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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
33790
|
What is the shelf life for chocolate chips?
Have some semi-sweet chocolate chips.
They have been in a bag inside a plastic container in a cupboard for 2 years but expiration date on the bag says that's one year too much.
What's the shelf life for different kinds of chocolate chips and what makes them go bad?
Side question, am I okay to eat the ones I have?
True chocolate, made with cocoa butter, especially of the non-milk variety has a very long shelf life when stored in dry, cool conditions. The fact that the shape is a chip rather than a bar or disc or callet is not really relevant, except for the total surface area on which blooming can occur.
Chocolate is very, very dry, which discourages mold, bacteria, or other micro-flora or micro-fauna from growing, not even counting the preserving effect of theobromine and other alkali in the chocolate.
It also resists rancidity very well. Stored properly, it can last for many years safely.
Many brands of chocolate chips are not true chocolate, because the manufacturer may have used less expensive fats than cocoa butter, which do not have such excellent storage properties. Assuming you have a quality chocolate chip made from real chocolate, the issues you may find include:
Sugar bloom, where the sugar comes to the surface due to moisture dissolving it and then leaving it on the surface when it evaporates
Fat bloom, where the cocoa butter separates out onto the surface for reasons not thoroughly understood
The chocolate can lose its temper from warming and cooling cycles, if it gets too warm; this will change its texture to softer, more gritty, and less pleasant
The cocoa butter could go rancid (which I have never experienced)
The first three are aesthetic and cosmetic issues, but the chocolate can still be used in recipes or melted down and re-tempered.
Having it go rancid would be cause to throw it out--but chocolate is very hardy, and resists rancidity--so if it tastes fine, it is still usable.
After two years, you are quite likely to have experienced bloom. The chips will look like they have a white coating, and may feel gritty. While this makes it less pleasant to eat out of hand or in applications where it won't be melted down, it will still perform well in recipes where it is melted.
They are certainly safe to eat (again, assuming real chocolate, and no rancidity), but they may not have the same pleasant texture and crispness that you would expect. This is why manufacturer's give them a best by date.
Note: you can tell whether they are real chocolate by the ingredient list (at least in the US, and other places with comparable labeling laws). Real chocolate will consist of:
Cocoa solids, cocoa, cocoa mass, cocoa butter, cocoa nib, or chocolate liqueur (all words indicating products of the cocoa bean)
Sugar
Flavoring (such as vanilla or salt)
Perhaps lecithin as an emulsifier
Signs that the product is not real chocolate include other ingredients, especially other fats in lieu of cocoa butter (which is comparatively expensive, and marketable to the cosmetics industry).
Milk chocolate, which also contains milk solids and milk fat will not last as long, but still probably has a shelf life measured in years when stored under proper (cool, dry) conditions.
White chocolate chips do not have the additional preservative effects of the cocoa solids and their alkali, and also have dairy solids and possibly milk fat, so they have the shortest shelf life of all. It also tends to pick up off flavors if not in a perfectly sealed, air tight container. White chocolate, I would not keep more than year or so.
Of course, chips that are made from other ingredients than true chocolate are going to have a shelf life based on their ingredients, but I cannot speak to that, and anyway, in my mind, they are not worth storing.
See also:
Why does dark chocolate turn white after being in cold for some time?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.907398
| 2013-04-27T05:42:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33790",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Emily Bindernagel",
"Gregory Reese",
"Lev P",
"Mari Plotnik",
"Spam",
"Tensibai",
"Tim Trinka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78483"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56664
|
Electric smoker and a charcoal smoker
Got a electric smoker recently.
Are there any differences that one should consider in terms of recipes when using an electric smoker?
Or are there any processes that one must take additional steps when utilizing a smoker?
I want to make sure that there isn't any additional work I need to consider, things I must consider to maximize flavor and tenderness.
Recipes for smoked meat are usually mostly about the preparation and then a note about target temperatures. These things will not change; the air will just be heated differently.
With grilling there is quite a bit of difference between charcoal and other heaters. Flavor and the fact that charcoal can get much hotter are the two big differences. Neither of these are important for smoking, in my opinion. You don't want it to get hot at all and any flavor the charcoal might have provided is wholly eclipsed by the flavor of the smoke itself.
One advantage of charcoal smokers is that they are cheaper and you can smoke much larger quantities of meat- you just need a big enough barrel to hold it all.
You can use your recipes as is- you just won't have to check your fire all the time to maintain your target temps.
Temperature will be the only variable that affects your cooking process. An electric smoker typically runs at one temperature, and holds it fairly consistently. A charcoal smoker will be a bit more erratic, and can be run hotter or cooler. Granted, a 25f (14c) temperature swing will not affect the quality of the food, but it will affect the cooking time. It also will give you a deep smoke ring, while an electric will not (but that is purely cosmetic).
Regardless, your process will be the same -- put meat on smoker. Wait a long time. Take meat off smoker when finished. You just won't have to check your fuel level with an electric.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.907714
| 2015-04-13T20:54:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56664",
"authors": [
"Greg S",
"Jeanne Paynter",
"June Stridgeon",
"Mary C Gortner",
"Rob Sas",
"Terry Holley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149047"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57750
|
Baking powder substitutes
So I found this amazing pizza dough recipe. It calls for flour and baking powder (or self rising flour) and sour cream, but I do not have self rising flour or baking powder/soda.
Is there anything I can do to make this work? And basic recipes to use instead? Or even any other pizza dough recipe that doesn't call for this?
Aside from the fact that - as Patrick Hofman already stated - you usually use yeast: How do I make a “baking powder” substitute in a pinch
If you don't have baking powder, you're even less likely to have yeast... Is popping round to the store to buy it out of the question?
I suppose we could guess that you have flour, and might be able to develop a sourdough culture from it in a few weeks. But going to the store seems like a more practical approach, unless you are stuck on an island with flour, internet and a pizza oven, but no store or boat to get to one.
I am not familiar with your specific recipe, but I usually use yeast in bread or pizza dough.
You can use dried and fresh yeast, either works for me. You need to let it rise for an hour or so when you prepared the dough. You could put it all mixed together in a bowl and put that in warm water. That will speed up the rising process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.907888
| 2015-05-24T20:34:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57750",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ching Chong",
"David Longstaff",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jess S",
"Molly Aufiero",
"Noam Bitzur",
"Olivia Synek",
"angie abrams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71564
|
Can I put meat on a broiler rack without using foil?
I have a sturdy broiler I use for broiling meat. It is very similar to the Cook N Home Nonstick Turkey Roaster, a rectangular cast iron deep walled pan with a rack inside of it.
Formerly I have always put foil on the rack when cooking something, but recently I have thought, why not put the meat directly on the rack?
Are there any reasons to use foil?
After cooking without foil for a week or two my experience is that there are two problems. One problem occurs if you are cooking anything that can fall apart or fragment like fish or stew meat. The pieces can fall through the rack into the pan. The other problem is that without the foil shield the waste oils and fats in the bottom of the pan get hotter and spatter more. Also, without the foil in place it is easier for them to spatter out of the oven onto the cook. So, overall I think foil is probably a better way to go.
Bear in mind that one of the advantages of broiling is that the fat drips away from the meat, making it a healthier (or at least lower fat) option. If you cover the grid with foil you eliminate that advantage. You may as well just use an oven sheet instead of the broiling pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.908134
| 2016-07-20T23:38:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71564",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37933
|
What method of extracting oil from almonds preserves the most almond flavor?
Which would be the best way to extract oil from Almonds preserving the strongest flavour of Almonds?
Thank you for editing the question. Flavor is on-topic here, so I'll reopen.
Preserves most flavour in the almond flour or in the oil?
oil is mentioned
You can make your own extract easily using vodka/neutral spirits and crushed almonds, filling a glass jar with half vodka/neutral spirits and half crushed almonds, letting it sit for a month or so to extract the flavor and oils, you can make a vanilla extract in the same way.
What happens to the alcohol?
you only use a teaspoon or so in most recipes, and the alcohol amount is then negligible and/or likely evaporates.
Not exactly an answer to your question:
Almond extract that you buy from the store is made from bitter almonds, while almonds you buy from the store are generally sweet almonds because raw bitter almonds contain cyanide. Do not expect almond extract that you make from sweet almonds to be the same as the store bought extract from bitter almonds.
Generaly speaking, only once cold pressed oils not too finely filtered (a bit cloudy) are best for flavor and worse for keeping and high heat cooking (frying) .
On the opposite, heated, heat pressed and heavily filtered (with help from some chemicals) oils can be kept an eternity, support their highest possible cooking temperature but have the less flavor.
I'd agree with the cold pressed oil. Stating that (heated) oils keep 'an eternity' is odd. Could you provide a link?
About the first press
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.908268
| 2013-10-27T14:28:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37933",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Coz",
"Fabby",
"Jacob B",
"Jenna Fromm",
"Katja",
"Kim Gilman",
"Micah Montoya",
"Nathan Camilleri",
"Obeng Owusu-Aduomi",
"Sandy Perkins",
"bread101",
"dermot o sullivan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89344",
"perfectuniversity",
"rumtscho",
"soggyspaetzle",
"user89344"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35046
|
How do you convert a cake recipe to make brownies?
I'm wondering how to convert a cake recipe to make brownies. My intention is to use this recipe for Mexican Chocolate Cake With Mascarpone Frosting. The cake part calls for the following ingredients:
1 cup unsweetened cocoa
2 3/4 cups flour
1 1/4 cups sugar
1 cup packed brown sugar
1 1/2 Tablespoon cinnamon
2 teaspoons baking soda
1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 cups whole milk
1/2 cup olive oil
1/2 cup vegetable oil
2 eggs
2 Tablespoons balsamic vinegar
1 1/2 Tablespoons vanilla
How can I convert that into a brownie recipe?
I'm thinking more oil/butter and less water would work, but I'm not sure of the ratios. I imagine I'd probably also cook brownies for a shorter amount of time.
What determines a cake's fluffiness and a brownie's dense chocolatey awesomeness? Is there a general formula you can follow for converting cake to brownies? (Since this question is about conversion, I suppose it could also apply to a boxed cake mix in case I'm too lazy to go to the store.)
There are many styles of cakes, and several styles of brownies, even if we assume you are interested only in chocolate brownies. If you really want a quality answer, you would need to provide your starting recipe, what you want preserve about it, and what kind of brownie you would like to achieve. However, you would essentially be reinventing a browning inspired by a cake. What is the motivation to do this? It is probably easier to start with a stellar brownie recipe of the style you desire, and adapt it for whatever missing quality you are looking for.
@SAJ14SAJ The cake recipe I thought of was this, but that's a good point - I could adapt an existing brownie recipe to incorporate those flavors. The other reason for it would be if you had a box of cake mix and wanted brownies but were too lazy to go to the store...
@pklz I think if you edit your question to actually ask the question you elaborated about in your comment it would be a better question. As it stands it's too open-ended.
My personal results? Double the amt of oil and 1/2 the amt of water.
Perfect quick fix for a mother on the run or any other given situation! :-)
Hello, and welcome to the site! We have strict rules about content, unlike a forum. We answer questions in a very straightforward manner, so the next reader will always see the proposed solutions without having to read through other matter. Complaints about rude or otherwise inappropriate content are handled through flags or a special "policy" site called Meta (accessible through the Help link on the top bar), but I don't think this case was bad, pklz was implying that he is feeling "lazy" himself, so I don't see it as an insult. "Thank you" is expressed by voting, which you will be (cont.)
(cont.) to do with some reputation, which you can get for both answers and questions. I edited your post so now only your proposed solution remains, not your opinion on the rest of the thread.
Brownies are typically dense and less fluffy compared to cake. What you want to do is to make the cake recipe more dense to make it more like brownies. Here are a few factors that would effect density/fluffyness.
Number of eggs: Adding more eggs will make the cake more dense
Preparation of eggs: Beating the eggs will cause the cake to be more fluffy since you are introducing more air into the mixture. You should stir them lightly with a fork (not beat/whisk them) until just liquefied, to avoid a fluffy cakelike texture.
Addition of baking powder. Most cake recipes call for baking powder while many brownie recipes do not.
I suggest reviewing some brownie recipes and the comments to get a feel for a good starting point for the cake recipe modifications.
leaving out the baking powder was the supposed origins ... of course, like the pound cake, it's diverged from there, but it's a good first step.
1 box chocolate cake mix
1/4 cup canola oil
1 egg, beaten
1/3 cup milk
1 cup chocolate chips (optional)
sprinkles for topping (optional)
Found on: http://girlmeetslife.com/2012/03/chocolate-cake-batter-brownies/
Bec, welcome. The question asks for the influence of various parameters, not one random recipe. This does not answer the question, even if the brownies might be delicious.
I dunno, this is sort of a conversion - if you're starting from a cake recipe instead of boxed mix, you can just pretend that recipe (minus the liquids) is a box cake mix, then add the other ingredients listed here. So it seems to potentially address the "how do you convert?" title question and the "general formula" one in the body, even if it doesn't answer the general "what determines..." question. So, not a comprehensive answer, but appears to be an answer.
Personally, I often take our box brownies and add extra oil and egg. This makes a cake, so try the reverse, a box cake with less oil and egg.
Omit the baking soda and baking powder, switch butter to oil, cut the flour in half, and double the cocoa.
This answer assumes that the cake include all of these things... What about cakes with milk/buttermilk? You certainly wouldn't use milk in a brownie recipe. Your answer just can't be generally applied to all cake recipes, which is the general issue with this question in the first place.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.908464
| 2013-07-01T19:56:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35046",
"authors": [
"Alana Wilson",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Jay",
"Jeff Fuller",
"Joe",
"Padanie",
"Paladin",
"PickledTaco",
"Quantum7",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Tammy Shannon",
"Theresa Owens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"pklz",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30018
|
Why is there liquid in my macaroni salad, potato salad and tuna salad the day after making them?
When I make potato salad, macaroni salad, tuna salad, and sometimes ham salad, it seems like there's always a puddle of excess liquid at the bottom of the storage container the next day.
Does anyone know what is causing this or how to prevent it from happening?
I always cook the pasta in water with oil to limit absorption, and I always try to drain it thoroughly. I also always use regular mayonnaise or salad dressing instead of the light ones which have more water in them. A day later, I am always draining off the excess liquid and remixing with mayonnaise all over again.
The supermarket salads never seem to have this problem: what are they doing differently? Can anyone help???
never put oil in the water when you cook pasta, it just makes it cook unevenly. 2) Are you tasting the salad with the same spoon/eating it out of the container? Saliva will cause the mayo to break down, leaving you with a puddle.
Consider posting recipes, ingredients, procedure. Without, it's just guesswork.
Actually, oil on the pasta water has almost no affect at all. It certainly cannot affect the cooking, as it essentially floats on top of the water, whereas the pasta is under it, and in the small amount of time pasta cooks, you aren't going to get much of an oil water emulsion, even from the motion of rapidly boiling water.
is it all water or oily water? maybe mayo is separating. Maybe salt in dressing is drawing out moisture: do you cook pot or pasta with salt?
Thanks for responding. I was always taught to put oil in the water to keep the pasta from sticking or clumping together. I never even gave any thought to saliva issues. When the macaroni salad sits overnight in the fridge, the next day there is a puddle of moisture on the bottom of the container. It isn't oily, and I think it's too much moisture to be condensation. I do use salt in the salad (not much) after the pasta is cooked and mixed. The mayo is always the regular kind - not lite. I'm still at a loss as to why.
A question: do you store it in the fridge in a closed container?
I'm thinking about this problem... give me more hints please.
Maybe you could explain exactly what you do in one of the case you reported (for instance macaroni or tuna salad). I'm not sure the issue is the same for all of them.
Do you use a paper towel to drain some moisture out of the tuna? I guess the problem actually is your mayo, since it's the common denominator in your problem salads....
@WayfaringStranger that needs to become an answer
Have you tried baking pasta, after boiling it in the water?
I highly recommend you bake the pasta in the oven on very low heat, for 20 minutes, then you will see that there is no more liquid.
Also it gives the macaroni a spongy condition which makes it able to keep the liquid in it.
I believe if you bake the pasta before mixing with mayonnaise, you will get a good result.
Syneresis is likely the culprit here:
the extraction or expulsion of a liquid from a gel, as when serum drains from a contracting clot of blood. Another example of syneresis is the collection of whey on the surface of yogurt. Syneresis can also be observed when the amount of diluent in a swollen polymer exceeds the solubility limit as the temperature changes.
Adding a Polysaccharide such as Xanthan gum or Guar gum will help.
You'll see these in the ingredient lists of many commercial dressings, yogurts etc.
I'm not sure there is a real solution to your issue. Once pasta is cooked and mixed you should eat it. If it is a 'hot' pasta recipe (e.g. "spaghetti al pomodoro") and then you put in the fridge and open it the next day, you'll have the same problem, with the difference that you might warm it again, thus making the excess of water evaporate.
Any time you put something in the fridge, you'll have the feeling it 'produces some water'. (You can see the same with salad: put it in a plastic bag, then in the fridge. After a day it will be a bit moisty).
The only turnarounds I see are:
Eat it the same day you prepare it! (strongly suggested)
Put the cooked pasta in the fridge SEPARATED from the sausage ingredients, and mix them 5 minutes before you are going to eat them.
All of the salads I mentioned are cold and should be eaten cold. After I prepare and mix the salads, they're not hot or even warm. They're usually at room temperature. Then I put them in the fridge to chill due to the mayo. I do understand the evaporation issue. However, it seems like there is always too much liquid or moisture in the container the next day to be condensation. You can actually pour it out. Any thoughts?
A couple of thoughts: 1. I understand might be some practical issue, but if you cook it 5 hours before and let it out of the fridge, you'll have a cold salad with less moisture 2. did you try cooling the pasta immediately with cold water when you take it out from the pot (when it's cooked of course)? It should help. In any case, I'll ask to my grandma and let you know the response.. stay tuned ! :-)
Thanks to everyone for their comments and ideas. I'm still looking for the solution to this problem.
After you boil macaroni, drain. Do not rinse. Leave in colander for at least an hour to cool while periodically stirring. It will become tacky.
This will eliminate your problem.
When you add salt to the salad, it acts to extract water from the macaroni, the celery, the onions and anything else you have in it.
Was about to post exactly that. :) And that is what likely happened.
-1, osmosis will draw negligible amounts of water through the intact cell walls in the uncut surfaces of the celery and onions, if left raw, especially with edible-salad-salt-concentrations. There will be more fluid leaking through the cut surfaces, but in total also negligible. The pasta won't be affected at all.
The reason the stores products do not have this issue is that stores often use extra preservatives in their salads. The mayo is almost always going to break down. I would continue to store it the way you have been, since everything tastes better after a day or two in the fridge. Just re-stir before serving. If it’s really excessive, I would use a paper towel to blot away the excess. Best of luck to you.
I think that if you would mix some potato or corn starch in with the salads that should eliminate the problem.
... and leave you with a nastly floury sludge. Seriously, starch needs heat to bind liquid (gelation).
Binders that could work in some sauces without heating would be nut flours or breadcrumbs.
I salt my celery before using it in salads. If you salt and mix it, let it sit, it will exude water. Then I rinse it and squeeze it in a dishtowel or strong paper towel. Since I have started doing this, I have never had puddles in my salads.
If you put the salted celery in a strainer and bowl, you will see how much water it produces. Likely the same amount as you are seeing puddle in your salad.
I make mine and then let it cool in the fridge with the lid off for a few hours. That usually lets the excess water evaporate off and lets the mayo/spices/veggies/pasta/tuna/whatever mix together and absorb with minimal mayo. After a few hours you can add more mayo if needed. Good Luck!
Try to store the salad without condiments (mayonaise, salt or anything that could be added). I had the same problem. Be careful also with tomatoes, the juicy ones won't help preventing you salad to keep "dry"
The reason it probably gets water is from tasting it and putting the utensil back in the salad. Saliva will break down the mayo or salad dressing and viola!!! Water.... When you taste it put it in another dish and use a different utensil. Don't let your fork touch the serving spoon either.... It contaminates it.....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.908928
| 2013-01-12T22:24:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30018",
"authors": [
"Billu Graham",
"Daniele B",
"Deirdre Galbraith",
"Escoce",
"James Martin",
"Karl Steinhauer",
"Ken Hall",
"Mark",
"Mien",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Thomas",
"User1000547",
"Wendy Parr",
"aPaulT",
"coldasice",
"dimitrijuss",
"fredaparedes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70170",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"sue supinski",
"user15206",
"user56833",
"بدر نواف"
],
"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
}
|
36016
|
What is the texture/taste difference between cured and uncured bacon?
I understand that the main difference between cured and uncured bacon is that one is cured and one isn't.
But, is the curing process the same for all slab bacon? And does it make a difference, taste and texture wise, to substitute one for the other in a recipe that calls for uncured specifically?
Once my hubs thought they were interchangable, so upon finding no cured he bought fresh. Imagine a piece of fried bacon tasting like dry and old pork. Definately not the same.
Unfortunately, some of the answer depends on how you define "bacon", and what you mean by "cured", and "uncured". The answer could be different depending on where you live. Are you in the UK? The USA? Another country? I know that what we call bacon can be from different cuts of pork in different regions.
Curing can be different depending on where you live, or what flavors the person doing the curing likes to use. There will be salt involved in the curing, and again, depending on where you live and the customs/regulations involved, and often some source of nitrate or nitrite, to prevent some nasty bacteria. A pleasant side effect of these additions is the deepening of the red/pink color many of us associate with bacon, though some of the redness of the meat is based on the diet of the animal, too.
(Whether from saltpeter, or curing salt (a purposely colored curing salt, to distinguish it from white sodium chloride), or celery juice, which contains a high quantity of the same chemicals, the nitrates and nitrites are added in very tiny quantities. They don't need much, and are usually in smaller concentrations than are found naturally in water and in leafy green vegetables)
What makes the cures taste different (besides the saltiness) is the other kinds of herbs, spices, and sweeteners used in the cure mixture, and whether or not the bacon is smoked, to add additional flavors.
Texture wise, the main difference between cured and uncured bacon is that the uncured bacon will have a much higher water content than the cured bacon, so the fat will not be as dense.
The difficulty in answering this question is that the texture and taste of "normal" cured bacon can vary so much depending on processing. At least for the U.S., my guess is that many people who have bought stuff labeled "uncured bacon" are actually experiencing the differences of processing techniques, rather than any major difference related to "cured" vs. "uncured." There's also a bizarre and paradoxical set of nomenclature involved in labeling "uncured" meats in the U.S.
I won't address the variety of things that might be called "bacon" in other countries. In the U.S., though, bacon generally refers to pork belly that is (1) salted, (2) cured with nitrite/nitrate, and (3) smoked (or, in some cases, infused with liquid smoky "flavor"). The curing process can actually be accomplished in at least three different ways:
Dry curing (or "dry rub"), where salt, curing salts, and spices are rubbed onto the exterior surface. This is the most traditional curing method, but rarely found in the U.S. today. The result is a significantly more dry and firm product than other methods, with little moisture remaining. (When cooked, it tends not to "pop" much when sizzling, given the low moisture released.) To those not accustomed to it, it can sometimes taste dry or even tough (particularly when sliced thick). Smoking will dry out the meat even more. It often also tastes more salty, as the salt is highly concentrated in the meat and fat without moisture to dilute it.
Wet curing (or brining or "immersion cured"), where the meat is immersed in a brine containing the same ingredients as the dry rub above. The resulting bacon is not as dry or firm, with a higher moisture content, but still often seems tougher than most "supermarket bacon."
Injection (or "pumping"), where the meat is injected with the brine. This is the method primarily used in supermarket bacon in the U.S., since it is fastest and easiest to do on a large scale. The resulting bacon is very moist, very tender, and tends to splatter a lot when fried. Liquid smoke and other flavoring agents are sometimes added directly to the liquid, rather than actually smoking the meat.
The reason I go into such detail here is because the texture and flavor differences can be quite significant.
Onto "cured" vs. "uncured": in the U.S., food labeled cured bacon (according the USDA) must be cured with added powdered nitrate/nitrite using one of the above methods. This prevents growth of bacteria and if the moisture content is low enough can make the bacon shelf-stable to be stored at room temperature. It also contributes to the pink or reddish hue of bacon, along with some of the distinctive flavor of U.S. bacon.
Paradoxically, most things labeled "uncured" (and "natural" and "No Nitrates or Nitrites added") bacon in the U.S. generally contain a greater amount of curing agents than "cured" bacon, for reasons explained below. But theoretically, "uncured" bacon could refer to at least three different things:
The only meat I've actually seen in U.S. stores labeled as "uncured" bacon is actually cured, just through vegetable-based nitrate/nitrite curing agents rather than powdered nitrate/nitrite. This is most typically celery juice or celery powder, but beets and other things can be used. Generally this "uncured" bacon actually has a greater concentration of nitrate/nitrite than normal "cured" bacon; it just comes from a vegetable source. Thus, it generally can taste just like normal "cured" bacon. However, the "uncured" bacon I've had often seems to be processed differently from typical supermarket bacon, perhaps brined or even dry-rubbed, rather than injected. As noted above, this can alter the texture significantly, which will be particularly noticeable if sliced thick (which it often seems to be). If only smoked lightly (or even not smoked at all), it can taste more like "ham" or "pork" than normal supermarket bacon. So, again, I think many of the differences people cite for "uncured" bacon are actually due to processing differences, not a lack of curing agents.
Bacon can be produced without the use of nitrate/nitrite, without powdered curing salt or vegetable agents. I've never seen bacon like this sold commercially in the U.S., though some people make it at home. Without nitrate/nitrite, the meat must be kept well refrigerated during processing. I imagine it's not generally sold commercially because the shelf life would be radically decreased, and it would pose more complex food safety issues in handling and packaging. Anyhow, bacon prepared with only salt as a curing agent may be darker in color and may even turn grayish. It will often taste more "ham-like" or "pork-like." When dry-cured or brined and then smoked, natural changes in the meat may still cause coloration changes internally that keep it somewhat reddish (as well as creating a flavor profile very similar to bacon with curing salts). Bacon prepared this way is often not safe for long-term preservation and should be treated like raw meat. Salt curing (i.e., "corning") for long-term preservation is possible, but it requires salt concentrations high enough that many people would find the meat unpalatable.
According to the old-fashioned use of the term, the types of bacon in (1) and (2) above would ALL be called "cured," if they use salt or other agents for meat preservation. However, as noted, the USDA says the (1) and (2) would have to be labeled as "uncured" and not preserved. In any case, according to the traditional definition of "uncured," what you'd end up with for "uncured bacon" is raw pork belly. That's obviously a very different thing from what we generally call "bacon," but that's really what an "uncured" version is. It will taste much more pork-like, turn gray when cooked, and will have a very different texture and flavor when cooked without the salts, spices, and smoking.
I find the texture of uncured bacon to be much firmer than cured when it is cooked the same way. The meaty portion seems to be a bit tougher in uncured bacon. Even though it may be not quite so healthy to eat cured bacon, the texture and taste are more to my liking. Since I only eat bacon once in a while, I am opting for the cured version. This is obviously not a scientific answer, but layman's description.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.909596
| 2013-08-14T00:03:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36016",
"authors": [
"Beverly Montgomery",
"Herbert Dyson",
"Susan b",
"Zhang Dee",
"dlu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85230",
"jkadlubowska"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36066
|
Fruit Tea- Tastes Sour?
I've been trying to get into teas with more fruity flavors (pieces of fruit in the tea or tea based on fruit pieces) and I've noticed that a large majority of them have unpleasantly sour notes. Am I brewing incorrectly or is something else supposed to be added into the tea?
EDIT: It's teas that already have fruit pieces in them, and doesn't appear to be a particular fruit of any sort. I just steep tea leaves in a glass for a few minutes, usually with near-boiling water, then drink.
Could you tell us what fruits you're adding?
How are you brewing the tea? Technique matters.
@MandoMando I think the OP is not actually adding fruits, but rather trying teas which already include some bits of dried fruit for flavor.
I've tried steeping tea with goji berries, those don't result in a sour flavor. Give it a try.
Hibiscus is frequently put into herbal fruit teas, as it gives a rich red colour. It is also quite sour! If you dislike that flavour, you'd best avoid it.
Your question seems to assume that the sour flavor is not how it's supposed to be. But that may simply be how the tea you've bought always tastes. If it's really sour, maybe it's just not a good tea; it could also be that you simply don't prefer this kind of tea. You could try to cover it up with a bit of sugar. But failing that, I think this is just not the tea for you. There are tons and tons of fruit-flavored teas out there, so I'm sure you can find some different ones to try.
