",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96453
|
Is it possible to ferment milk Kefir using water Kefir liquid?
Can I add water Kefir to cow milk to ferment milk Kefir?
Welcome, Ko zero. I've attempted to clarify your question -- can you please confirm this is what you were hoping to ask?
Does this answer your question? Can water kefir grains be turned into milk kefir grains and if so how?
No, you cannot do that. Unlike other cultured dairy products like yogurt, kefir needs both the right bacteria and a fungus to ferment. The liquid will have the bacteria, but the fungus "mother" - the kefir grains - will be missing. To make new kefir constantly, you really need to keep kefir grains, and specifically milk kefir grains.
If you only make kefir rarely, there is the option of buying dried kefir culture, which contains a sufficient amount of ground grains to give you fermented kefir without the need to breed a grain colony that needs to be kept alive permanently. But if you want a supply of kefir, the cost effective option is to breed the grains.
There actually isn't any fungus in kefir; it's a mixture of bacteria and yeast. I wonder if you're thinking of the "tea mushroom" / "tea fungus" (which is, actually, also made of different bacteria and yeast, not fungi), also known as kombucha (yet another misnomer); in that case, people can refer to the "mother" or "grains" (hat-trick on misnomers!) as "the fungus" or "the mushroom".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.889713
| 2019-02-20T19:34:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96453",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Ratler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36347"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109970
|
How to get Coco Lopez in Serbia?
How can I get Coco Lopez cream of coconut in Serbia? I've looked everywhere on the internet, and it is always around $90 shipping or so. I bought it in Italy before and it wasn’t that expensive.
I need it to make Piña Coladas. I know the drink can be made from similar things, but I am only interested in this here.
There's a "Thai People in Serbia" facebook group !! (yeah really), you could ask them.
Or you could ask your local grocer if they will stock it for you.
Please note that shopping advice of the “which shop sells X” kind is not a good fit. Questions about how to find X in a more abstract sense or even better, how to make something are ok. As the answer focuses on said alternative, we can keep the question for now.
this looks like a question about logistics and I really don't know about shipping things to Serbia, but since you mention you only need it for Piña Colada, I have good news: you can make your own cream of coconut!
Find a can of full fat coconut milk (this should be way easier to source than Coco Lopez), ideally not under 10% fat content. Add sugar (Darcy O'Neil, who popularised this recipe, says 375 grams) and a pinch of salt, heat to dissolve, and you're done.
Homemade cream of coconut will not last as long as Coco Lopez and needs to be refrigerated, but it's as good (or better), cheaper, and easier to come by
She says, on 400ml of coconut cream, goes 375 grams (1¼ cups) sugar. How is 1 cup of sugar almost half of kilo?
1 cup sugar is 200 g, so 1 cup plus ¾ (not ¼!) adds up to 350 g
ok, that makes sense. In the recipe you gave the link it says 1 and 1/4 cup....i made the thing, now let's see. I have to wait for it to congeal a little bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.889862
| 2020-07-31T17:19:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109970",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Max",
"Stephie",
"Vladimir Despotovic",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119838
|
why does commercial labneh uses different ingredients from traditional?
Labneh is also called yoghurt cheese. It is traditionally made by draining yoghurt. The store bought labneh however has many additional ingredients in addition to milk and live cultures which make up yoghurt, such as cream, skim milk and whey protein concentrate.
Why do manufactures use cream, skim milk and whey protein concentrate instead of simply whole milk which does not require additional processing?
Not sure where you got the term "yoghurt cheese". In English lebneh is usually referred to as strained yoghurt, or Greek yoghurt (if from Greece).
Commercial food production has a stronger focus on consistency than homemade stuff; a company making a food product usually wants to be very sure that they can offer exactly the same product every time, regardless of time of year, which facility it was made at, and other factors.
As such, many companies will try to ensure consistency by strictly controlling their input ingredients; instead of culturing regular whole milk which could vary based on supplier or time of year, they will mix together various parts of milk (the cream, skim milk, and whey protein you mentioned) to get a mixture with very precise levels of protein, fat, sugars and such, so that they know it will always turn into the same yogurt, and therefore into the same labneh once drained.
Maintaining consistency is a good point. A lot of store bought yoghurt list milk as the ingredient rather than cream, skim milk and whey protein which are used for labneh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890034
| 2022-02-13T21:25:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119838",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"bakingfanatic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119309
|
Is this safe to eat? (Egg)
5 organic medium egg yolks + 80g organic cow butter. Stirred on LOWEST heat.
First its very liquid, then it thickens as you can see here https://emalm.com/?v=Fn4vm
If I continue stirring, I get tired, so I increase the heat to be done with it, which outputs scrambled eggs.
What's in the video looks more delicious than scrambled eggs, so I want to eat that.
But I don't know if its cooked/safe enough to eat at that point. In terms of salmonella and other stuff.
Even if I had a food thermometer, I don't think I can get an accurate measurement.
Is it possible to tell from that video if its safe to eat based on its thick texture?
Please don’t remove the content - it will be deleted in due time, don’t worry.
@Stephie: the question you linked to has info on mitigating the issue, but it’s about raw eggs. It doesn’t specifically mention if this is safe, or address the issue of if there’s a specific point that you need to cook eggs to for them to to be safe
@Joe I merely commented on the OP removing the content. There’s also a second post on the topic. Just saying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890167
| 2021-12-25T07:55:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119309",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
120855
|
Can you soak clams in a salt water pool for a couple of hours
We changed over to a salt water pool this year. Can we soak clams for a couple of hours in the pool before we serve them?
The vast majority of purchased clams have already been purged, so this might not be necessary at all. However, if it is...as far as I can tell, on average a salt water pool is abut 10 times less salty than the ocean. Correct salinity is important so as not to kill the clams. You also need to consider the temperature. This article is helpful, and describes the purging of clams. He uses seawater, or approximates it with 35 grams of salt dissolved in each 1000 grams of water. He also discusses temperature ranges and the need to avoid "shocking" the clams when soaking. If it were me, I probably would not use the pool, but rather, use seawater or approximated sea water and be sure to consider time and temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890289
| 2022-06-19T00:09:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120855",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123979
|
How can you deal with bitter taste from grapefruit peels without sugar?
I've been working with grapefruit a lot recently, and really enjoy it. I'm trying to make use of the entire fruit, with candied peel and juice, to get every bit of goodness out of this amazing fruit.
When I’m using the water I boil the peel in (either mixed with the juice or alone), it is extremely bitter, and I have to use quite a bit more sugar than I'd like to make it palatable.
What other ingredients besides sugar would work well in a liquid could counteract the bitter taste and make the water palpable? I’m a kitchen newbie and could really use some advice here.
Right now I'm just mixing the water boiled off the peels with the squeezed juice and pulp, then adding sugar to make it palatable. So far I've just been working by taste test, and don't have specific proportions sleuthed out yet.
Salt can help to mask bitterness, so a little salt might reduce how much sugar you need
Use some salt. My granny always put salt on her grapefruit. We thought she was silly. It counteracts bitterness.
The rind of citrus is frequently blanched several times in boiling water to REMOVE bitterness, before candying the peel. So, it is not surprising that you find the water bitter. That water is typically discarded. The only way I know of to counteract that bitterness is with a sweetener of some sort. Your options are various sugars, honey, agave, or, I suppose, artificial sweeteners. I'm not sure about "good stuff". In my opinion, you are better off discarding that water.
That raises an interesting question for me - are artificial sweeteners as effective at masking bitterness as sugars (including those in agave nectar and honey, which are mainly the common glucose, fructose and sucrose)? I may ask it properly if I can think of a nice way to put it.
" I'm not sure about "good stuff"" It's not something I wanted to dive into here too much, because for the purpose of this question I'm concerned about the culinary aspect, but it's a herbal remedy, as I'm trying to learn more about the health benefits of different foods, but this really isn't the place for debating such things. Thanks for the suggestions on agave and honey, I'll have to try those!
@Sumsuch thanks for staying away from the health topic, we rarely see new users that actually check out the scope of the site and phrase their question accordingly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890394
| 2023-04-19T02:54:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123979",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David Smith",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Sumsuch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
128870
|
What is a Cheese Dip (as made by Henri Willig)?
As a gift, I received a selection of Henri Willig Cheese Dips. At first I thought the dip was made out of cheese, but the ingredients list shows otherwise.
So what did I get here then? Am I supposed to dip cheese into the dip? Is there a type of cheese that would be typical to use?
It looks like what in the UK is called a chutney (sometimes relish or pickle): fruit/vegetable with sugar, vinegar and spices. Typically eaten with hard cheese or cold meats, but not restricted to this.
Pairing cheese with some kind of sweet or sweet & spicy partner is a tradition that many cuisines have:
Spain pairs quince paste with manchego, many French cheese boards will feature some form of fresh fruit, jam or compote and closer to the Alps you may encounter fig mustard, which is also sweet with the mustard pungency.
Your gift is a modern version of that, probably with different flavors and spiciness levels. It’s a dip for cheese. (Same difference as chocolate biscuits and dog biscuits.)
I wouldn’t take the term “dip” too literally - treat it more like a condiment in general. You can dip your cheese, but you can also use it in a cheese sandwich or drizzle on the cheese, as you prefer.
For flavor pairing advice, that’s unfortunately outside of our scope. I noticed though that the manufacturer suggests cheese matches for their products, so please do your research there. That said: Food should be fun, so feel free to experiment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890601
| 2024-07-26T15:55:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128870",
"authors": [
"Henry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8106
|
Cooking with a cut or burn on my hands
I know from this question that I should avoid cooking (at least without gloves) if I have an open cut.
However, once a cut starts to heal, how can I tell if it's safe to cook without gloves? Are there any firm rules, or is it based on experience and watching how MY cuts react to being washed often?
Are there different rules if I have a burn? Or is it the same -- if I'm likely to ooze, I should wear gloves. Otherwise, I'm okay without them.
If you're really worried about it, put some superglue over it. It actually works really well...Just don't stick your fingers together. Regular superglue can irritate your skin, so if you have time to plan ahead, buy some Dermabond, which is a cyanoacrylate surgical glue...They use it in place of stitches sometimes. Works great. Your wounds will NOT seep. Period.
Honestly though, people get cut all the time in professional kitchens, and I've never seen someone do more than slap some glue or a piece of tape over it, and keep going. You can't just quit work for a couple of days without throwing the whole business into chaos. It's a rough trade.
I don't have enough reputation to upvote answer #1, but I tried, and I'll second Satanicpuppy's suggestion of superglue. I use it all the time. Just let it dry before you touch anything. If you do bond a couple of fingers together, or get glued to a spoon or a pot or something, nail polish remover (acetone based, at least) will help you get unstuck.
After years helping as a student in a restaurant kitchen, a finger cut was far more frequent than a palm cut. In those cases it was a pain working 14 hours with gloves, so the alternative was banding my finger and hold it together with the cut of a glove finger. That also made it some waterproof.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890736
| 2010-10-14T17:57:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8106",
"authors": [
"Laurie Rendon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87648"
],
"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
}
|
7909
|
What causes water to boil over?
What are the mechanics of water boiling over? How can you stop it from happening? Is it more likely to happen with certain ingredients? Which? How does the amount of water effect the likelihood of water boiling over? What role does burner temperature have? Will it only occur during a rolling boil?
This is brought up by this comment by MeltedPez in one of the cooking pasta questions:
The only other argument for using more
water is that less water is more
likely to cause the pot to boil over.
Basically the starch in the pasta
makes it easier for the water to form
bubbles that collect and spill over
when not paying attention. I've found
that with a very low pasta to water
ratio can end in a messy kitchen.
This seems very counter intuitive to me initially, as I feel less water should make it harder to boil over the edges.
Adding a starchy substance such as rice or noodles to boiling water increases the surface tension of the water. When it's just plain water boiling the surface tension of the water can't hold back the force of the steam rising and the bubbles burst. Starches increase this surface tension making the bubbles more elastic/pliable (essentially creating a foam), thus requiring more force for them to burst. This makes the bubbles last longer which allows them to build up and eventually boil over.
It's more likely to occur with anything starchy like rice and pasta.
A lower temperature should help to control a boil over as it will allow the water to cool somewhat and slow the boil.
I'd assume that, from your quoted text, that if you use less water you're still imparting the same amount of starch making a thicker solution. More water would dilute this and bring it closer to normal water. In my own experience, small amounts of water allow lots of bubbles to form but nothing really boils over, it just splatters a bit. But reducing temperature and tilting the lid to let some air in has helped me in the past.
+1 good answer. That explains why potatoes seem likely to boil over too!
a tea spoon of oil on the top of the water reduces the surface tension back down. I always put a but of olive oil in the pot when I cook pasta.
Add a pea sized dab of butter or margarine next time.
Hi, welcome to Seasoned Advice. While short answers are sometimes helpful, well-researched answers that address the question directly are usually better. The Help Center is a good place to learn what makes a good answer.
@JasonSchock : This is the reason that some folks say to put oil in the water -- it makes it more difficult for bubbles to form, decreasing the chance of boil over. Of course, this doesn't actually answer the question of why. For how to prevent, the correct place to put this is http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/46384/67 .
A small amount of salt will raise the boiling point of water, giving a bit more leeway.
Are you sure? I was under the impression that adding salt had a fairly insignificant effect on the boiling temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.890901
| 2010-10-07T12:43:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7909",
"authors": [
"Jason Schock",
"Joe",
"Skiba Injury Law LLC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"vwiggins",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54967
|
Why did my pork center cut loin turn out tender but tasteless?
Why did my pork center cut loin turn out tender but tasteless?
First I marinated the meat for two hours with a mixture of balsamic vinegar, olive oil and Italian seasoning. Then pan-seared it to brown its surface. Finally I braised it in the oven, covered with aluminum foil, using a vegetable sauce, until the internal temperature was 150 F.
The result was a tasteless meat, very tender but with a mushy texture.
Did either your "Italian Seasoning" or the sauce contain salt? If not, then your pork was almost certainly tasteless because it needed salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.891269
| 2015-02-20T21:02:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54967",
"authors": [
"Ken Dumpleton",
"Rehan Jung Thakuri",
"Sherrie Orick",
"Stephen",
"Tami Sinosich sugarbuzz72",
"Tracy webb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130566"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58772
|
Crockpot soup issue
I fried hamburger up and planned on making hamburger macaroni soup in my crockpot. I put the cooked hamburger in the crockpot, added uncooked noodles and the tomato sauce. Turned crockpot on low overnight. Somehow the crockpot got unplugged and my noodles didn't fully cook, and everything was completely cold by morning. Is it safe to plug in and continue cooking? My guess is the crockpot was unplugged for 8+ hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.891356
| 2015-07-04T02:57:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58772",
"authors": [
"Gary Robinson",
"Heather Amparom",
"Jamie Ontiveros",
"Jane Dunphy",
"LAURA McKAY",
"Terry Stottlemyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140220"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64235
|
Could plastic or metal cans damage my oven?
Is it possible to put vinyl plastic and metal cans in the oven at 200 degrees F for roughly 5-10 minutes?
More specifically, I was came across DIY Vinyl Bowls where you place the vinyl record over a metal can for 5-10 minutes in the oven, it should become really flimsy and then take it out to form it into a bowl.
I can easily watch over the oven for the time duration but I'm mostly concerned that there would be some sort of plastic explosion or something that might break the oven.
Thank you!
So... This has nothing to do with food or cooking?
Benefit of the doubt: It is about equipment (the oven). And no, I have never had any problems with this DIY project. Use a sheet of parchment uderneath just to make sure nothing sticks anywhere.
Most pertinent aspect for us would be keeping the oven safe for food preparation when used for such craft projects. Some tutorials recommend boiling the record in water instead (http://www.afunandfrugallife.com/one-minute-record-album-bowls/), which would have the added advantage that temperature is self-limiting to 212°F, and that you could use a cheap, damaged or out of use pot, and no longer use that pot for food if any doubt arises. Nutrient loss from boiling might be a concern though.
Do you really want to do this? Vinyl records have become much more appreciated in recent years. There's something special about analog music contained in a physical object — it's just not the same when you download a digitized song from the Internet. It'd be a shame to destroy an irreplaceable record that someone (perhaps in the future) would enjoy listening to.
You are taking me way back here. Back in my teens I used to do this as a fun project - I used Plexiglass (acrylic glass) instead of old vinyl records (people still used record players back then!), but the principle stays the same.
No, your oven won't suffer if you are careful.
The metal can / bowl / heat-proof object underneath must be something that can withstand the heat. Yet 200F isn't that hot.
Always put a sheet of parchment or foil between your tray/rack and the can/vinyl setup.
Watch carefully. As soon as it shows signs of drooping / bending, take it out. You may always put your future bowl back in the oven to heat it more.
It might stink, so make sure you have a window open and air out the oven afterwards.
Do not try to bake cookies and this at the same time ;-)
+1, I was writing the same sort of thing after my comment got too long.
Watch it like a hawk and open the door as soon as it's drooped. It's not a cake, so you can always shut the door again if it's not quite made it.
As @Stephie says, work on something disposable.
Plastic won't explode unless it's got an air bubble in it. Even then, any thermoplastic used in this sort of project (i.e. any plastic that melts in your oven) is likely to melt before the air gets too hot, and will pop gently. I'd be inclined to ventilate the oven well afterwards, and not cook immediately (you could acheive this by doing your craft project just after finishing cooking something, so long as the plastic doesn't smell).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.891444
| 2015-12-09T04:46:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64235",
"authors": [
"BruteThe",
"Candy Brockman",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Donna Reil",
"ElmerCat",
"Jenny Josh",
"Katie S",
"Lokesh Gupta",
"Morne Ahrens",
"Robert Elvin",
"Sam Puleo SR",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66590
|
Oven vs pan for meat stews
I have noticed that English-related cultures use an oven much more than say French or Spanish or German cultures. My question is specifically for stews. In English recipes you read often that putting the pan in the oven afters searing the meat on the hob "cooks the meat more evenly", if there is any explanation at all.
I dont understand that. Meat in a liquid just below 100 celsius is, well meat in a liquid, no matter where the heat comes from. I experimented and I personally did not taste any difference. But maybe I an wrong? Does anyone have an explanation why an oven is used to make stews for taste improvement?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/24504/67
The major difference between stove cooking and oven cooking is that on the stove you will have a hot spot on the bottom and a cooler spot on the top, and with an oven the heat comes from all sides equally.
When making a stew where the meat is in pieces submerged in liquid then you are absolutely right that there's no major difference in the flavor or texture of the end result as the circulation of the liquid due to heat imbalance and movement of the pieces within the liquid will cook things evenly. Where an oven gives a better result is when the ingredients do not have the opportunity to move around, for instance a big chunk of meat, where you will have one side hotter and one cooler for a long period of time as you will end up with one side more cooked than the other. In an oven you would get more even heat and more even cooking of the large piece of meat.
The only exception to the above is when you are going for a long slow cook. I have found that I don't get good heat and ingredient circulation on the stove when the temperature gets too low, I end up with overcooked ingredients on the bottom and undercooked on the top unless I stir often, which is why I will use the oven in these cases.
There are other advantages to oven cooking:
Better heat control: you can set the oven to a specific temperature and have it be consistent over long periods of time, with a stovetop it's much more guesswork
Frees your stove for other things: stews tend to be in big pots which take up a lot of space, cooking in your oven means more stovetop space
As for energy efficiency of stove versus oven there are many variables to account for: energy source, pan size and material, ambient temperature, etc. My instinct is that the oven would be more energy efficient as it contains the heat more while with a stove you lose lots of heat to your environment. I have no documentary evidence to support that.