Often fruits are treated with ascorbic acid (or similar) to prevent browning due to oxidization during the dehydration (particularly, apples).
This can add the sour notes as well if not already native to the fruit.
If the ingredients include rose hips, it may be those.
No, rose buds are not sour at all. I love rosebud verbena tea, and it's slightly sweet.
Are rose buds and rose hips the same thing?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.910299
| 2013-08-17T02:24:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36066",
"authors": [
"Carroll Booker",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Jean",
"Kriti Gupta",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"MandoMando",
"Mithun",
"Shai Davidi",
"The Kesari",
"Timothy Cole",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84705",
"perigon",
"rumtscho",
"superkushbuttface"
],
"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
}
|
32787
|
Microwaved rice, it’s not fluffy
In the student dorms I'm limited to a microwave. So I microwave the rice, put in a colander and drain it. But the rice is not fluffy, tried different rices but it just doesn't texture right.
What am I doing wrong?
I'm not familiar with how to microwave rice, but you can probably sneak a rice cooker into the dorms. I did it all year when I was in the dorms -- the smell doesn't go too far down the hall if you keep your window open.
Good idea if it wasnt for my snitchy roommate
Haha bummer, feel your pain on that one
People have a difficult time as it is, to make rice fully. The microwave isn't going to make it easier. A rice cooker is advised.
Here is what I would do (if I were stuck on a food-less island with only a microwave). And no, I'm not going quote any chef-books. Rice is one of those things you ask a grandmother or at best, an eastern cuisine chef.
Different types of rice will require changes to the timing below. Basmati and wild types take longer.
Wash the rice in cold water to rinse out the starch. You should start to see clear water in the bowl when you've rinsed enough times. This will take some of the sticky out of the rice.
Soak the rice in cold water for about 1.5hrs.
Place the rice in a bowl and add enough cold water to cover the rice plus one inch.
Nuke until the water is boiling but not much longer this should be about half of the suggested cooking time. The rice should still be somewhat uncooked and hard at this point.
Drain in a colander, rinse rice with cold water.
Put rise in a bowl and Cover with a cotton cloth. put in the microwave on low (say 10% power) and run for 5-10 minutes (or more if the instructions asked for long cooking time). The cotton cloth will absorb the excess steam and low power should allow the rice to get fluffy. The flatter the bowl (shallower rice) the easier to get fluffy rice.
You may have to experiment with timing a bit. I feel confident if you rinse the starch out first and finish with steaming on low with the cloth at the end, you should see results that put a sneaky smile on your face.
P.S. All bets are off if you're using something like minute-rice or uncle-ben's. Try with honest and real rice grains.
Sounds comprehensive enough to work, will try it out and report back my findings
I'd suggest trying one of those microwave-able rice cookers if this is something you're going to be doing often.
Cook's Illustrated did a review on microwave rice cookers, and they gave this a "Recommended with Reservations" rating:
Progressive International Microwaveable 6-Cup (Cooked) Rice Cooker Set
According to the review (which I'm not sure if you can read without a subscription), they got decent rice but had to fiddle with the cooking process a ton. Their final suggestion is 5 minutes on high, 15 minutes on 50% power, then followed by a 5 minute rest.
CI probably has higher power microwaves (like 1200W) than your average dorm lounge... experimentation may be key. Update: they claim it works with any model in the review. And everything except the detailed results (which adds little information) was available before I logged in. +1 for creative dorm friendly idea.
Note also from later in the CI review: "We found that we could also successfully microwave rice using just a covered glass bowl and the same low-and-slow method, so a microwave rice cooker is definitely not a necessity, but it’s a fine product once you get it to work."
I've had no problems using a microwavable rice cooker at home. We just wash the rice, cover it by about an inch with water, and place it in the microwave on high for 10 minutes. I've also had success with using ceramic ovenware in the microwave as well, but the rice didn't come out as fluffy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.910521
| 2013-03-18T20:55:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32787",
"authors": [
"Beno samar",
"Elgenzay",
"Michele Mullins",
"Myka",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Talk Channel",
"alex-e-leon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75826",
"jalbee",
"ryan.kom",
"yrg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66578
|
What can I do with vegetable water?
I just steamed some vegetables and the water below is greenish-yellow vegetable sweat basically. I don't want to waste any thing unless I have to for a valid reason. Any suggestions?
Make bread with it (let it cool enough that you don't kill the yeast,
first.)
Make soup with it.
Soup is actually a good advice, since soup is, in a very rough way, just throwing vegetables at some water and, well, fire it up! Also, I'm kinda used to eat soup as the first dish on the table, so, it is nearly a "must have" and it can stay good for up to 2 days (if properly stored).
I've read that if you can't or don't use it for your own consumption, that houseplants really love it (after it's cooled, of course).
Yea, give that water to plants .. That will be great idea
And only if you boil without salt!
@Stephie Good point, though the asker says they steamed the vegetables and there's no point adding salt when steaming.
Seems a good idea but... Won't it be plant-canibalism?
What do you think is compost?
You're right XD
I usually add some other veggies "disposable parts" to that water before boiling, so i make a vegetabel stock, and then use it to make risotto
When steaming vegetables, I'm often making something that tastes good with stock or gravy. The vegetable water makes a great base for both. If you use instant granules, you can just pour the steaming water into the powder for extra flavour.
Vegetable water is totally harmless and can often be used as a base for a broth. If meat is an option, fortify it with chicken broth..or better yet, use it to make your own beef/chicken broth. If desired, you can also fortify it with more savory tasting vegetables. Celery and carrots usually impart a nice flavor. Just make sure u strain the solids.
You can also use the veggie water as a substitute for water in your morning smoothies, especially if there's color and flavor in it.
Welcome! A couple note: health and nutrition are off-topic here, so in addition to not allowing questions about them, we ask that you avoid discussing them in your answers. Also, no need for signatures - your username and image will be on all your posts.
Apologies for not being fully accustomed to the format here. Thank you for taking the time to inform me. I look forward to contributing in a fashion that is most suitable.
No worries, there's a lot of information in [help] (and on [meta]) but we definitely don't expect everyone to read it all first. Glad to have your answers!
I like using vegetable water to cook pasta, particularly when I'm going to not use a thick sauce (e.g. tossing the pasta with olive oil, dried herbs, and some grated parmesan).
I also use it to cook rice, in the same vein as above (i.e. not with thick sauces).
You practically have vegetable tea. Options related to its condition are:
Actual state: Just drink it at your preferred temperature. You may be able to sense its flavor, but it is as satisfying as normal water anyway.
Hydrating water: Some salt, Sodium bicarbonate, citric juice and Aid is ready for your training, excercise, Hangover.
Flavored water: Lemon juice can make it a good meal companion if you are fine with unsweetened drinks. You have two more options there.
Plus of Herbal tea for a more focused flavor (Chaya leaf [Cnidoscolus aconitifolius] is simillar to brocolli water taste). Temperature is your choice.
A little of salt and chilli powder* if you are related to the joy of drinking the broth made by eating picks of square chopped aliments (fruit, sausage, cheese, chips, corn, etc.) as a snack. Preferrably warm/hot.
Consommé: Chilli powder*, soy/hot sauce*, lemon juice, salt, peper, garlic, matching spices, chopped onion and green chilli, milk products and dressings, make it a good clear soup to drink it warm/hot just as it is. You can also add some complements in little pieces like bread (croutons), solid cheese (Panela, Gouda, etc.), more vegetables or even use it to cook your ramen noodles.
General purpose Broth: The consommé serve as a great seasoning for grains, legumes, meat, seafood and vegetable hot soup.
Don't consider only wheat flour to make bread with the water. Corn and other wheats can serve great for making good complements such as tortillas an other region specific (ussually salty) bread shapes.
This is as far as I go by experience and wide taste. Would be nice to know experience of a rice and brewing adventurers.
*Good chilli product brands are Tajín, Valentina/Tamazula and Tabasco. A nice and bitterseet (commonly not considered hot) sauce is called Chamoy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.910887
| 2016-02-17T03:30:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66578",
"authors": [
"Barbara Binetti",
"Barbara Vanieris",
"Calum Fox",
"Caroline Gamble",
"Carolyn Wright",
"Cascabel",
"Connie Lennert",
"David Richerby",
"Donn Gerald",
"Doug Thomas",
"Felix L.",
"Frank Piechota",
"Ismael Miguel",
"Janice Rudkin",
"Mike Eaton",
"Sandra Mackenzie",
"Stephen",
"Stephie",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43505",
"mrcampos",
"schmendrich"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6963
|
When to add diced vegetables when cooking rice
I like to add diced vegetables (or peas) when I make rice in my rice cooker, but I'm not sure when is the best time to add them. I find if I add them too early they get mushy and flavorless, but if I wait until too late they don’t cook at all.
When is the best time to add vegetables to a pot of rice or the rice cooker?
It depends a lot on the vegetable. For frozen peas, I add them just when the cycle finishes; fold them in and close the pot, and 3 minutes later they are steamed to perfection. For a harder vegetable, like a raw carrot, or one where you want more breakdown, like onion, add it at the beginning.
You don't really want to open the rice cooker a bunch of times during the cycle as it loses steam and may affect your results, but if you have vegetables that you feel need something in between, I wouldn't hesitate to open it once, midway through.
You can cook diced vegetable separately and add them in the rice just before serving.
Rice typically takes about 20 minutes.
Carrots take about 10,
Peas about 3 or 4,
Beans about 5.
So add them at 20-t minutes, If you're a bit late, just leave the lid on and let them steam.
Hard vegetables can be added at the start of cooking, or when the water is bubbling/boiling. Softer/frozen vegetables can be added once most of the water has been evaporated or when the cooking stage has just finished (rice cookers usually have an internal thermostat to switch from "cooking" to "keep warm" modes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.911293
| 2010-09-08T03:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6963",
"authors": [
"Alan Guo",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"Nice18",
"Pranit Bauva",
"Shelley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186"
],
"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
}
|
6164
|
What are the benefits of using a dedicated rice cooker, rather than just cooking rice in a pot?
For which reasons should I use a dedicated rice cooker, instead of cooking rice in a pot?
I rarely use mine and prefer to use the microwave method
wash rice
measure one unit rice (cup usually) and 2 units cold water and zap for around 15mins (900W microwave)
which gives me perfect rice everytime. The big caveat is that I'm Indian and wouldn't go near anything other than Basmati - brown rice (which may be a viable reason to use a rice cooker) is the Devil's grain as far as I'm concerned.
Yes there are benefits! This is one of my most used pieces of kitchen equipments. Here is a list of benefits for a quality rice cooker:
Never burns rice
No guess measurements for all kinds of rice
Scheduled cooking
Keep warm settings
Uniform cooking
When I cook rice on my stove, even at the lowest of heats, I get a thin layer of rice that has overcooked stuck to the bottom of the pot.
For the record I have the Zojirushi 5-1/2 cup induction rice cooker. Best thing ever.
+1 for mentioning Zojirushi rice cookers. I've got one as well, and it does a fantastic job!
another +1 for mentioning Zojirushi. they are magic, i swear. they also are good for steaming veggies, and i have heard you can use them for beans, but i have never tried.
Btw, some consider that thin layer of overcooked rice to be desired feature. It is a key characteristic of claypot rice dishes (in cantonese Bo Jia Fan).
In Dominican culture - that thin layer of crispy rice is a desired delicacy (and usually hand rolled into little nuggets and given to children as a treat).
A dedicated rice cooker works by measuring the internal temperature as the rice steams and water boils away.
In my mind the greatest benefit is that different types of rice that have different cooking times will be cooked correctly in a rice cooker. Another benefit is that you can start the rice early and the cooker will keep it warm after it's done cooking so it doesn't require babysitting.
The biggest down side is that it takes up a lot of space for one task. If you don't make rice all the time or if you are already good at making rice in a pot then you probably don't need to waste the space.
We make rice all the time but my wife is good at making it in a pot. When our rice cooker broke we didn't replace it.
+1 once I figured out how to make different types of rice consistently, this seemed like too much of a one trick pony to bother with.
I'm eager to try an oven method which is supposed to provide consistently good results with brown rice.
@justkt, Your comment makes it sound like you have trouble with brown rice. We get a pretty consistent brown rice by boiling for 30 minutes in plenty of water, draining, and then steaming for 10-15.
@Sobachatina: Not all rice cookers take up a lot of space! The one I have, for example, is about the size of an ordinary cooking pot.
It helps you cook large quantities of rice. Whenever I need to make four or more cups of rice I use the rice cooker. I find it difficult to get it right on the stovetop.
The one benefit that everyone has missed is that the rice cooker leaves a very thin layer of rice in the bottom which is coveted by every golden retriever in the country. Our dogs love our rice cooker!
This happens for cooking rice in an ordinary pot, too. As others have pointed out, this may happen more often with the traditional method than with a dedicated rice cooker.
Every important benefit has already been said.
I cannot live without it anymore. I find it perfect expecially for brown rices.
...and you can always use your rice cooker for a lot of different uses...
Check this article, it gave me a lot of inspiration: repurposing rice cooker.
(Rice cooker also saved my life when the gas cylinder one day magically became empty, leaving me without a stove for two days)
and also this book: Rice Cooker Creations
http://books.google.com.ec/books?id=EeWI4-x9n2UC&lpg=PP1&dq=subject%3A%22Cooking%22&lr&as_brr=1&hl=en&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
completely readable on Google Books for free
Along those lines: it cooks lentils well. I often put lentils, rice and some veggies into the rice cooker and let it cook!
lentils, beans, oats, onion soup, cake, chicken breasts. A good rice cooker will work on about any grain or bean. The nice thing about them is that they have a temperature sensor, so it is virtually impossible to burn what you put in the pot.
Maybe I cook my pot rice the wrong way because contrary to everyone else, I never have issues with burnt burnt rice or rice not fully cooked. Maybe I use more water than everyone else? Or maybe it's because I use organic brown rice (mostly sprouted). By the way sprouted rice only takes about 20 minutes to cook in a pot.
Rule #1 is to use bottled water because if you wouldn't drink it, then don't eat it.
Rule #2 is to use quality shiny metal pots and not the black lined ones, as the black stuff slowly wears off into your food.
Most industrialized countries have perfectly potable tap water... and, in fact, most bottled water is someone's tap water. I'm not sure why you've assumed that the average person won't drink their own tap water. Also, if rule two doesn't affect the outcome of the rice, you're only giving this guideline from a "nonstick is bad for you" point of view, then it's not really an answer, either. Can you please explain your points more clearly?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.911485
| 2010-08-27T15:00:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6164",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Robert Hui",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dolma33",
"erichui",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"immutabl",
"jsanc623",
"justkt",
"jvriesem",
"user101402",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96377
|
How to reuse badly cooked chicken
I marinated chicken breast cubes in teriyaki sauce for aboutt 1 hour. I then cooked it together with the sauce it was marinating with for about 15 min on medium heat.
The result was gummy (probably overcooked), hard to swallow chicken that tasted pretty bad.
I don’t want to just throw it out, but I can’t eat it thr way it is either. Is there a way I can treat it (say even in soup) to make it edible?
Finely chopped or even shredded you could add it to fried rice or noodles (you could use a food processor). The other thing that sometimes works with overcooked chicken is to have it cold, sliced fairly thinly in a sandwich or chopped in a salad, but that may be awkward starting from cubes (unless you like it mixed with mayonnaise).
Chicken salad can work depending on the flavor. I’d recommend some diced celery to add texture as that sounds to be lacking
The ‘taste[s] pretty bad’ is the only problem part.
The rest is answered by casseroles. Depending on the initial flavor affects what type ... Texmex, Italian, Latin, pot pie, etc.
As chunks aren’t as versatile, If it’s over cooked, you can shred it while it’s still warm. Just mash it it with potato masher and it will shred up.... you can then let it soak in liquid so it’s not too dry. (This doesn’t work so well if you let it cool off and try to reheat it). This can then be used to make enchiladas, tamales, stuffed peppers or similar
I’ve already put it in the fridge. Should I avoid this in that case?
@GabrieleCirulli the mashing process he describes doesn't work as well when cooled, that's all. The rest of this answer all still would work. Just cut it smaller with a knife in your case (instead of the potato masher)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.912179
| 2019-02-16T15:36:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96377",
"authors": [
"Aethenosity",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69857",
"kettlepot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100511
|
Did I underbake my bread?
I tried making bread today, and overall, I enjoyed it!
However, there seems to be something weird going on. Right between the crust and the basic white section of the bread, there's a line of dense bread that is a little bit darker. It does not seem to taste too different (although I did not rigorously taste test it/I don't have much experience with bread).
Image of the bread. What I'm referencing above is the strip of dough that seems more dough like than bread like.
Another thing I did not like as much was how dense the bread felt overall.
Are these signs of undercooking my bread?
Notes: I accidentally doubled the amount of yeast, and I used all purpose instead of bread. Not sure if those would play a difference, but wanted to include them. One thing that I did notice is a relatively strong scent of yeast when it first came out of the oven (although the bread had no taste of it at all). Would that indicate over-leavening as some commenters suggested?
Here is the recipe I used: https://www.tasteofhome.com/recipes/basic-homemade-bread/. I halved the recipe, except for yeast like I mentioned above. The smoosh factor is most likely me slicing when it was hot (I really wanted to taste it fresh out of the oven).
Reminder: no “answers in comments”, please!
@cfire19045 please note that you can [edit] your posts any time and that including extra information, e.g. what was asked for in comments, in the question itself will improve the question. Comments are temporary by design.
This question is a bit hard to answer because there are just so many variables. Let's do some troubleshooting.
There are two ways I could see your problem: badly proofed bread or underbaked bread. It's fairly easy to tell which.
When your bread is rising it should double in volume. If it doesn't rise enough then your bread will be dense and won't blow up with stream as it bakes. This will result in a loaf that is doughy much as you described. If the dough rises too much the protein bubbles can tear and the bread will fall. The dough will be limp and the bread will come out similarly to it being under proofed.
If your bread is under baked it will go into the oven puffy and full. It will puff up with steam but the proteins won't be set. It might fall as it cools or just be a bit mushy inside when you cut it. Especially when just learning to bake bread, it's helpful to take your bread's temperature with a probe thermometer while it is baking. When the bread is done the interior temperature will be just barely under the boiling point of water at your altitude.
You said you doubled the yeast and used AP flour instead of bread flour. Doubling the yeast doesn't guarantee failed bread, it will speed up the rise time and change the flavor to be more yeasty but less complex. Using lower protein flour will make the bread more dense and less able to hold bubbles.
This would imply to me that your bread over proofed but without pictures of the dough it's impossible to say for sure.
When bread comes out of the oven, even when it baked completely, the starches aren't set. The bread needs to cool, out of a bread pan, for steam to escape and starches to set. If the bread is sliced before this happens then the interior of the loaf will a gummy mess. While this could also be the cause of your issues, you'd notice as the texture would be noticably improved when you slice again after the loaf has cooled.
I suspect your bread may have suffered from a combination of these problems.
Don't be discouraged! It doesn't take that much practice to be able to recognize how the dough should look and behave at each stage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.912358
| 2019-08-01T07:01:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100511",
"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
}
|
91257
|
Fat free dumplings?
There is nothing like beef stew and dumplings, yet I am trying to eat more healthily. Is there any way to make fat free or at least low-fat suet type dumplings for use with stews?
Foodcheats.com gives a way to make the dumplings without suet but the recipe still uses a large amount of fat.
Have you tried using Polish or Asian dough for dumplings. Asian don't usually use any fat while some polish recipe calls only for low fat milk.
It's beyond me why you think fat would be "less healthy" and why you would think dumplings have the most fat, but anyway: German potato dumplings are made without fat, just potatoes and some egg as glue.
"...without fat...some egg..."?
@Robert - the problem I am talking about is with suet dumplings and 1oz / 28.35g of beef suet contains 26.6g of fat and 14.8g of it is saturated fat. That means the fat content of beef suet is 94% total fat, and 52% of the suet is saturated fat. Considering there is more weight in dumplings compared to the meat in stew and dumplings, that is a lot of fat in a meal.
Just a reminder: Seasoned Advice doesn’t do recipe requests and therefore answers that just give a recipe (especially of the “I read this somewhere on the Internet” type) are not helpful - and may even get the question closed as off-topic. Please focus on technique and principles over simply posting recipes. Adding a recipe to emphasize your point is ok.
I don't know how Asian dough or Polish dough suggested in the comments will work but I might give it a try. I have found the following online.
Low-Fat Dumplings
Ingredients
150g / 5½ oz self-raising flour
pinch salt and freshly ground black pepper
2 tbsp chopped fresh parsley or thyme (depending on preference)
1 egg yolk, lightly beaten
1 tsp olive oil
Method
Put the flour in a mixing bowl with the salt and pepper. Mix in the herbs. Add the egg and oil and mix, adding just enough cold water to bring it together as a dough (about 4 tbsp). Be careful not to add too much water as this will make the dumplings heavy. Knead the mixture a little.
Shape into eight golf-ball-sized pieces and put on top of the stew, pushing down a little to coat in the juices. Cover with the lid and return to the oven for 15 minutes, then remove the lid and cook for a further 15 minutes.
When the dumplings are golden-brown, lift them out of the stew into serving bowls and stir the stew. Serve immediately.
Fat-free Dumplings
Ingredients
2 cups / 473ml all-purpose flour
2½ tsp baking powder
¾ tsp salt
1⅓ cup / 414ml skimmed milk (less than 0.3% fat)
Method
Combine flour, baking powder and salt.
Pour in milk. Mix with a fork until all ingredients are moistened.
Drop dumplings by tablespoonfuls into the stew. It should be about 12 generously sized dumplings.
Cover with the lid and return to the oven for 15 minutes, then remove the lid and cook for a further 15 minutes.
Just for clarification: Is this an „I found a recipe that reads as if it might work, but haven’t tried it“ answer or an „I have made it and found that this method works“ answer?
This is an "I found a recipe that reads as if it should work in theory, but haven’t tried it" answer. I will update when I have tried it.
Chris, I was surfing for recipes this morning and ran across a link on a Polish site for what Google Tranlate calls Silesian Dumplings. But for the fat in the egg yolk, there is no other fat
https://crummblle.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/kluski-slaskie-z-miesem-i-sosem/
These may fill your requirements
potatoes cooked and whipped, cooled down
potato flour
1 egg
We add flour as much as 1/4 of potatoes *. We simply separate 1/4 of the potatoes and pour flour into the place. We add an egg and knead the dough. We form small balls the size of a walnut and ask a little girl to press her little finger in each dumpling. If we do not have a girl, we use for this purpose our little finger or the other end of a wooden spoon. Cook the dumplings for 5 minutes in salted water, drain them.
If we add wheat instead of potato flour, we will have ordinary potato dumplings.
* I add a little more flour - probably the potatoes in France are less flour.
Spätzle are defined as Bavarian Dumplings. It is also popular in other parts of Southern Germany and Alsace. You can use any kind of cow's milk (I have zero experience with vegatable 'milks'). There is also some fat in egg yolks
Just adapt the recipe technique to your stew gravy
Spätzle
Ingredients
• 1 cup all-purpose flour
• 1 pinch freshly ground black pepper
• 1/2 teaspoon salt
• 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
• 2 eggs
• 1/4 cup milk
• Hot water to cook
• 2 tablespoons butter
• 2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley (optional)
Directions
1. Mix together flour, salt, pepper and nutmeg
2. Beat eggs well and add alternately with the milk to the dry ingredients
3. Mix until smooth
4. Let stand 15 to 60 minutes to autolyse
5. Press dough through Spätzle maker or use a cake spatula to cut of ribbons of dough on a cutting board. (This vid shows the technique https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y6Ga9hMm4Y )
6. Drop a few at a time into simmering liquid. Cook 5 to 8 minutes. Drain well.
7. Sauté boiled Spätzle in butter
8. Sprinkle chopped fresh parsley on top and serve
I am sorry, but Spätzle (also known as Spaetzle) is very different to what I am talking about.
That's fine. I don't do Southern-style (US) dumplings in the dough ball style I now think you are desiring.
I do enjoy another southen-style that is also called slicks. The Sweet Sue company then in Alabama (now out of business) used to sell a Chicken and Dumplins in a can which I enjoyed. Those dumplings looked like wide, thick noodles, but weren't pasta. I've a recipe, but never made them low or no fat
While probably not the answer OP is looking for, one remark re. fat reduction: Spätzle can also be made with water instead of milk - that’s the authentic Swabian method. Boiling the Spätzle in the dish will make the dish “floury” or cloudy. They need enough room and liquid, or you will end up with a gluey mess.
@Cynetta I've made the dumplings you refer to in chicken and dumplings both with and without fat or oil. Growing up I was taught to make them with just AP flour, salt, and water. In more recent years, I've added oil (just to see how different they would be). I couldn't tell any difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.912681
| 2018-07-25T09:08:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91257",
"authors": [
"Chris Rogers",
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Robert",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114163
|
Are Yukon Gold Potatoes available throughout the year
Is the Yukon Gold Potato a seasonal potato offering?
It seems like up to a month ago I could find them anywhere but now POOF, nowhere has them, and when asking in stores they keep telling me they have them because they have yellow or golden potatoes which is seriously not the same thing when wanting specific qualities in a finished product. The YG is royalty in my cookbook and now they've all been kidnapped. Please advise.
Welcome to SA! In order to help you with your question, we're gonna need more specifics, like where you live. Or, possibly, this question answers yours: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10125/is-there-a-big-difference-between-yellow-and-yukon-gold-potatoes?rq=1
You don't say where you are located, but in most areas potatoes are sold year round at the grocery store or market. Yukon Gold potatoes tend to mature earlier than other potatoes.
@KateGregory thank you for the feedback. I edited the answer to reflect that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.913266
| 2021-02-08T04:11:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114163",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Rosie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91460"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114984
|
Is it safe to wash meat packaging before throwing it away?
Is it recommended to wash plastic packaging for raw meat before disposing of it? I see advice to just rinse it with soap in the sink to prevent the bin from smelling.
However, I also see it is usually not recommended to wash raw meat as there is a risk of cross contamination - wouldn't the same risk be here as well?
Clarification: I mean before throwing it into bin for landfill
The original wording of the question meant that answers and comments quickly degraded to bickering on whether putting a plastic packaging into the recycling is worth it. This not only showcased why our site doesn't accept opinion based questions, recycling is also not on our whitelist of question topics. So I reduced it the question to the one original aspect which is within our scope, and removed all comments and all parts of answers which went beyond that.
Second reminder: please don’t discuss “proper” recycling or disposal methods. The question is about the washing step and potential side effects on kitchen hygiene and food safety.
Rinsing or washing the container is no worse than rinsing or washing a plate on which you have let your meat rest. But do it when you take your meat out, not a couple of hours later, to avoid spoilage starting.
If you send yours to landfill, cleaning it is for your comfort.
Where and when I grew up we would never bother, but we did accept that bins smell of spoiled food. If you want to keep your bin from smelling you may want to clean it.
Disclaimer: The question got edited into something completely different.
You know those large garbage bins used on garbage day? Though plenty of people use only garbage bags, at my household we have our regular sized garbage cans in our house, and those large garbage bins out beside our house.
Every time we have a meat container (be it a Styrofoam plate, plastic packaging, etc.) to dispose, we go outside and dump it into that large garbage bin. Applies to bad weather too.
@Tashus I'm really upset at how the question got edited while I was away without anyone adding a disclaimer that the existing answers will be invalidated.
Thank you for calling that out. I hadn't noticed the edit history. Sure enough, your question is rather direct at answering the original question. Sorry about that.
Immediately throw it in your normal trash. Absolutely don't rinse it, that's a great way to spread contamination everywhere. Smell has never been a problem for me as I have a covered garbage can in the kitchen and regularly move the garbage to the trash collection point outside.
Where is it that you think it was "spread contamination to"?
I have a "reframing" approach that may work for people with large (but not full) freezers: I keep a plastic container in the freezer, and put any "likely to be smelly" trash --- things like shrimp-shells, meat-packaging, etc. --- into that container and close the top. This largely delays rotting, so it does not matter whether you wash the packaging or not. On trash day, I empty the container into the trash before taking the trash out of the house.
I'm embarrassed to say that it took me more than 35 years of adult life to think of this, but it sure works well!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.913394
| 2021-03-27T08:41:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114984",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Brondahl",
"Stephie",
"Tashus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109028
|
Can I still use my Worcestershire sauce?
So we have this Lea&Perrins Worcestershire Sauce from the past 6-7 years ago. And I would like to really know if it is still safe to consume?
I've done my research but I'm still not sure if I could consume it because I do not know how it actually tastes.
It is kinda dusty on the top, but it was last opened years ago and it was just in our cabinet so i don't know if it is still safe to consume
Lea & Perrins Worcestershire is shelf stable. As long as it's been in the cupboard with the cap on, it is safe. The flavor may have degraded, but it won't make you sick.
Let’s quickly check the ingredients:
Malt Vinegar (from Barley),
Spirit Vinegar,
Molasses,
Sugar,
Salt,
Anchovies (Fish),
Tamarind Extract,
Onions,
Garlic,
Spice,
Flavourings
Note that the vinegars, the sugar, the salt will all contribute to preserving the sauce, even after opening and stored at room temperature. From a food safety perspective, it should be ok. Whether the sensory quality is still good is another question.
But we can’t see, smell or taste the sauce for you, so it’s up to you to decide, one of the rules of food safety says that if something seems “off”, discard no matter what the theory says. If you are unsure, it’s probably best to stick with the most basic rule of food safety: When in doubt, throw it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.913667
| 2020-06-13T20:32:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109028",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25613
|
How do I effectively rub spices into fish?
I did a fish rub for the first time last night. I mixed the spices and then put the thawed tilapia fillets right into the bowl. I noticed two problems:
The spices tended to clump up and became difficult to work with.
After cooking I noticed that there were some VERY concentrated pockets of flavor; not at all uniform. Sometimes these were unpleasantly strong.
Any advice for next time?
First of all, if you're seasoning tilapia, you'll want to add some oil to it, since tilapia has almost no fat. So, here's the steps:
Drizzle oil over the tilapia (both sides).
Sprinkle it lightly with the spice mixture, all over
Let sit 10-15 minutes.
Sprinkle with starch (e.g. flour) at this point if you're frying them.
Optionally, you can also add some lemon or lime juice (just a little) in step 1. You also want the tilapia sitting on something flat, with the filets in one layer, like a large plate or baking sheet, not heaped up in a bowl.
For spicing small filets, you want a finely ground, moderate-flavor spice mixture. Unlike beef or pork, you're not marinating the fish for a long time, and you're not cooking it for along time. So the spicing on the fish isn't really a "rub"; it's spicing to eat. I recommend against using rubs designed for meat on light fish like tilapia.
I tried it this way and it worked out AMAZINGLY. Just drizzled with a little vegetable oil in the pan, mixed together the spices the recipe called for, and lightly coated both sides of each fillet. This time it was very flavorful but not overpowering. Thanks!
Try putting the spice mix in a container with a shaker top, then shake on to the fish. That way it will be more even than if you rub it in with your hands.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.913793
| 2012-08-12T15:37:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25613",
"authors": [
"DottoreM",
"Katrana Prestor",
"Yvonne",
"Zelbinian",
"gmorell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9039",
"peanut 367"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25618
|
How to substitute unsweetened baker's chocolate for powdered cocoa in cake recipe
My friend would like to make a chocolate cake using this recipe:
HERSHEY'S "PERFECTLY CHOCOLATE" Chocolate Cake.
The ingredients:
2 cups sugar
1-3/4 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup HERSHEY'S Cocoa
1-1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1-1/2 teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
2 eggs
1 cup milk
1/2 cup vegetable oil
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 cup boiling water
The directions:
Heat oven to 350°F. Grease and flour two 9-inch round baking pans.
Stir together sugar, flour, cocoa, baking powder, baking soda and salt in large bowl. Add eggs, milk, oil and vanilla; beat on medium speed of mixer 2 minutes. Stir in boiling water (batter will be thin). Pour batter into prepared pans.
Bake 30 to 35 minutes or until wooden pick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool 10 minutes; remove from pans to wire racks. Cool completely.
Frost with "PERFECTLY CHOCOLATE" CHOCOLATE FROSTING. Makes 12
servings.
They'd like to use baker's chocolate squares in place of the powdered cocoa.
Is this possible?
It's just a really basic (plain-vanilla, if you will ;) chocolate cake recipe. You'd be better off just finding a basic chocolate cake recipe that calls for unsweetened chocolate in the first place, especially if you're new-ish to chocolate cake.
Otherwise the substitution that Sobachatina suggests above requires some fancy recipe-adjusting work on your part. Cocoa & fat (melted butter, usually) can be substituted for whole chocolate, but it's not really such an exact science, so I don't think the reverse substitution will give you the results you're looking for.
+1- Ha! I was hung up on figuring out the actual substitution. You are right. The best bet would be to just find the right recipe.
It's okay, cooks do that :) I once spun my wheels for an hour trying to figure out how to crowbar the half-semisweet (whole), half-cocoa (powder) chocolate I had on hand into my fave chocolate cake recipe at the time... then I just went, d'oh!, and searched for a diff recipe. Delicious cake ensued.
Additionally cocoa is a powder, bakers chocolate is not, the best you could do is pulverize the chocolate into little chunks, but it's not going to be the same and probably won't work for this recipe. This recipe is calling for some homogeneity which chunks cannot produce.
Baker's chocolate is essentially cocoa powder and cocoa butter. Usually a little lecithin is added to make it smooth and sometimes it has some sugar.
Substitution tables suggest that the unsweetened chocolate can be replaced with 3 parts cocoa and one part butter.
This means that one cup of melted baker's chocolate could be used in place of the 3/4 cup of cocoa and 1/4 cup of the fat in the cake recipe. Obviously it would have to be added with the wet ingredients instead of the dry as the cocoa is.
If the baker's chocolate is bittersweet or semisweet instead of unsweetened then the sugar in the cake would need to be reduced accordingly.
The lecithin in the baking chocolate will actually improve the consistency of the cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.913979
| 2012-08-12T21:11:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25618",
"authors": [
"Buck",
"David C Ellis",
"Escoce",
"Gurcan Ozdemir",
"MandisaW",
"Sobachatina",
"Yasir Mohamed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58766",
"jmido8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4381
|
What's the best way to make Béchamel sauce?
When I make Béchamel sauce I keep getting different results.
Sometimes the sauce becomes too liquidy and never seems to firm up. Other times it might get quite lumpy, despite my use of a recipe that has worked fine in the past.
Are there any general preparation rules or tips to ensure consistent results when making a Béchamel sauce?
Consistent results stem from consistent actions. Bechamel is one of the most basic sauces, so you should take the time to master it. The general proportions for this sauce are:
1 Tbsp butter (clarified optional)
1 Tbsp flour
1 cup milk
1/2 tsp salt
1/8 tsp nutmeg
The things to make sure you do right:
Cook the roux - It should be a nice golden hue (not brown).
Scald the milk prior to adding - The milk should be heated to a near boil in a separate pot while you prepare the roux. Cold milk is one of the primary causes of bechamel fail.
Add the milk in 1 cup increments.
Whisk thoroughly until you see no lumps with each addition of milk.
Stir constantly until done.
You'd definitely want to scald the milk first if it's coming out lumpy. I tend to be pretty careless with the rest of the preparation, but I do scald the milk first and I've never had one fail.
I never bother to scald the milk and have never had a problem. However, I add the milk in smaller increments that 1 cup at first, to thin out the roux slowly, and whisk constantly. You also need to make sure that you bring the heat up sufficiently after adding the milk in order for the thickening to happen. Once it starts to thicken, then you can turn it down, but it won't thicken if you just leave it on low heat the whole time. Note that the thicker you make your your roux (i.e. the higher the ratio of flour to butter), the thicker your final sauce will be.
I've always made the béchamel sauce with cold milk. The last time I made it I tried to scald the milk before. The result was a quite lumpy sauce. I don't recommend scalding the milk.
In general (they say) you should have the roux and the liquid at different temps. So, if the roux is hot, the milk can be cold and if the roux is cold, the milk can be hot. I tend to mix them both warm without problem.
Yep, as everyone is stating there is no need to heat the milk if the roux is hot.
I like to scald the milk with onion pique. Onion with bay leaf speared by cloves.
A lot of how you make a béchamel is technique -- here's how I learned (from my italian great grandmother).
You'll need a wooden spatula for stirring, or a wooden spoon if you don't have the spatula.
Melt some butter (exact amount depends on how much thickening power you're trying to get, I'd typically use 2-3 TB), and let it foam a little bit, but not brown.
Sprinkle on as much flour as you had butter. (you can use more, but not more than about twice as much flour to butter)
Stir in the flour, and it'll form a clay-like lump. Spread it across the bottom of the pan to cook.
Let it cook for a minute or two, redistributing it a couple of times during the process. Exact cooking time depends on how hot the stove is; cook until it loses the kinda greasy look. (the longer you cook it, the less thickening power you'll have, and it'll start to take on a nutty flavor, which you actually do not want for this; you don't want it to pick up color; you should stop before it hits a straw color, which is enough to cook out the raw flour taste).
Add a little milk (it can be cold, that really doesn't matter, but you only want to add a couple of TB.
Stir thoroughly, and it'll start to look like paste.
Add some more milk. Maybe a little more than the first addition.
Stir thoroughly. it'll look like a thick batter, or maybe runny paste.
Keep repeating the milk/stirring 'til you get the consistency you want. You never want to add more milk than what's in the pan so far (and it's better if you only add about 1/2 as much volume as what's in the pan; the slower you add the milk, the less stirring is required to mix it back in).
Add a pinch of salt (but only if you use unsalted butter), and grate a little nutmeg over it, and stir it in.
You can hold it if you keep it just below a simmer. You'll need to stir it once in a while, to keep it from burning on the bottom. If it's getting too thick, just add a little more milk.
If you heat it too high, you'll actually loosen it back up. You want it at most a low simmer. It'll also thicken up some more as it cools, so you might want it a touch runnier than you want to serve it at.
If you're using this for an alfredo or mac & cheese, the pasta will absorb a lot of liquid, so you'll want it fairly loose.
The starch in the flour needs to be heated to at least 150 F in order to expand and thicken the sauce, but once it hits 200 F, it will collapse again.
My technique precisely. I would add two things - at step 5 and 7 (when you add milk) just let the milk sit for a moment in the hot pan before you start stirring. In this way warmer milk is meeting starch which means less lumps (this is also the reason for the pre-scalding suggestions.) Also if it does lump, get out the whisk.
@Kate : I've never really thought about it ... I guess it's in there to warm for a few seconds, as I recap the milk, but I've never thought about it. Of course, when dealing with slurries, you specifically use cold liquid so the starch doesn't over gelatanize on the outside, keeping liquid from penetrating to the middle, so I'm not sure if hot's necessarily an advantage.
temperature. I would turn down the heat on the sauce, and take it a little bit slower, to avoid making the lumps in the transitions of the sauce.
Scald the milk. When you add cold milk to a hot roux it takes more time to reaheat the mixture and cook out the startches. It is unrealated to the lumpy mixture result. Lumps are caused when you add too much milk at one time and dont correctly stir it together before you add more. That or you have burned the bechemel at the bottom
This is what i do and it works every time -
25g butter
25g flour
300ml milk
Melt the butter in the pan, when fully melted add the flour (sieved). Whisk briefly and then add the milk gradually. Stir continiously every-time.This is a basic white sauce but you can add cheese/nutmeg or any flavours at the end.
I never scald the milk. If you do you can run the risk of curdling it and the end result will be grainy. Add cold milk or 1/2 and 1/2, actually half milk and half buttermilk is delicious and tangy, to the roux slowly, stirring constantly.
I have a special recipe for light Béchamel sauce from my Italian mother. She love to cook light food and in this preparation she don't use any butter.
The proportions I use to make lasagna for 4 people are:
1 L milk
5 Tbsp cornstarch
1/2 tsp salt
1/8 tsp nutmeg
1/3 tsp pepper
And to do it:
First you mix the cornstarch in the cold milk until you have no lumps.
Add salt, pepper and nutmeg.
Then you cook on medium fire for 10 min. Until it gets thicker.
Then you switch off and wait until get colder.
As options you can add one some parmesan cheese.
I have a completely different, but very simple method of making a basic white sauce (probably not strictly a Béchamel, as it's a different recipe) that doesn't involve making a roux. It also doesn't use butter, making it lower fat. I use semi-skimmed milk (2% in the US), and it works fine every time. I use it in lasagne, macaroni cheese (mac & cheese in the US) etc.
I put a heaped wooden spoonful of cornflour (cornstarch in the US) in a saucepan, then add a slug of milk - enough to fill the pan about 3mm (1/8th of a inch) deep. Then I stir it for 20 seconds or so, pressing the lumps out with the wooden spoon to get a smooth thickish paste, then stir in the rest of the milk (probably about 20 fl oz, 550ml, I never measure it) and heat it, stirring a lot. If it starts to thicken too much, I add a bit more milk and whisk it in. Just keep stirring till it's thick, smooth and glossy. Season a little and it's done!
It really is that simple, and you don't even need to heat it until all the milk is in.
I was told that cooking the roux longer means a less gritty taste. Also that cold milk makes for a smoother finish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.914262
| 2010-08-05T21:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4381",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"BaffledCook",
"Ben Smith",
"David Davis",
"Fima Rabin",
"Gautam",
"Georg Schölly",
"James Berthoud",
"Jeff Krause",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kimberlie Ward",
"Preston",
"Scott Conroy",
"SqlSandwiches",
"bouncingHippo",
"gardoglee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8326",
"jeffwllms",
"maf88",
"od3n",
"rjbs",
"wellwisher"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58022
|
How to make white aioli?
Whenever I make aioli with the traditional recipe of egg and oil it always turns out yellowish. It's obviously because of the color of the egg yolks. However, recently I've noticed some good restaurants serving quality aioli that is really white. Also some store bought ones are more white than yellow.
I'm wondering how they make the aioli to be that white instead of the golden version I always get.
The original Valencian allioli and Maltese aljoli don't have egg yolk in its receipe. Egg yolk makes emulsification easier but it isn't necessary. Garlic itself is already an emulsifier.
Allioli is made by pounding garlic with olive oil and salt in a mortar until smooth. The oil should be added little by little -- otherwise the emulsion breaks.
Mortar and pestle?!? Maybe if you've got all day (or if you want to be excessively traditional). I'll take a few pulses in a food processor.
Allright, thanks. I'll give it a try without the eggs. But indeed, in my food processor instead of the mortar.
On second thought, you reckon this will result in the white version I'm talking about? I mean, Te olive oil is golden of color as well?
@tomvo I have the impression that the oil doesn't make the emulsion as yellow as the oil is yellow in the non-emulsified state. See image aioli with egg yolk and allioli without egg yolk. It is still yellowish. The color obviously depends on the used oil. The caption of the last image says that there are lighter or darker olive oils and some even make the allioli greenish.
Traditional All i oli is hand made with mortar and pestle. Its colour is yellowish, even with green oils (it's greenier than the one made with yellow oils). Allioli made in food processors has white colour.
More than one year later serious eats comes with this post: http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/how-to-make-egg-white-mayonnaise.html. Super white mayo base, I should try this with added garlic and see how the flavor ends up to be.
When choosing oil, the more it looks like clear drinking water when you start, the whiter the end product would be when compared to an oil that has color is not clear.
A lot of commercial mayonnaises/aiolis use whole eggs, which doesn't darken the mixture as much as egg yolks alone. The restaurants you speak of could be doing the same.
Also, what kind of oil are you using? When I use sunflower oil in aioli, it's lighter than something like olive oil.
Alternatively, ChefSteps etc. use titanium dioxide to make things whiter, you could try that.
Could the downvoter explain their reason why?
maybe because of this: "I use sunflower oil in aioli"?
Sunflower oil is pretty commonly used for aioli - it's definitely a close second to olive oil.
Perhaps some restaurante do the original without eggs to also get covered with Vegan clients.
When I do it with mortar, with 12 grains of garlic and salt, just until paste. Then adding sunflower oil, little by little, I get a pure white and thick all-i-oli (means garlic and oil).
Sometimes, the emulsión fails, so I mend it by adding a boiled potato or some soft bread. It results much stronger than garlic mayonaise.
surely you mean olive oil?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.914962
| 2015-06-05T17:09:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58022",
"authors": [
"Alicia Ahhaitty Jonzy",
"Ching Chong",
"DaFi4",
"David Stephens",
"Gayle McNeece",
"Grace",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jannetta Steptoe",
"Jesse Williams",
"Kathy Emmons",
"Ming",
"Rene Salih",
"Sanne Josephine Bille",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73257",
"logophobe",
"njzk2",
"tomvo"
],
"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
}
|
67102
|
Does pressure cooking preserve alcohol?
I use my pressure cooker a lot and for one recipe I'm practically bathing a few pork loins in white wine. I know that pressure cooking only reduces liquid by less than five percent, and I know that cooking only reduces alcohol by evaporation not breaking down of molecules (or at least I think so). So does pressure cooking only reduce alcohol content by ~5% (since the stuff that evaporates will probably be mostly alcohol? Or will the alcohol content in the steam be much higher? Even in that case, if I let it sit before releasing pressure, most of the steam will turn back into liquid.
Basically, can I add "helps get you tipsy" to the list of my InstantPot's many features?
The added pressure won't change things very much. I'm sure if you search (here or elsewhere) for "boil off alcohol" you'll get a decent explanation but briefly you can't get rid of it completely and to get rid of very much takes quite some time. So you'll have quite an alcoholic sauce at the end. [comment replaced as typo changed meaning]
Assuming your pressure cooker doesn't vent a ton of vapor, this should work. In that case, all you're losing is the vapor that's inside the cooker when you open it.
It is true that the vapor will contain a higher concentration of alcohol than the liquid, e.g. 5% alcohol liquid might produce 25-35% alcohol vapor. (I had a little trouble finding exact numbers for the elevated pressure, but I don't think precision is necessary here.) But the vapor itself is only going to be in the ballpark of a gram per liter. So depending on the amount of open space in the pressure cooker, you might lose a few grams of an alcohol-water vapor mixture, at worst equivalent to losing a few mL of 80-proof liquor. I assume that's small compared to the amount you're putting in.
On the other hand if it vents significant vapor, the loss could approach the same ballpark as the usual loss from boiling. I'm not sure how to estimate the vapor released from a pressure cooker, but this does mean you could potentially lose upwards of half of it depending on how long you cook.
Since a pressure cooker does not release any vapors, all of the alcohol will remain in the pot until you open the lid. In fact, even when cooking in an open pot, a large amount of alcohol will remain in your liquid(Wikipedia:Cooking_with_alcohol). While it is true that alcohol has a lower boiling point than water in their pure forms, a mixture of water and ethanol will boil together, with both water and alcohol vaporizing. Wikipedia: Raoult's Law
There are different mechanisms for regulating pressure ... and some do bleed off vapors. See http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=2561.html
The boiling point of alcohol is 173°F - your pressure cooker will reach temperatures of up to 240-250°F.
My husband is in the "sensor" business and he equipped my kitchen with a gas detector. I often pressure cook risotto with 1/4 cup of wine and when I release pressure the alarm goes off signifying a large concentration of ethanol in the air.
In fact, pressure cookers are used to distill alcohol at temperatures lower than pressure cooking.
I did some research of Scientific Journal Articles and did not find any specific studies that measured exactly HOW MUCH alcohol is evaporated during pressure cooking - but my educated guess says is that it's quite a bit!
The boiling point of alcohol isn't really that relevant here. The alcohol and water boil together, and the resulting vapor will have a higher concentration of alcohol than the liquid, sure. But what matters is how much alcohol is actually in that not-very-dense vapor.
When you open the vent though, you're releasing quite a lot of alcohol vapour all in one go (as well as water vapour). This could easily be enough to set off a gas detector even if releasing the same amount of vapour slowly from an open simmer wouldn't.
Boiling point varies by pressure, also... that's how the pressure cooker gets to 240-250, anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.915368
| 2016-03-05T05:26:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67102",
"authors": [
"Ajit Parmar",
"Belial Marsh",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Florentin Scarlat",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Loretta Adair",
"Paul Cooper",
"Peter Cruden",
"R K",
"Staci McCarvey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"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
}
|
57888
|
How to bake with self raising flour?
Is it possible to use self raising flour instead of all purpose and letting it raise with yeast? Also, is it necessary to add baking soda to self raising flour?
Do you mean replacing all purpose (plain) flour with self-raising flour in a bread recipe?
Nope.. If you use self raising flour with yeast, the bread would come out like a cake..
Self raising flour already has baking powder added to it but if the recipe calls for self raising flour along with baking soda then add it...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.915702
| 2015-05-31T12:24:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57888",
"authors": [
"Chinita Madrina",
"Grant Hammond",
"Greybeard",
"Marian Asinero",
"Michael Whalen",
"RUTH ABBAH",
"Sherry Leeman",
"Suzie Buzzie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481"
],
"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
}
|
14147
|
Ideal fridge temperature accounting for temperature spikes
I've read the question on the ideal fridge temperature, but am asking a more involved question about a baseline temperature and temperature spikes. How will a few hours each day at 10 C effect the contents of the fridge? What about two smaller spikes to 7 C?
Background: I live in a small studio. The fridge makes noise. I'd like it to be quiet at night. If I can do so without frequent food spoilage, I'll get a timer and turn the fridge off from 2300 to 0800. If this is a bit too much time without cooling, I plan to turn it off while I fall asleep (2300 to 0200), turn it back on (0200 to 0400), and then have it be quiet in the mornings again (0400 to 0800).
I've put some temperature loggers in the fridge and unplugged it manually during the 2300 to 0800 time. The graph is attached below. The mean temperature is 3 to 5 C, rising to 10 C.
The 2nd day was 'bad' data: I added a few gallons of water to increase the thermal capacity of the fridge (temp spike), but added them too late in the evening. The water did not cool to 4 C, and when I unplugged it the temperature shot back up. The first day, with an almost empty fridge, is a worst-case scenario. When the fridge is full I expect the max T at 0800 to be 8 or 9 C, not 10 C. I am collecting that data now and will update the post in a few days when I've checked the variability.
If 6-8 C for a few hours, then 8 to 10 C for a few more, then a quick return to 3 C is bad for the food (mostly OJ, soy milk, cheese, and some veggies), then I'll cool it in the middle of the night when I'm in a deep sleep.
So... to the question: How important is a 4 C fridge? Is a few hours per day up to 10 C bad? What about up to 7 C? Any other suggestions how to quiet the studio as I try to sleep?
I know this isn't the point of your question, but if you post more data, it'd be cool if you could use a thinner line so we can see the shape of the normal cycles too.
It depends also on the food in the fridge. Veggies that have 10°C is not so bad as raw meat that has 10°C. Also the age of all the food can play a role, I think.
If you really want to do this, you are probably going to have to take into account the thermal mass of the contents of your fridge, i.e., an emptier fridge will need to be initially cooled to a lower temperature to sustain sub-4C temperatures during the shutoff phase. This would require some sort of closed-loop controller that could sense the temperature gradient of the fridge and plan ahead for the desired shutoff times. This of course won't be as big a problem if you always have roughly the same contents in your fridge.
This is an awesome experiment. Maybe you could provide some detail on my question about fridge temperatures. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14174/what-is-the-sous-vide-botulism-risk-if-storing-meat-post-cooking-at-home
I'm surprised that the extra thermal mass wasn't more significant ... could you share last night's data, to see if it just needed more time to chill down? Also, do you have any readings on the room's temperature, so we know if that could be the cause of the elevated daytime temps on the later days?
The added mass did not have time to cool. You can see this in the graph. When the fridge was unplugged the T shot up, and it got warmer by 0800. Because I didn't give it enough time to cool, I added heat, not cold mass. I have 2 loggers in the room (floor, ceiling), and one outside. I'm collecting a few more days and will post here when I download the data. I do not see a connection between outside T and inside the fridge T. I think it is well enough insulated to not be influenced significantly.
You could insulate the fridge and/or get some kind of mufflers :) There are even some fridges out there, mostly minis, that use the Peltier effect to work silently, without compressors.
Final results and data here: http://kenmankoff.com/data/fridge/
@Jefromi, thinner lines available at the above page.
@Joe. Thermal mass kept the max temp down by about 1 C, and the over all degree-hours down by quite a bit more. I have room for a lot more mass, so I think 9 hours without power will not be a problem. Also, room and external temps are at the above page. I see no correlation.
Another possibility to consider would be adding ice blocks from a freezer during the times you want to not be running the compressor.
This is roughly equivalent to a large thermal mass in the fridge. If 30% is a steel block, or several gallons of water, I won't need to manually do anything each night.
Have you considered earplugs? Or some other noise to mask it (like one of those nature sounds machines?)
Vegetables may go bad a little sooner (depends on the vegetable; some actually like it a little warmer). Cheese probably won't care. OJ is probably acidic enough to keep long enough to use it up. No idea about soy milk.
I would definitely not keep meat in there, since the ideal temperature for that is slightly below 0°C.
I'm mostly vegetarian, so the meat isn't an issue. I've considered all sorts of things but prefer to not have earplugs or additional (even if white) noise. If I can just remove noise, and have on side effects other than a $20 debit for a timer, that would be nicest.
I think that allowing the hardware to work as it is intended is likely in your best interest. Instead, I would refer your question to DIY.se (perhaps), to find out how to stop your fridge from being so loud.
So instead of possibly ruining a bunch of food, look into the pathology of the noise issue of the fridge. Some options I can think of are to:
insulate the sound (i.e. unglamorously with a blanket)
clean out the backside of any dust(-bunnies) etc
verify that there are no air blockages (trapping the dissipating heat causes the compressor to work harder than it should)
verify that the compressor is in good working order
One thing I also wonder about is if the re-cooling period, with the compressor running constantly for an extended time, might potentially bad for it - if it's already working too hard, that might start pushing it hotter and wearing it out?
If you insulate the sound, be very sure you are not accidentally providing thermal insulation to the outside of the fridge or blocking fans too. You don't want it to overheat.
your advice is based on the assumption that the "normal" operating noise of a working fridge won't trouble him. However, I know from experience that this noise, which is unnoticeable when moving around in the kitchen, can be very unpleasant at night, when the fridge is in the same room with you and not more than 3-4 meters from your bed. Especially if it is one of the small cheap models likely to be installed in an one-room-with-kitchen-corner flat. I just grew used to mine. But cleaning won't help with normal noise and insulating the compressor part is bad for heat dissipation.
@Rum I have a loud, annoying fridge that irritates me in the kitchen even with music on (belongs to landlord, who won't fix it). My answer is just saying that he should verify that there aren't problems exacerbating the fridge (via DIY) first before he goes through the trouble of doing [whatever]; especially if, as @Jef points out, un/plugging could damage the compressor and other hardware. It might also consume more energy (think of turning a television on and off). Also, please note that I included a step to assess heat dissipation / air blockages.
This is 'normal' noise. Fridge is, AFAIK, healthy and happy. Thanks for pointing out that the prolonged re-cooling in the AM could stress it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.915819
| 2011-04-19T01:12:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14147",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Creature",
"Damon Snowdon",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Leanne",
"Mien",
"Sarah Turrell",
"That Realtor Programmer Guy",
"bummi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mankoff",
"mfg",
"munale",
"rumtscho",
"user29773",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100875
|
Is a degraded Teflon pan toxic to all of its users?
We have an induction cooktop at home. We use a teflon pan from IKEA, roughly 24 cm in diameter. This pan is frequently used on level 7 of the induction stove. Based on limited measurement with an IR thermometer, I found out that this heats the pan to about 240 °C at least, and very likely past the 260 °C recommended limit since it often runs on this level for at least 10 minutes at a time.
I read that exceeding recommended temperatures causes the non-stick quality of the pan to degrade. I’ve also read that over a certain temperature (I think 300 °C), the Teflon may let out toxic fumes.
While the fumes are a concern in their own right, I wonder if future uses of the pan, even within the recommended temperature limits, could cause toxic chemicals to spill into the food that’s being cooked. This pan has definitely been overheated more than once, and I’d like to know about the health repercussions of this.
If you're worried, throw it out & buy a cast-iron skillet.
You know, I assumed with all of our prior questions about teflon, this would already be answered, but no. So see my answer below.
There is no current evidence that already-degraded PTFE (Teflon) poses any toxicity risks in its solid form. To quote the University of California School of Public Health:
There’s no evidence, however, that ingesting any PTFE flakes that might have degraded from the pan’s surface over time poses any health risk, and the American Cancer Society notes that “Teflon itself is not suspected of causing cancer.” That makes sense, considering that PTFE is an inert substance, which means it doesn’t react with other chemicals.