So you agree with me that for meat stews, there is no culinary reason to use an oven? It is pure cultural variation? Temp control... it is very easy to bring a stew to a mere simmering and keep it like that. Easier to check too..
And it is much less energy consuming, I suppose?
I agree there's no culinary reason, but not that it's a cultural thing. I see very few stews calling for oven cooking in American or British cooking traditions. For the rest see my edits.
@MarcLuxen : To explain the problem w/ low heat on a stovetop : the heat enters from the top, but evaporation cools the surface, so there's always a temperature gradient through the pot ... it's just more significant at low heat. (this is why sous vide rigs keep the water moving, so there's better mixing & a more even temperature throughout).
Mmmm, it never mattered in any of sthe stews I have eaten or made. I think this temp gradient is only a few degrees, at most, I ll try to measure it, but hardly think this an culinary argument FOR using an oven, is it?
@ GgD I see big differences in oven use, also for stews. In recipes, and in actual use as well.
@MarcLuxen Joe's point is definitely a good one, and the temperature gradient is significant, to the point that in some cases can be difficult to get enough heat to keep things cooking right without eventually burning things onto the bottom. The even heat of the oven makes that a lot easier to avoid. More broadly, I don't think it's that helpful to split into practical and culinary reasons, though. Practical reasons are still real, even if they don't apply for everyone.
I measured. In a thick walled casserole, on a appropriate low flame the temp difference over fourteen centimeters was less than 3 degrees celsius. So no, the gradient is insignificant.
There is a enormous difference between doing things for practical and culinary reasons, as any chef working in a restaurant kitchen knows..
Flame, as in gas stove, as in hot air goes up the side of the pot so not just the bottom is being heated? I have definitely seen significant gradients (on an electric stove), though I never actually measured, but I'm pretty sure it was way more than 3C.
Besides what GdD mentioned on the science behind the benefits of oven cooking, there's also a cultural/historical component.
In some regions, homes didn't have ovens -- only the village bakery had one. To cook stews and other slow cooked meals, villagers would take their assembled dish to the baker, and have it put into the cooling oven after the morning's goods for sale were done.
This would also free up a housewife from tending a pot all day, so that she could get other chores done (eg, go down to the river to wash clothes).
As this requires making two trips to the bakery with considerable time between, I would suspect that this would have been more likely in urban areas, and not done by those on homesteads/farms further from the village.
Also worth noting -- I remember a TV chef mentioning this years ago ... I think it was Wolfgang Puck, who is originally from Austria. (but he might've been cooking w/ someone else at the time). I also want to say that he made a dough to press around the rim of the pot and where the knob attached to the lid to minimize evaporation.
Yes, that is very common in France, it is called Pâte morte, dead dough. But that is not oven-related. You can use it on the hob as well.
but how doess that explain a difference in the use of ovens for stews etc.?
@MarcLuxen : I'm explaining why a culture/region may have developed & favored oven-based stew recipes. Often the reasons that people cite for why something is being done a certain way is simply bogus conjecture / justification after the fact ... like the 'seals in the juices' claim for searing meat, when it actually results in more moisture loss.
"joe yes I understand that. But to my knowledge, all european cultures used a baker-system, so this explanation cant explain differences between those cultures regarding using ovens.
@MarcLuxen : I can only assume that it's either something about the conversion from hearths to stoves, or possibly a difference in rural vs. more urban ... but again, like I said before ... pure conjecture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.891999
| 2016-02-17T08:48:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66590",
"authors": [
"Bao Bui",
"Carlie Oaks",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy Hunnicutt",
"Claudio Violante",
"Crystal Taylor",
"Ernie Williams",
"GdD",
"Isla Naismith",
"Joe",
"Kieran Larkin",
"Marc Luxen",
"Spammer",
"andrew cornforth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"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
}
|
33492
|
Deep frying - beer batter vs. bread crumbs
@Joe thank you for answering my earlier question! After an epic fail trying to deep fry beer battered zucchini (ended up with a beer battered pancake-like blob with some zucchini slices on top) I have a follow up question:
When deep frying vegetables that are beer battered instead of just covered with an egg/milk and breadcrumb mixture, should you put them in to the deep fryer with the basket already submerged in the oil? Will this prevent the aforementioned "beer battered pancake" at the bottom of the basket? Also, does this method make any significant difference if used deep frying vegetables in an egg/milk and breadcrumb mixture (let me know if clarification is needed - sounds weird)?
As SAJ14SAJ mentioned, when doing a batter coating, you need to hold it in the oil for a second before letting it drop, so that it'll crust up before it touches the basket.
However, you also mentioned 'with some zucchini slices on top', I suspect that the batter came off entirely.
Breading for frying is a bit strange, as you need to make sure that you don't put something wet on top of something else wet (or dry on dry), and no layer too thick.
So, in the case of the zucchini, you need to make sure that the pieces are very dry before putting them in the batter ... if they're freshly sliced, they'll extrude liquid, and so you may need to coat them in flour or starch, shake them off, and then put them in the batter.
got it - that is exactly what happened. I think the combination of putting them in the basket before dropping it in oil as well as not coating/drying the zucchini slices caused the entire bottom of the basket to become covered in a layer of beer batter (which also stuck to the bottom) topped by some very nice pieces of fresh zucchini hah. Thanks for your help all!
Yes, with any fairly liquid batter on a deep fried item, you want to slowly lower the food into the oil; if you have a fryer with a basket, it is better that the basket is already down, so that the batter "feet" don't wrap around the wire and bind the items to the basket. You want to carefully drop the items separately, as well, so they don't stick to each other.
I am not quite sure what you are referring to as the "beer battered pancake" exactly, but I hope this answers your question.
This is of course much less of an issue with dry breadings like breadcrumb coatings. Since the crumbs form a non-sticky barrier, the items are far less likely to stick to the basket or each other; for convenience you can lower them with the basket if you choose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.892554
| 2013-04-14T22:26:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33492",
"authors": [
"Brando",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17840"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33941
|
How do you make whole-wheat bread less crumbly? -- (Without adding gluten)
I usually make bread with 100% whole wheat flour, but I have never been able to make good sandwich bread that way, because it is does not have a very elastic texture to it.
I have heard of adding gluten to bread to increase its elasticity, but is there another way of achieving this effect?
We're about food and cooking, not health, so I've removed the bit asking about health. Also, you might want to clarify whether you're using only whole wheat flour, or a mix.
@Jefromi Thanks! Yes, I mean 100% whole wheat flour. Although I added the health part not because I was asking how healthy a certain method was, but rather because I was not looking for answers that would include unhealthy options.
Right, but the problem is that no one ever agrees what's healthy, and it leads to a lot of debate, and it's not food and cooking debate. If there are specific other things you're trying to avoid, please do add them into your question, though!
I have found the water roux or tangzhong method effective for 100% whole wheat bread, as it makes the texture less dense, and therefore less crumbly.
Also, you may simply be using too little moisture overall. Now that I'm baking bread for a 2 year old, whose tastes lean slightly less rustic in bread than mine, I've rediscovered high-hydration loaves, which, when baked at a lower temperature than my beloved crusty, chewy breads, are pretty suitable sandwich material.
Another strategy, if you want to embrace the density of whole grain breads instead of avoiding it, is to try the strategy employed by dense German multigrain or pumpernickel loaves, which often employ moist sweeteners (honey, molasses or sugar beet syrup), sometimes additional moist ingredients (apples, carrots) along with various nuts and seeds that offset the grains, sometimes alternate grains like rye or spelt, and moderately high hydration. A picture of one example can be seen here: http://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/1168871222955627/Apfel-Karotten-Mehrkornbrot.html. Then you get a fairly chewy but reasonably topping-friendly bread. (Most German sandwiches using this type of bread are remarkably minimalist in comparison to contemporary American preferences, sometimes meant just as a take-along "second breakfast", and may only have a slice of cheese or salami, some butter and mustard on thin slices). The combination of factors makes for a moister-than-you'd-expect, less-crumbly-than-just-grain, dense bread.
I'm sure there are several sites that describe it more tersely; basically it's the same as a pate a choux base but with less flour per volume of water, so that it never gets quite as smooth and solid as a typical choux pastry. You add it to a yeast sponge after the mixture has cooled a bit. I'm not 100% sure what the right ratio is for best results; I tend to use a rough eyeballing and get adequate to good results most times.
According to King Arthur Flour, starting your dough with an autolyse step may achieve the results you desire:
"An autolyse is the gentle mixing of the flour and water in a bread recipe, followed by a 20 to 60 minute rest period. After the rest, the remaining ingredients are added and kneading begins."
An autolyse brings the following benefits to challenging bread doughs:
The flour fully hydrates. This is particularly useful when working with whole-grain flour because the bran softens as it hydrates, reducing its negative effect on gluten development.
Gluten bonds begin developing with no effort on the part of the baker, and kneading time is consequently reduced.
Carotenoid pigments remain intact, leading to better color, aroma, and flavor.
Fermentation proceeds at a slower pace, allowing for full flavor development and better keeping quality.
The dough becomes more extensible (stretchy), which allows it to expand easily. This leads to easier shaping, greater loaf volume, a more open crumb structure, and cuts that open more fully.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.892772
| 2013-05-03T20:42:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33941",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jasbir",
"JasonTrue",
"Megan Schroer",
"Neko Tamago",
"Nick Whale",
"Stephen",
"Susan",
"Yudi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78894",
"rajaaqeeb",
"shellfishMonkey"
],
"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
}
|
37299
|
Why the common basic taste of energy drinks is tutti-frutti?
With extraordinary exceptions, most of the basic energy drinks has the same basic flavour: tutti-frutti.
Why was it chosen instead of an already known flavour, like cherry or something?
Is it like a marketing idea, like the unique taste of cola or Dr. Pepper?
Many of them have ingredients in them that is just foul tasting (eg, caffeine). I'd suspect that part of it is to cover up the flavor of other ingredients; it's harder to match a specific flavor when you're dealing with something assertive.
A lot of the defining ingredients of energy drinks have very strong flavors. Caffeine is quite bitter, B vitamins can be very sour, and Vitamin C is tart. A strong sweet-tart flavor is one of the most palatable ways of masking all of these flavors.
There's also a certain amount of brand copying going on. Red Bull was probably one of the first big brands on the market. Since their flavor is cloyingly sweet & tart, a lot of their competitors went for a similar flavor profile.
I think the real question is why anyone drinks these things....
@SAJ14SAJ Nowadays I drink ~3 "cans" each week. I need it to be able to concentrate all day since I have very long days to learn.
Aside from the caffeine, I think most energy drinks are only good for producing very expensive urine.
@sourd'oh I drink it for the caffeine of course, I know that energy drinks are not better than regular coffee, but coffee makes the smell of my mouth awful and I don't even like its taste.
@SourDoh I must disagree with the very expensive urine. I can say that coffee itself doesn't do the kick to my brain as an energy drink does. And it is not about a caffeine amount, as one can (8.4 f.oz. / 250 ml) has ~85mg of caffeine and one double-espresso is ~120mg! It could be also because of the sugar, which is ~25g in the same can size and into coffee I put only two teaspoons which is like~8g. I belive that taurine is indeed a main factor here. With one energy drink after lunch sleeping at ~10pm is no problem with energy drink. With double espresso... no way I fall asleep before 1am :D
There are 3 main reasons that mainstream energy drinks have a bitter 'bite' to them. #1: Taurine is a most important additive that helps to potentiate the caffeine to reach the bloodstream faster, as well as speed up the metabolism for most people. However, Taurine is acidic, which in turn means it is also bitter/sour. Combined with citric acid, sodium citrate, vitamin c, tartrate, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, and the b-vitamins as well. Not all have the same exact ingredients, but they all contain a lot of acidic-bitter flavors. #2: The abnormally sour 'bite' actually stimulates the brain to release adrenaline and/or serotonin in most people, in the same way spicy foods do, generally. It's a cheap 'extra kick'. #3: Many people have a very mild 'addiction' to sour/sweet flavors. Like the candy, Sour Patch Kids, which is the most popular non-chocolate candy on the market, people have a strange enjoyment of the sour-sweet combination. Much like salty and sweet as well. They compliment each other. However, drink in moderation because they are very unhealthy unless you buy organic versions.
Sour patch kids? Really? Not like, Skittles or Starburst or something?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.893124
| 2013-10-03T11:11:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37299",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Peter Majko",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Theresa Humphrey",
"Zoltán Schmidt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87691",
"miamidoorslocks",
"user30836",
"user87680",
"user87682"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73301
|
What would the best Cornflour substitute be for a Pavlova?
Our local stores do not sell cornflour so I need a substitute.
Online I'm finding people saying use normal flour, or you can use arrowroot or you can use cornstarch at half the quantity. But these substitutions are given for purposes like thickening agents.
Really I don't know if something like 'flour' would be a good substitute in a Pavlova. What is the right substitute for the purpose of a Pavlova?
Last I checked, cornflour (UK) is the same thing as cornstarch (US)...
If true that's excellent. However, I read online "Corn flour is finely ground cornmeal. Cornstarch, on the other hand, is derived only from the endosperm of a corn kernel." https://goo.gl/yxpiOF . Is it okay to substitute?
I don't think that a Pavlova would include corn flour, the finely-ground cornmeal (e.g., masa harina). @Catija is correct, cornflour and cornstarch are the same, a fine, powdery material made from the endosperm of the corn kernel and used as a thickening agent. If it's not available, you could substitute arrowroot, in the same amount as the recipe calls for the cornstarch.
HI Chaos. I added a link to something called Pavlova, just because I had never heard of it. If it's the wrong dessert, please take it out! Thanks!
Thanks @Sue. It makes sense, it's an Australian/NewZealand thing.
So I tried swapping the cornflour for cornstarch 1:1 and it turned out slightly harder and with larger air-bubbles. Should it be cornflour for cornstarch 1:2?
Confirming that corn starch (us) =Cornflour (uk). Corn flour/meal (us) is normally called polenta or maize meal in the UK. The large bubbles issue sounds like it's caused by the eggs - using fresher eggs will give you smaller bubbles. Generally if you're using a UK recipe in the US you might find numerous small differences in the ingredients that can throw the recipe off.
Cornflour in that sense being just starch, you should be able to use many starches with decent results. So corn starch, wheat starch, potato starch, rice starch, etc. will work, no matter what name they are sold under (e.g. you are more likely to find "rice flour" than "rice starch"). Try to avoid starches that are high in amylopectin ("waxy" starches), for the pavlova you want fluffiness in the starch.
If you are willing to experiment and end up with results that are farther away from the original, consider trying random flours from gluten free plants. I don't mean the "gluten-free flour mixes" in the supermarket which are enriched with gums, I mean things like oat flour, chestnut flour, etc.
There is a Fielders "Wheaten Cornflour" that is made from wheat. I am allergic to cornstarch and use Wheaten Cornflour. My mum was a champion prize winning cook. Her secret ingredient is this product for Pavs, cakes, sponges, and for a beautiful textured gravy. I give my friends Wheaten Cornflour so that when they are cooking and intend to give me something, like melting moments, anything with icing, they use it. There are recipes for sponges and other baked goods on the Fielders box.
What a misleading naming! It seems that this product is simply wheat starch, and has nothing to do with corn.
Ah - but it has the texture and does the same. To me it is a nicer taste. Also mum used only the freshest eggs. From the chooks that morning ;-)
Apologies for the short answer, but yes, you can use cornstarch.
Cornstarch is interchangeable (as shown in this recipe here)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.893405
| 2016-08-21T17:26:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73301",
"authors": [
"Cath Bowd",
"Catija",
"Giorgio",
"Kias",
"Niall",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83271",
"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
}
|
74972
|
Can I store soft serve ice cream in my regular freezer?
I was gifted with a soft serve ice cream dispenser. however it's such a pain to always keep the machine on and running each time I want ice cream--more so that it highly consumes electricity. I wish to know if there is a way I can produce my soft serve in a large quantity and store it in my freezer so I can always remove and take a scoop each time I want soft serve. I tried it once but it went hard as a rock and lost its texture when I allowed it to defreeze.
Is there a trick to keeping it soft and close to the consistency in the freezer?
The standard recommended temperature for a home freezer is 0°F (-18℃). Regular ice cream keeps best at -5°F to 0°F. However, the proper storage temperature for soft serve ice cream is 18°F (-7℃).
While you could raise the temperature of your freezer to accommodate this, it really wouldn't be recommended for the rest of your frozen foods.
Short of that, your best option would be to get a tiny freezer just for your soft serve so that you can keep it at at higher temperature without risking the quality of your other food.
Thanks. tried that but at some point ice crystals starts to develop. it must not really maintain the soft serve consistency, i can always welcome it going to the level of a regular ice cream while maintaining its creaminess. i just dont want it to go hard rock so that it becomes impossible to scoop
someone advised me to use corn syrup and corn starch in my mixture. i know of that in regular ice cream but will that really work with soft serve?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.893808
| 2016-10-24T14:25:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74972",
"authors": [
"Zenvis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51436"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75105
|
Does baking time increase when making multiple Pumpkin Bread Puddings?
The baking instructions for one Pumpkin Bread Pudding is 350° for 30-40 minutes.
Would the time change for baking three at the same time, 1lb 4oz each? Would the baking time remain the same or would the time increase?
Just for clarification: three individual bread puddings or triple the amount in one large pan?
Welcome to the site! Do you have a recipe for us to look at? Also, do you intend to bake them on the same oven rack or different? While you're waiting for answers to your question, I invite you to visit our [help] to see how our system works. We're glad you've joined us and hope you stay around and have fun!
Is 1.25 lbs the normal weight for a single one of these (the one that requires 30-40 minutes)? Remember that time is always an estimate anyway...
It mostly depends on whether you're able to arrange them in the oven with plenty of space. If they all fit on one rack, with a few inches between the pans, it should be basically the same baking time. They're all still in an oven of the same temperature they'd be in if baked alone.
But if things get crowded, especially if you have to put them on the top and bottom rack, with one at least partially over another, then you may need increased baking time. They'll essentially shield each other, i.e. the air will end up a little bit cooler in the area between them. In that case you'd probably also want to rotate and shuffle them around once or twice during baking, to avoid them browning more on the exposed parts and less on the shielded parts.
The oven will also take slightly longer to come back up to temperature with more in it, but likely on the scale of a difference of a minute or two as long as it's a completely preheated full-size oven, so for something that's baked 30-40 minutes you don't really need to worry about. The most direct information I found about this was from BakeWise:
Even if you have a well-preheated oven, if you open the oven door ... (the time that the oven was open can be over 1 minute) the drop in the oven temperature can be 175F/79C). Recovery time can be several minutes.
So having more bread puddings does extend that recovery time, not just by putting cold mass in the oven, but also by requiring the door to be open longer while you're loading them into the oven. But again in this case that's not the important factor; even if it adds a couple minutes to the baking time, you still need to worry more about the air circulation, and you were already checking in a 10 minute range anyway.
Oven is on temperature control. Unless the oven is so crowed to limit air circulation the time is the same.
The thermal shock from the pudding is insignificant. The oven can deliver the heat to cook the pudding or not. All the oven has to do is bring the air back up to temp. At 2' x 2' x 2' and a 2015 watt oven it takes about 20 seconds to bring the air from 70 F to 350 F. After that the oven does not need to deliver 3x the heat as the heat loss to the room is still the same. It is not like blanching or deep frying where there is rapid heat transfer and the medium started at temperature. When you open and close the oven the room air is exchanged so with 1 pudding or 3 the air temperature starts at close to room temperature. The oven quickly returns the air to cooking temperature and cooking begins.
two loaves of bread
Wouldn't three times the cold mass added to the oven slow its return to the target baking temperature? A cold mass changes the oven's ability to heat.