Tibbs Bioscience says:
PTFE is inert in its solid form, meaning it won’t react with other chemicals, which is what makes it such as great non-stick coating. As such, the minimal PTFE you would ingest will likely pass through the digestive tract without harm.
Other sources I checked had the same answer. The fumes from overheating PTFE are known to be unhealthful; the solids left behind have no known issues.
Note that the same is not true of another chemical that used to be used in Teflon, PFOA. Again, per Tibbs:
After repeated heating and cooling, it is possible that the PFOA could migrate into the food. Research suggests that PFOA interferes with hormonal balances as well as reproduction and fetal development
The problems with PFOA have caused manfucturers to stop using it in Teflon production. However, if you have an older Teflon pan (pre-2013), it may still have PFOA, as might Teflon pans outside the US and EU.
Great answer. I suppose this means you should only truly be wary of being exposed to the fumes, and I imagine the pan also needs to get a fair bit hotter than the recommended limit of 260 °C
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.916431
| 2019-08-21T17:01:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100875",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"kettlepot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37865
|
Do shrimp really have sex with their siblings before being served raw in sushi?
"The raw shrimp served in sushi all begin life as males—and then they all suddenly become females and have sex with their younger siblings." -Trevor Corson, The Story of Sushi
Is this true? Do all shrimp really need to go through this process before being served raw? If they don't have sex with their siblings should they not be served raw? Why?
Edit: After doing more research, I've found out that not all shrimp are born as males. So why are only the ones that are born as males used in sushi? Or is the guy that published this book full of S#i%?
Sounds like a question for Skeptics.SE...
That's not really true in any meaningful way, and has nothing to do with sushi. It sounds like the author was just trying to make it sound scandalous to attract attention.
It's a really, really sensationalized version of something true about at least some species of shrimp. They're essentially all born male, so before they can reproduce, naturally, some of them have to turn into females. The bit about siblings is essentially made up; sure, each shrimp has a lot of offspring, so some probably do randomly reproduce with a "sibling", but it's not like they're seeking it out. The younger part is true in a sense, though, since they turn from male to female but not back, so naturally the males are younger than the females. See for example this page.
I don't think those species are the only ones used in sushi, though, so all in all, the statement is essentially false. Not all shrimp change sex, in the species which do that, not only older ones (which have changed sex) are caught, and not all of them mate with siblings. I'm sure someone has eaten sushi made with a female member of one of those species which did happen to have mated with a sibling, but that's nothing to write a book about.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.916686
| 2013-10-23T20:04:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37865",
"authors": [
"Gene Prudhon",
"Iogictable",
"Maggie Boyd",
"Mel",
"Mikester919",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"gai-jin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89111",
"vdst"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112749
|
Open turkeys too soon
We opened our turkeys and put them in a bucket of ice water.
I have not added herbs and salt yet, but there is a week before Thanksgiving.
Will the turkeys be ruined if I add the brine now? Should I add the brine just a day before Thanksgiving?
How big is the turkey? Larger turkeys actually take a long time to thaw: https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/holidays/thanksgiving-ideas/a33825235/how-to-thaw-frozen-turkey/ (although those charts are for fridge, not ice water baths)
In other words, first pack your bird again in a large bag or several layers of plastic wrap, then come back here and [edit] your post with more details. Unless you have a bird the size of a hog, cold water thawing almost a week before cooking the bird will almost certainly get you in “unsafe” territory as far as food safety is concerned.
And welcome to Seasoned Advice! The [tour] and the [help], especially [ask], will get you started here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.916876
| 2020-11-20T18:42:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112749",
"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
}
|
113868
|
Thawing vacuum-packed fish
I purchased vacuum-packed Flounder and the individual wrapped filets bear the following statement:
Must remove from packaging before thawing. Do not refreeze.
Now, "do not refreeze" is straightforward. We were taught in grade school, don't re-freeze meat or food poisoning can result.
Does "must remove from packaging before thawing" have a similarly health-oriented cause? Or is it simply less damaging to the filet to remove it from vacuum-packing while it's frozen? This advice is contrary to the simplicity and neatness of thawing the fish while it's still vacuum-packed.
My question is, is there a health-related reason not to thaw it while still in the vacuum-pack?
Do not re-freeze has been covered here before, there's no safety issue with refreezing as long as it's done within a short enough time.
...right...re-freezing is more about compromising texture.
Typically the plastic used for vacuum packed food is polyethylene, which has a low melting point, depending on the plastic it could be as low as 110°C, or 230°F. Once it melts you have liquid plastic on your food with the nasty flavors and potential health concerns.
The big thing here is microwaving can very quickly cause the plastic to reach that temperature (actually it raises the food to that temperature which heats the plastic), but explaining the dos and don'ts is complex so they just make a blanket statement so they can't be blamed if something goes wrong. In reality you can safely thaw fish in the plastic using any method you want as long as you are careful not to reach that temperature. If you microwave thaw do it on low and check it often to make sure you aren't overheating it.
Regarding re-freezing I won't cover it here as there's already a very good question and answer on this site here. The short answer is refreezing can be done safely as long as it's within certain parameters.
Thank you. For the record I thaw with a cool water bath, so it sounds like I'm in the clear!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.916988
| 2021-01-21T01:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113868",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"gowenfawr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90935",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94603
|
How do I get something sticky like honey or Golden Syrup off measuring spoons or measuring cups? Is there a better way?
When I put honey in a spoon or measuring cup, the residue stays and it’s hard to get all of it out. How do I make it all come out? Is there a way to measure honey without leaving honey on a spoon?
Are you measuring the honey? Would you consider another way to measure?
Yes, measuring honey and golden syrup. Tell me another way if you know.
Very related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10473/measuring-glucose-syrup-without-wasting-it
I measure by weight and then… lick the excess off the spoon! (The perks of being the chef:-)
@iain I thought that was why we have children around? After that, it's clear you need to sterilize the spoon; if you lick it yourself there's doubt...
You ought to clarify whether you're trying to clean the spoon or get the correct amount of honey into the bowl.
As, since this answer other suggestions have abounded, let me clarify.
These methods assume you want no wastage & also no cross-contamination of your source jar of the sticky component. They also require almost nothing in the way of 'extra equipment'.
Depending on what the next steps to your recipe are, I can think of three alternatives. None are perfect and each would suit a different scenario.
Tip it and leave it a long time.
Heat it slightly. Microwave or sit the container in hot water.
or my favourite,
Rinse it out with the next liquid ingredient you will use in the same recipe; or for a spoon, stir your existing ingredients with it.
I'm probably violating the Be Nice policy, but I have to say that I think you're lying. Everyone's favourite method of cleaning sugar syrups from spoons is to lick the spoon.
@PeterTaylor the problem is that you still need the content of the spoon in the recipe.
@PaŭloEbermann Add another spoonful, then "clean" that one as well
Unless you have spare measuring spoons, number 3 may need you to adjust the order in which ingredients are added, so that the free-flowing ones go in first, then the sticky ones. Use common sense in this, as sometimes there are reasons not to (e.g. breadmakers often need the yeast last).
As a complement to (3), if you need an oil ingredient, measure the oil in the same vessel before the sticky substance.
It's possible to get specialized equipment for this: a plunger measuring cup. The base is adjusted to the level you need to measure, the sticky honey or syrup is poured in, and then the cup is upended and as the base is pushed in, it scrapes the sides as it travels.
I'd only invest in this if you very frequently measure sticky ingredients -- it's not strictly necessary, but it can be a timesaver for some recipes. It's available from many different brands.
This is ideal. Do they do one small enough for tablespoons?
@RedSonja: yes, all kinds of sizes are made by the millions: syringes. (Works with liquid honey or syrup, not with solid honey - but measuring solid honey by volume anyways doesn't work well)
Yep, this is basically a wide mouth syringe :)
Came in here to recommend this. Alton Brown uses one fairly often on his Good Eats show. He pushes the contents into his bowl, then makes a quick pass across the top of the plunger with a silicone spatula. Looks very clean and accurate when he does it.
I have two of these. They're great for things like shortening and peanut butter.
Your concern is NOT getting the measuring item clean.
Your concern is ensuring the right amount of ingredient goes where it is desired.
If you have decent accuracy digital kitchen scales (relatively cheap usually but may depend on your location), you can measure by weight.
If you need to determine the weight by measure of your sticky substance, start with these steps:
Place the measuring item (spoon, cup whatever) on the scales. Tare the scales to zero.
Scoop quantity of sticky substance. Measure on scales, and note the number.
Once you know how much the desired measurement should weigh (you can also look up these numbers online or in many cookbooks):
Place destination bowl on scales and tare to zero.
Add sticky substance up to the desired weight.
This answer makes a fair point, but I think it overlooks the possibility that OP's concern may be avoiding wastage. Where I live I couldn't get golden syrup without importing it myself, and then I would want to ensure that having measured the desired amount into my recipe I returned as much as possible from what was stuck to the spoon back to the tin or jar.
My answer here touches on this too: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10473/measuring-glucose-syrup-without-wasting-it/37676#37676
Not sure why you need steps #1 & #2 and not go straight to #3?
@MrWhite if you don't know the weight of a tablespoon of syrup/honey, you have to establish that somehow. Skip 1 and 2 once you know it :)
@Erica But do you need to "know the weight of a tablespoon of syrup/honey"? (Especially since some of the sticky syrup will remain on the spoon anyway.) If the recipe asks for 200g of syrup and the "destination bowl is on the scales and zero'd" (#3) then you just add the syrup until the scale reads 200g (using a "spoon, cup whatever")? Anything that is still on the spoon is scraped back into the original container. (Then lick the spoon and put it for washing. ;)
Some recipes call for a tablespoon or some ml of honey (e.g.) rather than by weight. Those are one that need additional information.
'tare' - well, I learnt a word
@Erica a touch of math can solve it; Googling "density of honey" and it says 1.45 (g/mL, kg/L, specific gravity). 1 T = 15 mL, so 15 * 1.45 = 22 g. My cookbooks and recipes are full of such notes, mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to clean any more than necessary...
There are also online calculators: https://www.calculateme.com/recipe/1-tablespoons-of-honey (says 21 grams, but if your recipe is going to be affected by a difference of 1 gram you have bigger problems). I think this answer could be improved by saying that a scale can also be a solution when the problem is just cleaning up--warm your sticky substance so it is easier to pour, calculate the amount you need by weight, pour directly into your mixing container using the scale, and swipe the rim of your sticky substance container with a wet paper towel to keep the lid from sticking forever.
This answer would be great if it just started at step 3.
@NickT: Obviously kg/L is the right way of thinking about density of honey. :-)
I'd suggest weighing without using a spoon: if you know the weight, just pour the honey directly from the container (which will preferably have a beaker). That's how I deal with honey.
The advantage of using a scale is that you can tare the scale to the mixing container itself and then simply add honey/syrup directly from the container until the correct weight has been added. By completely eliminating the spoon you eliminate any waste related to the spoon. Steps 1 and 2 are only needed if you don't have another way to know the weight/volume of the ingredient.
What I do, if the recipe calls for any sort of oil, measure that first, then the honey slides out pretty well.
I've done this even if the recipe doesn't call for oil. I just slightly oil the measuring spoon and then wipe off the oil. There are small oil participles still stuck to the spoon that will assist in getting off the honey. The amount of oil this introduces is probably less than what accidentally gets introduced in my kitchen by using cast iron a lot and/or be being a sloppy dish washer
It's not a perfect solution, but using two spoons and scraping one with the other you can get the majority of the syrup off the spoons relatively quickly.
Silicone spatulas are quite good at cleaning hard vessels well. Combine that with a small enough measurement - so don't measure 50 ml of honey in a 1000 ml cup, use as close to 50 ml as this gives you a better ratio of volume-to-wall-surface - then scrape with the silicone spatula, and it will be almost as clean as licked.
For getting the cup clean afterwards, wash with hot water, not merely warm.
I was surprised I had to go this far down to find this answer. This is what I do for all bowls, spoons etc. There is still some to clean but not enough that it is difficult with traditional soap and hot water.
Heat the utensil. For a spoon, fill a coffee cup with boiling water, and drop the spoon in there for 30 secs or so, or for a measuring cup, just fill it with boiling water before measuring out the honey/syrup.
The heat will reduce the viscosity making it pour off the spoon/out of the cup better.
I've found that a light spray of cooking spray on the spoon or in a measuring cup will make measuring any sticky substance very easy.
It will also contaminate whatever you dip the spoon in :\
You pour the honey into the spoon or cup, you don't dip it.
Rub a tiny amount of neutral oil onto the measuring cup prior to measuring.
Water on your spoon will help, I found that when I put peanut butter into my drink in the morning and used a wet spoon from the draining board that it is considerably less sticky.
Why not put the honey pot on the balance instead and take your measures at reverse? That's what I do.
This doesn't help get the honey (or other sticky syrup) off whatever spoon or implement you use to transfer from container to recipe, though. Great for accurate measuring, but can you add details about how you clean the spoon?
In the case of honey or syrup, buy a squeezy bottle, and measure out the amount by placing the receptical on a balance and squeezing until enough comes out. The bottle can be rinsed out and used again and again. I also buy glass jars of honey (much cheaper than squeezy), and decant that into the squeezy bottle.
Convert all measures to CC's and then use syringes. Different syringe for each ingredient. Minimizes waste, and they come sterile.
I think this is a great solution until you're measuring larger volumes (1/4 cup +). It's possible to refill there syringe repeatedly, but it can get tedious with especially viscous ingredients.
Weigh everything that is sticky and messy. Measure the old way in a measuring cup than weigh it, write it down for next time. Of course don’t forget to weigh the cup empty first. Kitchen scales are very cheap nowadays.
Isn’t this the same as nah’s answer?
Line your measuring cup with a bit of Saran Wrap. It's thin enough that it won't mess up the volume/weight by any significant amount. When you're done measuring it you can just pull the Saran Wrap out of the measuring cup and scrape the honey that sticks off with a silicon spatula. Even better, when you're done you just throw the Saran Wrap away and your measuring cup never gets dirty!
Ever tried scraping loose Saran Wrap with a spatula? Did you find it to be easier than scraping a measuring cup with a spatula, or did you find it to be an exercise in frustration, futility, and getting honey everywhere?
@Sneftel I think it's much easier than measuring in the cup, because you can lay the Saran Wrap flat on the counter when you're trying to scrape it. Nothing gets caught on the edges, you don't have to worry about the spatula fitting inside the measuring cup, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.917242
| 2018-12-09T14:58:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94603",
"authors": [
"Beta",
"BoredBsee",
"Chris H",
"Dr. Cyanide",
"Erica",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matt",
"MrWhite",
"Nick T",
"Paŭlo Ebermann",
"Peter Taylor",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"RedSonja",
"SC for reinstatement of Monica",
"Scribblemacher",
"Silenced Temporarily",
"Sneftel",
"Strawberry",
"Tetsujin",
"Tristan",
"barbecue",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8041",
"ian",
"user3067860",
"user3445853",
"user56reinstatemonica8",
"ushna saeed"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93501
|
How can I remove excess fat/oil from my slow cooker dish?
when we are cooking something, we don’t know how much oil we need, so sometimes we add too much oil, which affects the taste of the dish.
What can I do when this happened? How can I remove the excess oil?
We do not accept questions about health (apart from food safety aspects), so I removed the part. Let me remind you that the checking [ask] before posting a question is recommended.
it depend on the dish that you are making.There are lots of method to remove extra oil from the cooked dish .one and the easiest way is that if you are making a vegetable or fried dish you can remove extra oil by just putting all the dish on Slotted spoon.in this way all extra oil can be remove without destroying the taste of dish.but if you are making any liquid dish you can remove extra oil by using ice or you can cool the dish and the whole oil appear in a layer and you can easily remove that layer of oil.
Oil typically floats to the top in most dishes. In that case it is a simple matter of using a ladle to skim excess oil from the dish. This won't work in all cases because emulsifiers and other agents will cause oils to dissolve in the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.918540
| 2018-11-02T11:34:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93501",
"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
}
|
61557
|
How to make tea essential oil?
I tried to make my own tea essentials oil by putting small pieces of tea leaves (dehydrated) into my local alcohol (29% vol).
After 1 week, the leaves turned brown, so I removed them out of the bottle. Now the remaining looks dark, strong smell of tea and alcohol.
I wonder if it can be called tea tree essential oil and can be used in beauty products like body wash or even in food?
This is my first time I've tried to make essential oil, so not sure what to do properly as there's no direct instruction on google that show how to make tea oil.
You have basically made tea-flavoured vodka.
The tea tree (for essential oil) is unrelated to the tea plant for the beverage.
Commercially, tea tree oil is produced by steam distillation of the leaves of the tea tree, specifically Melaleuca alternifolia. Though possible to obtain leaves and perform the distillation, it's probably not practical on a small scale outside of the tea tree production regions. For completeness, tea tree oil is toxic; you don't want to eat it.
What you used was conventional tea leaves. The tea beverage is made by steeping (soaking in hot water) leaves of the tea plant, which have been dried or otherwise prepared (e.g., fermented, roasted, etc.).
Again, "tea tree" aka Melaleuca Alternifolia has nothing to do with the "tea" you drink. You need "tea tree leaves", not "tea leaves".
Not to mention... Vodka isn't oil...
@Catija actually, essential oils are not necessarily an oil either. They are frequently an alcoholic extraction too. So the idea is not that far fetched. But you are right, this specific product has nothing to do with either true oil nor an essential oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.918695
| 2015-09-07T15:04:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61557",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Catija",
"Denise L'Ecuyer",
"Diana Murray",
"Edson Takunda Ndebvu",
"Karen Mcginn",
"Mats",
"Oli",
"Valerie Young",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jared jameson",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69001
|
Bread crusty outside and super soft inside
I want a crusty bread from outside and super soft almost like a croissant inside. What flour should I use?
Could you pleast be more specific? E.g. what kind of flours and which techniques? Sample recipes and what was "just not right" with them?
Oh and: Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please take the [tour] and visit our [help] to learn more about this site and the SE system, then [edit] your question with more details.
I've used bread flour high gluten and unbleached bread flour and all purpose flour I've used lard and eggs
What flour - water ratio and do you knead or use a no-knead / stretch & fold technique? (Getting late here, will check back tomorrow.)
Any suggestions on flour type
Best flour for these type of bread?
There are more factors than just flour type that will influence the texture of a bread. I could answer "use part all-purpose, part bread flour", but while technically correct (but not the only correct answer), it probably won't solve your problem. If I keep asking questions it is to help you. And where in the world are you? Different countries have different ways of grading flour. (This is an international site after all.)
You need steam. For the first 10 to 15 minutes of the bake put a tray of water (about a cup full) in the bottom of the oven. Alternatively cover the loaf with some form of loose dome to trap in the moisture from the bread, again only 10 to 15 minutes then uncover.
Leave the steam for too long and the crust will get leathery.
You need AP flour for this. I know that most people in the English speaking countries will tell you to use "strong bread flour", but it produces an elastic crumb with some chewiness. For a really soft and fluffy inside, you need at least AP if not pastry flour.
As the others said, there are a ton of other things you need to produce this kind of bread, but you asked specifically about flour.
I make Mark Bittman's no-knead bread. It is baked in a cast iron Dutch oven for the first 20 minutes of baking. Then, you uncover it for the last few minutes. This makes an excellent crust with tender, chewy bread inside. The other thing that makes a big difference with the crust is cooling the bread completely before slicing. It's hard to wait, but it's worth it.
Doesn't this method require a dough with a relatively high water content?
I'm not sure about its water to dry ingredient ratio compared to other breads. I use almost a cup and a half water with three cups flour when I make this bread.
Anyone has that same problem
have you tried Vietnamese rolls? Very crispy French crust but fluff inside from the addition of rice flour.
Perfect for Banh Mi
This is the most basic of breads. Use strong white flour, luke warm water (not milk avoid dairy which softens the crust) hydration of 65%, add 2% salt and 2% dried yeast (keep seperated) and about a 5% percent of lard cut into little chunks (not butter) for longevity. Lets assume you use 500g flour. That would be 325g water, 10g salt and 10g yeast + 25g lard.
Put the whole mix except the water into a stand mixer and mix slowly until everything is incorporated. Add the water and mix until all is absorbed and the dough begins to loosen and become more liquid again. Now increase the speed to as fast as it will go and whizz for 4 minutes. It will come together. Scrape out with oiled hands and form a ball. Back into the mixing bowl which is also slightly oiled and cover with a shower cap or cling film and leave to rise until treble in size. Turn out onto a lightly floured board and knock back and shape or place in a tin folding edges underneath leaving a smooth top. Leave to rise again until treble in volume. Preheat oven to 220 degrees C. Make slashes in the top to encourage upward 'bloom', sprinkle with flour and bake for thirty minutes. Leave to cool uncovered - voila!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.918885
| 2016-05-14T20:52:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69001",
"authors": [
"Julio arias ",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45767",
"luckynumber3.com",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61763
|
Cooking potato same day you dig up
Could you cook and eat potatoes the same day you dig them up?
What are your concerns? You tagged it food-safety. Anything particular you are worried about?
I mean, you should probably wash them first. Otherwise why any concern?
Traditionally when farmers harvested potatoes they would burn the dry leaves in a corner of the field and roast some of the freshly harvested potatoes it it as a celebratory meal.
Absolutely! Right away if you like. And you may well notice they taste really nice when you do that. "New potatoes" - small, and not stored for long - are delicious.
oh yes, as a child our rule for corn (learned from our Mennonite neighbours) was you put the pot of water on to boil, then go out and pick the corn, and by the time you have it shucked the water should be boiling and in it goes. Marvelous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.919223
| 2015-09-15T19:45:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61763",
"authors": [
"A Square",
"Kate Gregory",
"Ken Muller",
"Kevin Piery",
"Madison Babovec",
"Nicki Puente",
"Patrick Hofman",
"Playground Surfacing Limited",
"Stephie",
"Topcat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61852
|
Can you freeze a tomato pie?
Can I freeze a tomato pie? If so, is it better to do this before or after I bake it?
Welcome to the site! I am not sure if every pie is the same, but this answers for pecan pie.
It's probably better to freeze it before baking.
When baking the pie some of the ingredients release their flavors, and those can be lost during the freeze. For that reason - the pie would probably preserve more taste if frozen unbaked (But will take more time to be ready for eating after removing from freezer)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.919363
| 2015-09-19T16:48:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61852",
"authors": [
"Alicia Mather",
"Donna Holmer",
"Helen Jordan",
"Issy Hobbs",
"Kathryn McGonigle",
"Patrick Hofman",
"carolyn dyson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63692
|
How can I remove salt from a saline infused pork sirloin roast?
How can I remove salt from a saline infused pork roast. I purchased 4 of them.
After making the first one I could not eat it. I am on a low sodium diet.
Before cooking, Remove any packaging and soak in cold water for 4 - 6 hours changing the water once or twice
One of the best ways to remove salt from food is to cook it with potatos, they will absorb some of the salt out of the meat for you. however, in your particular situation, you may come to find your meat will stay at a higher level of sodium then you would like.
how to unsalt food
Using potato to lower sodium is a myth that have been debunked. Plus eHow is not a very reliable source.
@Himarm eHow is paid content, and time and time again the content is either totally wrong, or of very poor quality. Please be nice here!
I have 5 pages of google saying potatoes work, 0 saying its a myth so show me its a myth...
http://www.thekitchn.com/can-a-potato-really-fix-a-toosalty-soup-putting-tips-to-the-test-in-the-kitchn-214650
http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/potatosponge.html
http://blog.kitchenmage.com/2011/12/debunk-of-day-potato-fixes-over-salted-soup.html
Let's just assume a second it would work for soup; for the meat it would mean that the salt first needs to go into the water and then from there into the potato. If the salt is already in the water instead of the meat, the potato would serve no purpose anymore, as the salt is no longer in the meat anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.919462
| 2015-11-20T22:48:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63692",
"authors": [
"Alan Vichion",
"Alexander Jackson",
"Catija",
"David Yochum",
"Emanuele",
"Eric Flygstad",
"Himarm",
"Jay",
"Joanne McLeod",
"John Hammond",
"Lisa Campana",
"Lisa Van Valer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8236
|
What's the best way to store lettuce in the refrigerator?
What is the best way to store lettuce in the fridge?
Should I store it in an airtight container, or an open bag?
Should I wash and cut it first?
Should it be stored wet, or patted dry?
It depends on what type of lettuce it is -- part of the issue is that if the lettuce is touching plastic, it will rot quicker, so I wrap it in paper towels, then bag it (but not sealed), and keep it in my crisper.
For whole heads of lettuce (iceburg, butter, red leaf, etc), I just wrap the whole thing in dry paper towels, then shove it back into the bag from the grocery store or farmer's market. I then pull off leaves as I need it, and re-wrap it. It stores for well over a week this way.
For mescalin mixes, arugula, or other individual leaves, I'll wash them, dry them, then unroll enough paper towels to spread the leaves on, then roll up the whole thing, and bag the roll (again, not sealed), and keep it in my crisper. I can probably get a week out of it this way.
(all times assume you're not buying from a store where it's been sitting on the shelf too long before you buy it; I get my lettuce when I can from the local farmer's market)
So, to answer the specific questions:
keep the bag open; you don't want moisture to condense inside the bag, as it'll make the lettuce rot faster.
I get better storage time with heads of letuce keeping them whole. If you're going to be eating it all within 2-3 days, it probably doesn't matter, and for loose lettuce, I find it more convenient to wash it as I re-pack it anyway.
You never want to store lettuce wet ... you might be able to store it completely submerged, but damp will lead to it rotting faster.
exactly what I was typing... I wish there was a way to tell when other people are already answering a question :)
You can use a regular kitchen towel instead of paper towels if you're so inclined.
@sarge : I know ... you just get the message "3 new answers" or similar right as you're about hit the submit button. (and I've had a few times, where I didn't even get that ... I don't know how often it polls for new answers)
@Rebekah : yeah, that'd be more environmentally friendly (although, I do mulch the paper towels, as they haven't been contaminated) ... but I have to figure out where I've managed to misplace all of mine. (I don't lose socks, I lose kitchen towels when doing the laundry)
In commercial kitchens: iceburg, romaine, and green leaf are often chopped in large batches, and any leftovers are completely submerged in water overnight.
It's interesting that you get good results with whole heads, they go limp in my fridge much faster than when I clean the leaves and put them in airtight containers.
@HannoFietz : I guess it could be the variety of lettuce or other factors (I don't have kids, so the fridge doesn't get opened all that often, nor left open for long periods of time. I also typically buy my lettuce from a farmer's market, so it isn't already days old from being shipped cross country and however long it sat at the store.
@Jonathan : I bought some bagged lettuce from Trader Joe's last week, and there was a note about 'refreshing' the lettuce before serving by giving it a bath in cold water. It sounds like a similar process, letting it re-hydrate if it's gotten dried out.
I have just found the transcript of a Good Eats episode about lettuce storage. It's close to Joe's answer but they say the lettuce should be kept in an air tight bag with air sucked out.
In short they say:
washed
heads kept intact for delicate lettuce, cut is ok if hearty heads
spinned dry
wrapped in paper towel
stored in air tight bag with the air sucked out
See senes 9-10-11 of http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season1/Salad/SaladTranscript.htm
With lettuce, parsley, or green leaves in general, I care for three things:
Avoid mechanical damage
Even tiny fractures rot much faster, if the cell fabric is intact, it does a good job of preserving the lettuce. Specifically, this means:
very careful handling when cleaning and taking apart the lettuce head
use a box instead of a bag
don't put too many leaves in one container, I typically use 3 boxes for a head of lettuce
Store clean
rinse with cold water
if stored longer, rinse again and use a fresh box after 4-5 days
if stored longer, inspect the leaves and prune those that show brown spots (they can normally still be used for a salad right away)
the best material for storage containers for almost any food is glass, it's the easiest to keep thoroughly clean.
Store neither too dry, nor too wet
get rid of excess water after rinsing
use an airtight container, so the leaves don't dry out (i. e. get limp)
there should never be pools of water (not even tiny ones) in the container. If the lettuce is too wet, water will gather where the leaves touch the walls of the box.
I usually buy fresh heads of lettuce from local suppliers and prepare them for storage right after coming home. I can easily keep the leaves for a week and longer. In the winter, when the lettuce comes from Spain or France (I'm in Germany), the results are not as good, because the lettuce already had quite a journey. I then prefer field salad and the like, they are available locally way past December, and also store very well.