@Catija Really 2.5 extra lbs of pie is going to have a significant impact on temperature? An oven that can deliver the heat cook a 20 lb turkey is going to be stressed by 2.5 extra lbs of pie?
While I agree in general that ovens don't need terribly long to come back to temperature, your numbers are a bit misleading. Ovens don't just magically dump their maximum power into all of the air at once, it does actually take some time for it to propagate through the whole oven. In any case, it'd probably be more helpful to focus on how much crowding it takes to obstruct air circulation enough to affect things, since that's what's actually going to determine whether the OP needs to increase the baking time.
@Jefromi See my answer "Unless the oven is so crowed to limit air circulation the time is the same." And most ovens indeed have an on / off controller that that does pretty rapidly max heat. Yes recovery time is effected by heat transfer from element to air but that time is totally not effect by 1 pudding versus 3,
Exactly: it'd help the OP more if you explained that more fully. But no worries, I went ahead and wrote an answer to cover it. (And yes, there are effects from having three puddings: the air transfers heat to the puddings, so the air's temperature is reduced. Again, I agree that the recovery time isn't a big deal, I'm just saying your 20 seconds is the optimistic perfect case, not the reality.)
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.893966
| 2016-10-29T20:27:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75105",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Stephie",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66458
|
How can I increase the shelf life of chocolate ganache?
I'm testing out chocolate ganache recipes and they don't seem to have a long shelf life. The ganache begins to grow mold after the third week. Is there a specific percentage of cream, glucose, butter and chocolate that has to be used in order to minimize the growth of bacteria? I believe that there is too much water activity going on and therefore the ganache goes bad much more quickly. What am I doing wrong? Any insight would be amazing.
How are you using the chocolate ganache? Why do you need it to last more than 3 weeks? I'd be lucky to have anything last more than 1 week in my house if there was chocolate ganache on it.
Welcome to the site Sara! I know you specifically asked for shelf life, so I don't mean to be off-topic, but I found this question explaining that certain types of ganache and other chocolate products can be frozen. Your recipe's a bit different too, so I could be way off base, just looking for something that might be helpful to you!
What is the recipe you're using? Is your chocolate ganache set on a cake that you can't refrigerate?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.894396
| 2016-02-12T20:23:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66458",
"authors": [
"Alan Jackson",
"Cash for Motorbikes",
"Divi",
"Gee Lo Por R",
"Gretchen Delon",
"Jay",
"John Pinson",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Trudy Appleyard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"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
}
|
66676
|
What is the meaning of the numbers on the back of green tea boxes?
There are 4 or 5 digit numbers on the back of each green tea box. I know they are used to classify the type of tea and its quality, but I have never found how to read them. How do I figure out which one is higher quality than another one.
Here are examples:
Chunmee tea Series:
41022AAAA, 41022AAA, 41022AA, 41022, 4011, 9371, 9370, 9369, 9368, 3008, 34403
Gunpowder Tea Series:
3505A, 3505B, 3505C, 9372, 9373, 9374, 9375, 9475, 9575
Are these all the same brand of tea? Where do you live?
They are imported from China by different companies. The numbers are independant of the brand. For example if you buy green tea online you'll see that they are called by these numbers.
Doesn't matter which brand. These numbers indicate exactly which tea and which grade of the tea has been used. It is part of the ISO9001 certified tea trading companies in China.
Similar to ingredient lists, the most used item comes first. This blend of green tea uses several grades and series of leaves of chunmee, from the highest grade to intermediate grades.
The same goes for the gunpowder tea.
The reason it's so hard to find info on the Internet is because it's chinese. But you can rest assured it means you are get good quality and reliable tea.
I have to disagree about the good quality. I have been trying many numbers and with some numbers I got pieces of plastic or metal inside! This is the reason I started to look at these numbers and try to figure out how to link them with quality.
Well something wrong is happening then. 40122AAAA is super fine grade. I can't say anything about the tea you have received but that's what the numbers mean.
yeah I figured out the As at the end meant higher quality.
The one with generally pieces of junk inside is 14603
14603 doesn't correspond to any tea grading
Are you buying tea from alibaba?
yes sometimes
it is written 14-603
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.894533
| 2016-02-20T09:35:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66676",
"authors": [
"B Wilde",
"Cascabel",
"Escoce",
"Greg StarkCindy Welsh",
"Leonaldo jose da silva",
"Sarah Sharp",
"Stephaina Degasto",
"Stephaniejy Williamsyevhbbbg",
"ceillac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43548"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42947
|
Do I have to use oil when making pie crust?
This easy pie crust recipe from cooks.com calls for flour, oil, salt and milk. When you make this crust can you substitute the oil for eggs or something like that, or is oil the best thing to use?
Please provide the full recipe you are asking about, and the reson why you want to make the substitution.
@Sue If you are this user and you are attempting to edit your own question, please consider merging the accounts if you can, so that you can edit this question more easily.
You need to define best. Best flavor, more healthy, faster, more reliable are some examples of what could mean by best. In my opinion, I prefer using lard. Lard is a tradition ingredient used to make pie crusts. Be careful if you substitute other oils. Each type of oil has a different smoking temp...the maximum cooking temperature for that oil.
Oil is not substituted for eggs, as it has completely different properties. It is normally substituted for the solid fat.
While it is certainly possible to do it this way, it is much fussier than just using solid fat. It requires frequent trips to the refrigerator during making if you want to end up with a solid crust and not just a pap. You have to be well experienced with pie doughs to be able to recognize exactly when to put it into the refrigerator or freezer. The result is not all that different for solid fact, except for 1) taste, if you use some strongly flavored oil (like one of the toasted nut oils), and 2) bragging rights that you pulled it off.
If you are just looking for an easy recipe, use one with solid fat (butter, lard or shortening; shortening is easiest to work with but has the least taste) and adhere to the instructions. You will recognize a good pie crust recipe by following criteria:
it warns you against overmixing the butter and flour
it tells you when to refrigerate
it also mentions what kind of texture it produces (although in some cultures where only one type of crust is desired, e.g. flaky for American pies, this may be missing).
it uses reasonable ratios. This would be between 3:2 and 2:1 for flour to fat by weight, maybe a little outside this range. If it contains any other ingredients beside egg, water and sweetener, they should be in very small amounts (tablespoons or even teaspoons).
if it is sweet, it does not use normal sugar. It uses either confectioner's, or some liquid sweetener.
generally, a recipe given by weight is more trustworthy than one by volume. I have made many recipes by volume which did work, but because they are riskier, pros prefer to work by weight. With volume, you never know how well developed the recipe is before you start, and never know if you will achieve the same ratio or if mismeasurements will ruin a recipe which worked perfectly well for the author.
I like the concept of "You will recognize a good *** recipe by the following criteria". That should be a prefered answer to "recipe request" like questions
I make pie crust all the time with oil and find it the very quickest and easiest recipe ever! I have never had a failure with this method. Just mix in two easy step.. No hassle, no refrigeration or freezing. Just dump mix and roll?
Whisk together 2/3 c oil, 1/3 c water and 1/2 tho salt until opaque. Add2 cups of flour all at once. If too sticky, add small amounts of flour in small increments til the dough can be picked up in a ball that can be handled easily.
I roll mine onto the plastic side of freezer wrap*. Do NOT add any flour to roll it out. Place a sheet of plastic wrap or waxed paper over the dough and roll out as usual. Have pie plate ready.
Peel plastic wrap off of top of dough. Turn freezer paper with dough attached upside down, onto pie plate, centering as much as possible. With fingers, gently loosen dough edges on one side from paper, easing dough into pie plate while slowly lifting paper as you loosen it.
When completely free, remove plate and ease dough evenly with about 1/2 " overhang on all edges. Fold that overhang up over edge all the way around so it makes a raised edge for the pie. Trim if too much overhang.
Pinch a design of your choosing, all the way around the edge. Fill with favorite filling, and bake according to filling directions. If two-crust pie is desired, just roll the rest of the dough and lower dough not the filling as directed above seal edges by crimping or with a fork.
This method makes it super simple if you need a little patch, because there is no loose flour to prevent the dough from bonding together.
NOTE* Fold back 1/2 inch of freezer wrap to keep it from curling as you roll the dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.894734
| 2014-03-23T19:14:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42947",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Dave",
"David Edwards",
"Dolly Singh",
"Dom",
"Juan",
"Lori Loughran",
"Rory Egger",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sensii Miller",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51936"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75241
|
Why aren't my chocolate chip cookies coming out the way I'd like them?
I'm making chocolate chip cookies. Am I doing something wrong if my cookies look flat on top, and soft, and brown on the bottom. They're soft on top and are crunchier at the bottom. They taste fully cooked and good, but not exactly like cookies should right? Am I undercooking them or preparing them a wrong way? Or is this normal?
Here's the recipe I used, and the picture that's on the page.
Ingredients:
1 1/4
cups granulated sugar
1 1/4
cups packed brown sugar
1 1/2
cups butter or margarine, softened
2
teaspoons vanilla
3
eggs
4 1/4
cups all-purpose flour
2
teaspoons baking soda
1/2
teaspoon salt
1
to 2 bags (12 oz each) semisweet chocolate chips (2 to 4 cups)
Directions:
Heat oven to 375°F. In large bowl with electric mixer, beat granulated sugar, brown sugar and butter until light and fluffy. Beat in vanilla and eggs until well blended. Beat in flour, baking soda and salt. Stir in chocolate chips.
On ungreased cookie sheets, drop dough by rounded tablespoonfuls 2 inches apart.
Bake 8 to 10 minutes or until light golden brown. Cool 1 minute; remove from cookie sheets to cooling racks.
There are many different chocolate chip cookies out there - a recipe would help to give you better advice.
I did use a recipe for the cookies they just turned out differently. Sorry for not saying that.
@Jack what Stephie means is, post your recipe so we can see what you're doing...
maybe your oven is not "calibrated" ? and that 350F (for example) is not really 350F (use a thermometer) and/or you put your cookies too low in the oven so that the bottom cooked faster than the top ? also, wait a little bit after you take the cookies out of the oven.
Also what kind of cookie sheet? Cheaper ones made of thin metal will tend to cook the bottom of cookies excessively, especially if the oven does not maintain an even temperature.
Are you using bottom heater only? Most ovens allow selection.
Are your baking sheets dark metal? It'll absorb more heat, so the bottom will cook faster than the top. You can try to balance things out by baking a little higher in the oven and/or putting a sheet of aluminum foil on the bottom rack to deflect the radiant heat.
Are you using butter or margarine?
What you're describing is something that I'd consider normal in a cookie. Some cookies are more cake-like, some are chewy, some are crunchy, some are flatter than others - but they're all good. Almost any factor - from the type of fat, to the type of liquid, to the leavener, to the temperature of both the oven and the dough can affect the cookie's texture. I'd make two recommendations if you want your cookie less flat: 1) chill the dough for a few hours, or overnight. Then, form them and get them into the oven quickly, while the dough is stone cold. 2) Try a different recipe. Do a visual internet search for the type of cookie that you're after. Good recipes are hard to find, and sometimes you have to kiss a few frogs...
Here is a link to a site on 'the science of the best chocolate chip cookies'. It breaks down the different ingredients in standard chocolate chip cookie recipes and explains what they do.
One of the observations was this:
Making cookies with varying degrees of both soda and powder, I found
that baking powder generally produces cakier cookies that rise higher
during baking, producing smoother, shinier tops, while soda yields
cookies that are craggier and denser in texture
The site also experiments with alterations (different flours, sweeteners, creamed butter vs melted, baking soda vs powder, etc) and shows/describes the results. Perhaps it can help you alter your recipe to achieve the cookie consistency you're aiming for.
It sounds like you're describing cookies that aren't rising. Make sure you're using baking soda not baking powder. You can add flour a little at a time if the dough seems too wet. If your cookies still come out flat pop the dough in the fridge for about an hour before baking.
The recipe is linked in the post.
Apologies, it was not included the last time I saw the post and I overlooked it just now.
I wonder why you suggest that using baking soda is better than baking powder in this case. The recipe has almost no acid (except for the brown sugar, but that's very weak), so actually baking soda can be expected to give very little rise, if any.
Chocolate chip cookies very depending on your oven, altitude, and cookie sheet. I split the baking soda with powder for a thivk moist cookie! Play with your recipe until you have a cookie to your liking
Melanie, welcome to Seasoned Advice! Don't forget to take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about the site. Once you have a few votes, you might want to have a peek at our [chat] and meet some of our regulars there. If you could give the asker a few pointers as to which adjustments could lead to which kind of change in the cookies, feel free to [edit] your post any time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.895134
| 2016-11-03T18:10:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75241",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"John Feltz",
"Marissa Wilson",
"Max",
"Mołot",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user3169",
"username"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66959
|
Will meat taste okay if I cook it in a pan where the leftover fond seems burned?
I have found that after 2 batches of chicken breasts, the fond is in the pan for enough time to start burning, so the third batch gets a little black and starts to taste burned.
Does it mean that I should deglaze or wash my pan every 2 batches to make sure I won't get a burned taste?
I'd deglaze the pan after each pan and transfer the juices to a small bowl to make a sauce
I would wipe/clean (no soap) the pan after each batch.
After the last batch, transfer the bowl content and make a sauce with the last pan drippings and what you already have.
If you have a wooden spatula, and you have the water nearby, deglazing typically only takes 20-30 sec, even for larger pans. (as it has a wide contact area, so you can scrape the fond very quickly). It might take a minute or two for the temperature to recover, though, depending on your burner.
Another option would be to use two or more pans, that way the fond would be nicely browned and usable for your sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.895560
| 2016-02-29T11:18:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66959",
"authors": [
"Aimee Gilbert",
"Dionne McKaskle",
"Fergiegal",
"Gary Jordan",
"Joe",
"Phil Woods",
"Stefano Espenica",
"Steph Sepulveda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160579",
"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
}
|
75563
|
Can I decrease salty flavor after brining a turkey?
I brined my turkey but it came out tooooo salty. Any suggestions to save it? It's really good, juicy and tasty. I will cut it up and cook in turkey gravy, but is there something I can do to remove some of the salty taste? I will not be using the turkey drippings from this bird. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
If you make good turkey gravy with little or no salt, and simmer and store the turkey in that, I think that's the best you can do. The hard part is making good gravy with low enough salt, since low salt turkey flavor is hard to find.
You might consider a bit of an odd idea. You can make milk gravy with ground turkey, much like what in the Army we called SOS. Use the bare minimum of salt.
Serving the turkey with that, perhaps in an open-faced sandwich, could be good. Consider that with slightly under-seasoned mashed potatoes.
Good Luck! Let us know what you end up doing and your results.
I second @Jolenealaska, particularly the white gravy, and would also suggest that, when you get to the end of it, make turkey hash: the addition of potatoes (onions, peppers, eggs) could help the saltiness considerably.
Adjust the salt in your brine because after the fact your kind of well stuck with it. So, in other words, no.
Not all brines are made equal. You may have added too much salt to your solution, or perhaps let your poultry brine for too long.
Brining is the technique of soaking meat in a dilute salt solution until the dissolved salt permeates the muscle tissue. You're shooting for a final concentration of about 0.5% salt throughout. The challenge with brining is getting the meat deep in the interior to be just as salty as the meat on the outside. Unfortunately, it's easy to end up with a steep gradient of saltiness.
The conventional approach of soaking meat in a strong salt solution requires you to pull it out at just the right moment — hard to do without the equivalent of a thermometer for measuring salinity. Resting the meat does allow the salt gradient to even out somewhat, but there's just no avoiding an oversalted exterior and an undersalted interior.
A modernist approach soaks the meat for long periods (up to 24 hours) in a solution having a salt concentration only slightly higher than that target of 0.5%. The risk of oversalting is eliminated. You'll need a brine injector, or a syringe.
This brine works well for poultry:
| Ingredient | Weight | Volume | Scaling |
|-------------|--------|-----------------|---------|
| Water | 200g | 200 mL / 2 cups | 10% |
| Salt | 12g | 1 Tbsp | 0.6% |
|-------------|--------|-----------------|---------|
| Poultry | 2kg | 1 whole | 100% |
Procedure:
Stir water and salt together to make brine.
Inject the brine as evenly as possible throughout the meat. Place the needle into the neck and back cavities to avoid puncturing the skin.
Refrigerate the brined chicken for 24 hours, uncovered.
Note: Brine keeps indefinitely before use; Brined poultry keeps for up to 24 hours when refrigerated (so, cook between 24 - 48 hours after brining).
References:
Modernist Cuisine at Home: Page 133, 238
Welcome to the site Benjamin. There is a lot of good info here- unfortunately it doesn't actually answer the question. This will help the OP prevent it in the future but they are asking what they can do with the salty turkey now.
There are several questions which are being asked. Stack is meant to be a QA, rather than a discussion forum. The question as I understood it: "is there something I can do to remove some of the salty taste? ". The answer is no, but I've provided more insight as to why this happened and a solution on how to prevent it for next time - ultimately a more effective approach.
It sort of answers the question because obviously the person that posted the question is using too much salt in their brine and therefore should try a better meat to salt ratio.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.895709
| 2016-11-16T16:33:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75563",
"authors": [
"Bento",
"Giorgio",
"Sobachatina",
"elias altenberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51992"
],
"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
}
|
75588
|
Do wire oven racks and solid plate oven racks have different functions?
In South Africa, domestic ovens have wire racks and solid plate racks. Does each type have a specific function or can anything be cooked on either type?
Domestic to where? Can you provide a link to or picture of an oven of this type?
I'm not actually familiar with anything but wire racks.
@Catiha for a few ovens you can get full-shield baking sheets with holes round the back and sides for airflow but otherwise completely flat. Similar shelves are used in Aga ovens to reduce the heat in a section of the oven for baking.
South Africa. It's an AEG / Electrolux B1100-5. Manual directs wire rack "for cookware, cake tins, roasts and grilled foods". The solid plate they call a "baking tray" for "for cakes and biscuits". Wouldn't solid rack give more even / better cooking of bottom of almost everything?
No, the solid rack will prevent the air from circulating properly.
Welcome to the site Joy. It's nice to meet you! Since you were asked what country you live in, I added it right into the question. This will make it easier for people who come along later, in case they don't read the comments. We hope you stay with us and have some fun!
This sounds like you might be talking about a european style oven, which generally has 2 types of inserts, wire shelves and solid trays. Wire shelves are used when you want to cook something that is self-contained, like a casserole, baking dish, cookie sheet, etc. The space between the wires allows the free circulation of air, which is a good thing.
Trays usually come with a removable wire rack and are used when you are baking or grilling (in the US it's known as broiling) something loose like chicken pieces, burgers or sausages. The tray catches any drips and holds liquids that would otherwise fall to the bottom of your oven and make a very sticky and hard to clean mess. The tray slots into the same grooves as the wire shelves so you can put it on any level.
In the US many ovens have a separate drawer for broiling which comes with a slide-in tray, it's the same concept except you usually can't use the tray in the oven as the sizes don't match.
Here's a picture of the type of oven I mean, on the bottom you see the tray, on the top the wire shelf.
Maybe add a picture for the US comparison as well?
In some areas, the solid ones are considered "the baking sheet they gave away with the oven" ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.896145
| 2016-11-17T10:37:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75588",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joy ",
"Pysis",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52034",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71424
|
Is there a way to make ham in a casserole less salty?
When I was pregnant, my mother-in-law helped me make several casseroles to freeze. We're still eating them, but the ones with ham have had some problems. At first, it was just ham, vegetables, and noodles with no sauce to hold it all together. So I started adding cream of mushroom soup. But the ham is still really salty. Is there something else I can add in addition to or in place of the cream of mushroom soup to help, or should we just toss the rest of the ham casseroles?