For a head of lettuce, I have a special Tupperware that is specifically designed for storing lettuce. It keeps the lettuce fresher longer! Definitely worth the money!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.919661
| 2010-10-17T23:05:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8236",
"authors": [
"Bernie Clare",
"Derrell Durrett",
"Hanno Fietz",
"Joe",
"Jonathan",
"KGB",
"Monique",
"Phil M Jones",
"Rebekah",
"Roger Ng",
"angrywayne",
"enriched",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7203
|
What's the fastest way to seed grapes (e.g., Concordes)?
I've got a bunch of grapes, with seeds. I need to seed them for a recipe. Cutting them in half and prying out the seeds with a paring knife makes me yearn for stringing beans. Any suggestions on how to get through this process faster?
If you just need the pulp (for pie, ice cream, jam, etc...) then cook them down and run them through a food strainer.
If you need them raw, or halved/skins on, then find a good audiobook...
Put the grapes on a plate - best if you do as many at one time as will fill the plate in one layer. Cover the plate with an identical plate turned upside down. Using a long knife cut between the plates to cut all the grapes in half at once. I use my thumb nail to scoop out the seeds, but the tip of a vegetable peeler will work better than a knife if your nails aren't long.
I'd say this might be a good time to invest in a cherry pitter, as I'd assume it'd work on grapes, too.
Some things to try for speed :
crushing them, and seeing if the pots pop free (it works for olives).
cut more than one at a time -- put four or five down on your work surface, place your hand over them, fingers up, and slice between your hand and counter with a sharp knife. (although, I've never done this for something with pits, so I don't know how much of a problem it might be)
And, when all else fails, buy some seedless grapes, and save the seeded ones for snacking.
update : I've since learned a safer method for option #2 : use lids from deli containers or other small items with raised lips (like the bottom of some earthenware plates). Place it lip-side up, fill with items to be cut in half, place a similar item on top, press down on the stack, and slice in between the two containment devices.
My cherry pitter is too big for many grapes. But pitters come in different sizes...so look for a small one if you need it.
It's easiest with larger grapes, cut through the middle rather than lengthwise. The seeds tend to end up in one half and are easily removed with the tip of a paring knife. I find that the loss of the edible portion of the grape is minimized.
Here's how you do it:
Cut Grape in half lengthwise, either all the way through or just through to the last skin
Remove the seeds from each half with a serrated grapefruit spoon.
Note: Assembly line is most efficient - pull enough grapes off stem to fill a plate, cut all the grapes in half, then remove the seeds from each grape.
Squeeze grape to seperate pulp from skin and seperate. Bring pulp to boil. At some point pulp will release the seed. Then filter to seperate seed from pulp. Combine unseeded pulp and skins. Ready for pie etc. See Joy of Cooking ..old version.
Have you tried pushing a straw through them? Maybe a stainless straw would work. I may take a Dremel tool to it, to put an edge on the straw!
Just cook them down at a low heat in a saucepan. Allow to cool and squeeze them open then place into a bag and mash with a potato masher lightly.
Seeds will separate from the pulp, which will cook down into a thick juice, strain seeds in a colander/strainer
Hi, Alicia, welcome to Seasoned Advice! This question already has an accepted answer that you're repeating without adding anything new. This will absolutely not help you build reputation in SE. Perhaps try answering one of our unanswered questions
As Fern said, Squeeze grape and put pulp with seed in a pot. Put Skin in another bowl.
Heat up the pulp, once heated seed will easily separate from the pulp. Put through a strainer and add seedless pulp to the skins.
Proceed with recipe
Given that that was already posted as an answer, what was the point of repeating it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.920247
| 2010-09-12T21:16:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7203",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Bruce Small",
"Demerson Carroll",
"James Morrell",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Sneftel",
"Spade",
"astabada",
"avril",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74777
|
How much is "a ladleful"?
I have a recipe that asks for "a ladleful" of something. The recipe book usually uses imperial weights and volumes, that I can convert to my metric units that I hold so dear.
As I understand it, a ladleful is the volume necessary to fill a ladle - but how much is it? A ladle can take on various sizes, so I guess it wouldn't make much sense to not normalize it in any way (like, a cup is eight ounces).
EDIT:
As suggested in the comments, I want to mention it is "a ladleful of sourdough starter" that I should add to 2 pounds 7 ounces / 1.1 kg of rye flour and 2.5 cups of water. I'd normally go with about 500g of starter, but that seems like a big ladle to me.
The idea is that it doesn't matter, if that wasn't obvious.
Typical US food service ladles are 6 oz, which corresponds to a "cup" of soup.
@Jan Doggen actually, if it is a modern recipe book, it makes me think twice before buying if it is that rich in iron.
Ladles come in lots of sizes. See https://www.amazon.com/CucinaPrime-Stainless-Steel-Soup-Ladle/dp/B00VCBLD8O/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1527201388&sr=8-5&keywords=ladles&dpID=416oBtivj8L&preST=SX300_QL70&dpSrc=srch
That was no ladle, that was my knife!
Every sourdough starter has different characteristics, a ladleful of one will give a different result from the same amount of another. The recipe is right in that there's no way to say what result you are going to get, so why be exact.
The point I would make is that you want repeatibility, and the capability to adjust your amounts over time to suit your taste. So whatever you use to get it out (ladle, spoon, measuring cup, hand) I would weigh and record how much starter you use, you can add more or less and see how you get. As long as you keep using the same starter you can adjust to your taste.
Yes, ladles differ in capacity. My advice, just use whatever ladle you happen to have. If it were critical to the success or the edibility of the resulting food, the amount would hopefully have been specified a little better. Cooking is regarded by many common people as an art or practical activity, not an exact science (more like dancing than "coding"), so some recipes refer to imprecise quantities e.g. a handful, a few, a little bit of, a pinch (although I think I have heard of some folks trying to quantify that one), "to taste", or a "dusting". I have a hunch "ladleful" is one of those.
I thought a pinch is the amount you can grab between the tips of your thumb and index and middle fingers? Being a coder myself, coding is not an exact science ;) On topic, it is "a ladleful of sourdough starter". I fear the amount of starter can impact the rising of the dough - but then, rye tends to rise not that much.
Wouldn't the exact characteristics of people's sourdough starters likely vary quite a bit due to their ambient conditions & the regional mix of yeast they have in there? Maybe it is quite appropriate to use a vague measurement on it.
Sourdough starter can have any permutations of thousands (to be conservative) of different living creatures in it which can react to different conditions very differently. So, without specifying precisely which species are living at which concentrations, what would be the point in specifying a precise volume? Living systems reject exact science as a rule; Titration is the key, not quantification.
So what is "a ladelful" approximately? If I take just the ladle, it can be anywhere from 50ml to 250ml. I'm not talking about a precise volume, but any indication of what it might refer to commonly would be useful.
i get 40 or 50 ml
@Thaoden Sure, that's a pinch, but how big are your fingers? A guy with large, thick fingers will have a different size "pinch" than someone with small, thin ones. I wouldn't be surprised at a factor of two or more in absolute measure. Luckily, though, in most recipes that use "pinch", the exact amount doesn't matter all that much. -- On the size of a ladle, you should be looking at a "average" ladle, rather than any extreme size or specialty ladle. A google search turns up this which cluster around 5-6 oz (150-175 mL).
A typical US kitchen ladle hold 1/2 cup. I just measured mine to check my memory. It's not marked, and there are plenty of more or less fancy serving ladles that are likely to be different. So that gives you a ballpark.
If a recipe says 'a ladleful', it is sending you, I think, one of two messages. Either 'this is not an exact process (see answer by GdD for some reasons why in this case)', or 'this is not a very carefully written cookbook.'
There are people who produce repeatable results with sourdough. So, this suggests that either a carefully-maintained culture will produce a consistent result for a consistent quantity, or that there's more to learn about how to adjust.
Sourdough is a living organism, so the results of using it cannot be replicated by just specifying amount of starter, time and temperature. Moreover, if you use sourdough more often, you will use a small portion of the current dough as starter for the next one, so quality of the starter will not be constant. More important than measuring the amount is to judge the outcome: Did the dough raise enough? Has the surface the right feel? Texture is difficult to communicate, and the result you aim for depends on your taste, so the first time you use sourdough you should repeatedly touch the dough while raising, and note how the texture changes. This changing sensation is what you have to look for. Then you do a few experiments which tell you what texture gives the taste and fluffiness you are looking for, and then you can produce consistently good bread.
I would suggest use your intuition and go by it. Since you have read the recipe and know it well and its ingredients, you know how much to use a particular ingredient. For ex, spices would have been definitely mentioned as a teaspoon and salt may be in a tablespoon etc. If it calls for water or stock, then ladleful may have been mentioned. And it's ok if its a little less or more. It will not affect the quality of the dish much. Analysis how much of a particular ingredient will suffice the dish. Try will little quantity and gradually increase in case you are not sure. It should turn out well. All the best.
That's it exactly, I don't know the amount of the ingredient (sourdough starter in my case) that I should add. Varying recipes give different ratios. But I went and tried, let's see what the result will be like.
Oh! Actually it would be better if the question is edited to mention which recipe you are trying and which ingredient you are unsure. Because things are different with different dishes, (I understand you need to be exact when it comes to baking) and experienced people who have knowledge about that ingredient will be able to give some real useful answers that's just my opinion. But now that you have tried it, you can always use the ideas for the future trials. Thanks!
Both of my ladles measure 1/3 cup.
Thank you for trying to help out, but everyone's ladle is a little bit different. We try to keep from having everyone answer individually as it makes way too much to read through, particularly when there are already answers that mention that it's variable
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.920605
| 2016-10-16T15:18:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74777",
"authors": [
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorel C.",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"R.M.",
"Thaoden",
"The Nate",
"Vanpram P",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49626
|
Bread going stale in enamel breadbasket
I store my bread in an enamel breadbasket like this one (different decor, though). In the bottom of the basket, there are some small holes, I think to let the air circulate. But bread stored in this basket goes stale in a matter of two or three days.
Any hints as to why and how to prevent it?
EDIT:
As I was made aware only later, my bread isn't going stale, rather it takes on too much moisture. Cross-language problems...
What type of bread? Preservative-laden or not?
Sadly it is non-self-made bread, but I have no idea about the bakery's recipes.
Your bread is still going stale, separately from gathering moisture. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-storing-bread-in-various-locations?rq=1 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5071/whats-the-purpose-of-a-bread-box?lq=1. Basically, whatever is happening, you cannot expect to store white bread for three days and keep it at good quality.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.921130
| 2014-11-08T21:13:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49626",
"authors": [
"ARC ANGE",
"Ehi Ehizode",
"Hazel Hyman",
"Lee Ann Greer",
"Thaoden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"john3103",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75081
|
Has my sourdough gone moldy?
Today as I checked on my sourdough starter, I noticed some dry white patches on its surface. Has it gone moldy? If so, is it safe to just scrape off the mold and use the remainder as usual?
The sourdough smells cheesy / yeasty, nothing that yells "I've gone bad!" at me. There is no liquid on top. I've left the jar open for the last two days covered with a cloth, can it have anything to do with it?
Image source
Definitively looks like mold, the rest is a duplicate of some other questions about moldy sourdough.
You might also try cleaning the walls of the container, so that the not quite sourdough stuff does not then grow and fall down onto the main colony; cleaning the sides or using a new container appears to help the health of the colony I maintain.
Scouring the internet a bit more, apparently the crust was some nitrogen-hungry form of yeast.
However, I did as suggested in this similar question, discarded most of the sourdough and used a bit of it to start a new one. Wish me luck for it!
Aaaand same result :(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.921244
| 2016-10-28T16:29:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75081",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Thaoden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117178
|
Quantity of rice per diameter of paella pan?
In an effort to limit leftovers, I recently bought a 26cm steel paella pan to supplement my 40cm pan. Because such things do not always scale linearly, I looked for a guide on how much rice to use in a standard-shape paella pan of a given diameter, and was a bit surprised that there appears to be no good internet resource for this. This resulted in me trying 200ml rice with the 26cm pan, which was definitely too much.
So, my question is: can anyone give me a table of how much rice (and, optionally, stock) to use for each of several steel paella pan diameters, starting with around 26cm and moving up? Please cite your sources, even if that source is "I own these sizes and that's how much I use."
Actually, this should be easy to calculate. It will scale quadratically - base it off the bottom, if you want to be extra precise. I would make a table out of that, only I don't do paella and don't have a starting reference for any size.
Since paella is cooked open, not covered, I do not assume that evaporation rates are linear with the size of the pan.
When you have the same rice thickness, you will get the same evaporation rate (assuming an evenly heated pan bottom). So all you need to calculate is the amount of rice which will give you the same thickness in the two pans - and that scales quadratically with the pan size. For more precision, you can also consider the sloping sides, which make the pan bottom smaller than the pan top (the size is given for the top) - see my comment to John's answer for the calculation.
@FuzzyChef If paella is cooked open, then why does my mother have a paella pan sized lid she bought in Spain that's expressly meant to cover paella during the final stages of cooking?
Nazall: paella is either not covered at all, or covered briefly after putting out the flame (https://www.spainonafork.com/authentic-spanish-seafood-paella-recipe/). Probably the lid is for the latter. You don't cover it while it's boiling, at all -- that would make the rice soupy and soft.
I don't think you'll find the information you are looking for, for multiple reasons:
The most direct one: because the same pan can serve well a really wide range of rations. We've cooked excellent paellas with the same pan from 4 up to 30+. (more or less 80cm pan)
The most practical reason: You usually WANT to cook too much paella, because the leftovers put on a fridge for a day or more and then re-heated on a microwave are tastier than the dish from the same day. You actually look for leaving half the dish or more. So quantity is usually the opposite of a problem: It was either soo fine that everyone took a second serving and cleared the pan, or it could be a little better, which it will be the next day. You literally can't go wrong, as long as there's a lot!
Lastly, but not less important: It really is not a dish prone to measurings, up to the point that the amount of rice is measured in fistfuls, and it really does not matter that much. The result depends too much on the quality of the batch of ingredients used, the meat and/or seafood, the quality of the broth, how well kept the wood-fire was, the proper judgement of salt point during cooking and if you timed each step appropriately. As long as the pan is big and flat enough, it will no longer be a deciding factor in the quality of the result.
If I was deciding upon sizes, I'd use the references on amount of servings provided by the manufacturer, but only as a guideline, and tend towards picking larger than smaller.
Edit: One serving, at least where I'm from, is two handfuls. If your hand is little, add another handful at the end to round up. Usually we prepare servings for 50%-100% more than people are there, for the sake of being able to serve a second round and/or letting some on the fridge for eating the next day. At home, this ends up being 17 handfuls for 4 people, 7 servings approx, on a paella pan more or less 80cm across.
Per serving, we also add what we call "tall" (translation would be 'cut', stands for the meat and seafood, excludes vegetables):
a pair of prawns, a pair of mussels, two or three "Clams" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venerupis_philippinarum), a "Galera" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squilla_mantis), a cuttlefish cut in dices and rabbit. The cut that needs to be cooked for longer than the rice itself is added to the same paella and cooked there before adding the rice and the broth or water in it, so the juice of it all stays in the dish.
Source: I've been eating paella cooked by my family my whole life, who are born and raised among the Delta de l'Ebre rice fields. And stringently judging among themselves each sunday paella (for 70 years!). Among the criticisms, the amount of servings for a paella has never been even mentioned. I'll ask the cooks at my next chance, but sadly I live abroad now, so it can be a while. I should make a video of the process, and upload it if it ends up a 8 or more.
A free tip: If it sticks to the bottom of the pan and that bottom is slightly crispier/darker than the top rice, as long as it's not actually burned, it's fine. In fact, it's the best part of the dish.
Great point on how the rice quantity varies based on factors like other ingredients, quality, broth, etc.
Good answer +1 And to add to your tip - another tip for the OP is: don't touch the rice while it's cooking! :-) Here's a quick and easy recipe for rice with vegetables from one of Spain's favourite chefs, Alberto Chicote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcpnD2KJRMw
I've seen a lot of source mentioned "number of servings" but zero of them define how much rice a "serving" is. Is a "serving" a standard amount of rice in Spain?
@FuzzyChef edited with serving size.
As @rumtscho says in his comment, it should scale quadratically. Your 40 cm diameter paella pan has an area of pi*(d/2)^2 = 1256.64 cm^2 (lets round that to 1250), while your 26 cm pan has an area of 530.929 cm^2 (lets round that to 530), so less than half the area. Consequently, the amount of rice (and stock) compared to your large paella pan will be less than half. For the sake of simplicity, I would half the amount, then round down to the nearest convenient unit or tens digits if it's a really odd number (like, say, 233 ml of something).
The more exact ratio is 1250/530 = 2.358, or approximately 2.4, if you want to "divide down" your amounts for the 40 cm pan to the 26.
Note: all this assumes you can get similar heat per area and the two pans heat similarly. Experimentation may be required.
This is indeed the calculation I had in mind, and it is a nice solution to just give the ratio of one pan to the other. Since paella pans are quite sloped, I also calculated the same ratio for the bottom diameter, assuming a 3 cm wide rim, and came up with ~2.7. In practice, the recipes are probably forgiving enough to use some value within the range of (2.4, 2.7) - maybe erring towards more rice when scaling down, due to the heating assumption you mentioned (a smaller pan is likely getting better heated, while a 40 cm pan might have its sides outside the hob).
This is based on the assumption that rice/volume scales linearly, though(something I reject in the question). Which it might, but it also might not given evaporation and other factors. For an accepted answer, I'd love to see some verification that linear scaling actually works, given that my one experiment scaling linearly did not work, per the question.
Because of cancelation, this can be simplified to (40/26)^2 = 2.367 -- The 2's and pi's all divide out.
@FuzzyChef you say that linear scaling didn’t work, per the question, but you haven’t mentioned the amount you usually use in your 40 cm pan, and I’d be curious to know how much this answer would estimate that you should have used as a comparison. Also, pan volume does not scale linearly with diameter, as stated in this answer.
@FuzzyChef I said it should scale quadratically. This was under the - reasonable, I suppose - assumption that the height of the water & rice column is roughly the same for both pans, as I would assume the bigger pan is not significantly higher. Since the height is (roughly) the same, the volume does indeed scale quadratically too because of the quadratically scaled area underneath.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.921385
| 2021-09-14T03:46:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117178",
"authors": [
"Aaron F",
"Chris Cudmore",
"FuzzyChef",
"John Doe",
"Nzall",
"Oxy",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69929",
"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
}
|
5634
|
How long will a balsamic reduction keep?
Related to making small quantities of balsamic reduction, if I make a large quantity of balsamic reduction, how long will it keep? What's the best way to store it?
I know vinegar will keep for a long time, but the reduction tastes so sweet and so not vinegary that I have no faith that preservation is related.
It should last years. If the reduction contains just vinegar, reduced until thick. This yields a very acidic solution very high in sugar (partly caramelized, depending on how long it was cooked). Other than sugar and acetic acid, there are some polyphenols and other gunk, some aromatics, and a bit of water.
There are two primary ways that food spoils: decay by microorganisms and oxidation. Decay happens when things get stinky and slimy, such as meat that has been left in a warm place for a few days. Bacteria can live in a lot of habitats, but need fairly mild conditions to thrive. Oxidation occurs when unsaturated fats (and other substances) pick up rogue chemicals from the environment, and is often refereed to as 'rancid'. This process will occur whenever something that can oxidize is exposed to air, but tends to progress slowly.
In the case of a balsamic reduction, the high acid and sugar content will stop bacterial growth. Since the reduction also contains acid, anything that could have been oxidized has already oxidized. Therefore a balsamic reduction should last pretty much forever. You might want to seal it up to keep bugs from getting in it, but other than that, it should be stable for years.
It tastes sweet, but it's still acidic as hell. On top of that, the reduction process is UHT pasteurization at its most basic. It'll last a long time in the refrigerator, three weeks or a month at least, as long as you didn't add anything weird to it.
Note: in my mind balsamic reduction is balsamic vinegar, reduced. No cornstarch no, sugar, no nothing. If you add stuff to it, that's definitely going to affect its shelf life.
I'm not planning on doing anything except reducing it. Should I store in the fridge or cabinet?
@yossairan: Oh, refrigerate it certainly...I wouldn't leave it at room temp. It should keep as well or better than vinegrette.
@yossarian Depends on your climate, but my local friendly supermarket sells it ready-reduced and we just store the bottle in the cupboard with no problems (it's sold as ambient goods)
There's no need to refrigerate it...it's the same as your vinegar but in concentrated form.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.922056
| 2010-08-20T13:23:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5634",
"authors": [
"Darin Sehnert",
"Gaffi",
"Joseph Rooks",
"Rex",
"Rodney",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Saeid",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Snow Blind",
"aychedee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"miavita",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2909
|
Is frozen crabmeat OK to use for crab cakes?
I have some frozen precooked crab meat that I was going to use in a sauce for pasta but thought maybe crab cakes would be a nice change of pace.
Does the fact that it has been frozen make it unsuitable because of texture change?
Most crabmeat is pasteurized, so the texture has already suffered a bit. Crab cakes are basically a binder, crab meat, and seasoning. The binder can add all sorts of interesting textures. There are recipes with Panko, bread flour, flour, eggs, ... If you are worried about it being dry, add mayo as @Darin suggested or increase the oil a bit.
Look at the packaging, the crab meat may be already cooked, so you may get away with cooking it less.
Agreed on the moisture issues. The thawing process will leave a lot of lost crab juice that would need to be replaced with some fat. Recomend thawing and then draining before mixing with binder and seasonings.
Previously frozen crabmeat is fine for crab cakes. Should the crabmeat have dried a bit from being frozen, the mayonnaise that is typically added will replace some of the lost moisture.
Freezing crab meat breaks the cell walls and causes the meat to be mushy, not firm. That is why you have so much water in the bottom of the container when you thaw it. It works fine for crab dip, where the texture is not critical, but I would not use it for crabcakes.
BTW: ALL crab meat you buy is precooked, I've never seen "raw" crabmeat. It is already steamed, then picked and put in a container. "Fresh" is just not pasteurized, so the shelf life is much shorter, but it is definitely cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.922286
| 2010-07-23T00:33:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2909",
"authors": [
"Meep3D",
"Nikko",
"arinte",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6581",
"user32642"
],
"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
}
|
93592
|
What temperature is a rolling boil?
At what temperature is water called at a “rolling boil”?
How long does it take until water is at rolling boil?
The scientists tell us the temperature of plain water when it is boiling is 212 degrees F, or 100 degrees C at standard pressure. So it will be very close to that unless you are on a super-high mountain or someplace else where the air pressure isn't what we are used to at sea level.
"Rolling boil" is an expression I have usually seen applied to very vigorous boiling of things other than plain water (like for example when you are making jam, you are boiling water with fruit and lots of sugar in it). However, plain water at a very vigorous boil will still be the same temperature as gently boiling plain water. The difference would be the intensity of the heat source you are cooking it with. If you add heat to your boiling water at a very fast rate, it will boil very vigorously. Gentler heating will make for gentler boiling, but same temperature once boiling starts.
As far as the time it takes to get to that boiling state, that also would depend on your heat source. A little portable camping stove sometimes takes a very long time to boil your pot of water, but a very hot roaring campfire will get it boiling right away. At home, your big burner would be faster than your small burner. So we can't really say how long it will take to come to any type of boil.
The boiling point of water is 100C at sea level (and lower for higher altitudes). It is the temperature where the water changes from liquid to vapor. At this point, the temperature can’t increase further until all liquid water hast turned to steam.
A “rolling boil” simply means that a lot of water changes to vapor (indicates by large bubbles and a lot of movement in the pot), a gentle simmer means a small amount. The temperature is always the same.
How long it takes to come to a rolling boil depends on the amount of water and the power of the heat source.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.922567
| 2018-11-04T18:28:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93592",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91316
|
Does a mix of cocktail sauce and tartare sauce have a special name?
What does one get when one combines cocktail sauce and tartar sauce in equal parts?
Russell, welcome to Seasoned Advice! The part whether the combination of the two sauces has e.g. a special name is something that the community can answer (although I suspect not). Whether this would make a good seafood dip is opinion-based, which we don’t do here. I suggest you take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about how the site works. For now, I’m removing the opinion-based part.
It's called Tartail sauce, or Cocktar sauce, whichever you like best ;) . The second one sounds like something out of the Klingon dictionary.
Barring the thickening with finely sieved hard-boiled egg/egg-yolk, this combination is heading in the direction of Thousand Island dressing. Given that recipe is so variable, you could just about get away with calling it that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.922732
| 2018-07-28T19:32:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91316",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89804
|
How to make my pizza dough Soft?
I am kneeding my dough and it became very hard. It is even very hard to kneed more. I am trying to add more liquid (warm milk or water). It is still not soft. Also, the dough is not accurate means dough is a little bit like crumbly dough. Its not coming together. I added bread improver, egg, oil, milk powder, white flour and yeast, salt and sugar. Can anyone help me out how to fix my dough at this stage?
Flour 1.5 KG ,
Yeast 1.5-2TBSP,
Bread Improver 1TBSp,
Oil 4-5TBSP,
Sugar 2TBSP,
SALT 1TBSP,
Milk 250ML,
1EGG,
2.5TBSP Milk Powder.
While mixing and kneeding the dough became so hard.
I didnt let the dough to rise yet as it is not ready yet. Because last time I made dough it was very soft. But this time it is so hard.
Welcome to the site @muzzi, it's going to be impossible to give you answers without knowing the quantities of each ingredient you have used. Are you working off an actual recipe? Have you let the dough rise?
How much water @muzzi? You only have 250ml of milk, you must have added water.
Am I reading this correctly that you are only adding 250 ml of liquid (milk in pizza dough?) to a kilo-and-a-half of flour? Maybe missing some water?
That is the recipe told by my Chef Teacher but with different quanities.
What style of pizza dough are you trying to make @muzzi? Eggs, milk and sugar are not in any way traditional, or in any regional style I've ever heard of.
How egg becamee an issue? Yup just approx 250Ml milk I added water just few drops while kneeding. i couldnt put more water because in that case it became more wierd means the dough became so sticky to hands then i had to add some flour
If you've added 250ml of milk for 1.5KG of flour then your dough is way too dry, there isn't nearly enough moisture for any kind of bread dough. A typical traditional pizza base recipe uses a ratio of about 5:3 flour to liquid by weight, meaning you'd need about 900ml of liquid for the dough. You've also added milk powder, which also needs to be hydrated, so add about 30ml or so for that as well. If you are using all purpose (plain) flour you should add a bit less water, say 10%, as there's less gluten in it.
When you add the liquid to the flour it's going to be sticky, very sticky in fact, but that's bread making and you can't avoid it. You can oil your hands but that doesn't last, you're better off removing your rings and just cleaning your hands later. As the water incorporates and is absorbed the dough will get less sticky, but pizza dough is going to stay a bit sticky even after it's been kneaded enough, it will then be much less sticky after the first rise.
The recipe you have isn't any kind of pizza base recipe I've ever heard of, milk, milk powder, eggs and sugar are all enriching agents and the dough you'll get isn't going to have the kind of structure you're looking for in a pizza base unless you're looking for some sort of non-traditional brioche style. It's also going to take much longer to rise as these ingredients slow the process. Traditionally a pizza base is flour, water, yeast and salt with olive oil being optional (I put it in).
That recipe is so far from what most cooks would consider a pizza recipe1, that I am ignoring the unusual ingredients for now.
What is blatantly obvious is the hydration2 - 250 ml of milk plus an egg for 1.5 kg of flour means around 20%. This won’t give you a workable yeast dough. The standard pizza recipe is somewhere between 60 and 80%, depending on the kind of pizza crust and the types of flour used. This website gives a nice comparison of the different types.
If you want to salvage the current batch, you will have to gradually incorporate around 500-700 ml of water and yes, this will initially get you to a “solid bits in muddy liquid” stage. It would be easiest if you could dump it in a stand mixer. First it will be a lump sloshing around in water. After a while, the lumps should gradually soften and the dough becomes even. Work in batches, if necessary, not all mixers can deal with this much dough. If you are working by hand, use a large bowl for the initial “mushing” and later you can go back to the bench.
General advice: Don’t let “sticky” dough tempt you to constantly flour the bench, you’d be throwing the ratios again. Rather learn about different kneading techniques, some are great for soft dough.
1 A standard pizza recipe is “flour, water, salt, yeast and (optional) oil”. Use good quality ingredients, very little yeast and lots of time. Your is some kind of enriched dough, which I would expect for other things like challah, sweet buns, ...
2 Hydration or Baker’s Percentage is the percentage of liquid with the flour as base unit. Your average bread dough will be around 60% and 65%, bagels can be as low as 50% and going over 70% brings you into high-hydration territory where regular kneading won’t work too well. Find an overview here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.922845
| 2018-05-14T11:16:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89804",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67135",
"mrwienerdog",
"muzzi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87883
|
Rich Whip Storage Temperature
Please specify the temperature range in which rich whip is to be stored and whether it should be stored in the freezer or chiller.
Freezer or refrigerator depends on how long you want to store it. From the manufacturer’s website:
Rich Whip is perfect to have on-hand for any occasion. Keep frozen until ready to use, thaw and enjoy! It stays fresh in the refrigerator for up to two weeks.
The range is given by the fda:
Keep your appliances at the proper temperatures. Keep the refrigerator temperature at or below 40° F (4° C). The freezer temperature should be 0° F (-18° C). Check temperatures periodically. Appliance thermometers are the best way of knowing these temperatures and are generally inexpensive.
Just wanted to add that the pre-whipped product may be thawed and then refrozen. The ready-to-whip product, once thawed, should not be refrozen. If refrozen, it will not whip.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.923210
| 2018-02-20T12:17:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87883",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87977
|
Stained Knife Blade
My wife recently bought a new Japanese knife. The first time she used it was to cut chinese preserved vegetable. She put the knife to one side while doing something else and forgot to wash it for about 10 minutes. The result was staining as on the attached photos. Does anyone know how to remove the stains without destroying the blade?
Blade 1
Blade 2
Blade 3
———-
Thanks for the advice, here a short update and answer to the questions:
The knife was being used to cut a chinese preserved vegetable "Haam Choi'or salt veg
I have a carbon steel all purpose knife with an 8 inch blade which I use regularly. My wife hates it because of the patina and was supposed to be buying a stainless knife.
Something must have got lost in the translation as I am pretty sure the blade is carbon steel. I will try the toothpaste method fist as it seems the least aggressive.
If that does not work I will seek confirmation and advice on our next trip to japan.
Preserved in vinegar by any chance?
Can we please take a gentler tone with people who are asking a sincere question? When I read some of these comments, I wince in sympathy with the poor questioner who supplied 2 photos, described the circumstances and said how long it took to stain the knife. He left out one detail about the offending food and gets blasted as if he had asked, "Hey, what's wrong with my knife?"
Carbon steel (and I assume this knife is carbon steel) is supposed to do that. The surface staining changes with every exposure to acidic ingredients, and will eventually stabilize. This so called patina will actually keep the blade from rusting properly and/or transferring metallic tastes to food.
That said, there are a few spots (the orange ones) here where there is actual rust developing. These need to be dealt with, since in these spots no patina will develop, instead the rust can go deeper into the metal.
Try polishing the orange spots with toothpaste, if that does not help use scouring cream, if that does not help use sandpaper or a rust eraser (not: a chemical rust treatment!). Mind that the surface finish in these spots might end up differently from the rest of the blade if sandpaper/rust eraser is used.
If you cannot handle this yourself, ask a professional sharpener experienced with japanese knives (the kind that uses big bricklike whetstones over a water basin). Be aware that this kind of knife WILL patina from acidic ingredients no matter what - however, the chance of there being rust problems could be minimized by having the blade mirror polished (this can change food release behaviour though).
I would second the use of a Japanese Rust eraser for this issue. I have had this happen as well, and it is a matter of time. The longer the water was on the blade the more it had time to penetrate into the metal. So 10 minutes won't be bad. But it might take just as much time, or longer to get rid of the rust.
The rust erasers come in different types, usually three: rough, medium and fine. I would start with the fine and work my way up. You could either wet the eraser or you could just use it dry. You would have to rub in the direction of the metal's "grain" either vertical or horizontal. In your picture, the grain of the metal looks to be vertical, from the cutting edge to the spine of the knife.
Personally I find this orientation to be a bit more difficult to work with, but is doable. Be very careful, as you will be near the cutting edge of the knife.
If you can't get the eraser, another good alternative is to use a daikon or Asian radish and some very fine powdered cleanser. Perhaps Bon Ami or something similar. Comet might be a bit too rough. Cut the daikon so you have a flat surface and then put a small amount of the cleanser on the knife and start to rub the daikon on the blade in the grain direction. You won't need any water as the daikon should be wet enough to moisten the cleanser.
Work in small areas, when done make sure to rinse and wipe the blade dry to prevent this from happening again. Or you might have your wife do this as a form of correction, but defiantly have her watch as you labor though this arduous process. Just so it doesn't happen again. Just kidding.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.923385
| 2018-02-25T07:30:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87977",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49140
|
Sour pickles with Calcium Chloride?
I've read that putting grape leaves with your brine will help pickles stay crunchy. But those are hard to find. I've also heard that Calcium Chloride does the same thing. Bubbies uses it, in fact. It's on their ingredients.
I got a can of Pickle Crisp (it's just Calcium Chloride) and the directions say to add it to boiling liquid - maybe this stuff isn't for brine/sour pickles. At least, I haven't been using boiling water.
Can anyone tell me if I can put Calcium Chloride in my non-boiled brine?
Cherry leaves also work.
@WayfaringStranger where do you typically find cherry leaves? Asking 4 years too late :)
@ michael greenwald They come from ths cherry tree, just out the back door. Maybe your neighbors have one?
@WayfaringStranger hah! duh. I'll see if I can find someone with a cherry tree.
I had a cherry tree back then. Great sour cherries and leaves for pickling.
Yes! You can use Calcium Chloride to keep your pickles nice and crunchy! I have used Pickle Crisp. I've have had pretty good results. I have also just used generic food grade Calcium Chloride, which I also use in cheese making.(I order this online through my cheese making supplier).
The best tip for crunchy pickles is to avoid over cooking them at high temperatures. I use a thermometer in my hot water bath, to ensure that I do not go over 185 to 190F at which time the cucumber starts to break down. I know, I know people get so upset that I don't "boil" it, but I maintain the temperature for slightly longer at lower temps to achieve the same safety. I've never had a problem and if the ph is acidic enough it shouldn't be a problem. If you feel concerned with safety you can always make them as refrigerator pickles. Which I do sometimes.
I'm not sure of the process you are using, but I do pack the raw cukes into the jars, and fill the jar up with hot brine that was previous boiled. The Calcium Chloride goes into this brine.
P.S. You can buy calcium chloride in both dry form and liquid form. I prefer the liquid form. Hope this helps!
I tried to answer this question with Google searches for references, as I have no personal experience using Calcium Chloride. Without solid citations, the only other good way to answer questions here is with personal experience. +1 for providing that, and Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Thanks kidsoplenty. I'm not boiling the brine, so that makes me think that maybe I shouldn't be using Calcium Chloride.
@michael.greenwald What would be the harm in just bringing the brine to a boil (or close to it)? You can allow it to cool a while if you wish. That would also ensure that any salt or sugar is well dissolved too.
So I made cucumber pickles in a water bath and they are a little soggy...can I add calcium chloride now or is it too late?
@TaraR I'm pretty sure that it won't work, because the calcium chloride works by reinforcing the cell walls before they're broken down by cooking. I haven't actually tried to be sure though.
For anyone who tells you off for pasteurizing your cucumbers at 180°, the National Center for Home Food Preservation has instructions and several tested recipes that recommend it. It's perfectly safe if you follow the directions and use it on the right kind of recipes.
I have made fermented pickles for several years now. The resulting pickled vegetables, KimChee and even butter pickles are far superior in taste to boiling and brining, although true, we tend to trade the spritzy flavor and better health for a less crisp pickle. Calcium chloride trades easily as a salt for sodium chloride (normal table salt), and I think is probably better for you, but I'm no Dr. But the calcium chlorine is way too expensive for the mild brine used in fermentation.
So what I do - I use rock salt salt and water (3/4 to 1 cup/gal) for the initial brine solution and fermentation, and then 4 air excluded weeks later, when the good micro flora have run their course, add about 1/4 tsp/ gal of the calcium chloride and let sit in the fridge a couple weeks.
Result - a crispy fermented pickle of old fashioned taste, which the crunch my family was trained to like from the bid sterile commercial guys who dumped their brine.
My brine goes into the next batch to keep,the good flora going! (add a bit of salt to bring the specific gravity up if you do this).
Try the CaCl on sauerkraut (cut in 1/2 in slices) for a good treat!
Happy fermentations!
Ranzal the pickler
Sorry - should read "mild brine", not "mold brine" in last sentence of first paragraph. Mold brine sounds yucky.
Better living through chemistry. Calcium Chloride is just about everywhere. We use it in our pickles, both refrigerator and canned. Peppers too. Dilly beans..yep.
I buy it at the home center/hardware in 20-50lb. bags...it's the non-salt ice melt. Read the label tho...there's another non-salt made from magnesium chloride. You don't want that one. I've used calcium chloride in concrete mix also to give it the ability to cure when the temp won't be going above freezing for quite some time. That's a standard additive for that application.
It's all the same stuff.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.923836
| 2014-10-21T20:04:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49140",
"authors": [
"Alyssa Pacatang",
"Cascabel",
"Chief Plant Hire LTD",
"Debbie Hickman",
"Delana Sloan",
"Helen Bailey",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ranzal the pickler",
"Soren Bjornstad",
"Tara R",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dawn pietrusza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63570",
"michael.greenwald"
],
"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
}
|
49300
|
Amount of baking powder in a muffin recipe
I have a couple of recipes from a reputable publication called "Recipes Only" (a magazine published in the eighties) which calls for merely 1 tsp. of baking powder and 1/2 tsp. of baking soda for 2 cups of dry ingredients and 1 cup of yogurt/buttermilk, 1 egg, etc. This didn't seem enough to me, but I tried the first recipe (Apple Cranberry Muffins), and sure enough they rose very little. They're delicious, though, and I'm using them as little puddings served with custard, but I'm leery of trying the recipe again or trying the other one, Apple Cheese Muffins. I'm wondering if I should just up the baking powder to 3 tsp. |What do you think?
I'd say it is a pretty low barrier, low risk experiment! Maybe try bumping it up to 2 teaspoons and see how you like the results.
1 tsp of baking powder and 1/2 tsp of baking soda to 2 cups dry ingredients is actually more baking powder and soda than I found in the first 10 random recipes I checked from Food Network and America's Test Kitchen. That suggests to me that the recipes are fine. Could it be that your leaveners are losing potency?
You can check them.
From Chemistry.About.com:
How to Test Baking Powder
Baking powder is activated by a combination of heat and moisture. Test baking powder by mixing 1 teaspoon of baking powder with 1/3 cup hot water. If the baking powder is fresh, the mixture should produce lots of bubbles. Be sure to use warm or hot water; cold water will not work for this test.
How to Test Baking Soda
Baking soda is meant to produce bubbles when mixed with an acidic ingredient. Check baking soda by dripping a few drops of vinegar or lemon juice onto a small amount (1/4 teaspoon) of baking soda. The baking soda should bubble vigorously. If you don't see a lot of bubbles, it's time to replace your baking soda.
As for "...and sure enough they rose very little." - with muffins, a high rise isn't necessarily a good thing. Sure, flat or sunken muffins are wholly undesirable, but I would argue that huge cresting muffins are perhaps more the exception than the rule. As long as the texture and taste are desirable, then you got your muffin mojo working. Too much leavening can actually result in deflated muffins. Keep your mixing to an absolute minimum - and make sure your oven temperature is hot (at least 400° F). Consider resting your batter 30 minutes prior to baking if you want a little extra lift.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.924320
| 2014-10-27T21:53:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49300",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"DEBRA KAY",
"Hynex",
"Imarys Bruno",
"Mary Wanjohi",
"Michael Natkin",
"Peter Iapichino",
"Stephen Eure",
"Tamara Wakefield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112238
|
Can you season skewers after cooking them?
Firstly, I write, not cook. A character in my story drugs some honey chicken skewers, saying it's seasoning in front of my protagonist. Would it be okay if he was called out about it or are there actual recipes that add spices after the meat is done grilling?
By the way, it's pretty unusual to use the word "throw" for spices.
It's very common to season steaks or other meats with salt and pepper after cooking, there would be nothing unusual about that. There are also seasoned salt mixes which people may use as well, that's also common. Using other spices is less common, there are finishing spice mixes which could be sprinkled on, which is less common.
As a writer myself I would say it will work any way you want it to. I would think nothing of seeing someone sprinkle some salt on food after cooking, unless I had reasons to be suspicious to begin with, and then I would touch and smell. Or I might not have suspicions until I smell the food and detect something odd.
Yes, very true @maxathousand, thanks for pointing that out.
@J... Not if it's a finishing salt.
Lots of chefs add salt before and after cooking @J... , in any case I'm saying that seeing someone sprinkle salt after cooking wouldn't draw suspicion, which is the question, it's not about what the proper technique would be
There are a few things that I can think that you might legitimately add after you've cooked the skewers:
fresh herbs, chopped fine (for color / decoration (aka. 'garnish') & to add a "fresh" quality)
spices that would burn over high heat (black pepper being one of them)
sauces, to add moisture. (especially those with sugars that might burn when cooking ... although you'd likely marinate the meat in it, so it get charred, then add more layers of it as you cook, then top with fresh stuff when you're done)
citrus juice, to add some acidity and balance to an otherwise fatty dish
It's also worth noting that although some spices are enhanced by heat (like "blooming" spices in hot oil), putting them on at the end, even if they're not heated, can help to enhance our perception of those spices, as they'll be more likely to contact your tongue than something that's inside a mixture. (in the case of kebabs, between the chunks of meat)
Sometimes you forget an ingredient when cooking something. If the ingredient is a spice, herb or flavor extract, you might sprinkle a bit of it on after the dish is fully cooked.
The character could also say, "Oops, I forgot to add the ___. I'll just sprinkle it on now, and you won't even notice the difference."
It's especially plausible if they glance at the recipe right before saying that.
The character is not good at cooking. He made all kind of obvious mistakes, like not pating the meat before searing it, burning the garlic, not drying the lettuce. So, anything weird will be attribute to his inexperience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.924581
| 2020-10-22T11:22:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112238",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Justin",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56024
|
Chemically, what happens when you temper an egg?
Chemically speaking, what happens when you temper an egg? Why doesn't it simply cause the eggs to solidify or scramble?
I know it raises the temperature at which the proteins coagulate, very interesting question. I can't wait to see if someone has the answer.
One of the reasons is what cantido probably meant: you can overheat the eggs quickly if you pour them into the hot milk. Heat transfer is proportional to the distance from the boundary between the two materials. If you pour a thin stream of hot milk into tepid eggs, most of the eggs don't get heated, because they are far away from the boundary. They only come into contact with the milk after it has cooled down a bit. Also, the milk you pour is somewhat cooled down before it hits the eggs because 1) there is no burner underneath it (which may still be on, or, if you are not on gas, will give off considerable heat even after turning off) and 2) it cools down while being poured through the air. Thus tempering prevents the localized overheating which would happen if you would add small amounts of egg to hot milk.
But there is also some magic that I can't explain, although I've seen it referenced in reliable books (Cookwise). The temperature at which eggs overcoagulate is dependent on the speed with which they are heated. The coagulation of an egg is a slow process, and there are many intermediate stages along it, from absolutely liquid to absolute rubbery. But the weird thing is that this process's speed depends on the rate of heating - eggs which have been heated from 25 Celsius to 80 Celsius slowly can create a pleasant soft custard, while eggs which have been heated from 4 Celsius to 80 Celsius quickly can curdle the mixture. I wish I knew why this is so, and hope that somebody else will provide this final piece of the puzzle in another answer.
So, by tempering, you achieve a slower, more even heating, which extends the temperature interval between raw and curdled, and gives you a pleasant texture overall.
As for the chemical process of thickening-and-curdling in eggs, Chef Code explains it well. It starts with a soft web of coagulated protein which loosely holds the liquid trapped (tasty custard) and ends up with a very strong web of very deformed protein which expels liquid (curdling).
Found part of the answer here is a link www.exploratorium.edu this website explains how the amino acids in the proteins change in different applications that are applied to eggs.
It does not provide the chemical composition changes you might see in a lab although. I hope this is helpful.
Revised Answer
Egg Science:
Egg proteins change when you heat them, beat them, or mix them with other ingredients. Understanding these changes can help you understand the roles that eggs play in cooking.
Proteins are made of long chains of amino acids. The proteins in an egg white are globular proteins, which means that the long protein molecule is twisted and folded and curled up into a more or less spherical shape. A variety of weak chemical bonds keep the protein curled up tight as it drifts placidly in the water that surrounds it.
Heat ’em
When you apply heat, you agitate those placidly drifting egg-white proteins, bouncing them around. They slam into the surrounding water molecules; they bash into each other. All this bashing about breaks the weak bonds that kept the protein curled up. The egg proteins uncurl and bump into other proteins that have also uncurled. New chemical bonds form—but rather than binding the protein to itself, these bonds connect one protein to another.
After enough of this bashing and bonding, the solitary egg proteins are solitary no longer. They’ve formed a network of interconnected proteins. The water in which the proteins once floated is captured and held in the protein web. If you leave the eggs at a high temperature too long, too many bonds form and the egg white becomes rubbery.
I may be missing something, but this link only seems to talk about a few egg transformations and I don't see tempering on the list.
under heat'em section of the article, it doesn't specifically say temper, but you do apply heat when you temper eggs so it is relative to the question @templatetypedef
It's really helpful if you actually copy the text, the way you did on the chicken yolk question. Links can go bad over time and our questions and answers don't really go away, so always try to quote the relevant text here in your answer. :)
The egg proteins still coagulate and cook. The difference in tempering is that since the heat is rising very slowly, and you are presumably stirring, the proteins do not clump up into scrambled eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.925114
| 2015-03-24T22:14:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56024",
"authors": [
"Bathroom And Kitchen Remodel",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Claire Selensky",
"David Seward",
"Elena de la Cruz",
"Kaylee Mueller",
"Nicole Campos",
"Roxanne Tchida",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"jim arbuckle",
"templatetypedef"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58804
|
Why does my canned enchilada sauce smell and taste like dog food?
So I bought the ingredients for a terribly unhealthy microwave burrito enchilada-style casserole recipe today. The recipe, of course, called for enchilada sauce. So I went out and bought Las Palmas brand mild enchilada sauce along with the other ingredients. When I popped open the sauce, the kitchen was immediately filled with the pungent smell of dog food. Having no idea what the sauce was supposed to smell like, I put it in anyway, thinking the smell would go away.
After an hour in the oven, the smell was still there, and the heat made it stronger than ever. And when I tasted it, the sauce tasted of dog food. I've checked the can (the expiration date wasn't for another two years) and scoured the Internet, but I can't figure out any reason the enchilada sauce would take on this particular smell and taste.
Could anyone help me figure out why? It won't improve the casserole, but it will assure that I'm not insane for having this apparently unique experience.
Are you maybe sensitive to cumin? I've heard some people describe it as a body odor smell.
How do you now what dog food tastes like?
One does not have to taste dog food to know what it tastes like. You only have to smell it TFD. I think the the enchilada sauce was bad and just because the date was still good, you can have a bad batch. On the other hand, you just might not like that brand. My bet is that is was a bad batch and it just happens. Call the company or if you have the can, take it back to the place where you bought it. Exchange it, open it, taste and smell it and then call the company and tell them of your experience. I use salsa, food process it and use instead of enchilada sauce. No smell or taste of dog food
@user33210 hard boiled egg smells like crap, does not taste like crap
It's because the enchilada container was mis-labeled at the factory :)
All kidding aside, if you purchased a sauce in metal cans instead of glass jars you may have picked up added flavors.
There may not be a proper seal on a portion of the can and enchilada sauce is acidic so; it most likely ate through the can (be it steel, aluminum or tin) which can make it taste like the can. Doesn't mean it was bad just not very tasty.
Melamine? Aluminium. For a can of food. Seems strange? Are you familiar with the brands canning process, or did you mean epoxy and steel?
@Tim Post melamine is a toxic chemical to humans. Safe levels are in the order of 1 mg/Kg, so not suitable in a can where implements might be used to scrape the can contents out. Cans are generally lined with various forms of epoxy (heat safe). They used to be lined with tin. If this membrane was faulty, the contents would quickly eat a hole through the can. Most canned goods are acidic
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.925636
| 2015-07-05T23:46:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58804",
"authors": [
"Andrew Miranda",
"Anna Whalen",
"Dee Perkins",
"Judy Gagne",
"Preston",
"Richard Mcfarlane",
"TFD",
"Teresa Stone",
"alisha brearley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57323
|
Which materials used for plates absorb microwaves?
I was thinking about getting plate that can be safely heated by microwave. What material should I look for? My point is to (partialy) turn microwave into induction heater. Plate like this is already sold by Samsung as "crusty plate", but those are hard to come by - I have seen them only along with new microwave.
your 'crusty plate' is often sold as a 'microwave crisping tray'. it's also called a susceptor
BTW, in engineering language, the material property that causes a non-conductive material (dielectric) to absorb microwaves is measured as the "loss tangent". Smaller values, less absorption. This property is frequency dependent, you care about values stated for frequencies in the range of 1-4 GHz (microwave oven is always 2.4GHz). Conductive (not ionic conductors like salt water!) materials heat up for different reasons (antenna effects + ohmic loss).
I never realized that I should keep metalized cardboard from under ready-made pizza when I heat it up in microwave. Apparently it is susceptor.
The reason they tend to be sold with ovens more than as an aftermarket item might be that the wrong kind in the wrong oven might overload it. And metallized cardboard, unless the packaging states so explicitly, is very unsafe in a microwave.
In my experience, vitreous ceramic (Luminarc) heats up a lot in a microwave, usually ending up hotter than the food. But I cannot tell you if it has some advantage over heating the food in any other material.
Also, if you really want to eat crispy roasted food, the microwave is probably the least suited heating method for that. I have never used the suggested "crusty plate" but I wouldn't expect much of it.
Some of my dishes heat up in the microwave (they're some kind of ceramic, not sure specifically). It's definitely hot enough to be really annoying if all you want is to grab your food, but I can't imagine it having a cooking effect.
@Jefromi if you have held a vitreous ceramic plate, you'll recognize it. It is much more glass like than porcelain. A slightly cheaper material than real porcelain, it has brighter, less warm colors, a trace of translucency, and if it breaks, it shatters into many, many splinters instead of a few large pieces. If you don't know what ceramic, it's probably not this one (quite obvious) kind. But while it heats up more than standard porcelain in the microwave, the difference is small, and I also don't think it will cook the food.
Hm, well I guess it's not just vitreous ceramic that heats up.
@Jefromi: Thicker ceramics might contain small amounts of water within, especially if the glazing has (invisible to the naked eye) micro-cracks and said ceramics are washed in a dishwasher. They tend to get quite hot, too.
"don't think it will cook the food" - more likely, it interferes with cooking it. There is a fixed amount of energy that a microwave oven can transfer into what is in it, and if your tableware gets heated that means it will be less efficiently transferred to the food (since there will always be thermal radiation loss).
Ceramic.
Microwaves excite certain types of molecules and water being a prime target it heats foods rather quickly.
Ceramic that is glazed (the hardened colorful exterior of the ceramic ware) traps the water inside the clay when the bowls, mugs, plates are made. It makes a skin if you will. The microwave will heat these types of dishes up real fast and hold their heat well because they have a lot of mass compared to other types. I use Pfaltzgraff plates and they are heavy. They are heavy ceramic and if I cook a bowl of cold soup for 3 minutes in it.... I can not touch the bowl. It is screaming hot.
I have some raw ceramic pans (for meatloaf) with no glazing on them. They barely get hot. In a microwave.
Also there is sand mixxed in clay. This is more of a physics question. Good luck.
Here is a link to the plate you are talking about. Notice the oven this plate goes in is a Cenvection/Microwave oven. And in the instructions it says to warm the plate for 3 minutes before using. http://www.manualslib.com/manual/202073/Samsung-Ce107mtst.html?page=12
Seems pretty unlikely that trapped water is responsible for the heating of glazed ceramic dishes. More likely is heating of "dielectric ceramics" (look them up in Wikipedia), specifically the glazes that are used and not the stoneware itself. If there were trapped water, it would have been heated out during firing (or exploded the piece.) . Glazes could not have "sealed it in" water since the steam formed would have easily bubbled through the glazes when they were in their melted state. Glazes only solidify after they cool from high temperature firing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.925921
| 2015-05-09T11:23:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57323",
"authors": [
"BondedDust",
"Carol nevin",
"Cascabel",
"Curt Fogg",
"J Brown",
"Joe",
"Little Kobold",
"PiotrR",
"Rudy Bocchicchio",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"stevie",
"timothy quinn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57342
|
Using Canned San Marzano Tomatoes Vs. Regular Canned Tomatoes
I have never used San Marzano tomatoes yet. I recently bought a cookbook and most of the recipes call for San Marzano Tomatoes. They are more expensive. Is it really worth paying the extra money for them?
USA Prices
$3.82 28 oz. can Centos brand D.O.P. Certified San Marzano tomatoes From my local market. D.O.P. Certified is guaranteed they are grown in the Mount Vesuvius Volcanic soil.
$1.44 28 oz. can Contadina brand tomatoes from local market.
What is so special about these? I get mixed reviews on the net. One person says it is a bunch of high brow people showing off and others say you can take a can of these and grind them in a food processor and drink it like tomato juice.
I would like a concrete answer from somebody that has used San Marzano tomatoes enough times to say definitely worth it or not. I will be making Pizza Sauce and Spaghetti Sauces.
The canned come skinned (good), but have seeds yet (bad). Seeds tend to make it bitter, remove them by hand, leaving only the meat of the tomato. Youtube "san marzano pizza sauce", a pizza winner. DOP Grown on the volcanic plains of Mount Vesuvius in Italy. The only tomato used in Neapolitan Pizza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_pizza
Save some of the chunks for a pizza topping "pizza pomodoro" (tomato).
Thank you for reminding me about the D.O.P. Certification.
@Optionparty All whole canned tomatoes have seeds... not sure how that's an issue.
@Catija I was just trying to say to remove the seeds, as the skins had already been removed.
San Marzano tomatoes are generally preferred for Italian tomato sauces because they are denser, fruitier, have a slightly lower acidity, and break down well when cooked. I've made both fresh and fresh-cooked tomato sauces from the San Marzanos my mother-in-law grows, and would prefer these over just about any other tomato variety for sauce-making (dry-farmed Early Girls are also pretty good).
However, in my personal experience trying several of the canned and boxed varieties of San Marzanos available to me, they're not worth paying more than double what more common varieties of tomatoes cost. For example, last week I made my standard "quick tomato pasta sauce" using boxed San Marzanos, and did not find it notably better than other high-quality boxed tomatoes (such as ones from Pomi) which cost $2 less. My judgement is that many of the qualities which make them a superior tomato when cooked fresh are destroyed in the canning process.
On the other hand, you're comparing them to Contadina, a rather low-quality brand. Given that specific comparison, I would expect the San Marzanos, even the mass-market Italian brands, to be notably superior in quality. So if that's your actual comparison, I would say go for the San Marzanos.
According to an article in Cook's Illustrated from several years ago (CI archives are behind a paywall, so no link), this is partly because San Marzanos, like other imported tomatoes, need to be canned at higher temperatures in tomato puree instead of at lower temperatures in tomato juice due to obscure US produce import restrictions. So it's also possible that canned San Marzanos can, in fact, be excellent, just not the ones commonly available in the USA.
My rule of thumb is this - the more a sauce relies on the taste of the tomatoes themselves the more likely I'll use the San Marzanos. What exactly do I mean? If the sauce only has few ingredients (say, tomatoes, garlic, butter, salt, pepper, parmesan) then I'll use the San Marzanos. If it's going to be a meat sauce with a lot of herbs, spices, etc added in then I'll use the cheaper tomatoes as the taste of the tomatoes is going to be hidden by the other ingredients anyways.
@djmadscribbler Agreed. In something like chili or marinara, I'll use cheap tomatoes, but for a pomodoro, I always use San Marzano. When I tried doing pomodoro with (even high end) regular canned tomatoes, it tasted sour and too earthy.
You may know the answer to my question here, @FuzzyChef. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86942/why-specifically-use-passata-rather-than-tomatoes-in-ragu . Happy new year all!
@user36802 I certainly doubt that anybody is canning tomatoes in copper-lined cans, since the copper would leech into the tomatoes and make them discolored, bitter, and liable to cause health issues.