Thanks!
Canned soups are generally extremely high in sodium... are you using low or no sodium versions of these soups? Otherwise, they may just be making the problem worse.
Check the taste of the ham before making the casserole. Since salt content varies widely, you can then adjust the other ingredients accordingly. I would avoid added salt with any significant pork content dishes.
You need to add bulky things with no salt, so that it'll average out to a saltiness you're okay with.
Although cream of mushroom soup sounds like a nice easy way to add some goopiness, it's probably pretty salty. If you can find low- or no-sodium soup, that'd be a much better choice. That kind of thing might be easier to find in fancy/organic/"healthy" brands. If you're willing to make your own soup/sauce, you can easily make it salt-free, but it sounds like you're looking for quick and easy options.
You could also try adding more vegetables and noodles without salt. (Starchy things like potatoes can also work well, but maybe you prefer noodles since they're already in there.) If you end up needing more goopy stuff to hold it together, again, try to find something sodium-free or low-sodium.
But there's not really any avoiding the main issue: you have to add a bunch of stuff without salt, so you're kind of going to have to turn your casserole into a bigger casserole.
If you're looking for something with the glue power of a cream soup, without the same salt level, consider making a white sauce (aka. béchamel).
It's a cooked mix of butter, flour and milk (possibly with some seasonings, like nutmeg or black pepper).
Try adding things that typically need salt...potatoes, noodles, eggs, broccoli, cauliflower, etc...but of course let the ham salt the food. The soup is also salty, so that may be why it's not getting better.
Also, for the future, soak the ham in water for 24-48 hours before cooking it. (Change the water every few hours or keep refrigerated) Hams are typically salt cured and therefore quite salty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.896389
| 2016-07-14T23:08:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71424",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"user3169"
],
"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
}
|
73088
|
Is cloudy-looking used peanut oil safe?
I have already stored used peanut oil in the refrigerator for one week. I had strained it through coffee filters, and it had looked very clean and clear. Now it looks cloudy and milky. Is it OK to use? I had used it to cook fish and hush puppies.
Fats behave differently at different temperatures - it may be cloudy because it's cold, and clear up if left on the counter for a while. if it does clear up when returned to room temperature, then the difference in appearance is explained. I'll leave it for someone with more experience to say whether it's Ok to use, since I don't know the variables.
May depend on the temp. of your fridge, but when I have stored a brand new (i.e. unused) bottle of peanut oil in my fridge, it has gotten cloudy and thick, especially when the level in the bottle goes a little below full. When I wanted to use it and took the bottle out of the fridge, it "thawed out" as soon as it got warm, and looked & acted just like when I bought it.
Canola oil does not behave this way for me. So this might just be a property of peanut oil when it gets cold. Does your left over oil thaw out & look clear when you let it get to room temp.?
On the other hand if you have used it to cook fish, I imagine it will still have at least a slight fishy taste even if it is strained out perfectly. Maybe best not to use it for fine delicately flavored dessert items anyway.
I was thinking the same thing -- olive oil definitely does the cloudy (and sometimes solid) thing as well. I've seen some containers mention this, but not all do.
aswine is correct. The cloudiness is a function of the amount of saturated fats in the oil. The more saturated fat an oil contains, the higher the temperature it solidifies. As Joe commented, olive oil will become cloudy/solidify in the fridge as well.
This is the reason manufacturers 'hydrogenate' oils to produce margarines. The more hydrogen atoms they can attach to an oil the more 'saturated' it becomes and the more solid it is at room temperature. Lard, bacon grease, highly saturated, solid at room temperature. Some oils are less saturated so they stay liquid at room temperature and the fridge. Your peanut oil is in the middle range, so it just got cloudy in the fridge.
As far as microbes growing in the oil, they definitely can. Exposure to air (oxygen) and oil breakdown (exacerbated by heat) are bigger culprits. This breakdown has a few indicators, the primary one for me being a rancid smell. Keeping oils sealed from air and stored in the fridge/freezer will help slow down the breakdown.
Keep the oils tightly sealed, away from light and cool and refrigeration is generally not required. Oils I don't use often I buy in smaller quantities so I wind up using them up before they go rancid sitting on the counter.
Some oils, like walnut go rancid quickly and should be stored in the fridge. Experience will guide you here.
I personally don't worry too much about microbes in my oils. They usually start to smell bad before they are a health concern. I'm also not a doctor and don't cook for anyone with impaired immune systems, so you need to make your own calls here.
In the South, bacon grease is often left out at room temperature. This can be done due to its high salt content. Just make sure not to mix in other greases or oils.
Finally, (and this will likely start a fight) butter can be left out at room temperature (for a while) safely. This is great if you like spreading soft button on your toast. The length of time it can be left out is a function of the temperature of the room and the amount of salt in your butter. Some people use butter bells for this function.
Butter will not last as long on the counter as in the fridge. Also, your nose will tell you when you've left it out too long and it needs to be discarded. (We eat it too quickly at my house for that to happen though. :-)
Recommendations on peanut oil vary radically, claiming anywhere from 1 month to 3 years shelf storage after opening, most all claiming refrigeration not needed. If pure peanut oil it is likely towards the low side though, so I would tend towards refrigeration as well. The cloudiness should just be fats starting to solidify which is not a ratification or chemical reaction. It should be fine to use, but I would bring it back to room temperature and allow to clear before heating, or initially heat it slowly. If you begin to heat partially solidified oils quickly they may have a tendency to pop and splatter more than usual.
Popping and splattering is due to water in the oil. Once the oil get near/over boiling, the water converts to steam and expands. Keeping the temperature low will minimize the splatter until all the water boils away.
Yes, it's safe.
Oil, even used oil, has a very small water activity, much too small to support the growth of microbes. Not only that, but you'll presumably heat up the oil to at least 300 °F for several minutes when you use it next, which will kill anything that would have grown.
In fact, storing the used oil in the refrigerator isn't necessary for safety reasons. I'd be more concerned about rancidity if you're planning to storing it for a while. Keeping it in an air-tight container in the dark is most important; glass is preferable. The cold temperature of the refrigerator will also help.
The reason the oil is cloudy is that you brought it to a temperature at which some of the fats in the oil solidified. That's the same thing that happens with bacon grease, only at a higher temperature. It's clear when warm, but at room temperature, it's opaque. Different fats have different melting/freezing temperatures, depending on the length of their fatty acids and whether they're saturated or unsaturated. Cloudiness is nothing to be concerned about.
There are two types of peanut oils available on the marketplace and it is often unclear which you have unless you have an updated label or run a fatty acid analysis: normal oleic and high oleic. High oleic has most of the polyunsaturated fat switched to monounsaturated (oleic acid). In peanuts, this is because of a natural mutation. The result is that the HO peanut oil will solidify more readily in the fridge and will have a fatty acid profile similar to olive oil (which will also solidify in the fridge). Upon warming to room temperature the oil will become clear again. The solidified oil is perfectly fine, just temporarily cloudy.
This answer doesn’t seem to contain any information not already covered by the previous answers.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.896622
| 2016-08-12T16:31:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73088",
"authors": [
"Community",
"JS.",
"Joe",
"Megha",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"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/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73103
|
What can I use instead of cornstarch in Turkish Delight?
I want to make Turkish Delight but I don't have cornstarch and cream of tartar. They are not available in our country, Bangladesh. What can I use instead?
Just in case this helps: in British English and other variants influenced by it, "cornflour" is the term for what's known as "corn starch" in America. I've seen cornflour in Indian recipes, but these may be using it as a substitute for an ingredient that isn't available here.
Rice starch is the usual substitute and of course is gluten free which seems important these days. Rice starch IS used in other parts of Asia I'm told to make a similar product. I've given it a try and I'd be pushed to tell the difference. But like anything else it's all about trial, error and experience I suppose.
Turkish delight is not just any sweetened gel, it is very specifically a gel made with starch, and using anything else will make a result which is not recognizable as Turkish delight.
If you cannot find corn starch,other starches will work quite well. Wheat or rice starch will probably be as good as cornstarch. I am not entirely sure about the waxy starches such as arrowroot. Any other thickeners will make a different dish.
The cream of tartar is only there for the acid, so use whatever culinary acid you have handy.
Both the corn starch and cream of tartar are used for thickening in this case. You could try potato or tapioca starch; from my own experience and experiments, however, potato starch creates a very unusual, stretchy consistency. Tapioca starch would most likely produce better results than potato starch.
As for the cream of tartar, you can substitute each teaspoon of cream of tartar for three teaspoons of vinegar or lemon juice, according to this other Stack Exchange question.
I haven't tried making it with potato starch, but it is supposed to be stretchy.
Substituting for corn starch, you might look for corn flour (which might the same thing as corn starch depending on location), or look at a chart for substituting other starch thickeners, including rice starch, potato starch, tapioca starch, and others, which will have the closest equivalents. You might consider working with potato starch or rice starch, which are substituted on a one-to-one basis. For tapioca, you would need the same amount of tapioca starch, or about twice as much if using instant or quick tapioca (which will give a very different texture).
if you really can't find any of those, you might look into some thickeners that are further removed, like ground flaxseed, regular flour, tapioca, or arrowroot. If you can get your hands on arrowroot, it will give a similar glossy shine - you need an equal or slightly greater amount, and cook just a little longer than corn starch. would need about twice as much flour (2tb per tb), and make sure it's cooked very well - it is very stable, but won't be as glossy, and will have a raw flavor if under-cooked, so it isn't the best substitute - but it might do if you have absolutely nothing else. Rice flour might be very interesting, you might end up with something closer to mochi. You should be aware that using any of these substitutions will change the final product (the starches less so than other thickeners), and may be quite different - but the result might still be tasty, if you want to try it.
For cream of tartar (if you can find tartaric acid, it's the same thing), you might use an equal amount of white vinegar or lemon juice. The substitution will vary depending on what you're using it for, but I think it's probably more like stabilizing egg whites or use in frosting, rather than baking or use with baking soda, so equal amounts. You might even be able to omit it, since it is being used either to prevent crystallization of the sugars, or to stabilize the gelling process of the starches - you run the risk of a slightly less firm or creamy texture, depending.
You are giving an awfully broad list of generic substitutes, mostly thickeners. Turksh delight is a candy, the starch in it is a main ingredient, and is responsible for their specific structure. While other starches will work (although I'm not sure I'd go as far as to suggest arrowroot, which is a waxy starch), neither flaxseed nor flour will produce something close enough to the original.
@rumtscho - I admit I couldn't find much on substituting cornstarch in Turkish delight specifically, so my answer is limited by that lack. I offered thickeners because that is how it seems to be used in the recipe, to make a gel of starch and sugar - and several possibilities because I don't know what might be available if corn starch is not. I would expect the results to be quite different, but possibly still tasty, using different starch. If you have more information on how the starches would work, or what might be better for substituting, I urge you to post an answer, I will upvote it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.897135
| 2016-08-13T08:36:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73103",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"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
}
|
49651
|
Why is my stevia-sweetened fresh whipped cream bitter?
I just used my iSi whipped cream maker for the first time. I cleaned it thoroughly. Then, I used a half pint of unpasteurized heavy cream (just bought yesterday with expiration 6 days away), and a few squirts of liquid Stevia. It came out super bitter. There doesn't seem to be a ton online about what the cause might be, and the answers I did find were confident but varied. I've read everything from using bad cream to not enough sweetener or flavoring. Any thoughts on what the cause might be?
Thank you!
I'm jealous that you can get unpasteurized heavy cream! The bitter question though has me puzzled. Did you taste the mixture before you put it into the whipper?
Have you used Stevia before? It has a strong bitter component which not everybody can taste. If you are one of the people who can taste it, then it is not a good sweetener for you.
@rumtscho : or it's possible that presurizing it somehow changes the compound to become perceptible to other people ... which would kinda suck.
@joe I'd suspect contact with dairy the more likely activator than the pressurizing. Many plants, like kiwi and lots of the cucumberlikes (like some melons) turn very bitter upon prolonged contact with cream. Pressure will probably speed up the reaction, but I doubt that it will cause it.
Stevia is a member of the mint family... Does anyone know what kind of reactions the chemicals in the family will have on cream? I have always felt (and its reflected in my posts) that some of the reactions we expect (and need) seem to be interactions between the mechanical and chemical nature of sugar. I find that I cannot bake cakes etc as well with artificial sweeteners; maybe its just me, but the eggs and butter just don't cream in the same way as with cane sugar. One day I will find a way of incorporating different sugars into my baking and cooking, but right now its still a challenge.
I've been using stevia for years to control my carb intake and I had to learn by experimenting with it. If you use too much, it will taste bitter. Just add a little at a time, and taste as you go.
Believe it or not Whip It brand nitrous has yucky bitterant added to reduce plausibility of huffing.
The cause of unexpected bitterness is more likely the additives than the stevia outright, as always one is purchasing something more than pure extract of stevia. So for whatever chemical bonding is taking place, at least for whatever brand of stevia you used, one of two things (maybe both) is occurring as an unintended consequence. Either it's separating one or more bitter components which when differently bonded were not bitter, or it's forming some new compound which itself is inherently bitter even if the original components (individually) were not. If I can read between the lines here and assume you're not just asking a rhetorical question, I would try one or another variant on stevia to see if the results improve.
In some uses, stevia seems to have a chemically after-taste. Sometimes I like it in my coffee and at other times I can't stand it.
Are you saying that sometimes it makes the coffee taste bad and sometimes not? Are you using different stevia? Different coffee?
Because artificial sweeteners don't taste exactly the same as sugar. There are however so many of them that I'm sure you can find one that tastes fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.897507
| 2014-11-10T01:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49651",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Amelia Da Silva",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Natasha Cameron",
"Norazian Mohd Amin",
"Selomey Mahendrarajah",
"Sollie Van Der Linde",
"Tina Cain",
"dani duffy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107687
|
Can I use orange juice to pasteurize egg whites?
I'm making a meringue and I just realized I don't have tartar or lemon juice, but I do have oranges? And I read that you can use anything acidic but I dont know. So I would like to know if it's ok to substitute lemon juice with orange juice?
Neither lemon juice, nor cream of tartar, nor any of the substitutions you've suggested have the effect of pasteurizing egg whites. Did you mean "stabilize" the meringue?
Only heat can pasteurize egg white. You might be thinking about stabilizing egg white, to help prevent over beating. In this case, cream of tartar is recommended. If that is unavailable, lemon juice or white vinegar can be substituted. I don't think orange juice would be helpful. You could always just leave these additions out, and be careful not to over whip.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.897812
| 2020-04-18T06:15:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107687",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107821
|
Intense mushrooms carbonation while fermenting
First attempt on fermenting mushrooms. Pretty low experience level in fermenting overall.
So, what I did
boiled them for a 1.5-2 hours
mix broth and salt so it became 2.5% brine
fill jar and put in dark quiet place.
For 2 days there was 0 activity. And then it happens. Carbonation is crazy intense, pretty similar to just opening beer right after initial release. And it keep going like that for over 24 hours already.
I'm not sure if that's okay or not and what should I do with that, if any.
Mushrooms used - regular white champignons.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.897898
| 2020-04-23T05:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107821",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107623
|
Should I add broth to the bottom of the Dutch Oven?
I am roasting a chicken in a dutch oven. Should I add any type of liquid to the bottom of the dutch oven before putting it in the oven?
If braising, yes. If roasting (lid off), no.
In the picture above there are vegetables, some will do fine being roasted dry like the carrots and potatoes, but there are some which may not do well like what looks like cabbage. I would add stock and cover to get the best results, then thicken the liquid later for a sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.897976
| 2020-04-15T22:32:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107623",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107840
|
Cast iron pan rusts during seasoning
I had a cast iron pan that I wanted to strip and reseason. I stripped it using the oven cleaner method and then I dried it in the oven at 200C. It got super rusty but I was able to get that all off with oil and a paper towel. The oil I am using is a mix of Canola and Soybean.
This is where the problems start. So I oiled it (just a thin layer and wiped up the excess) and put it in the oven at 400C for two hours. It came out with this dark orange rusty color. Its certainly got a layer of seasoning on it. Wiping it with a paper towel doesnt surface any rust.
So I stripped it with vinegar. While it was still wet I coated it in a bunch of oil. Then I stuck it in the oven at 200 for 15-20 minutes. When it came out there was just a touch of rust. That came off with more oil and elbow grease. Then I added a thick layer of oil, I didnt wipe it off. This time I cooked it at 400C for an hour and a half AND THERE IS STILL THE RUSTY SHEEN.
What am I doing wrong?
You never removed the initial rust layer from stripping the seasoning. Wiping it down with oil and a paper towel will just mask the appearance of the rust, not remove it. To remove the rust, you will need to scrub the entire pan with something abrasive, such as steel wool.
Edit: You may find the answers to this related question useful.
So the second time I tried this I scrubbed off all the rust and hit it with a paper towel and oil to simultaneously try to dry what I could and oil it so it didnt rust. When I was done with that there was no rust. Then I put it in the oven to dry it and when it came out there was a little rust.
Are you suggesting I remove that rust by using steal wool and oil? Also im pretty sure I took the rust off because when I started with the paper towels they came back red and when I finished they came back grey/black.
@FailureGod The rust is not on the surface of the pan: It is the surface of the pan. You can wipe off some of the dust with a paper towel, but to remove it all you need to scrape off the top layer of metal. You cannot do this with a paper towel. You need to use something like steel wool to do that. No need for oil in that stage, just elbow grease ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.898052
| 2020-04-23T23:19:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107840",
"authors": [
"FailureGod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83776",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98835
|
What are these silver "sporks" for?
I was going through some miscellaneous silverware in my in-laws' drawers, and ran across a set of these strange-looking forks that look a bit like sporks.
Anyone know what specific food they're for?
UPDATE: the forks in the photo are quite small, only about 5 inches long, the size of a salad fork.
I believe they are nothing more than serving forks
Ah, no, they're quite small. I'll update the description.
Assuming they are the same size as the other forks and spoons, they are most likely ice cream forks.
Other possibilities are a terrapin fork or a ramekin fork (both are more specialized, and possibly less fun, than an ice cream fork).
Based on a image search, ice cream fork appears to be correct. Shame, terrapin fork would have been somewhat exciting from a "wierd antiques" perspective. As a bonus, though, I now know that I have several Ramekin Forks in the same set; I thought they were just salad forks!
Have we been reading Miss Manners? ^_^
Actually learned about them some years ago when my uncle was talking about some of our family's silver. I did have to google for other spork-shaped utensils though (none of my ancestors had terrapin forks, lol)
Are they actually silver? I feel like that'd be a particularly bad choice for ice cream, given how thermally conductive silver is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.898344
| 2019-05-06T00:47:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98835",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"Michael Seifert",
"Stephie",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68714
|
Heart shaped fruit cake: how to prevent uneven baking
I have just made my first ever fruit cake. I used the BBC light fruit wedding cake for a 6" tin. I used the cake o later to increase the cake to a 12" one.
The original recipe said to bake for 30 mins, then turn oven down to 150C/ fan 130C/gas 2 and bake for another 1 hr 45 mins until risen, golden and an inserted skewer comes out clean. I increased it to 40 mins and 2 hours 30 mins.
I was worried about the point burning, but it was fine. It was the sides of the top curves of the heart that over cooked and the top burnt. The sides also got really dry and crispy. I double lined the tin, in and out. I can't find any help about heart shaped tins. What can I do?
Which temperature setting did you use (fan or no fan)? What was the initial temperature setting?
Okay, there's a couple options I can think of.
One possibility is simply, to cool down your oven. You're increasing the baking time anyway, a cooler oven will let the cake cook more slowly but more evenly - it is a classic way of not overcooking the outside of a large dish before the inside is done.
Another possibility is, you watch your cake a little more closely, and interfere when you notice any problems - for example, tenting foil over parts that are browning too soon, or adding moisture by the eyedropperfuls if the surface (or edges) are looking a bit too dry. You can also turn down the heat more, or turn the heat off and let it finish in residual heat if nearly done, if the outside is browning faster than the inside is cooking. This will take a bit more time, effort, and mindfulness, since you have to be there and paying attention for a fair chunk of the cooking time - but it is also the most generalizable advice for baking in odd-shaped pans.
Last possibility is, you can pad your pan before baking, focusing on any trouble spots. You mentioned double lining the pan, and while it might have helped - it clearly didn't prevent the problem, so why not try doing more next time? One historical technique was to wrap the outside of the pan with paper - newspaper, brown paper, or parchment paper, a few layers (and the air trapped between them) would slow down browning on the outside and give the interior a bit more time to come up to temperature. Or you can use cardboard for the same purpose.
Or else you can use a more durable equivalent and try a silicon mat (plus or minus strips for targeted protection), or make up something using cheesecloth, or repurpose an oven-safe ceramic or glass lid or pan to shield known trouble spots, or something of the sort. You could also make something similar to a crust shield, like is used on pies - which would use strips of foil along the edges to prevent them from overbaking while the center finishes cooking. You wouldn't find pre-made ones like there are for pie, but you can use the same principles to position a few strips of foil over the tops of trouble spots to let them cook slower.
You would want extra padding where you expect problems (in this case, a few extra layers around the top curves). This setup would shield the outer layers from radiant heat a bit more, and let the batter warm and cook a bit more slowly but also more evenly. You might not want newspaper if you're putting any layers over the top of the cake pan, or where it might touch the cake, but it should work for just padding the pan with.
Clearly, this third option works best if you know, or can guess, the trouble spots beforehand. Perhaps the first time baking in an oddly-shaped pan, it would be wiser to watch over it and meddle in person, and subsequently you can know where trouble is likely to develop, and can preemptively pad the pan or shield the cake to compensate.
Convection cooking should help with this. The convection setting essentially turns a fan on that distributes the heat around the inside of the oven, which allows for a more even cooking. It's hard to say how how this will change the cooking times, so you might have to expirement with cooking time a bit.
Any suggestions for people who don't have a convection setting that doesn't require they buy a new oven?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.898747
| 2016-05-01T15:53:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68714",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"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
}
|
71292
|
Can I pause halfway through coking boneless shoulder?
My other half put the shoulder in the oven to cook so that when I got home I could finish it, but my food delivery hasn't come. Can I pause the cooking and go get the stuff that I need and then carry on cooking as normal? Bearing in mind that it will take me 45 minutes to come back from a shop.
Not exactly.
In your situation, as you're just trying to slow things down and not halt it entirely, you can turn the heat down as low as it'll go on your oven, and then when you get back, turn it back to the desired temperature.
It'll throw off the cooking time enough that you'll want to use a thermometer to check for done-ness. (and it might finish in the time that the oven was set to low).
Yes — turning down the oven is the best thing to do. Meats like this cook much better when slow roasted too!
Turning down the oven will create an OK meat result, but the situation sounds like the OP is likely to be alone at home. I wouldn't leave an oven unattended for 45 min, even when turned at low.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.899095
| 2016-07-08T17:01:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71292",
"authors": [
"ElmerCat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"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
}
|
24595
|
Can sour cream be made the same way as yogurt?
Possible Duplicate:
Is it possible to make Sour Cream at home?
I make yogurt by adding a small amount of yogurt to milk, heating it slightly (barely in this weather!) and letting it sit several hours. It's, of course, a simple process--that's rather what yogurt is all about.
I understand sour cream is made by the same essential process, but I don't know what changes I would need to make. Could I just add a little yogurt to some cream? Do I need to change the ratio of fresh to culture? Does the incubation time or temperature change at all?
You can make sour cream by adding live-culture buttermilk or yoghurt to regular cream. Use 2 tablespoons of culture per cup of cream, mix, and let it sit for 12 hours in a warm place before putting in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.899220
| 2012-06-20T20:56:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24595",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23285
|
How do I control the smoke from a chimney starter?
I'm seasoning my new Weber Smoky Mountain smoker according to the excellent instructions, given for free, on Amazon, by a 20x BBQ grand champion. (What an amazing thing for this guy to do!)
Anyway, I'm using a Weber RapidFire chimney starter, and both times I've used it so far, it's completely filled the entire backyard with wood and paper smoke.
My upstairs neighbors sleep with their windows cracked when it's warmer (which is when I'll be BBQing), and so I'd really like to not smoke them out of their own bedrooms at 6 in the morning. Any advice for minimizing smoke when using a chimney starter?
There's some advice here about using only one sheet of newspaper doused with a bit of oil, but I don't know if that mitigates smoke.
I use one too, with Webers lighting cubes. I can't remember that that made it smoke. Where do you place the chimney starter? Is air flowing freely from below?
Yes, I place it on the grate.
At least with mine, the newspaper smoke runs out fairly quickly, but then there is plenty of charcoal smoke. Not sure how you'd avoid that.
First off, I'd cease using paper as your tinder. While it is the cheapest way to get your charcoal started, it does create a lot of smoke and ash flying around. And avoid oil-soaked paper. This will create even more smoke (I speak from experience).
I started using firestarter cubes, as they burn hotter and longer, meaning my coals are ready for cooking faster. Also, another side effect has been that the only smoke I see is from the charcoal itself. I started using the Weber ones, but they are expensive and don't burn as long. So I switched to a different fire lighter. You'll have to forgive me, as the name escapes me -- once I get home I'll edit this answer with a picture of the bag. Anyway, they're cheap, at about US$ 5-6 for a bag of 72. And they burn long, hot, and smoke-free.
The only remaining problem you'll have is that when charcoal begins igniting from a low starting temperature, it puts out quite a bit of smoke. If you are still worried about smoking your neighbors out, you will probably want to experiment with different brands and types. Stubbs briquettes are a bit less smoky on ignition, as is most lump charcoal. If you use lump, though, you should make sure you pack the charcoal ring in your WSM nice and tight, or it will burn very hot and fast. Also, put a piece of expanded steel on the charcoal grate to keep the small pieces of charcoal from falling through.
to limit smoke, burn it to to bottom, see my solution
I've had this problem for years, but i found the perfect solution:
Use a gas torche on the charcoal (i'm using a small gas torch dedicated to crème brulée, but any gas torch will do).
light the top of the chimney, not the bottom
Burning from the top, the black smoke is burnt by the flames and doesn't escape. The ignition of the full chimney doesn't take more time than the bottom up method.
This is hidden knowledge. Barely anyone talking about it. You’re a life saver. Amazing!!
Use alcohol (ethanol, meths, methylated spirits, rubbing alcohol depending where you live)) to start the charcoal
Fill a cup from a bottle of alcohol, and close the bottle. Slowly pour the cup over the charcoal, give it a few seconds to soak in, and flick a match at it
It will flare up about .5 m (2') so stand back. The flames will die down quickly, and will light the charcoal without any smoke
Remember to always close the alcohol bottle before starting the fire. Never pour from bottle onto a potential fire, Never add more alcohol to a fire that has already been lit, even if it goes out
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.899327
| 2012-04-24T11:59:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23285",
"authors": [
"ABIGAIL",
"Imoydell",
"Mahdi Golestaneh",
"Rich Armstrong",
"Vicki Conley",
"Yuji 'Tomita' Tomita",
"crafty witch",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52726",
"johnny",
"julienfr112",
"whiskeychief"
],
"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
}
|
19606
|
Why do whole chicken recipes advise rinsing the chicken?
Possible Duplicate:
Does meat need to be washed before preparation?
I'm roasting a whole chicken for dinner tonight and the recipe told me to rinse the bird under cold water and pat it dry before doing anything else.
What is the reason for that? Does that improve the flavour or prevent any problems?
The theory is that washing the chicken (or any fowl) removes all of the contaminates from the surface and cavity of the bird (ie salmonella, etc.). People will be in one of two camps - 1. those that have been told to do all of their lives, so they do it, and 2. those who don't because it is really not necessary. You cook your birds to a certain temperature internally for a reason, that is to kill all of that stuff.
Really, the truth of the matter is that there are far higher risks in washing the bird and spreading all of those juices all over your sink (thus contaminating the sink and possibly some work surfaces).
There is no increase in flavour, there is no practical reason to bother. Professionally, it is not done.
However, having said that, the one time I do rinse and pat dry is when I am applying a rub. It ensures that the chicken is dry and I can effectively rub, instead of the rub turning to a paste.
See this question for more info: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14570/does-meat-need-to-be-washed-before-preparation/14571#14571
Yes, assuming the birds themselves and those handling them have done so in reasonably sanitary conditions. Not as much for actual health considerations, but general "ick" factor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.899662
| 2011-12-12T23:20:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19606",
"authors": [
"Chris A",
"ElendilTheTall",
"KCK",
"PoloHoleSet",
"abc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"jmathew"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6428
|
Online freely available cookbooks
As a programmer, I'm used to have a lot of online books for learning about almost everything.
I'm sure that there are some cookbooks hidden in the web... but I've found just a few of them...
I know that there are a lot of great websites teaching cooking skills and collecting recipes (and my RSS reader is always exploding with great tips and recipes), but sometimes I prefer to have a whole book in my (virtual) shelves...
So I thought we could create a list of available online free cookbooks, like the programming books one on stackoverflow.
I've found food.com (previously called recipezaar.com) the most reliable site so far. I use it constantly. There has only been recipe that wasn't my favorite so far and that was still decent. Like @Sobachatina mentions the actual cookbooks are tested so I thought they were more reliable but since food.com is free and open I can easily choose recipes by how many people have rated the recipe and what the recipe is rated as. So if I am looking for a recipe for chocolate cake I can easily sort the results to get the recipes with the highest ratings and the most ratings. Another benefit I've found is user comments. While looking over the recipe I can look at the comments that were submitted and benefit from their past experience so recipe turns out better. For example if several of the comments said that the dish was too garlicy and I don't like garlic then I know to decrease the amount of garlic.
This is an incredibly useful Hydrocolloid Recipe Collection if you are interested in modernist techniques (so called molecular gastronomy).
Cool link! I've been wondering where to find more info about molecular gastronomy. Thanks.
Feeding America: The Historic American Cookbook Project is a lovely collection of online cookbooks.
About the project:
The Feeding America project has created an online collection of some of the most important and influential American cookbooks from the late 18th to early 20th century. The digital archive includes page images of 76 cookbooks from the MSU Library's collection as well as searchable full-text transcriptions. This site also features a glossary of cookery terms and multidimensional images of antique cooking implements from the collections of the MSU Museum.
Only a small portion of their content is free, but many cooks I know find the price of a subscription to Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Country well worth it. These are online cooking magazines, but the parent publishes the same content slightly edited in book form, so in many ways they are an online book. You can find recipes, technique advice embedded in the recipes, and product reviews. Because of the style of Cook's Illustrated, the recipes have been honed over and over again until you can be quite confident in them. I own the America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook, and find myself turning to the website at least as often as the book (and I don't personally pay for a subscription).
Also for online magazines you can find content from Bon Appetite and Gourmet (and others) at Epicurious. This is an entirely free resource. Cooks rate the recipes. I've had some successes here, but also some stunning failures.
In my mind- the difference between a cookbook and a site that collects recipes is that I can typically trust the recipes in a book. I assume that they have been tested and are more reliable than some random recipe that I run across in someone's blog.
As such- I use allrecipes.com more than any other cookbook. (Though The Joy Of Cooking is a close second) The recipes are user rated and I have built confidence that highly rated recipes will be successful. In fact- I have more confidence in a recipe rated 5/5 stars by 1000 people than I do in the recipes from my better homes and gardens cookbook.
I also expect more from online resources than I do from a physical cookbook. If I'm collecting recipes online I fully expect the resources to allow me to search by desired (and undesired) ingredients, scale servings, allow me to tag and categorize, and even create shopping lists.
Totally agree. I also do prefer (and use a lot) online recipes, but sometimes I simply love to have a whole coobook to read, just because.
That's why I've been asking about books instead of recipe sites. ;)
I don't enjoy reading large blocks of text on a computer screen. I wonder if there are cookbooks for e-readers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.899852
| 2010-08-31T14:29:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6428",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Kyle Macey",
"Matt",
"Matt Sieker",
"Michael Ratanapintha",
"OldCurmudgeon",
"Sobachatina",
"StarNamer",
"benbenbenbenben",
"carla",
"dolma33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"jampez77",
"stemann"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15574
|
How to remove the bitter taste from green bell pepper?
Green pepper has a more bitter taste than red or yellow pepper.
Are there tricks to remove or diminish this bitter taste? A special way of cooking, or adding a bit of sugar or something maybe?
You mean besides letting it ripen some more before picking it?
@Marti: I don't grow them, I buy them in the form seen on the picture. If I let them for too much time in the sun they just shrink. See also my comment to ElendilTheTall's answer.
Green peppers are green because they are unripe. Unripe fruits and vegetables are naturally more bitter and less sweet than ripe ones. By far the easiest/laziest path is to just use a red pepper. It's essentially the same food, just ripe.
Sugar won't really do anything to the bitterness other than mask it. Salt will. Khymos has written that in parts of Asia, unripe fruit is commonly eaten with salt, salty spices, or soy sauce. These are all excellent options for peppers, as they reduce the bitterness and enhance the taste.
Finally, cook at low heat if possible. Pan-fried peppers tend to be a fair shake bitterer than slow-grilled or oven-roasted peppers.
(P.S. Removing the skin obviously works as well - I personally prefer them unskinned, but if you want to skin them, have a look at this Chow video on it - it's simple to do, you just char the outside and shake it in a plastic bag.)
Also, the interior white part and skin (not the big obvious part, but the sort of interior skin of it) are rather bitter also. Remove it be sliding your knife carefully and parallel to your cutting board slowly and shallowly.
P.S. I should have been specific and said that salt doesn't actually eliminate the bitter compounds, but it does actually neutralize the bitter flavour - not just add another flavour on top of it. There's no chemical reaction in the food, but salt is known to interfere with the perception of bitterness in the mouth.
I tried the burn-the-skin, slow-cook, generous salt technique, it works well, thanks!
Much of the bitterness comes from the skin. The skin can be removed with a peeler, or by roasting the pepper until the skin starts to release.
The best thing is roast the pepper for 15-20' at high temperature then let it cool down (maybe cut it in half to speed up the process). Once cool it's supereasy to peel it.
If you put the roasted pepper in a paper bag, or a bowl covered in cling film as it cools, the steam will make it easier to peel.
Well, the obvious answer is to add a little sugar, though this probably won't make much difference to the actual pepper itself. If you don't want a bitter tasting pepper, why don't you just use a red or yellow one in the first place?
I live in Japan where red/yellow peppers are much more expensive.
I cook the pepper using olive oil and don't get that bitter taste. It also could be the combination of seasonings that I use with the olive oil. I have found that Mrs. Dash Tomato/basil/Garlic seasoning does wonders with the green bell pepper.
Cook the green peppers in water and add a some apple cider vinegar or lemon juice. Cook for about 5 minutes and then take them out of the water and stuff them as you usually would. I remove the insides and white skin on the inside of the peppers before boiling.
The question does not mention stuffing the peppers as a specific application. Does this generalize to general use?
If stuffing is a way to make them less bitter, then that's one solution.
I mistakenly bought a spaghetti sauce that had green peppers that overpowered the entire sauce. After reading some reviews about adding soy sauce to counteract the problem of too much green pepper, I realized I was out of soy. I added probably a Tbsp. of Teriyaki instead. It miraculously took the green pepper taste completely out of the sauce without adding a terriyaki taste! I Hope this helps someone. I was completely surprised.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.900270
| 2011-06-18T05:04:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15574",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carrie Lucas",
"Doris Castleton",
"Jane Westin",
"Joe",
"Judi",
"Judi ",
"Kathy Campbell",
"Kyle Pennell",
"Marti",
"Nicolas Raoul",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ThatGuyFromVienna",
"cam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81648",
"nico",
"user125733"
],
"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
}
|
73550
|
emulsifier and stabilizer equivalent to one yolk for frozen desserts
I want to make ice cream, sorbet and gelato without eggs. Momofuku's Christina Tosi's Milk Bar cookbook advocates for this and uses gelatin as emulsifier and stabilizer as well as glucose for thickening instead of the usual full eggs/yolks required by many other books (e.g. one of Ben & Jerry's bases, Ample Hills, Bi-Rite). [UPDATE: the excellent Hello My Name is Ice Cream by Dana Cree avoids using eggs in many of its recipes.]
Modernist Cuisine at Home for their nut butter gelatos also uses tapioca starch and xantham gum as stabilizers (as well as the nut butters themselves, I assume). ChefSteps uses locust bean gum, xantham gum and kappa carrageenan as stabilizers.
What is the equivalent of
one full egg, and
one egg yolk
in traditional custard/egg-based ice cream recipes in terms of
gelatin + glucose
tapioca starch + xantham gum
locust bean gum + xantham gum + kappa carrageenan
other emulsifier/stabilizer/thickener combinations?
There is no such thing as "the equivalent" of one yolk, because yolks and other emulsifiers are not the same thing, don't work the same way, and don't have the same results.
If you are trying to find out how much of a given emulsifier to use, either 1) use a recipe (the preferred way) or 2) find its description (for example in Lersch's book Hydrocolloids, CC lincensed) and see the range. Then work within that range. For xanthan, it is "0.25% thin running sauce, 0.7 - 1.5% thick sauces, 0.5-0.8% foams; [0.07-1%]". "Thin running sauce" is a good description of ice cream base, so you can go with that one as a starting point. You'll have to adjust by experimenting.
Also, no idea why Modernist cuisine advises both xanthan and starch at the same time, as they are both thickeners. They must have found out through experimenting that some ratio gives an optimal mouthfeel, so take advantage of all the work they have put into it and use that ratio. It is independent of any yolk use in other recipes. If it were just because of a "thickening power" (How would you measure such a thing? Any single-dimensioned measure will be inadequate for kitchen purposes), the mixture wouldn't make any sense.
as the tag suggests, no substitutions are equivalent, of course. however, I'm looking for approximations for what I understand is the role of eggs in frozen desserts - emulsification and stabilization (maybe also adding a bit of fat). are there any other roles it plays?
No, these are the roles. But you have to calculate the amount to use in terms of what is good for your chosen emulsifier, not in terms of what would be good for eggs.
that's why I'm asking about emulsifiers as well, so that I can turn recipes that call for a certain number of eggs or yolks into eggless recipes! :)
Again, you don't turn them by counting eggs. Pure cream gives you one mouthfeel. Eggs give you a second. Emulsifier A gives you a third. Emulsifier B gives you a fourth. And so on. There is no amount of emulsifier A which will make your recipe have the same mouthfeel as a recipe with yolks. You have to use an amount of emulsifer A such that the recipe has a nice emulsifier-A-based mouthfeel, not so little that it tastes like pure cream, and not so much that it tastes weird. This is completely independent of the amount of eggs you need to get a nice egg-based mouthfeel.
again, though, that's why I tagged this as a substitution question. no recipe is the same with a substitution - I think that's clear to anyone that substitutes ingredients - but recipes (frozen dessert or otherwise) seek to approximate traditional egg recipes with eggless ingredients. given that eggs have somewhat predictable behaviors (otherwise we wouldn't use them in recipes), I strongly suspect (I could be wrong) that there are general substitutions for their role is in a recipe (within a food category, at least), especially since many ice cream bases are similar.