I can't speak to the canned variety, but my neighbor grows San Marzanos and gave me a big bag last fall. They were fantastic, much better for sauce than any of the other tomatoes I've grown. I'll be planting them myself this year.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.926327
| 2015-05-09T19:52:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57342",
"authors": [
"Aditi Mahabir",
"Candy Baxter",
"Carol Powaga",
"Cassy McCaffity",
"Catija",
"Evelyn Adams",
"Fattie",
"J Webb",
"Little Kobold",
"Lubna Khan",
"Matthew Galley",
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"Optionparty",
"SourDoh",
"djmadscribbler",
"elizabeth hernandez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"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
}
|
82242
|
Jason's Deli has two different kinds of soft serve, what's the difference?
Jason's Deli clearly has two kinds of Free Ice Cream,
The Good Kind.
The Bad Kind.
The Good Kind is the same kind of soft serve you'll find at McDonalds, and Burger King. I'm wondering what's the difference between though between The Good Kind, and The Bad Kind.
The Bad Kind is at the Shepherd Store, and the Humble Store.
The Good Kind is at the Kingwood Store.
Sounds like a question for Jason's Deli.
I wrote to Jason's Deli and here was their response,
My name is Alice Jones and I am a part of the leadership team at the Shephred Square location. First and foremost I would like to thank you for providing feedback in regards to the ice cream. Let me be the first to apologize for the inconsistency provided at the different delis. To be completely honest the reasons for the difference is the machines which the ice cream is process. The ice cream machine at the Kingwood location is an Electrofreeze verse the Taylor Machine at the Shepherd Square location.
The Electrofreeze machine is a more updated version of the Taylor which has more airflow allowing a fluffier product. I would like to re ensure you that all deli use the same product unfortunately because of the process within the machines are different which may result in a different taste. If you have any additional question and or concerns please feel free to reach out. Lastly, I attempted to reach out via telephone however unsuccessful therefore resulting in this email.
So they claim the difference is in the airflow of the two brands.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.926708
| 2017-06-07T19:07:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82242",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52242
|
is electricity smell from microwave after metal was put in it mean the microwave is ruined?
A spoon was placed in the microwave. No sparks were noticed but now when you use the microwave for more than a minute, there is a smell of electicity. The microwave still heats food.
No. If the microwave still heats, it's not ruined.
Here's a nice video of the aluminum coating of a CD being burned off by a microwave.
Notice the plasma balls rising to the top of the oven. They'll produce ozone, which has an electrical burning sort of smell.
You can get the same plasma balls using a match or candle. That doesn't wreck the microwave either; makes a heck of a scary sound though.
You can also smelt aluminum, or even silver and iron in your home microwave without damaging the device.
If you make a habit of doing things like this, it's best to have a dedicated oven for the job, as melted plastics, heavy metals, and metal oxides do not mix well with food.
Washing out the microwave's insides should take care of any residual smell for you.
What does electricity smell like?
Honestly I have no idea what you mean with a "smell of electricity". :)
If you mean it smells of smoke or burning, then there is something to be concerned about. Metal can but won't with 100% certainty reflect microwaves or damage your microwave. Mind you it is still a very bad idea to put metal in a microwave, it just does not spell its doom right away.
If you do smell burning or smoke, you need to have it checked, as it is possible microwaves were reflected back to the magnetron and caused damage. Although if it still functions and heats food, this means the damage is most likely minor and prolonged use will simply fry a cable or something and you will have to replace it.
EDIT: I am sorry to do this, but i don't have 50 reputation to comment on "Wayfaring Stranger"'s answer and i feel i have to say that NO appliance is working fine and is completely undamaged if after use it smells of electricity (or anything but food). Although the damage or problem could be minor, you might want to have it checked out just in case or to prevent potentially having to buy a whole new microwave in the near future.
There's a sort of smell from an electrical discharge that's associated with ozone, but it's more likely that the smell is related to scorched plastic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.926868
| 2015-01-03T16:46:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52242",
"authors": [
"Courtney Brown",
"Covered Walkways Limited",
"Denaven LeBattie",
"Denelle Fox",
"Erica",
"Gaming Master123",
"Jennifer White",
"Luke",
"Timothy Nagy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"tony hoy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54312
|
Easiest way to peel pomelos?
What is the easiest way to peel a pomelo and obtain skin-free wedges that are ready to eat?
Ever since I bought them a couple of years ago already peeled in Thailand, I have felt I am missing something.I will normally peel off the outer skin, then remove the wedges and remove their skin.
Does anyone know of a more clever way?
Try this! http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53997/is-there-a-quick-easy-mess-free-way-to-peel-an-orange-or-grapefruit/53998#53998 I can't say for sure that it works for pomelos, but it should!
I looked at the method, but don't really want to cut the wedges..the nice thing about pomelos is that they are dry, in the sense that you can remove the translucent skin without the mess you have with oranges, for instance
Sometimes there's no substitute for hard work.
Here's a summary of what I do:
Chop off the top part. About a little less than half an inch.
This will tell you how thick the skin is, and make it easier to peel.
Cut the a slice down the length of the fruit, and then repeat 3 more times, so your skin is then segmented into four quarters.
Peel as much of the skin off as possible.
Take your knife and peel/scrape off as much of the pith as you can. I ususaly take my paring knife, dig between the fruit and pith and then pull it off in large chunks. Once you're down to the translucent skin, you should be able to separate the segments easily. If you want, to just get in there and pull it apart, you can do so skipping this step.
With each individual segment, I put a slice near the centre from end to end, so I can pull the skin back in one large piece.
Here's a video that summarizes it somewhat.
That is precisely what I am doing..I guess there is no shortcut then...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.927087
| 2015-02-02T19:42:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54312",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"City Movers LLC",
"Jim Box",
"Jolenealaska",
"Spammer",
"Woodbridge Sciatica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"scott cassavaugh",
"vass"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74612
|
Shelf life of refrigerated cream cheese - unclear best before date
I have an unopened package of cream cheese (store brand: Hy-Top) and the date has no year on it. It shows:
-NOV 27 135J
01:20 02P2
I don't think I've had it longer than maybe 6 months but I don't know for sure. It was at the back of a shelf in my refrigerator.
How do I find out if it is this November or last year?
You open it:
The best before date is merely a guideline, it does not mean the food will be bad after that date (there are posts on this site that expand on this). Still, after almost an extra year, the cream cheese will very likely have gone bad - and this should be immediately noticeably by an off smell or visible mold.
If you notice no deterioration, you are either before the best before date or you were quite lucky and the package kept exceptionally well.
CAVEAT:
With all food items there is always the general rule:
When in doubt, throw it out.
I would never feed "questionable" food items to others, especially children, pregnant or elderly people or anyone else with a weak imune system. (Even though I might use it myself if it appears perfectly ok to me.)
Weigh the cost of a package of cream cheese against the risk of food poisoning - and use common sense.
Can agree that cream cheese is one of the foodstuffs where it should be immediately very obvious if it's bad - it will smell bad (sour, fermented or musty) and generally grows black or red/orange mould. In my experience, cream cheese typically has a shelf life of a couple of months but I guess it may vary depending on preservatives used etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.927286
| 2016-10-09T12:09:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74612",
"authors": [
"WhatEvil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33675"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86267
|
Can I slow cook noodles?
I’m an avid user of slow cooking due to my schedule and need to budget my meals.
I haven’t tried but wanted to know if I could slow cook noodles.
Is it feasible to precook a bunch of pasta, and freeze into meal-sized portions? Thaw one block in the fridge through the day and microwave it warm just before serving under the dish ?
If by “noodles“ you mean pasta that comes in the dry form with or without eggs, then yes, you can make that in the slow cooker.
There is one caveat though: other than your meat, which won’t be affected by a bit of extra cooking time, pasta tends to become soggy rather quickly - or, at least “quickly“ in slow cooker time. After 30 minutes, plus minus a bit, the pasta is usually done. So the standard procedure for pasta cooked in the almost done soup, stew or other dish with sauce is to add it around 30 minutes before serving. You might have to add a cup or so of extra water, if the sauce is very thick.
If you want to cook pasta alone, you will have to either bring the water up to temperature first or at least partly calculate the warming-up time into the cooking time. As pasta tends to clump together if cooked undisturbed, you will have to stir at least once or twice, which of course will interfere with your slow cooker’s heating process.
In short, for pasta alone I suggest cooking it on the stove.
"In short, for pasta alone I suggest cooking it on the stove" which only takes ten minutes and doesn't require any attention while it cooks.
@DavidRicherby Uh, yes it does. It requires stirring (as noted in the answer).
@jpmc26 The answer says that pasta needs to be stirred if it's cooked on its own in a slow-cooker. It doesn't need to be stirred if cooked on the stove: the boiling water keeps it moving around.
@DavidRicherby Hm... I do know from experience it absolutely requires stirring when first poured in. The water tends to stop rolling for a couple minutes when you do. (I'm really not clear on the physics of why; I've always wondered.) During that period, it has a tendency to stick together and to the bottom of the pot. At minimum, you need to periodically stir until it's rolling on its own, and that's usually a couple minutes in. And I'm not sure it never sticks after that. I have also noticed that it rolls much less once it's expanded and nears done. I just find it simpler to watch.
The physics are that you've reduced the temperature and/or raised the boiling point of the water. It takes a couple minutes to get back to boiling.
I think the issue of having to stir noodles on the stove or not depends on the amount of noodles and water. 500g noodles in a 3l pot will need stirring, because the pot is almost full. 250g noodles in a half-filled 10l pot might not need stirring, as there is enough space for noodles to float around more freely.
You cannot add the noodles at the START, because the noodles will get soggy and make you a very unhappy eater.
BUT: You can still eat things with pasta, of course!
This page advises to add pasta just before the meal is done, and roughly double to triple the cooking-time. Be warned, though: Pasta releases starch when cooking! You may not want the starch in your pasta-dish!
So, you may just have to accept that for best results, you will need to set up a second pot and cook your pasta separately before eating.
I didn't know that, but thank you for your answer.
An alternative option: Rather than slow cook, what you can do is put your pasta in a bowl or pot of cold water in the fridge while you go to work. The dehydrated noodles soak in all the water and absorbs it to the right amount. Then you take it out and boil it for one minute with some salt to get the right texture and it's good to go.
The noodles turn a bit white when you soak them like this, but the boiling water will make the color return to normal. I do this when I have people coming over right after work and I know I'll be needing to cook a lot of things and I don't want to worry about stirring the pasta or checking if it's "perfectly" cooked.
You can, but it does have a different texture than boiled
You will likely find a lasagna recipe in any slow cooker cookbook, and there are plenty on the internet. These use regular dried noodles, not the 'no boil' ones.
If you want to avoid needing to cook ground beef separately, and you don't have a 'multicooker' that can sauté before switching to slow cook, consider making a casserole with diced salami or ham using similar techniques and proportions (and similar thickness of pasta)
My only issue with the slow cooker is that you don't get the browned crunchy top to add some textural contrast, so I'd probably serve it with a more crunchy garlic bread. (Toast some sliced bread, then rub a garlic clove against the cut side)
Note : cooking it in tomato sauce (acidic) will keep it from going soggy like it would if you just put it in water. And there's a limited amount of moisture for it to absorb
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.927547
| 2017-12-11T07:23:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86267",
"authors": [
"Bluebird",
"Criggie",
"David Richerby",
"Ian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63625",
"jpmc26",
"nathancahill"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23987
|
Is it true that smell is lost flavor?
This is a maxim that I hear frequently, especially as a defense of cooking methods that don't produce a lot of aroma: if the aroma is in the air, it means it's left the food.
As an example, some people complain about the lack of aroma produced in sous vide cooking, to which the sous vide advocates retort that this is evidence that more flavor is in the food.
Likewise, I recently saw Heston Blumenthal's roast chicken, where he went for a low-and-slow approach that produces little aroma: here, too, he claimed the flavor-retention defense to its lack of appeal. "Don't be disappointed, but my roasting technique doesn't flood your kitchen with good Sunday roast smells. This is a good thing, because smells are lost flavor" he said, while "SMELL = LOST FLAVOR" popped up on the screen.
I suppose it stands to reason, and that's the appeal of this explanation, but is it the truth? Does smelling a food necessarily imply that the final product will be less flavorful, and is it strictly because the aroma is escaping?
The claim is at 2:45 in the video, FYI
There would seem to be two components to the claim: that the amount of flavor being released is a substantial fraction of what the food contains, and that the release of the flavor isn't also accompanied by production of the flavor (e.g. caramelization).
There's another issue nobody is mentioning. Smell often enhances flavor. The two sensory experiences are linked and related.
I would assume that this depends highly on the exact source of the aroma/smell.
One extreme is the highly volatile components of essential oils found in many fruits, berries, spices and herbs, which are the main source of their respective aromas or smells. It is easily observed that especially spices and dried herbs loose their aroma over time, which is basically caused by the aromatic components vaporising even at room temperature and actually vanish from the original product. The same would happen to fruits and berries, if they wouldn't decay for other reasons long before the aromatic components are "used up". Heating would cause the vaporising rate to increase and speed up this process. If you for example try to reduce fruit juice to a concentrated syrup by heating, you can easily end up with a bland, highly acidic residue, even if you have a nice fruity smell in your kitchen during the process. First the aromatic components vaporise, then the water and left over are perhaps not much more than the solid components in the fruit juice and most of the fruit acids. In this specific case, the aroma is actually in the air, because it has left the food.
One of the other extremes is where a heat induced reaction in the food is required to create the aromatic components. The most well known example is perhaps the Maillard reaction between sugars and amino acids responsible for the darker, brownish colour of roasted meat and on the surface of bread and pastries. The Maillard reaction creates highly aromatic components, which are responsible for much of the flavour or smell. The typical bread aroma is for example mainly caused by 6-acetyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydropyridine, which is the result of a Maillard reaction between different components of the flour. Not using enough heat when baking bread would prevent this aroma component to be created in the first place, so baking bread at low temperatures is not a particularly good idea to get a more tasty bread. The main cause of the difference in taste between boiled and roasted meat is also the lack or presence of the results of the Maillard reaction.
In case of meat, other heat induced reactions except for vaporisation is also responsible for loosing aroma during the cooking process and may justify low-temperature cooking. When heating meat above a specific temperature, connective tissue (mostly collagen) contract and cause moisture to be pressed out of the muscle fibers in between. This moisture seeps out as meat broth, in which many of the meat's aromatic components are contained. Some of the aroma will probably vaporise and "be in the air", but in this case, the flavour has left the intended food (the meat), but most of it is still contained in a by-product (the broth).
As you see, there is no generic answer to your question, but having a nice smell in the kitchen when preparing food does not necessarily cause a catastrophic meal. There are lot of different physical reactions going on when preparing food, and understanding a few basics is very helpful when evaluating different techniques or experimenting on your own with new ways to achieve a tasty result.
Edit: After actually watching the video, I just wanted to point out an issue not directly related to the question. In the video, the chicken is roasted until it reaches a temperature of 60°C. In many countries, chicken meat is often infected with Salmonella bacteria, and at this temperature, they are not necessarily killed. Wikipedia tells that Salmonella is killed after 12 Minutes at 60°C or after 90 Minutes at 55°, so even if you measure 60°C at one point in the chicken, it is not unlikely due to uneven temperature distribution, that other parts are a few degrees colder, at which bacteria can survive for longer periods. To safely consume Salmonella prone food, it is recommended that the food is heated to 75°C at least for 10 Minutes.
Definitely a good answer. It might be worth being a little more specific about the roast chicken in question; clearly there's not a single answer for all foods, but I imagine there's a real answer for this specific case.
@Jefromi: I tried to answer generally for meat and not only for chicken (I don't think chicken behaves very differently from other kinds of meat). You need heat to produce roast aromas (the Maillard reaction), but heat will also cause the meat to contract, so that broth with other aroma components escape. Perhaps I should have pointed out more clearly, that the aroma components of meat are not particularly volatile, so vaporisation is not necessarily a problem.
A chicken cooked to an internal temperature 75C for ten minutes would be very dry; given that according to the USDA (fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf) cooking chicken to 72C results in instant 7-log10 lethality of Salmonella it seems like overkill to cook it for any longer.
@Stefano: I don't have the source for the 75° for 10 minutes recommendation, but the recommendation is probably a bit on the safe side, since common household cooking thermometers are usually not very accurate and even if you measure 75° at some point in the meat, other parts may very well not have reached that temperature.
I just realised that the link I provided in my answer was truncated for some reason. Here it is: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf It's still overkill to cook the meat at 75C for ten minutes. If you look at that link you'll see that even holding chicken at 65C for 2.7 minutes is enough to result in results in 7-log10 lethality of Salmonella; now think of how long it would take for the centre of the meat to get from 65C->75C: it's certainly going to be longer than 2.7 minutes.
Guys, this discussion useful, but really quite off topic for this question. We're talking about smells and flavor, not food safety.
@Stefano and Tor-Einar, please don't lead prolonged discussions in comments. If you have a new topic to discuss, create a chat room for it, or a new question.
Thanks for this answer, a good example of why you shouldn't use 3 words to describe such a complex process as flavor.
From Modernist Cuisine (2-380):
"Higher temperatures evaporate many of the prized volatile aromatic compounds....Food fragrances filling your kiltchen may smell great, but...if you can smell the aroma compounds, less of them remain in your food."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.927966
| 2012-05-24T22:45:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23987",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"El sheldon",
"Erica Mae Renegado",
"Gwendolyn",
"Joseph Tesfaye",
"Mervyn",
"Omnifarious",
"Paulina Mazur",
"Pieter B",
"Ray",
"Stefano",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"rumtscho",
"user54917"
],
"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
}
|
24432
|
Does gin "bruise"?
Inspired by a question about shaking vs stirring--part of what is unusual about Mr. Bond's request is that a martini is typically stirred rather than shaken; the normal reason given is that one stirs the drink to avoid bruising the gin.
I can understand bruising in the context of, say, leafy vegetables, or herbs. But gin? I'm just not sure what it means--or is it just part of bar mythology?
As an aside, some feel that making Bond's signature drink the shaken Vodka Martini rather than the Vesper was one of Ian Fleming's greatest mistakes.
According to some, aerating the gin by splashing it around alters the flavor, or "bruises" it; or more perceptibly, one would be likely to quickly notice the little bubbles disrupt its normal tongue/palate texture.
From Wikipedia, "Shaken, not stirred":
Some connoisseurs believe that shaking gin is a faux pas, supposedly
because the shaking "bruises" the gin (a term referring to a slight
bitter taste that can allegedly occur when gin is shaken). In
Fleming's novel Casino Royale, it is stated that Bond "watched as the
deep glass became frosted with the pale golden drink, slightly aerated
by the bruising of the shaker," suggesting that Bond was requesting it
shaken because of the vodka it contained. Prior to the 1960s, vodka
was, for the most part, refined from potatoes (usually cheaper
brands). This element made the vodka oily. To disperse the oil, Bond
ordered his martinis shaken; thus, in the same scene where he orders
the martini, he tells the barman about how vodka made from grain
rather than potatoes makes his drink even better.
Better, from the Martini FAQ;
...while we should all defer to the inimitable Mr. Bond on matters such
as high-tech spy gadgets, impromptu hand-to-hand combat, and
retrograde seduction techniques, his reasoning on this matter is
specious. To "bruise" a wine or spirit means to take some action that
changes its taste. Agitating and therefore aerating a gin or vodka
martini changes its taste: it makes it taste "sharper". It imparts a
certain bite or zing. Given this, and given his dislike of a bruised
spirit, Bond should insist that his drink be "Stirred, not shaken,"
since shaking "bruises" the gin more than stirring does.
...Here are the facts: Shaking cools a drink more quickly. Shaking is
more likely to chip small shards off the ice, some of which will make
their way into the drink, no matter how carefully one strains and
pours. Which may be part of the reason why... Although the gin spends
less time with the ice when the drink is shaken, shaking a drink
actually dilutes it more than stirring does. Very rarely, shaking can
produce a chill haze (the precipitation of very small solid particles)
from the vermouth, giving the drink a cloudy appearance. Shaking
creates tiny bubbles in the mix, which temporarily impart a cloudy
appearance to the drink. Shaking causes a certain class of molecules
in the liquor (aldehydes) to combine with oxygen more than stirring
does. The oxidation of these molecules also slightly alters the
flavor, making it "sharper" (Miller, Anistatia R. and Jared M. Brown. Shaken Not Stirred: A Celebration of the Martini. New York: HarperCollins, 1997).
This is one of those things that everybody has an answer for, but nobody has any evidence.
Almost nobody. The website Proof66 decided they were uniquely qualified to provide some actual... evidence. They did a controlled, blind-tasted experiment with 4 different ways of beating up the Gin. Check it out.
The bottom line on the question "Can you bruise a gin?":
Nope, it's complete bullshit. The only difference is a little in the presentation and the potential dilution of ice.
Now let's note two interesting pieces of context from our other answers here, as it may well be that it was once possible to bruise gin, but is no longer:
If, once upon a time, gin tended to have material amounts of oil in it, you're now talking about a different animal, in both chemistry and texture. It could have had very different characteristics than today's gins. The experiment I've cited doesn't address that.
If people were once in the habit of dipping highly-reactive metals into a drink (particularly one packed with volatile oils) in order to stir it, then yes, that certainly could have changed the flavor as well.
So, to say that 'bruising' of gin is a non-operative concept today is not to say that it was never an operative concept, particularly all the way back when the first Bond books were written, which was a very, very different era in terms of food & beverage production. But unless someone has other actual evidence - from either chemical theory or from controlled experimentation - it seems to be non-operative in today's context. (At least with gins made in the style of Tanqueray, which is admittedly a very commercial, very mass-produced product.)
Further, to say that 'bruising' is a non-operative concept is not to say that a vigorously-shaken martini can't taste rather different than one that is gently stirred. But again, this seems to have everything to do with ice-crystals and dilution, for which it's possible to control, and little to do with 'tossy' concepts like 'bruising'.
"Don"t bruise the Gin" is a very old request. It is NOT caused by shaking but by stirring the Gin. Prior to stainless steel, bar spoons were made from iron, steel or silver. Both iron and steel spoons will rust if not cleaned and dried properly. If the bartender stirred your Gin with a spoon that had rust on it it would change the color and taste of the Gin which was referred to as bruising. Hence, shaken NOT stirred prevented bruising the Gin.
The concept of bruising gin is equal parts truth, and nonsense. Truth in that it does somewhat alter if not the taste per se, then at least how it rests on the palate. nonsense because really, of all the words we could use to describe this effect... aerating, berating, incloudulating... 'bruising' seems to be the tossiest.
There are certain cocktail which I feel benefit from a severely 'bruised' gin. A Last Word, for example, or indeed any of the so-called 'corpse revivers'. Those drinks I like cloudy, sharp, and punchy. A Martini, on the other hand, should be made thus:
Chilled to within an inch of sanity, by way of pre-chilling the gin (only necessary in hotter climes), pre-icing the class AND garnish, and of course stirring with ice. The resultant beverage should be so crystal (from lack of shaking and more importantly from lack of Vermouth), that one can clearly see through it - to the bartender - who is dutifully making your second round. And YOU, dear sir, should tip that bastard generously. He has a beard to feed.
Shaking gin releases oils found in the juniper berry and produces a little sharper or bruised taste
I'm a bit confused by how this works. Wouldn't there need to be berries still in the gin -- what are the oils being "released" from in liquid-only gin? I'd love to understand that better, can you explain more?
The earliest reference I can find to 'bruising the gin' is in Casino Royale, and that's Bond referring to the drink, made the way Bond wanted it. When I read the passage I don't see it as a negative.
Regarding oils, 90% of martini's end up with the oils from a zest on top of the drink so I hardly think the oils from the spirit are going to make a difference to mouth feel with this on top.
Science.
https://talesofthecocktail.com/techniques/scientific-argument-never-shaking-your-gin
“Any complex mixture of odors is generally divided into three parts: top note (in perfumes this is also known as the head note), middle note (heart note) and base note or fixative,” Stewart said.
[...]
In gin, the most distinct and attractive notes are the lovely juniper and coriander. It’s what makes gin so enticing.
“This is the top note,” Stewart said. “And the quality of juniper actually doesn’t come from a single compound, but rather a mix of lightweight alcohols.”
So when you agitate gin — say by shaking it for a martini — you’re causing the top notes to dissipate. Those bits of pine and botanicals that you look forward to start breaking down and become dull. The end result: A cocktail that’s nowhere near as crisp as it should be.
“This is what we call bruising,” Stewart said. “Once you’ve shaken it, the rest of the drink only contains middle and base notes. Yuck.”
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/referencing for more on how to use others' work to support your answers. It'd really be preferable to use these quotes to support your own words, not just make an answer entirely out of quoted text.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.928594
| 2012-06-14T02:13:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24432",
"authors": [
"Amber Bridgeman",
"Bandish Kumar",
"Barbara Franklin",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Dreaded semicolon",
"Erica",
"Frederick King",
"Growing Ideas",
"Melinda Trautwein",
"Peggy Gill",
"a.dixon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66077",
"kitty",
"shishir mishra"
],
"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
}
|
12518
|
What flavorants stand up to long cooking?
My answer to this question (link) prompted a question in my own mind. I wanted to share some tips regarding when to add herbs, spices, aromatics, etc., and had a few suggestions (bay leaves and garlic go early; vanilla and black pepper go late).
These are, however just a couple of things I've noticed in my own cooking, and I'm not sure how good my information is. For example, I've heard that Hervé This has discovered that black pepper is optimally added eight minutes before the end of cooking.
Is there a list of ingredients that take time for flavor to develop versus those with more volatile flavors that need to be more closely guarded? That may be too much to ask; perhaps folks have a few guidelines or tips?
There is no chemical difference between adding salt early or late in the cooking process. However, if you salt just before eating, you can take advantage of textural differences between different types of salt. (Kosher salt is flakier and so gives a burst of saltiness that is quite pleasant.) (Some people will say that you should salt earlier to bring out flavors more, but once the salt is dissolved in solution, the chemical effect is the same.)
In general, fresh herbs tend to be added later in the preparation -- with the exception of parsley or dill added to soup early on to flavor the broth. However, if the herbs are added early, they must be removed, since they will lose all their flavor. (The broth will gain flavor, but the herbs will be exhausted.) You'll maintain the bright flavor if you add them late.
Dried herbs tend to react better to longer cooking, with bay leaves in particular requiring lots of time to render out their flavor.
As far as pepper goes, there's a fantastic answer to this question that goes into the chemistry of the volatile compounds in the spice. In general, I find that I prefer adding pepper later in the cooking process.
Garlic, ginger, onions, and other aromatics can be cooked a long time, although the flavor of alliums will change enormously as you cook them. (Garlic, in particular, will change enormously from a sharp flavor when raw or quickly cooked to a rich sweetness when cooked a long time.)
Re: salts early/late: Adding salts to solids containing liquids before cooking is a common technique for improving the mailliard reaction (this makes adding it early handy with meats, tofu, etc.), and some processes lacking salt early fall flat (like pasta, oats, breads). Salt incurs less of a chemical reaction, though, and more of a physical reaction (as with sugar), as it's hygroscopic, drawing water out of things. Salt is also an electrolyte, which is good mojo for your tastebuds (which sometimes is only absorbed early).
Salt also makes a difference when boiling vegetables. Add it to the water before boiling, and you get nice results. Add it afterwards, not so appealing.
@derobert -- The difference between adding salt to the water and adding it to the vegetables isn't a chemical one. It's a physical one -- when added to the water, it's A) dissolved in solution, so it evenly seasons the vegetables (as opposed to discrete clumps of salt/not), and B) more likely to penetrate the inside of the vegetables since it's carried with the water that's absorbed.
Some of the add-late ones are easy to notice: pretty much anything that gives off a strong (wanted) aroma needs to be added late, as the strong aroma is actually you boiling off the ingredient or part of it.
Examples: freshly-ground pepper has a strong aroma; old pepper does not (it has evaporated). Salt doesn't (it doesn't really evaporate at sane cooking temperatures). Garlic has a strong aroma, and if you want that, must be added late. Capsaicin doesn't boil off much (thankfully!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.929289
| 2011-02-23T20:08:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12518",
"authors": [
"Artanis",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Just Jill",
"Martha F.",
"MightyPork",
"Norman",
"Pat",
"Streltsov",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26187",
"user25801"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30120
|
How could buffalo chicken dip be stabilized?