There are no general substitution rates of emulsifier to eggs. Let's say that you have a recipe with a three eggs you like. Pick a relevant variable, like the kinematic viscosity ν, let your recipe have viscosity ν'. Calculate the amount X of xanthan which it takes to get the same amount of liquid to ν'. It doesn't mean that, if you have a second eggy recipe with six eggs, and add 2X xanthan to it, it will taste like the original second recipe. It also doesn't mean that it will taste good. Worse, it doesn't even mean that the original recipe will taste good with X xanthan in place of 3 eggs.
In fact, not even a second egg-based recipe with 3 eggs will have the same mouthfeel like the first one, unless it also uses the same technique, since how you incorporate the egg and into what you incorporate it changes the mouthfeel too. But that one is less of a concern with pure custards, which tend to follow the same technique. That gives the "predictable" results you references. But since the results of other thickeners are not comparable to the results of eggs, beside a general "mouthfeel gets smoother", you cannot really find a of conversion rate, much less a linear one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.900644
| 2016-08-29T20:47:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73550",
"authors": [
"arturomp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18726",
"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
}
|
116306
|
Difference between Thai ingredients ginza and galangal?
I have a cookbook from a Thailand cooking school for tourists that lists
1 Tbsp galangal chopped finely
and then
6-8 cm ginza, skin removed (substitute: old dull ginger)
I assumed from this recipe that they’re separate ingredients but in looking online I’ve found some few sources containing both terms and they seem to indicate they are the same ingredient.
Are they the same? Different? It’s difficult to find information on “ginza” as an ingredient, and much easier to find articles on galangal.
There are a whole bunch of things that are called galangal; any flavorful root that isn’t ginger or turmeric is going to be called “galangal” by somebody. But I’m not sure if “ginza” is more consistently specific.
Sounds to me like they might mean "ginger" and just had a guess at the spelling.
Can you post the whole recipe or suggest what the menu is at least we can guess what is it talking about.
@TomFenech good guess- I just added another part of the ginza line that suggests that they do differentiate between them!
@vasin1987 Good idea! It’s also a good recipe so at least it will be useful to someone at some point. I’ll try to make some time to transcribe the whole thing later this week, but afaik these are all the important parts now.
@arturomp you can also try to post it in original language too.
it's in English =/
Welcome to the extremely confusing world of rhizomes! Thai cuisine uses different rhizomes for curry pastes extensively, and naming of these is not at all consistent. For example, any of the following three roots might get referred to as "galangal":
Greater Galangal, also known as "Thai Ginger" or Kha
Lesser Galangal, also called Kha Tadang
Fingerroot, also known (confusingly) as Lesser Galangal, or Krachai
However, none of these appear to be commonly referred to as "ginza", or any word that could be poorly transliterated that way. However, I have found a handful of references to "ginza root" and they seem to always refer to greater galangal. So in the recipe that refers separately to "galangal" alongsize ginza, the second reference probably refers to either fingerroot or lesser galangal. I'd try fingerroot first, since it's more common.
Are there noticeable flavor differences between the different rhizomes, and if so, how might you describe them? When would a Thai chef use one or the other? For example, if you make a recipe with fingerroot, what sort of flavor notes could indicate that it might be worth seeking out lesser galangal (or greater galangal) instead?
That's a whole separate question. Feel free to ask it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.901139
| 2021-07-04T19:02:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116306",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"R.M.",
"Sneftel",
"Tom Fenech",
"arturomp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"vasin1987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91279
|
standard way to make crispy sweet potato fries?
I've been looking for a way to fry (not bake) sweet potatoes, maybe like the double-fry method for russet and russet-like potatoes, to get a crispy exterior.
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm having difficulty finding something for sweet potatoes (of any kind). I've consulted my cookbook library, and I haven't come across much. I've had mixed experiences with blog recipes, so I trust them less, but maybe this Munchies single-fry-from-frozen sweet potato fries article (which I will try this weekend) has some truth to it?:
Ingredients:
2 pounds large orange-fleshed sweet potatoes
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 cup plus 2 tablespoons cornstarch
Peanut oil, for frying
1 cup clubsoda or water Kosher or fine sea salt
Instructions:
Line a baking sheet with parchment paper and make enough room in the freezer for said baking sheet.
Peel the sweet potatoes, if desired, and cut them lengthwise into 1/4-inch-thick batons (fry shapes). Place them in a bowl with the
baking soda and 2 tablespoons cornstarch, and toss. Arrange the sweet
potatoes on the baking sheet in a single layer, making sure they are
not touching. Freeze them until rock hard, at least 3 hours. If making
fries later, transfer to a gallon-size zip-top freezer bag; they will
keep frozen for up to 2 weeks.
Pour the oil into a large, heavy pot, preferably a Dutch oven, that's fitted with a deep-fry thermometer to a depth of 2 inches. Set
the pot over medium heat and begin gently warming the oil to 375ºF.
In a large bowl, whisk together the remaining 1 cup cornstarch and the club soda. Stack several layers of brown paper on a baking sheet.
When the oil reaches 375ºF, drop a handful of sweet potatoes into the cornstarch mixture and coat evenly. Lift them from the bowl,
letting any excess drip into the bowl, and carefully add them to the
oil. Fry, stirring with a spider so they do not stick to the bottom of
the pot, until deep golden brown and cooked through, about 8 minutes.
Using the spider, transfer the fries to the brown paper to drain.
Immediately season with salt. Repeat with the remaining sweet
potatoes, returning the oil to 375ºF between batches.
I'm looking for validation or refutation of the instructions of that article or, better yet, tried methods from people here that result in crispy sweet potato fries.
Why fry? With sweet potatoes and their sugar content, baking allows the sugar to crisp up and brown?
for sure! at the same time, as with many, many foods, why not fry? ;) (I know, because they can get soggy, but that's why I wanted there to be some knowledgeable, informed record - not random blogs - as a resource somewhere about frying sweet potatoes)
the answer to an unrelated question I asked may be the answer: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121067/what-makes-fries-oven-fries/121068#121068
Freezing fries opens up their texture and makes them more fluffy. This is helpful for regular fries or sweet potato fries.
Sweet potatoes have too much sugar and not enough starch to crisp up on their own. The only crispy sweet potato fries I have ever made- or eaten- were coated in starch to provide the crispiness.
While I haven't tried this exact recipe- I haven't used club soda for example- it has all the right steps and looks like it would work.
The above recipe is valid but tedious. Try recipe below without the freezing part. Sweet potatoes do need a coating for crispness to replicate the double fry method achieved with potatoes. This recipe is for 2 pounds of sweet potatoes. If making more, make more soda bath as needed.
The simpler method is to only peel and cut them when you are ready to fry, making sure oil gets to 375. Cut them cross wise, rather than length-wise. The "shorter" fries will crisp better. Try for thinner as well, rather of steak-fry sizes.
After cutting, put them in batches in a bowl that contains 1 cup cornstarch and 3/4 cup cold club soda. The soda prevents caking. Lift out, let excess drain off and place them on a wire rack (preferably over sink or deep pan) to further drain and stay air dry, while you complete the other batches.
Once all coated, fry in 375 oil in small batches for 8 minutes, stirring them around to evenly cook, then transfer to paper towel lined tray. Wait for heat to come back to 375 before proceeding and continue until done. If making a lot, you can keep the previously cooked fries hot in a low oven on a baking sheet while completing frying.
After complete, transfer fries to bowl with salt and spices to coat. Stronger spices like cayenne or chili along with salt usually enhance flavor of the sweet tasting fries.
If you haven't tried the freezing step for fries you really should. It does take more advanced prep, of course, but the resulting texture is so much better.
I was watching America's Test Kitchen last night, and for oven fries they also used cornstarch ... but they used regular water and microwaved it first to make a paste
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.901401
| 2018-07-26T17:25:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91279",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"Thomas",
"arturomp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"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
}
|
68852
|
What are the four cheeses generally used in"four-cheese" pizzas?
In common consumer pizza, microwave and bake-at-home pizzas are often advertised as four-cheese pizzas. What are these four cheeses, traditionally? Do different brands use different mixes, or does everyone stay about the same? How are these cheeses traditionally mixed, in what fashion?
What do you mean by "traditionally"? Whose tradition?
Excellent point— Any commercial bake-at-home pizza that claims to be "four-cheese." I was asking if there was a tradition at all.
They all seem to use different cheeses depending on the brand.
The most consistent cheese is definitely mozzarella, which makes sense as it's the default cheese on most pizzas.
Second to that is some sort of hard grating cheese like Parmesan or Asiago... which also makes sense as it's a traditional pizza condiment.
Other Italian cheeses also seem popular like fontina and provolone
But non-Italian cheeses like cheddar certainly show up.
Below are some examples. I don't recommend any of these products, they just came up in web searches and specifically describe which four cheeses they use.
Amy's uses: Fontina, provolone, Parmesan, mozzarella:
Frontera uses: Mozzarella, white cheddar, smoked provolone, asiago.
California Pizza Kitchen uses: Mozzarella (apparently more than one kind), fontina, gouda
Lean Cuisine uses: low fat mozzarella, Parmesan, asiago, romano
The Gouda on the California Pizza is intriguing.
As others have noted, there is no standard.
Pizza's nominally Italian it would make sense to stick to the Italian cheeses or at least start with them. And there's no point if you cannot taste the distinction between them, so why not go for cheeses that have distinct personality. Finally, while you can mix them evenly, also consider spreading them in clumps so that each bite has a bit different flavor.
As an example, one could use mozzarella for the base, then scatter chunks of gorgonzola, tallegio, and smoked provolone. You can use big chunks--the size of a postage stamp and maybe 1/3 as thick--because these cheese all melt well.
If the cheeses are of equal character your starting point could be to use about equal amounts of these four by weight. For example, 125g of each of the above four would suffice for an entire 11x14", 27x35cm thin pizza (the pizza size pictured, though its only half a 4-cheese). Alternatively you could skip one of these soft cheeses and instead just cover the thing with a grated hard cheese, parmesan (a bit sour) or pecorino romano (tangy).
Moving a bit further beyond your question, when making a 4-cheese sauce for pasta one example formula would be 2 parts gorgonzola, 1 part tallegio, 1 part parmesan, and 1 part ricotta. 100g total cheese melted in 200g cream would be two servings or so.
Hello Swiss Frank, and welcome! I know that our site can be a little confusing to new users, but we have a pretty strong rule here that we don't answer questions of the "what should I put on my pizza" type, because they produce unredable long lists of personal favorites. After you went to the trouble of posting an answer, We can let your suggestions pass as an example illustrating the "there is no standard" part, but I removed the "I think you wanted to know what to put on your pizza" sentence, because it steers the question (and possibly the next person who answers) in the wrong direction.
yes first-time poster and apologies. I edited to make it "rules of thumb" instead of "what I'd do."
@SwissFrank that aside, the pizza looks really good even without the sauce.
Thanks for taking the time to edit your answer. We look forward to more contributions from you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.901794
| 2016-05-06T22:53:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68852",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Paulb",
"Sam Weaver",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Swiss Frank",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107819
|
Whipped cream from milk powder
Recently I saw a video that shows powdered milk can be whipped with cold water to make topping for cakes.
I did a research on Google and yes, some articles/blogs said that it can be whipped. I actually tried myself using half and half powdered milk and whipped it with a hand mixer but it didn’t work, running like normal milk.
So I suppose not any type of milk works. Anyone has idea about that? I’d appreciate very much.
P.S.: Sorry for my English.
There are methods that whip very cold (up to semi-frozen) low-to-no-fat UHT milk to a whipped cream consistency using an immersion blender with the whipping disk. The key factors are temperature and fat content, for both, the lower the better.
I would not recommend using this product for a cake, because the stability is quite limited1. Topping a dessert and serving it immediately is fine, any kind storage is not.
I would expect that a non-fat milk powder in cold water works just as well and I vaguely remember my mom doing something along that line a few decades ago.
1 Some sources suggest adding instant gelatine powder for stabilization, but as I have never tried it, I can’t confirm how well it works.
Whipped cream is a fat-based foam which forms when the tiny fat globules in cream coalesce. For this to happen, the lowest needed proportion of fat is 30%, but more is better. If you want to have a powdered product with which to make whipped cream, you have to buy powdered cream. Whipped milk won't work for that.
Milk can also create protein-based foams, as mentioned in Stephie's answer. They don't behave like whipped cream though. I don't know how feasible is to make them from powdered milk, and what the exact process will be - after your comment, this is likely to be what you are seeing. To get it, you would indeed have to use the exact process they are suggesting, with the proper amount of fat, and you will still not end up with whipped cream.
No, they used non-fat dry milk. I actually found the link of the product : https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Instant-Nonfat-Dry-Milk-25-6-oz/10415722. There’s even a recipe of creamy whipped topping at the back of the bag. Unfortunately I can’t find that brand where I live
I expanded the answer to be more informative and to cover foams which are not whipped cream.
I know with the amount of fat (non fat actually) in dry milk, we can’t never obtain something that is as fat as cream. So I should have called them whipped topping instead of whipped cream to avoid confusion. The idea in my question is to make something that can substitue whipped cream to cover the cake and is not fat with just one ingredient. Indeed, I saw one youtuber used that whipped milk to decorate the cake.
I would say the problem lays in what you understand as "whipped cream". First, yes you can beat the powdered milk to creamy consistency. The caveat - it's cream not Whipped cream.
Even making whipped cream from milk would require to churn the milk into cream (so beat out a lot of water and leave 30% fat content) and then WHIPPING the result.
Here are few things you can try:
Make half a cup of milk from powdered milk. Boil with 1/5 cup of sugar and vanilla sugar. Let to cool. Meanwhile beat/whipp 1/8 of a cup of soft margerine (or butter) until it get fluffy. Combine with cooled milk. At the end add 2 cups of powdered milk.
Make milk from powder with very cold water (even ice cubes if you have blender). Freeze that. Mix Caseine and flavour of your choosing (if vanilla don't add vanila extract but vanilla sugar). Add xanthan or guar AND gelatine (you can use powdered puddings or protein ice cream powders). Put in blender/mix and mix for 20 minutes (or until creamy consistency).
YOu can make it more "whipped" but that require freezing the rezult and then whipping with very areating tool. And it stay whipped for a short time as it get warmer.
Whipped milk into a whipped cream consistency is possible and often described as something like “diet cream”. Lots of “dieting communities” are sharing recipes like that.
@Stephie I had in mind only milk. So without any addtion of gelatin or xanthan. So even if somoene is whipping it from milk they are really turning milk into cream (I assume one of the steps is removing extra water).
Please see my answer, no removal of water necessary. It works without stabilizer, but will keep only for something between ten and thirty minutes. Speaking from experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.902113
| 2020-04-22T22:10:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107819",
"authors": [
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Stephie",
"Sushi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83745",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107837
|
Can you sub collagen protein for whey protein isolate in baking?
I have Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides Unflavored, which is 90% protein (9g protein per 10 g serving).
The whey protein isolates I've seen are also approximately 90% protein. Because I already have the collagen, I'd like to substitute it for whey protein isolate in recipes for gluten-free baked goods. I've searched this topic online and am coming up blank. I have yet to find a GF baked recipe that uses collagen in the same way that they're using the WPI. Anyone out there have any experience/knowledge with subbing collagen for the isolate? Thanks for the help, Mary
Note: I am specifically asking about isolate, not just whey protein.
I'd be concerned with collagen's high glycine, proline and hydroxyproline content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collagen Aminoacetic acid, AKA glycine, isn't even chiral, and hydroxy proline is a post translational modification. Your collagen Was might behave very differently from the more balanced whey product.
What is the whey protein for in your recipes? Are you using it as an emulsifier, for texture or simply to increase the protein content of the result?
I would be concerned because of food science sources insisting that, when collagen melts at 69 C, it becomes gelatine. But I don't know how the commercially extracted collagen relates to the collagen in meat, so I find the question very interesting and hope that somebody will be able to answer it.
Collagen is not used for its protein substance but for it's gelling capability. If you substitute with whey protein you'll probably lose a lot of texture.
Do you have any example recipes where whey protein isolate is used? I bake extensively with whey protein isolate (https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/101137/54812), and also have collagen peptides available to test.
Referring to whey protein, not specifically whey protein isolate, Carolyn Ketchum writes as follows: "I do not recommend using collagen peptides or collagen protein powder as a replacement for why or egg white protein....the baked goods always become quite gummy and difficult to cook through." Ultimate Guide to Keto Baking
I do not know scientifically what the differences are when used in baking, but I have used collagen hydrosylate as a replacement for WPI in keto baking. I cannot tolerate dairy, so I have had no choice, and cannot compare the results directly. I saw the Bulletproof Blog using collagen hyrosylate in some recipes (which deflate), and there were no adverse textural results, so I have been adding it for extra protein into just about everything I bake now. I too have searched repeatedly online, and no one seems to have answered this for the general public.
I have a keto baking book and it states you can substitute with collagen powder or peptides.
Hi @user85464 and welcome to the Stack! This answer looks helpful. But a citation and some more details (is the substitution 1-to-1? are there any possible drawbacks?) would improve it. Thanks.
This is the start of a very good answer! I would love to see it fleshed out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.902450
| 2020-04-23T19:16:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107837",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"NSGod",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"rumtscho",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107695
|
Gotham Steel Pans
I purchased two Gotham Steel 9 and 1/2” pans. I use an induction cook top. This was a match made in hell. Didn’t realize that I needed an interface between the cooktop and pan. What would be the best direction to take?
Are you certain you got steel pans, I see they also sell titanium pans? do magnets work on your pans ?
Your best bet is to return the pans for ones made with iron that will work with your cooktop.
It's possible to use a pan that does not have magnetic steel on an induction cooktop, but it requires as you note an interface - meaning, a piece of magnetic metal that will heat up and transfer heat to the pan. This won't be nearly as efficient as a pan that is magnetic; so this is not recommended when possible to avoid. I'd try to return it for a new pan that does work.
When buying a pan, first look for the induction compatible symbol, such as this one:
That symbol means the manufacturer claims it is compatible; it's not a guarantee, of course, nobody is checking them, but it's a first start - and gives you more solid footing to do the return if it doesn't work.
Second, if you're shopping in person, bring a magnet with you. Note how well the magnet sticks to the pan. If it sticks immediately, then it's great; if it weakly sticks, then it might work - but may not be as efficient (I had a pan when I bought my cooktop that did have weak magnetism, but only worked about half the time - the sensor that determined the pan size didn't see the pan half the time; had to give that one away).
Third, make sure you're looking at the right kind of pan. Induction won't work well with a pan with a narrow base - like many woks - as the size of contact surface determines how well it heats. There are woks that can work with an induction stove, but it's very different from how they work on a gas stove. Wider bottom base is better for induction.
Finally, when you get the pan, see how quickly it heats up. Compare it to a pan you know works well. That will tell you if it's performing well - it should boil water quickly, for example.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.902693
| 2020-04-18T17:12:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107695",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76908
|
What is the white goo in the middle of some hard-boiled egg yolks?
My wife made some deviled eggs today, but found a surprise inside some of them after they were cooked. Right in the middle of the yolks was a tiny bit of some white goo, very different in color and consistency of the surrounding yolk.
What is this stuff? Was it safe to eat? We ended up tossing those eggs out because we had no clue.
UPDATE: my wife had taken a picture
And you didn't happen to take a picture before dumping them? Such a pity! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I see you already took the [tour], if you want to learn more, check out our [help].
Alas, no. Thought about it, but not enough to actually do so. There are more eggs from that package, so if we get any more, I'll post a picture.
imho this is the most delicious point to eat them - not quite hardboiled, not runny enough to dribble down your arm.
This is so called white yolk, aka latebra, present in any egg, with slightly higher protein content. Its precise function is unknown; it is believed to be a center of the egg development. Perfectly safe.
The site you link makes a distinction between white yolk and the latebra, with the latebra being a particular mass of white yolk, not a term for all white yolk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.902894
| 2016-12-29T18:04:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76908",
"authors": [
"IslandUsurper",
"RozzA",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53218",
"user2357112"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68913
|
What's the difference between tangzhong and levain?
I am going to start making sourdough bread but there are recipes using both tangzhong and starter (levain). Not sure why both needed and how it will achieve given results.
Tangzhong (water roux) and levain are two fundamentally different things.
The roux does not contain any leavening element, it is simply a method to bind water, effectively increasing the amount of water that can be used in a dough and therefore making a light, soft, moist bread.
A levain (sourdough) is the part that is responsible to create the "lift" due to the CO2 of the yeasts' metabolism and, in case of rye breads, deactivate some enzymes that hinder the development of good bread.
You can leave out the roux, but should not leave out the leavener, you need sourdough and / or yeast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.903125
| 2016-05-10T06:24:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68913",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67631
|
Can you substitute white wine with rose?
My recipe calls for white wine, but I only have rose. my rose is dry.
Will this work? It's paired with mustard and tarragon for a steak
If the rose is dry this should work. The combination of flavours you've listed should go well with a dry wine
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.903218
| 2016-03-20T23:30:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67631",
"authors": [
"Courtney Lyons",
"Daniel Gately",
"Ilina Momcheva",
"Polly",
"Rebecca Bader",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162375"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46526
|
choosing a red food color for red velvet cake
Are there any tell tell signs to choosing a red food colouring for red velvet cakes. Having just whipped one up, mine is sadly brown despite a bottle and half (45ml) of red food colouring.
Also can too much colouring affect the final colour the same as too little colouring?
Some red coloring has an aftertaste to it -- adding a ton of it might make some people sick. (it makes me violently ill; I have to avoid all cakes w/ red icing)
If you are going the colouring route, have you tried powdered food colours? They keep their colour better than liquid colours.
Traditional red velvet cake does not use food coloring. Edit: Derp. Jolene beat me to it.
Originally, red chocolate cake did not have artificial coloring. The red (not nearly as red as we're used to now) came from natural (not Dutch processed) cocoa (acidic), plus another acidic ingredient (buttermilk or vinegar). The double-dose of acid reacts with the anthocyanins (antioxidants that are red, even more so in the presence of acid) in the cocoa and the alkali baking soda to create a subtle reddish tone.
Try an old-style recipe, with natural cocoa and additional acid. Then if you must make your cake redder, it shouldn't take a bottle and a half of #40 red. Dutch processed cocoa will not give you the red effect, and it will cause your cake to be much darker. The flavor will be fine, but it won't be red and it will be difficult to dye red. Using dye to color a very dark brown (think Devil's Food) cake is going to require (as you have apparently seen), A LOT of dye. There comes a point that you're just going to cause anyone who eats the cake with their hands to have red fingers.
As far as your cake with a bottle and a half of food coloring? I'd quit trying to achieve a redder tone. You may or may not be able to taste the color in the cake, but you're going to see bright red tongues and possibly other weirdness.
This is an article about the chemistry of red chocolate and red velvet cakes: Chenected
Oh, and there is no such thing as too little artificial coloring for the sake of flavor, you can even skip it entirely. Your cake won't be as red, but it will taste just fine.
The unrelated addition of “red” to a chocolate cake’s name initially arose due to the chemical reaction of acid in unsweetened bar chocolate and natural (non-alkalized) cocoa powder in conjunction with an acidic liquid (generally buttermilk or sour milk) with an alkali (baking soda), which reveals the red anthocyanin, a water-soluble vacuolar pigment. (In contrast, chocolate cakes made with baking powder and a non-acidic liquid turn out blackish in color.) Near the beginning of the 20th century, these chocolate cakes became known as “red cake,” “red regal cake,” “red feather [as in light-as-a-feather] cake,” “feather devil’s food cake,” and “red devil’s food cake.” However, their slightly reddish-dark brown hue was quite different from and much duller than food coloring-enhanced red velvet. - Tory Avey History of American cakes
Hmm, I always thought it was beetroot that did the colouring originally?
@setek Beetroot added to it. Beets were the precursor to Red #40. The subtle redness caused by the acids reacting to the anthocyanins was neat, so the cakes became redder and redder. They added beetroot before artificial dyes were invented. See edit to answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.903295
| 2014-08-19T20:33:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46526",
"authors": [
"Aysia Simpson 11",
"Hannah Noffert",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joshua Tryon",
"Keith Stratton",
"Linda Malik",
"Marco Pelaez",
"Megasaur",
"Ming",
"Preston",
"Sean O Mahony",
"Shereba Stewart",
"Tiffany Bischoff",
"Wasab E",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"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
}
|
35777
|
what is the correct consistency for cream cheese frosting
I'm having an issue making decent cream cheese frosting.
I have a recipe that says to use:
1 pound (450g) cream cheese, at room temperature
4 oz (110g) unsalted butter, at room temperature
2-3 cups (240-360g) powdered sugar, sifted
a few drops of vanilla extract
and then to
To make the frosting, beat the cream cheese and butter together until smooth. Slowly add the powdered sugar (do this on low speed to avoid a dust cloud) and mix until light and silky. Add the vanilla.`
The problem I have is that it comes out way too runny to frost anything with. I've tried adding a bit more powdered sugar and it still maintained it's runny state. I'm using the K paddle for my Kenwood mixer to mix the frosting.
I've put the icing in the fridge for the moment to see if it will harden up a little. Is this standard or am I doing something wrong?
EDIT:
So after putting the cream cheese in the fridge for a few hours, it still didn't harden up, just turned a cold runny goo.
One thing I have noticed is that the supermarkets in the UK sell "Soft Cheese" as opposed to "Cream Cheese" which makes me think there is a difference between cream cheese and soft cheese. Philadelphia in the UK is sold as Soft Cheese, and many UK based recipes that include a cream cheese frosting often include lemon juice.
It sounds like there is something you have not mentioned.... cream cheese is not very much softer than butter. There should be nothing "runny" in this recipe. The canonical cream cheese is the Philadelphia brand. Is this what you are using?
I used Philadelphia and a supermarkets own brand cream cheese. all the ingredients were at room temperature (which being British summer time is around 25C at the moment).
Let us know how it comes out of the fridge... In my experience cream cheese frosting can get more "gooey" than buttercream if it warms up while beating.
I had exactly this problem a couple of weeks ago. I ended up putting the frosting in te freezer for about ten minutes. This got me enough frosting to do two or three cupcakes, then it got runny again. :/
Ok so after about 6 hours in the fridge, it's still rather runny. One thought... should I strain the water from the cream cheese before mixing with the butter?
@Jarede : there's water in the cream cheese? That doesn't sound right to me. American cream cheese is similar to chèvre in consistency. It's possible that the UK sell all of what Americans call 'farmer's cheese' as 'cream cheese'.
Sounds like the answer here is something that should be added to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca-nz
I was thinking that, but I think we need to find a definitive answer first
@Jarede You did say "Philadelphia in the UK is sold as Soft Cheese", and Philadelphia brand cream cheese is a canonical example of what "cream cheese" means in an American recipe.
My current favorite cream cheese frosting recipe comes from Thomas Keller's book Under Pressure - page 218. The proportions of the major ingredients include:
cream cheese: 100%, butter: 68%, sugar: 132%
Your recipe uses:
cream cheese: 100%, butter: 24%, sugar: 80% (using the maximum recommended amount).
It may be that you just need a lot more sugar (or more sugar and butter), or it may be that the cheese being sold in your part of the world is not the "cream cheese" we know of here in the USA.
Can you please explain your measurements? Is this like Bakers' Percentage, but using the cream cheese for 100%?
Some of us prefer it if our cream cheese frosting doesn't send us straight into a sugar coma, not to mention tasting of something other than pure, unadulterated sugar. Hence the perpetual quest for a dependable, minimally-sweet cream cheese frosting recipe. The issue is that the same exact recipe will sometimes work just fine, and will sometimes turn into a soupy mess.
Sometimes this happens to me too but not always, and I always use the same recipe! I just came across this post on Nigella's site. This seems to be an adequate explanation as to why it happens and how to avoid it.
http://www.nigella.com/kitchen-queries/view/Cream-Cheese-Icing-Turned-Runny/2531
Unfortunately occasionally cream cheese frosting does liquefy and this mainly comes from the liquid in the cream cheese mixing with the icing (confectioners') sugar and dissolving it, leading to a runny icing.
...
We would suggest reducing/omitting the lemon juice as this adds extra liquid - you could use finely grated lemon zest instead if you want to add a lemon flavour
...
There is a chance that the cream cheese was over beaten before the sugar was added [...] You could try making the frosting in a food processor, putting the sugar and cheese in together and whizzing for about 1 minute, until the ingredients are just combined.
We would also suggest using a recipe which contains part butter and part cream cheese. This is usually a bit more stable since the butter adds slightly more fat and is less likely to dissolve the sugar.
THE ONE FAILSAFE AND SIMPLE SOLUTION USING SAME RECIPE
I know this is an old thread but seems like no one has found the solution. I had the same problem for over 6 years, living in France and was very frustrated. Found this solution and I have no issues whatsoever now.
Beat butter and icing sugar together FIRST. You can add as much or as little sugar as you want to taste - this will not affect the result.
Beat the cream cheese in LAST. You cream cheese frosting will be delicious, not too sweet and totally pipe-able. You're welcome.
Hello SeeSeeCat. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
The way to do cream cheese frosting is to separately cream the butter and the cream cheese. Cream cheese tends to get runny if overmixed, while butter keeps on adding volume. So beat them separately and then combine. That way, you can arrange yourself on how "cheesy" you want your frosting to taste.
A fabulous cream cheese frosting recipe that stays firm enough to pipe. 125g butter at room temp, 150g cream cheese straight from the fridge (Must be full fat, not a reduced fat variety, my favourite being Philadelphia) 500g icing sugar.
Beat the butter till soft, add the cream cheese and beat briefly. Add the icing sugar and beat slowly until incorporated, then give a very quick blast with the beaters. Do not overbeat. The more you beat the softer it will become. Beat until you get it soft enough to pipe.
I use this recipe all the time to fill large cakes and also to pipe on to cupcakes. You can add flavour to it for example, vanilla seeds, orange or lemon zest, cinnamon etc
On the episode of Good Eats about Devil Food's cake, Alton Brown mentions that for cream cheese icing, the cream cheese must never have been frozen, which may result in the runny texture.
It's the proportions. I had a bad recipe as well and ended up with about 3 servings of the frosting when I was finished because of all the powdered sugar that had to be added. I eventually had to split the bowl and continue to add the sugar. My experience is for one 8 oz package of cream cheese, you need 1 stick of butter and about 3-4 cups of sugar and vanilla flavoring to taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.903624
| 2013-08-03T16:08:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35777",
"authors": [
"Antoinette Roddy",
"Basheer Phatan",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"CookingNewbie",
"Daniel Luttrell",
"Emanuel",
"Jarede",
"Jason",
"Jason Cheo",
"Joe",
"John Hancock",
"Kittoes0124",
"Martha M",
"Marti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sashwat Tanay",
"Scotti Moore",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Suraj Krishnan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98835"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71471
|
How do I boil down a gravy?
I'm following a recipe that required an hour of simmering, first 30 minutes covered, then 30 minutes uncovered. I guess I didn't get the simmer correct as by the end of the hour; the liquid should have boiled down into a thick tomatoey gravy. However, I still have a lot of liquid left. The sauce consists of chopped tomatoes, white wine and red wine vinegar.
How do I get down to a thick gravy without cooking for over two hours?
Please define "gravy", it means different things to different people.
That's a fair point, in this instance it would have been juices of a chicken, chopped tomatoes and a white white and red wine vinegar mix, so boiled down to a thick tomato sauce...
@Jarede can you put your sauce description in your question, too?
There are two ways to thicken gravy:
simmer down
Requires time, patience and a wide pot to get a large surface area for optimum evaporation. Simmering down results in very concentrated flavours (including salt, so be careful with salting in the beginning).
use a thickener
This is often something starchy like flour or corn / potato starch that binds the liquid. Note that the flavours won't be as concentrated, sometimes even a bit dulled by the starch.
So try your sauce and depending on the flavour level you have reached now, you should simmer longer, use starch or do both sequentially.
(If your guests are hungrily gnawing at the tablecloth already, whip out the starch, adjust the seasoning and serve asap ^_^)
+1 for mentioning the salt. I have ruined many a sauce that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.904177
| 2016-07-17T16:51:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71471",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Jarede",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47945",
"user2943160"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35866
|
Rice vs pasta and potatoes
Potatoes, pasta and boiled jasmin rice are all starch and do not taste much by themselves.
However I would not serve tomato sauce nor olives to the rice.
On the other hand I would not serve potatoes or pasta with soya sauce.
Why is that?
Also oven roasted potatoes may be good with ketchup and even mustard.
So oven roasting "transforms" the starch in the poatoes somehow.
Likewise frying the rice (pilaf) make it "fattier"/"heavier" than boiled rice and the range of what you can add to the rice increases. In this case fat is added but I think it is the "roasting" that is the main thing.
So to me it seems that there is some property of the starch. For lack of better words I will call this roastedness.
Roastedness(potatoes) > Roastedness(pasta) > Roastedness(rice).
Oven roasting or frying increases roastedness for all.
What is this property I call roastedness?
May pH have something to do with this?
Tomatoes are acid.
Rice is slightly acid.
Potatoes are slightly acid except for the skin which is alkaline. On total potatoes are therefore slightly alkaline?
Soya is alkaline.
Oven roasting or frying potatoes produces acrylamide which is alkaline?
Combining alkaline (bitter) and acid (sour) taste good.
Almost all foods, with rare exceptions like egg whites and sodium bicarbonate used for leavening, are acidic.
There is no property called "roastedness". It is true that when you roast potatoes, you get a roasted taste which is very unlike cooked starch taste (look up Maillard). But if you cook potatoes in water, you get nothing of this taste. And besides, this has nothing to do with the combination question, which is really cultural.
Also, the range of what you can add to pilaf rice is not increased. I cannot think of a food (except for a second starch, but this is a position many people disagree with, including most of my own family) which will taste bad with boiled rice, and the same holds for pilaf rice.
I simmer potatoes with soy sauce and butter regularly (yum), and there are plenty of cultures for which tomato and rice is not unheard of (American Mexican food has "Spanish rice", Japanese "omu-rice", for example).
Because you are from a specific country with his own culture.
It uis quite normal for example in Italy to have a Risotto with tomato sauce, olives and tuna maybe (and even capers).
It is also quite normal to have noodles (some of which which are exaclty the same type of weath as pasta) with soy sauce, in a soup or in a stir fry.
The properties of the roasting that you are talking about are not related to fat (not directly).
It may seems that the reason is the fat, but roasting involves fat and salt and maybe spices that give more taste, therefore making it more sutable to mix with other ingredients as the taste will not be lost.
You wouldnøt eat boiled potatoes with mustard because they will taste mostly of mustard, but with a roast you'll get a better balace of flavours.
But if in your culture that is an acceptable taste it will still be used.
So the final answer is definetely cultur based
Cultural bias may be part of the explanation but not all. You mention risotto. From my own experience I know that preparing the rice a la pilaf makes it "fattier" and therefore better suited for tomato sauce. Likewise oven roasted potatoes goes better with ketchup than boiled potatoes. So I think there is something with "fatty" that is the main point here. Potatoes are the most "fatty" followed by pasta and then rice.
As an extreme example: would you serve mustard to plain boiled jasmin rice? But oven roasted potatoes and mustard is ok.
@Andy, in Spain arroz a la cubana is boiled rice with tomato sauce alongside fried egg and banana. Cultural bias seems to stand up as the main answer.
I think the mustard issue has more to do with the mustard itself than with the potatoes or rice. Mustard is spice and therefore not suitable for a bland taste food like boiled rice, but better for roasted potatoes. It may seems that the reason is the fat, but roasting involves fat and salt that give more taste.
I would never put ketchup on scrambled eggs. But folks from the southern US often do. I would never eat grubs. In mexico, certain grubs are eaten in tacos. There are a myriad examples of cultural foodways.
@MaurizioIndenmark Except in the US, mustard on soft pretzels is quite common, and pretzels are bland. I think even that is cultural.
I am also completely behind the cultural hypothesis. Nothing of the examples listed here strikes me as an especially good or especially bad combination.
I just found a recepie for rice with mustard on the web!, and with that I conclude that you are right :-)
Part of the reason why mustard and jasmine rice would be weird is that jasmine rice is already flavored (with jasmine). I regularly put hot mustard and soy sauce rice.
I agree with everyone else that this is primarily subjective and cultural. Beyond that, the main factor is probably not flavor, but texture! It's easy to overlook, but we often have preferences (whether objective or subjective) for interactions of textures. The difference in texture between rice, pasta, and potatoes is much, much larger than the difference between their flavors.
Good point. But it seems tricky to find the logic behind our preferences for texture.
@Andy As I said, some of it is subjective as well. The point is that the question and other answer focus generally on flavor, and that may not always be what you're actually responding to. But there are objective parts, too. Variations in surface area and so on control how easy it is to coat things and deliver flavor. Thick sauces will tend to overwhelm little grains of rice but work great for bigger pieces of potato.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.904351
| 2013-08-08T06:15:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35866",
"authors": [
"Aliakbar Ahmadi",
"Andy",
"Anmol Mehrotra",
"Cascabel",
"Dylanotron",
"JasonTrue",
"John Bollinger",
"Maurizio In denmark",
"Me Too",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam",
"SourDoh",
"Usal",
"Zabir Al Nazi Nabil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84068",
"r00fus",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121241
|
What is the point of the "oven" step in seasoning pans?
Many or most sets of instructions on how to season cast iron and carbon steel follow these steps:
Clean
Get really hot on the stovetop
Apply a very thin layer of oil
Heat for a short time, then take off the stove
Put it upside down in a medium oven for an hour
Cool
Repeat if necessary
Examples of these instructions: cast iron dutch oven; carbon steel pan.
Thing is, I've seasoned more than a dozen pots and pans, both cast iron and carbon steel, including both seasoning from scratch and restoring damaged seasoning. I've never done the oven step, and haven't noticed any deficit thereby.
Am I missing something? Is the oven step necessary? What does it actually do?
There are many ways to season or re-season cast iron, and no one of them is the "right" way. If you have a technique that works for you, good. I do it a different way, and that works for me.
I season my carbon steel pan outside with a blowtorch. Works great and no smoke in the house. Even with the fan on full I'll get smoke in the house. There isn't really a top end temp for seasoning carbon steel afaik -- not one that you can achieve with a blow torch anyway. I use a temp gun to check that the pan is at the correct temp. The best way to do it is to use a pro stove with a strong fan and a wok hob. HOWEVER you'll want to be careful with thinner pans using the torch.
The primary benefit of seasoning in the oven, rather than on the stovetop, is that the sides of the pan are also heated. (Cast iron has low heat conduction, so the sides of the pan may take a long time to come up to temperature, if they ever do.) The degree of this advantage depends on your pan and cooking surface: large pans on small halogen elements won’t work as well as an oven, while small pans on large gas burners might do as well as in the oven.
Agreed on the stove type. It’s especially important when you have an electric stove. Gas burners have flames that can lick up the sides of the pan, but that doesn’t happen with electric
rumtscho’s answer deserves the tick far more than mine does.
For me, the oven simply works better than the stove. It is the stove that you can skip.
First, the heat. It is the same principle as with many foods. A pan heats quicker, but with more variability. An oven is slow and steady, and reaches equilibrium more easily - and it is much easier to control the equilibrium temperature. On a stove, especially empty pan, a low heat will not be enough to polymerize the oil, so it is tempting to turn up to high heat - but then you have to manage to not overheat it and either burn away the seasoning while it is happening, or produce a different reaction - I don't know which one it is, but I suspect it may be the non-rust iron oxide, from the looks of it.
Second, the layer thickness. If your oil layer is too thick, you don't get seasoning, you get a puddle of hot oil. If you continue heating that for too long, you get a thick crust of soft polymer that is prone to peeling off, instead of a thin layer that is well-stuck. A thin layer is optimal, but difficult to produce - the usual method of letting the oil spread by flowing (aided by tilting the pan) makes it too thick. Smearing it with a towel (paper or cloth) gives you a good thickness, but you get a bit of lint onto the pan, especially if the surface is rough, like cast iron. What works well is to cover the pan well with the tilting method, and then have the excess drip slowly when heated to low enough viscosity - which happens automatically during the upside-down seasoning in the oven.
Third, there is the "how to season the sides" problem that Sneftel covered.
Fourth, if you don't have a hob that is the exact same size as the pan, the high temperatures on the empty pan can easily cause warping, especially in thinner forged iron pans.
Fifth, seasoning on a stove is a very active process. You have to manage the heat, keep an eye out for an overheating (warping or fire risk), look for hot spots and possibly rotate the pan, and look out for oil pooling into an undesirable thick layer. In the oven, you set it and forget it.
In summary, the oven is simply the much friendlier way to do it.
At least as long as the pan fits in the oven... I have some cast iron pans with very long handles that just won't fit...
Everything already said looks great and valid in most situations.
To add just a few minor things:
Cast iron is particularly poor at heat conduction. So heat from a non-global source will definitely not heat the pan uniformly except by a "perfect storm" of coincidences that would be unlikely to repeat. Still may not be an issue as the range of temperatures you get in the stovetop pan may just be perfectly fine for polymerizing the oil you use. But if you find that not working for you regularly, the oven is a better bet as the source of heat is all around the pan. Certainly a single heating element in use gives directionality to that, and two still do as "top and bottom" is still not the same as "top/bottom, left/right, and front/back." The main desirable element is that instead of the pan's material having to spread the heat uniformly, which it won't, the air in the oven is meant to, which it will. Additionally, a heat source with high temp 6"-8" away diffusing into the air that surrounds the whole pan will not create temperature disparities in the seasoning surfaces like a hot burner directly touching some portion of the pan will. So more regularity in the work being done giving you, the non-professional seasoner, a much better shot at great seasoning. The placing of a sheet pan below the pan to catch drippings will also diffuse the heat from the source.
The oven seems in practice to be a much slower method which almost certainly allows for a more "even" or "consistent" seasoning layer. Since thinner layers/spots are not as helpful and would wear more quickly, hence requiring re-seasoning sooner, less variance on the thin side seems a good thing. Thicker layers seem like they'd be more prone to be, or have at least on their "tops" the soft polymerization mentioned (that sticky, gooey, hard to clean mess one gets with baking dishes and pans, especially sheet pans). A more consistent layer without that happening also seems desirable. So as the oven seems likelier to not have either to the extent stovetop seasoning might, it seems the option for a longer-lasting seasoning.
That said, I have never seasoned a pan after the first seasoning. I don't have to. If I could say why for sure with science to back it up, I'd've led with that, but I don't have to. The last pan I bought I didn't even do an initial seasoning. I do cook with oil and it seems my stove burners are just the right heat for the contents of the pans and oil used (butter or veggie oils of various types) to re-season in use. I don't do anything out of stovetop cooking, so pan-to-oven, no pan-to-grill or vice versa, nothing "foodie" with them. No using it as a watery casserole cooker or using strange oils. No making cornbread or similar things. Just frying things up. So my usage, which has limited range, may be the key. I also use metal spatula-type tools, rigid ones, not flex ones, and their scraping may keep peaks ("tops" when mentioned above) from being a thing by scraping them down constantly. And so the end result might be that the basic layer is not affected much and thin places passed over, allowing them to be thickened by the "cooking seasoning" happening when you fry with oil. Completely experiential, not applicable to someone with a more varied, and perhaps waterier, range of cooking materials perhaps, but maybe. I clean with soap and water, with a cloth, usually do not need to scour (the metal tools already have, broadly, except for the sides). I realize this does not seem to directly address "why oven step" but it does. Due to the contents in the pan while under heat (oil spread everywhere, meat or veggies in place, working them now and then probably mostly just keeps the oil present spread evenly, nothing trying to take the oil's place on the surface, the metal tools scraping away peaks before they form enough to turn nasty and useless... all these things seem very much like they accomplish the even application of heat an oven step does.
I believe, though cannot say scientifically, that excess oil in places, created by foods that reach a point that they start to constantly exude oil and so have a pool that spreads away, but is constantly replenished so is effectively always present, but not heating up completely as the hotter bits run away and are replaced by cooler oils exiting the product, causes local hot spots under them which may cause that spot's polymerized material to be destroyed, or harmed toward ruin, and thereby fail, leading to rust being able to form under it and/or it flaking off. So pan-to-oven with a steak might be great for the steak, but not so much for the pan but not really be generally recognized as a problem. Making a cornbread or bread in the pan might do much the same, except via insulating the surface allowing temperature to rise to high for the seasoning across the covered surface. Not a problem when making a pancake (seems like that'd be more of an issue of moisture seeping into microfractures in the polymerized surface), but bake something on stove or in the oven for 10-20+ minutes and the insulating effect might be important. This harkens back to the steeper temperature profile stovetop seasoning must surely have compared to the shallower profile an oven step provides. Just to emphasize the more even, "gentler" if you will, heating in an oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.904816
| 2022-08-03T23:10:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121241",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"Wastrel",
"arne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95101",
"jcollum"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125195
|
Why would a 4 layer cake fall over?
It should have been perfect. A 6 inch white birthday cake. 4 layers, fully/correctly cooked, domes sliced off. It was encased in a correct Italian buttercream (sugar cooked to 248°F) with a strawberry "jam" layer that was set with agar powder. The cake itself was pretty even (squared off), at least on the outside
I served it at a party in a kitchen that might have been as warm as 85 degrees (lots of people, no AC), but I don't think anything melted. The cake was tall, but not excessively so.
We cut a few slices, and then when I turned around the upper disks of cake fell off!
Does a 4 layer cake need dowels then? And then be cut by someone who knows what they're doing?
Or is heat actually to blame?
Did it still taste okay after the collapse ?
Agar agar sets around 35-40C and melts again at 80-90C so if "85 degrees" is Centigrade and not Fahrenheit then the heat may have contributed
@postmortes : if it was 85°C, they wouldn’t have noticed, as they’d be dead (185°F).
@Joe oops! My bad, I misread it as the cake being a hot part of the kitchen! Still, I guess I should have realised at 85C that would mean an oven or so... :-/
"6 inch birthday cake" means what, here? - 6 inch diameter and 4 layers tall seems likely to be unstable, unless the layers were quite thin. 6 inches thick (so roughly 1-1/2" layers, including jam?) If so, how big horizontally?
I’ve had this happen because I :
Did not use dowels
Put too much pudding in between the layers
Had put the cake on a non-level table
The cake started ejecting the upper layer (there were only two) of the cake, especially when the slices had already been cut.
It’s possible that you had something similar happen with your jam layer, and a warm day would make it more likely to loosen up and flow better. If your cake layers were domed and hasn’t been leveled, that could also explain why it didn’t happen until after you cut the cake.
When I do 4 layers, I double barrel it and put a center dowel just to make sure it's as stable as can be. I always keep them refrigerated until about an hour before it will served. That always has worked for me.
What do you mean by "double barrel"? I haven't seen the phrase before in a cake context.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.905983
| 2023-09-09T23:06:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125195",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"postmortes",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121936
|
My eclair filling is very runny. How do I make it thick enough?
I tried this eclair recipe. I bought a pastry bag with a set of nozzles (never used it) and embarked on it. My nozzles were a bit tiny, it turned out, but the real problem was the filling. Boy, was it a mess! It was incredibly runny, it spilled over the nozzle, the bag, it was all over the place. But I followed the guidelines properly: 200 g of butter and 300 g of condensed milk. My guess is that her butter and/or milk were fattier so it was thicker. I could cool it beforehand, but she insisted on that room-temperature aspect of it. How was I supposed to make it thick enough? You can't just mix in some flour, obviously. Gelatin? I doubt its feasibility in this case (you need to dissolve it in some hot liquid, then you have to cool it...)
(in case you're wondering how this fatty, eggy recipe conforms to my new liver-friendly diet, it doesn't! I had had a plan to try making eclairs before my doctor advised me against that type of food, I wasn't going to cancel it ♂️. Sorry, liver, you have to take it on the chin!)
What's the ambient temperature in your kitchen? It might be that you have a much warmer kitchen than the recipe expects.
Are you asking about how to fix the mess or how to prevent it next time? I have an answer for the latter, but am not sure if the current one is fixable.
@Stephie feel free to share it
What brand of condensed milk did you use?
Please can you put the recipe in the question? It really isn’t fair to expect people to watch a whole video.
@Spagirl the video recipe itself doesn't have a separate recipe list and has no narration. It's easy enough though to look in the description for the time markers for just the filling parts.
@borkymcfood so, it would be easy enough for the OP to put that pertinent information into their question rather than rely on an ephemeral link.
@Spagirl I watched the filling part of the video. The filling is indeed just creaming 200 g of butter and adding 300 g of condensed milk, as already stated in the question, and that's all there is to it - just a standard condensed-milk-buttercream. The rest of the video seems to be irrelevant to the filling itself.
This seems to be a mistake in the recipe. I have made a condensed-milk-buttercream a couple of times, and my recipe uses a 3:4 ratio, not 2:3, and I don't even think it was a good pipeable consistency, I used it as a frosting.
So, to repair it, cream more butter (I would go for maybe 100 g more), then add the too-runny filling and continue beating. For next time, use more butter or less condensed milk from the beginning.
The room temperature requirement is indeed correct, especially for the butter.
Update I noticed on another post of yours a picture of the products you are using. You caught your can of condensed milk too on the picture, and its label stated the food standard it fulfuills, the Russian ГОСТ 31688/212. This standard happens to be available online, and it prescribes "no more than 26.5% water, 43.5 to 45.5 sucrose, no less than 8.5% fat, no less than 34% protein in the milk dry mass". The West seems to use a different standard for condensed milk, and I found a FAO standard that describes a sweetened condensed milk with "Minimum milkfat 16% m/m, Minimum milk solids-not-fat(a) 14% m/m, Minimum milk protein in milk solids-not-fat(a) 34% m/m".
This makes me think that you should try making the recipe with condensed cream, which has a minimum of 19% milkfat in the Russian standard. I am not certain that this is the problem, since I haven't seen the condensed-milk-buttercream variant in Western recipes, but it is worth a shot.
Also, make sure to beat the butter fluffy enough before adding the condensed milk or cream. At least 5-6 minutes with a good stand mixer, or longer if your mixer is ancient or does not come from a brand with good reputation. It should be visibly white, fluffy and voluminous, maybe watch some videos on buttercream - some intended to show the technique in detail, not the one with your recipe.
Why does it have to be room-temperature? It's easier to work with when it's cooled a bit
Why could that ratio work for her? It's thick in the video. Or did she cheat?
@SergeyZolotarev When creaming the butter, that's not true. You need it to be room temperature for it to whip up. If you start it cold, you have to wait until the energy from the beaters has warmed it a bit, and even then, the result is not optimal. It isn't easier either, the mixer really struggles with cold butter, even if you precut it.
@SergeyZolotarev It's unlikely that it was an intentional case of cheating, more likely it was a simple mistake. We cannot know who made it - the presenter, the producer, or somebody else. It's normal for this kind of clickbait video to have low quality recipes anyway.
@SergeyZolotarev actually, when I wrote the answer, I assumed that you got a proper emulsion, just too runny. Can you confirm that, or did the emulsion split?
@rumtscho that’s what I thought immediately - can happen so fast if one isn’t adding the liquid slowly to really fluffy butter.
What do you mean by "getting a proper emulsion"? There was no splitting, but I added the milk more or less in one go (what's the difference)
@SergeyZolotarev a split emulsion is where you have two visibly different phases mixed with each other. See for example this picture, https://i.sstatic.net/vQr63.png. The proper emulsion is on the left.
Yes, it's what resembles my filling, no splitting
So what butter-milk ratio do you recommend for piping?
@SergeyZolotarev 4:3 is what I have used. Also, see the update to my answer.
It's impressive you noticed that!
Do you think it would make sense to whip after I add condensed milk? Is it crucial?
@SergeyZolotarev yes, it is necessary to whip after you add the condensed milk.
Wait, then why did the woman in the video whipped her butter first and then added the milk? What's the difference? Is it easier to whip with or without condensed milk?
In step 1, you have to whip the butter very well - that's called creaming, you can look up longer and science-y explanations of it. In step 2, you add the condensed milk, continue mixing until homogenous, and now you also have to whip that new mixture, although not as much as in step 1.
I can't mix them all together right away and give it one good whip, can I?
By 4:3 you mean there should be more butter than milk (given the fat content), don't you?
The filling as described in the recipe video requires a combination of solid butterfat and high viscosity in the condensed milk to achieve the desired texture.
There may be 2 scenarios causing the filling to be too runny:
The butter was too warm.
Serious Eats has a good article on the optimal temperature of room temperature butter for creaming and whipping to maintain structure - 18C/65F. Starting the whipping slightly cooler would be better.
The incorrect condensed milk was used.
The video recipe appears to use sweetened condensed milk, which has a significant amount of added sugar that increases the viscosity. Evaporated milk is produced and canned in mostly the same way minus the sugar, and in some markets both sweetened and unsweetened/evaporated milk are referred to as just "condensed milk".
What complicates things further is some markets may have lower viscosity sweetened condensed milk for easier mixing in coffee, or multiple varieties with skim/low-fat/full-fat formulations with lower amounts of total solids that will also lower viscosity - see this Serious Eats article comparing various brands, or look up all the options available for "gezuckerte kondensmilch für kaffee".
The best option for a future batch would be to allow the butter to come up to a cooler temperature, and to use the thickest viscosity sweetened condensed milk you can find, to give a larger buffer for when the filling warms and becomes runnier when handling.
By "the thickest viscosity sweetened condensed milk" you mean the one with the highest fat content, don't you?
@SergeyZolotarev Viscosity is affected more by sugar than fat, but both contribute. If you can't sample different brands, choose the one with highest sugar content first, then by fat content if sugar is equal. It's easy enough to dilute with cream/milk or unsweetened condensed milk if it's too thick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.906233
| 2022-10-12T19:03:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121936",
"authors": [
"Sergey Zolotarev",
"Spagirl",
"Stephie",
"borkymcfood",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108882
|
Rising dough with closed/airtight lid?
We have, because of Corona, started to make our own bread daily. This means we have dough in a round bowl in the fridge all the time, taking up a lot of space we can't use (on top of it, but also around it, because of the corners).
I was wondering if it's possible to buy a square container with a completely closing lid, to make space on top of it in the fridge, as an extra shelf.
The problem I see, is that the yeast is creating air bubbles in the dough, basically filling the container with gas and therefore overpressure.
What kind dough-containers would be suitable? Do they need an air-valve to prevent overpressure in the container?
@aris only partially correct. Remember that the “empty” space in the container isn’t really empty, but full of air. When the dough expands, the air gets compressed as well and the pressure rises.
@aris I respectfully disagree - if you don’t trust my experience, you can ask plenty of Tupperware users and sellers in Germany, where the larger mixing bowls are nicknamed “peng” bowls, because the dough makes the lid go “pop” and thus “audibly signals” that the dough is done rising. Without the dough actually touching the lid. See here, for example: https://m.facebook.com/108179510591441/videos/516082935676626/
Most containers are not completely airtight. If you are worried that something like a cambro container seals too tightly, you can cover it with a baking tray or square plate, rather than the original lid. Alternatively, just poke a few holes in the lid.
Of course, make sure that there is enough head space between the dough and the top of the container, to avoid spills.
Hmm, poking a few holes might be a good idea! But you'd agree that having a container with an air valve (or at least not tightly closing) is necessary, to prevent pressure-buildup?
@Rvervuurt only if the container seals tightly. Most containers won't. Even if you get a container with a push-on lid like the ones I linked to, a pressure buildup will just pop the lid. The only time I would be worried about pressure is when I have sealed glass containers like a mason jar.
@LSchoon things could get interesting if there's something heavy on top of the lid, since OP wants to store things on top of it.
@Kat Again, only if the lid provides an airtight seal.
I would recommend thinking about a rectangular or square container for another reason beyond space saving - if you are doing long cold rises (as suggested by your question), you may at some point try stretch-and-fold techniques. I personally find this a lot easier to do with a square container than a round one.
Any food-safe, appropriately sized box should do, active dough will be creating gas, but except for the most tight lid types, the lid will simply pop up at one edge or corner, even with some weight on top. I wouldn’t go for a vent, because of your dough really is on a fridge-exploring mission, a small vent won’t hold anything back and be a pain to clean. Instead, check on the dough occasionally (unless you have your recipe down well enough to know how the dough behaves) and knock it back if really necessary.
The only type I would not chose is the clamp-down lids, because they can’t pop open if necessary.
If you don’t have a container with a lid and would rather continue using the bowl you have, consider a plate or pot lid for round containers or simply a chopping board.
Here’s a peek into my fridge (yes, the containers seem oversized, but this dough needs it):
Both are of the “cheapo, with a not-so-well-fitting lid” kind.
We make a 6- or 12-bun dough every nth day (depending on if I eat at home) and bake 2 or 4 (again, depending if I'm home) small buns a day, so the dough is under constant supervision. Going to see if we can find a container similar to yours.
I expected clamp-down containers to be a problem, but since I couldn't find anything online that actually said this, I figured I'd ask here, hoping it's useful for future generations :D
I must say that I'm more experienced with focaccia or pizza than bread, namely products that need to be rolled out before baking. Speaking of the time window of a night/few days in the fridge, I've tried various kind of containers more or less airtight and I'd say that it doesn't make a difference. Nor would I say that you absolutely need a valve.
I do use rectangular containers but this is due to the fact that I need to roll the dough afterwards on a rectangular baking dish.
Again since it's products that need to be rolled, the main point is to prevent the surface to dry, that would make the rolling a mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.906901
| 2020-06-06T14:47:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108882",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"LSchoon",
"Rvervuurt",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84890"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61882
|
Should I keep oil in the refrigerator after deep frying?
We have a turkey fryer and want to know whether we should refrigerate the oil between uses. We have been refrigerating the oil but it takes up lots of room.
How long are you looking to keep it for?
I've always stored my used peanut oil in my pantry. I'll strain the cooled oil back into the original container and put it on my shelf.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/09/ask-the-food-lab-how-many-times-can-i-reuse-fry-oil.html
Recommendation is a cool, dry place... Not a COLD dry place.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.907301
| 2015-09-20T13:43:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61882",
"authors": [
"Bernadette Cangialosi",
"Bernard O'Connell",
"Gail Teveliet",
"Marla Welte",
"NBenatar",
"Shana Albo",
"Tracy Duggan",
"William Caudle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010"
],
"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.