I frequently see buffalo chicken dip showing up at parties. The idea of it sounds pretty good, but more often it ends up all separated with pools of grease like this:
(Source: browneyedbaker.com)
What could be done to stabilize the dip so it remains creamy and unseparated. I had the idea of adding egg yolk, but I suppose you'd have to at least be careful with it to prevent the egg from curdling.
Please give the recipe so we know what the components are. Do you have a blender? The picture is kind of... icky, I will admit.
I guess what I was getting at is that this is something that shows up at parties, so it's not that folks are all using the same recipe. But, for reference, here's the one from the photo. http://www.browneyedbaker.com/2011/02/01/buffalo-chicken-dip-recipe/
The photo in blog post from which the recipe above is also broken.
Cooking everything together is not going to create an emulsion--a completely different methodology would be required. I could speculate on another method, but I cannot give you anything absolute. I would change the method to cook the chicken separately, add some cornstarch to the cheese mix, heat it till metled stovetop while stirring, then run it with an immersion blender until emulsified; then add chicken back. Essentially, a cornstarch stabilized emulsion. But that is speculation.
Great points. I like the starch idea--I've used that in melted cheese scenarios with success in the past.
Would this type of dip be much different from stabilizing any other type of emulsion?
@Aaronut, that sounds more like an answer than a question.
It looks yucky but tastes so good! Buffalo wing sauce is basically butter and hot sauce so to me the dip looks like wing sauce, except creamier.
Possible duplicate of Keeping A Sauce From Separating
I would suggest making this on the stove top, or in the microwave, instead of in the oven. What is happening is that the oil from the cheese separates from the rest of the dish.
If you are using bottled salad dressing and cream cheese, there is already many thickeners/stabilizers in those. (Xanthan Gum, Guar Gum, Carob/Locust Bean gum)
I suggest that you slowly melt the cheese, along with the cream cheese & salad dressing on low heat. An immersion blender would help to make sure the lumps are gone, after adding the hot sauce, but before you add the chicken (as long as you want to have the chicken texture).
From my experience, the oily separation with the cheese is caused by it over cooking. If you aren't a cheese snob (I am), you could substitute Velveta cheese for the cheddar/jack cheese. Do you remember their commercials with the oily gooey messes with cheddar vs Velveta? It is the same principle at work here.
It looks like Velveeta includes sodium alginate that would work as an emulsifier for the dip.
Although baking is a totally adequate way of making this dish quickly. If you want to improve presentation, for parties and so on, I would recommend switching to making it in a crock pot or something like that (keeps it warm, contained). If you wanted to add a stabilizer at this point, I would recommend agar-agar (boil in broth, fold into dip - use a smallish amount so that it works as a thickener and stabilizer but not like gelatin).
As for a component stabilizer to just add to the recipe, all of the ones listed in Aaronut's comment and Kristalyn's answer would work. My preference, especially with a recipe like this would be to use mustard, prepared or ground.
+1 to mfg for the crock pot suggestion. That is how we make it.
To expand a bit, we do not put the cheese on top. We find that it hardens into a skin once it cools a bit, making it very difficult to dip anything into it.
Instead we combine the shredded cheese with all the other ingredients at once in the crock pot.
We do cook the chicken separately, boiled usually. The key to a consistent texture there is to finely shred the chicken in a food processor rather than fork or hand shredding, as larger or longer pieces of chicken make for a lot of broken chips.
We actually just made a batch of this yesterday using boneless skinless thighs rather than breasts and even with the higher fat content we had no problems with separation or oil run off.
I also want to add that we have tried putting larger chicken pieces in the dip and then using an immersion blender to smooth out the whole mix. I don't recommend it. The chicken doesn't end up uniform in size, and when hot the dip combines easily with minimal stirring so you don't gain anything by such rigorous blending.
Late edit:
I want to add one more thing about doing this in a crock pot: don't let it sit too long on its own with the crock pot on. It will burn. Even on the lowest setting, the parts that are touching the sides will scorch. If it happens a little bit, you can stir it in and it's not so bad, but it's definitely not at its best that way.
This dip reheats really well either in the crock pot or in a microwave, so don't be afraid to let it cool and reheat it.
Just made some buff chic dip in the microwave and it did NOT get greasy. Even after sitting out for awhile. What I did was microwave the cream cheese and a couple good squeezes of Ranch for 2 minutes. The cream cheese was stil in block form after microwaving (not melted) but mixed together real easily. Don't over cook the cheese!!!! Then add chicken and buffalo sauce to taste and microwave in 30 second increments until hot. I'd show you a picture if I could. It looks creamy and delicious. :)
When I make it, I purposefully cook it to the point of oil separation, to get the taste and texture that I (and my audience) prefer. Otherwise, it has an overly-creaminess, and less pungence. Again, that’s just us. I frequently serve it without achieving separation if I'm in a hurry, but look forward to reheating.
Hi Belsheen and welcome! Your post does not answer the question that was asked and would have been better posted as a comment. As you are new, it would be beneficial for you to take our tour and review our help pages. Both can be found in the 'help' dropdown at the top of the page. You will see that we are a strict Q & A site and very different than most forums. We encourage new users to stay through the learning curve. It's definitely worth it.
Cream cheese is in every buffalo dip recipe I've seen - this has enough emulsifiers on its own. Heat all ingredients besides the chicken, and then blend them (stick, food processor, or blender should wall work, you could whisk them in a pinch). Once everything is hot and blended, fold in the chicken. This is how we do it, and it's never separated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.929618
| 2013-01-15T23:26:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30120",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Hamilton",
"Cindy",
"Daniil Dubchenko",
"Jesse Miller",
"Judy",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Luciano",
"Ray",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"WereNut",
"ediblerock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70495",
"selene",
"user122160"
],
"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
}
|
14492
|
Does the foam head affect the taste of cola?
I was reading the other day about the importance of the head when pouring beer, and I wondered if there are any similar considerations when pouring cola's? I'm a huge fan of good Coke, and I'm just wondering if I can improve an already great tasting drink!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.930293
| 2011-05-02T22:19:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14492",
"authors": [
"Jason Frank",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128940"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14434
|
How do I get sausages to cook evenly in a pan?
Whenever I cook sausages in the oven, they cook evenly. The issue is that sausages take about forty minutes in the oven. However, whenever I use a pan, they do not take an age to be cooked but they never seem to be cooked thoroughly (some appear to be raw in the centre as well as not being evenly brown). So, how do I cook sausages in a pan?
EDIT: Adding water with the olive oil really does work.
What do you mean with evenly? Outside evenly brown, or inside evenly done?
Both; although I think that being cooked evenly inside is more important.
I find steam be a great way to conducting heat to the "far side". Like you would pan fry an egg, you use steam to get the far side done without getting the pan side over done. Usually just a tiny amount of water can maintain some steam in the pan for a few minutes and that's long enough to bring the food to a rare. It's not big deal if you used too much water because once you remove the lid it'd be gone in no time. When you flip them a few times and brown the surface, it should be good.
Whenever I have cooked sausages in a pan, I have always added some water in the pan that way they cook through on the inside. Once they are cooked through and the water has evaporated, I keep them in the pan to crisp up the outside.
Does that mean I shouldn't use oil?
I wouldn't use oil, they're generally chock full of the fat anyway!
@Carnotaurus: I have never put oil in the pan when doing it this way. As long as you turn them every now and then, I have never had a problem with them sticking. (I have also always used a non-stick pan so that may be why.)
Bratwurst loves to be cooked in beer!
Not 100% sure what you mean by 'evenly', but assuming you mean they brown in some parts and not others then what you need to do is pretty labor intensive. You basically have to stand there with tongs and continue to turn the sausages the entire time they are cooking. If they are not perfectly round they may want to roll over in which case you'll either need to squash them into shape or just hold them in place with the tongs so they don't roll over.
If instead you mean that some sausages cook more than others then you just need to move the sausages around, trading the under cooked ones with the ones that are cooking faster.
I've found the best way to cook sausages in a pan is to do it very slowly over a low heat, turning occasionally. This gets them nice and sticky and means it's easier to get an even browning.
Incidentally, doing sausages in the oven shouldn't take 40 minutes - about 20 mins at 200C does the job admirably.
I still need to pre-heat the oven :S
The four sausages in the picture above are OVERCOOKED! In fact, I'd call 'em Arfur Sausages, like King Arthur with the cakes he burnt.
I use a ribbed griddle pan for this. Then you can rotate the sausages with tongs, and the ribs keep them on the straight and narrow.
I tend to poach them for about 10 minutes, (poach, not boil), and then fry them over a medium heat for about another 10 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.930371
| 2011-04-30T18:43:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14434",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Phil Helix",
"Posipiet",
"SnakeDoc",
"VWinter",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5749",
"psorenson",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41126
|
heat chicken breast in a pan with no oil - ok for the pan?
I have heard of putting chicken breasts in a pan and heating them No oil.
To get past any terminology issue, i've included a picture. Just imagine a chicken breast or pieces of chicken breast in the pan. And heat beneath the pan.
I heard you can cook like that, letting it cook in its own fat, no oil, nothing added to the chicken breast.
I wonder though, if it's bad for the pan?
Can this be done?
Can it go wrong, if so, how can I avoid it going wrong?
Is it a non-stick pan? (it looks to be). If so, pre-heating the pan (heating the pan while empty) can be bad.
@Joe I can get whatever pan is suitable. So should I be using a non stick pan or a stick pan?
well seasoned cast-iron. It has the non-stick properties that can reduce oil usage, without having the problems associated with pre-heating teflon-based non-stick pans. It's possible that some of the newer ceramic-based non-stick pans are okay. Trying to cook without oil in a non-preheated pan is just asking for lots of sticking troubles.
@Joe so are you saying I should get a cast-iron pan and pre-heat it. to get it to the right temperature to get the floating water bubble http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/video-how-to-preheat-your-pan-leidenfrost-effect.html I can get a cast iron pan. At the moment my pan is stainless steel. Do I have to concern myself with the temperature rising anyway thus causing the meat to stick?
it doesn't specifically need to be to that temperature, but yes, cooking on a preheated skillet reduce sticking in the long run (they may stick, then release, like you'll get on a grill).
Doing this will not harm the pan, assuming you do not heat the pan to absurd temperatures (which is no different than if you used oil).
It may not give you ideal results for your chicken, though. Oil in the pan serves a couple of purposes. In traditional (as opposed to non-stick) pans, of course it helps prevent sticking.
It also provides a thermal coupling between the surface of the pan and the surface of the food, conducting heat from the one to the other (much akin to the way thermal paste helps your processor cooler work better).
Without this effect, you may get spottier and less reliable or uniform cooking of the chicken.
is there an infrared thermometer that would measure the temperature of the pan and not of the chicken in the pan? then I could see for sure if the pan is being heated to an absurd temperature. and if so, then how high is absurd?
Absurd is on the order of something exceeding 550 F / 290 C at which temperatures PTFE based non-stick coatings begin to be at risk for breaking down.
if I get an infrared thermometer, can I be sure it's measuring the pan and not the chicken?
If you have the chicken in the pan, the evaporative cooling will help mitigate the pan overheating; it is not something you need to worry about, really. The risk is before you add the chicken, such as leaving the pan on the flame to preheat.
Is there any danger to me if the chicken is cooked "spottier"?
Yes, it will almost certainly harm the pan.
Nonstick pans are sensitive to temperature, the Teflon starts to deteriorate at about 260 C. If you have a layer of oil in the pan (really a layer, not a few droplets from a spray, that makes it worse), then the heat coming from below is pumped from the pan into the oil everywhere, and the pan is unlikely to overheat. But if you are using a dry pan, the pan is full of air, which is a pretty good insulator, and the Teflon will quickly heat up above 260 C, at least in some spots. This will shorten the lifetime of your pan noticeably.
I don't see the reasoning here. A thin layer of vegetable oil is not going to provide much lateral heat flux to even out hot spots (certainly far less than the pan metal itself, no matter how thin). It won't help disperse heat into the atmosphere, and it doesn't have much thermal mass of its own.
@Sneftel oil is suprisingly good at reducing local overheating, else you'd be noticing spots of polymerized oil after every use. Admittedly, there is a window of temperature between teflon-decomposing-temperature and oil-polymerizing-temperature into which the pan probably goes sometimes, but it's still better than without the oil. And if you are in fact noticing polymer patches after each use, you are using too little oil.
I dunno. Even the notoriously hot-spotty stainless steel has a thermal conductivity around 16 W/mK. Canola oil's around 0.18 W/mK. It just doesn't seem like a significant contributor.
what about ceramic? ceramic seems to me like it'd be fine to preheat or to cook chicken fillet without oil.
@barlop ceramic has a different failure mode than teflon, and I don't know if it is connected to overheating or not. I have seen a lot of claims of it being connected to the combination of starch and oil (e.g. frying mekiza/langos in the pan), but I haven't seen proof for it. Maybe it happens sooner when you overheat the pan, maybe not.
I always cook with no oil (a lot heathier than fried!). Chicken breast (sliced in 2, not to be too thick) usually cooks fast. I do the same for beef and so many other things, in non-stick pans
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.930687
| 2014-01-13T15:38:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41126",
"authors": [
"Diane",
"Joe",
"Lucky Hair Studio",
"Omar Hirzallah",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sneftel",
"barlop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95791",
"rumtscho",
"syairmbah semar spam"
],
"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
}
|
14332
|
What is the difference between Grills, Barbecues, Broiling e.t.c.?
Possible Duplicate:
Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ
What is the difference between Grills, Barbecues, Broiling e.t.c.?
Note: I plan to post my own answer, but you're welcome to post yours.
Maybe http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca-nz can help you.
Or http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14312/what-does-it-mean-for-something-to-be-broiled as well.
What do you imagine e.t.c. stands for?
@TRiG Endless Terminological Confusion?
As Mien pointed out in the comments, these terms can vary based on where you are from. My answer is based on the U.S. version of the terms.
Grilling: To cook with direct exposure to heat, usually from below.
Broiling: To cook with direct exposure to heat, usually from above.
BBQing: To cook with indirect heat using wood in order to add a smoke flavor.
In many parts of the U.S. grilling and BBQing are used synonymously, in which it mostly implies grilling meat outdoors, although, as you can see by the definitions above, that isn't entirely accurate.
Using Ryan's definitions for clarity -
Grilling: To cook with direct exposure to heat, usually from below.
Broiling: To cook with direct exposure to heat, usually from above.
BBQing: To cook with indirect heat using wood in order to add a smoke flavor.
I have to make the point that broiling can be done with electricity, whereas grilling is by definition by something burning (in my case it is usually lighter fluid).
If you power your grill with charcoal, you can get that smoky flavour by adding woodchips into the fuel - to my mind, that is barbequeing, even if the heating is direct.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.931151
| 2011-04-25T19:51:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14332",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"TRiG",
"barlop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23999
|
Pre-salt eggplant to improve taste?
Possible Duplicate:
Rubbing eggplants in salt
I've heard that salting an eggplant (aubergine) before cooking/frying it is necessary not only to reduce the amount of liquid in the result but also to rid the eggplant of some bitterness. I see, online, some support for the claim that the taste of salt removes bitterness, but that would not require pre-salting: one could simply add salt to the dish. And that same Web page also says eggplants on the market generally lack bitterness anyway. On the other hand, various other Web pages (example) matter-of-factly describe pre-salting eggplants to rid them of bitterness. So my questions are: Is it true pre-salting reduces bitterness to an extent that regular salting of a dish does not, and, if so, are eggplants on the market (in the States, say) bitter enough to make bitterness-reduction advisable?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.931294
| 2012-05-25T08:40:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23999",
"authors": [
"Kathryn K",
"LarryB",
"Matthew Corway",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54492",
"paula",
"user22746"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50299
|
How to cook frozen goose
We were given about 8 lbs of frozen goose breasts in a bag. I would think we can defrost it and will then have to cook all of it; slow cooker to be the best option.
Is there a method of cooking this goose? as I understand it needs to be cooked a long time to be tender. Can this be refrozen afterwards into smaller packages. We were thinking about cooking this for Christmas.
EDIT - The goose is skinless
Is this a wild goose or domestic? Very different answers depending on that difference.
Please remember that you are talking about poultry breasts, which are always the leanest part. So no extra long cooking to tenderize, you'd be just making them tough and dry.
I'd also recommend not putting them in the slow cooker, because the skin is rather fatty and you'll want to render it to get the skin nice and crisp, let the excess run off and moisturize the meat below. In a slow cooker, most fat stays in the skin, making it rather rubbery (and IMHO quite nasty).
You should be absolutely fine if you either
sear them skinside down in a pan, then finish in the oven or
just pop them in the oven for two hours (rough estimate, depends on weight and oven temperature)
Of course you can freeze the leftovers.
Thanks - the goose is skinless. I thought a crockpot in slow cooker on low with some blush wine, mushrooms, chicken stock and herbs would work out well, but I've never done this before.
That would work well with leg/thigh, but as Stephie says, breasts are generally much drier, so slow cooking will result in expensive rubber. A relatively fast, high roast is the way to go.
Or a quick searing to eliminate surface bacteria and start the maillard reaction (-> flavour!), then a nice round of low-temperature cooking in the oven if you are afraid of overcooking. But opinions vary whether low-temp is ok for poultry. It's been discussed here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6032/can-i-safely-roast-a-chicken-for-4-to-5-hours-on-a-low-heat and links to here: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/04/sous-vide-basics-low-temperature-chicken.html. Whichever method you choose, remember to cool & refrigerate the leftovers quickly.
If you have this situation again, the Icelanders have wonderful recipes for something called "grafin gæs", which is effectively a goose version of gravlax, i.e. curing and no cooking! It is excellent and I did it for the first time this year with a frozen goose crown that I allowed to thaw in the fridge before I removed the breasts from the bones and prepared the dish :)
Here is a recipe (not exactly the same blend as mine but sounds great none the less):
http://icelandoutfitters.com/article/38
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.931718
| 2014-12-03T17:17:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50299",
"authors": [
"Alfred Agyei-Mensah",
"Andrew Findlay",
"Charlotte Mallow",
"David",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kayla Chavis",
"Stephie",
"Tamara Reel",
"Valdiene",
"Verena Rappaport",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50907"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89780
|
Are egg rolls supposed to be eaten with chopsticks or hands?
Are egg rolls, common in Asian restaurants, such as Chinese, Thai, or Vietnamese (at least in America), supposed to be eaten with chopsticks or hands?
Hands! Not really "supposed" but a roll is made for conveniently picking up by hand if you're eating just the rolls. If they're cut up and mixed in with rice noodles, then you'd use chopsticks.
In southern China, we eat spring rolls (the dish that egg rolls are based on) using chopsticks. In northern China, spring rolls refer to something much larger (like a burrito) so naturally you can't use chopsticks :-)
It's a matter of personal preference when referring to restaurants in the United States. Some egg rolls are too large to be easily handled with chopsticks, and they can be eaten using your hands; smaller ones and similar preparations such as spring rolls can too, but you may find it preferable to use chopsticks. When choosing your own egg roll from a common platter or service station, it's generally considered polite to use a provided utensil.
Note again that this applies only to Asian-American cuisine and American cultural norms. Etiquette may differ in other countries; when in doubt, watch what those around you do and follow their lead.
Concur on country-specific norms. With Chinese/Japanese cuisine in general (not just egg rolls), I've been in countries where the reaction varies between "are chopsticks suitable?" (US), or "why are you using chopsticks, I thought only Chinese people did" (Malaysia), or "your chopsticks are found in the box in front of you" (Japan). And then in Thailand, they seem to mainly use a fork and spoon, at least for Thai cuisine.
+1 for "watch what those around you do and follow their lead".
I would add that I've never seen anyone take offense or frown upon not using whatever utensil is preferred locally. Whatever the norm is, give it a try, switch back to what works for you if it doesn't work out for you, and don't be afraid to ask for your preferred utensils. They'll have them.
In Vietnam, we eat fried egg rolls with chopsticks. If the rolls are too big, the restaurant owner must have cut them in halves before serving. But restaurants are less likely to make big rolls. Restaurant rolls here are usually small enough to be used with chopsticks.
But spring rolls, which is soft, and some types of rolls that require to wrap yourselves at the table, you may use hands.
In a more formal etiquette, like you are treating a special guest, chopsticks are often used.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.931992
| 2018-05-13T02:48:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89780",
"authors": [
"Soron",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72975",
"người Sàigòn",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23753
|
Is it true that honey never spoils? Why?
I've heard that "honey never spoils", but I'm incredulous. Is this true, and if so, how? Isn't there some indicator that I should throw the honey in my cupboard away?
I've always heard that too, but this source says to only keep it for a year: http://simplystated.realsimple.com/2012/05/03/how-to-store-condiments/ I'm curious to know if they're making things up or what
www.foresthoney.com/index.php?acao=glossary&glossary_id=14 was linked in this answer http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/2023/6317 as stating honey has been found over a thousand years old and still edible
This question was asked over at Skeptics, too: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/7247/4020
Honey is very stable for a number of reasons. The main ones though are the low amount of water (most honey is under 18% water) and the high amount of sugar (which is a preservative). Both of these things keep things like mold and bacteria from being able to grow. Over a long period of time (and if left unsealed) the honey could absorb moisture and then ferment (the sugar would turn to alcohol) but if sealed then your honey should be fine for a long time. This PDF from the National Honey board http://www.honey.com/images/downloads/shelflife.pdf says that a shelf life of 2 years is often stated. On Chowhound I saw a discussion that said that in the UK the "best by" dates are usually 4 years out so I'm guessing that those dates have far more to do with decisions by the respective governments (i.e. laws that state a maximum best by date no matter what the food is) then the actual shelf life of honey. As the honey in your cupboard, if it's only a few months or a year old as long as it's been in a sealed container then it most likely should be fine.
If it is allowed to crystallize the honey can also separate enough that the liquid portion becomes dilute enough to spoil.
@Sobachatina, how would you tell that the honey is spoiled? I have had crystallized honey and microwaved it for a short time and it appeared, tasted and worked like it was good as new.
@Cos, Crystallization doesn't imply that it is spoiled- it can just allow it to spoil. I've never had honey go bad either so I don't know if it molds or just starts to ferment.
Honey also "inherits" the properties of the flowers it was made of. Many honeys include at least some nectar from herbs with bactericidal qualitites, up to the point where a tablespoon of certain honeys can prevent your bread from raising because it will kill all the yeast. But the strength of their antimicrobial qualities depends a lot on the flower type used, and you can't normally know much about that.
@Sobachatina, I understand that crystallization does not mean spoiled, but your comment implies that this would be an indicator and I was wanting to know how (beyond just crystallization) one might tell.. appearance, smell, picket signs reading "occupy...." are typical signs of spoilage.
I know I'm kinda late to this party, but I'd just like to acid that honey is surprisingly acidic, which also helps act as a preservative.
Note if it's left in dry enough environment, and covered tightly enough that no insects can get to it, instead of absorbing moisture and getting diluted, it will simply dry up, and as such can endure millennia (as did the honey in Egyptian pyramids). Upon diluting such dried up honey a little, it's as good as new. And one more thing: even fermented honey doesn't go bad. It turns into mead, a fine alcoholic beverage.
In addition to the really high sugar-content, Honey has antibacterial properties; so far that some kinds of honey are used as an antibiotic on wounds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630111037.htm has an article on that aspect of honey. This adds to the "no spoiling" capabilities of honey, because it will prevent any bacteria-related spoiling.
Sealed honey is good forever.. thousands of years at least. we know this from jars of honey found around the world that were sealed by ancient civilizations. It is an amazing substance.
This does not answer the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.932224
| 2012-05-14T18:30:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23753",
"authors": [
"Barbara Feldman Dan Cassidy",
"Choubix ",
"Cindy",
"Cos Callis",
"Flimzy",
"Heissa Abrawm",
"SF.",
"Schaemelhout",
"Sobachatina",
"User1000547",
"Varus Vandit",
"Yamikuronue",
"Yufan Shen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"rumtscho",
"user53868"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86689
|
Baking scalloped potatoes at 275 °F instead of at 400 °F
I have a single oven. My ham needs to cook for 2 1/2 hours at 275 °F, my scalloped potatoes need to be cooked at 400 °F for 1 hour.
Do I put both dishes in the oven at 275 °F and if yes, when do I take my potatoes out?
Would you normally rest your ham? How long for? This may provide an opportunity for finishing the potatoes at a higher temperature. It's not so much about when you take them out, as when you put them in - you take them out just before serving, but they'll need extra time
Browning will not occur at 275 even if you leave the potatoes in the oven for days. So if you are happy with soft, creamy, pale potatoes, your method will work. But if you want a nice brown crust, you'll have to take out the ham and turn the oven up to 375 or more for the last 15 minutes or so of cooking.
Timing can be more challenging than creating a meal itself. When this combo is part of a family gathering, I take timing out of the mix by baking the scalloped potatoes first, cover and set aside. Then do your ham. While the ham “rests”, to redistribute the juices, put the potatoes back in the oven, turn oven down to 300F & warm them. Good luck!
Agree here. 275 won't be enough to cook the potatoes, and worse, may cause very soggy potatoes even if they do cook throughout. Cooking at a higher temperature is necessary for vegetables because some of the moisture will evaporate.
Scalloped potatoes will cook in 3 hours at 275°. I have done it before and there are recipes that call for that time and temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.932696
| 2017-12-25T17:04:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86689",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767"
],
"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
}
|
81458
|
Can I use Cream of Tartar in a Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe to make them crisp?
I want to know if I can use a cream of tartar in a chocolate chip cookie recipe. I want a crisp cookie. Can I use it with both baking powder & soda? In a peanut butter cookie recipe, it asked for cream of tartar and said that it makes the cookie have a "cracked" appearance on top?
So far, in my search for a crisper chocolate chip cookie, I've found, 1. more white sugar than brown, 2. bake longer than recipe calls for 3. freeze the cookie dough.
Any other suggestions?
Welcome Carla, the question and answers here may help. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/65217/35357
I appreciate the response!
I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that cream of tartar causes crinkle tops... The only recipe I use cream of tartar in is Snickerdoodles and they aren't crinkled... whereas cookies like these chocolate crinkle cookies don't use it at all.
Cream of tartar is an acid. The main purpose in a recipe I believe is to work with baking soda to make carbon dioxide to make the dough rise. Baking powder is a mixture of baking soda and various acidic reagents (including cream of tartar) so that some of the reactions are delayed (heat activated) and the gas is not released all at once. If you put baking powder in water, you will see it fizz up somewhat, but once that has died down and if you heat it you should see more fizzing up. The ratio of baking soda to cream of tartar can be calculated fairly easily, and the same can be done if you include baking powder additionally.
The crunch comes from caramelization of sugars which begins at a little above 350F/180C (not to be confused with Maillard browning which begins at a much lower temperature). Now, I have not done any research on this to date and I can only share with you my educated guess. I think if anything, cream of tartar may actually inhibit the crunch as carameliaztion is promoted by alkaline conditions and baking soda is mildly alkaline.
One thing perhaps worth experimenting is to brush the dough with a baking soda solution just before baking. You will need to watch them because you also run the risk of the cookies going brown too quickly before the inside is cooked or they get too dark/burnt. You can also use a solution of sugar and baking soda instead of just baking soda for this "glaze". As for concentrations, you will need to play with that.
I think you might get the cracked appearance by using double acting baking powder. The second act is a delayed heat activated reaction making carbon dioxide gas which will cause the middle to expand. Assuming the surface is already cooked when this happens, the expanding middle will crack the surface. Cream of tartar with baking soda is an immediate reaction. As soon as the two come into contact in the presence of water, they will make gas bubbles.
Double acting baking powder is the default in the US... I use it in nearly every recipe I make, both for cookies and cakes... Most of these products do not have cracked tops.
Referring to OP's question, tartaric acid alone will not do much if anything it would slow down or prevent caramelisation which is the opposite of what is desirable. What I was saying is that if I wanted to figure it out, these would be the things I try /experiment with. I would favour baking powder over soda-tartar combination because powder has the delayed reactions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.932865
| 2017-05-06T16:02:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81458",
"authors": [
"Carla Amberg Wisbey",
"Catija",
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57684",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81908
|
Adjusting Bread flavor
I just found a lovely recipe to make a super crusty bread in my dutch oven. The texture is lovely and the crust is fantastic! However, the bread didn't rise much and the flavor is a little flat.
The recipe is
6 cups flour
3/4 tsp yeast
2 1/2 tsp sea salt
3 1/2 cups water.
I think if I add sugar and mix with the yeast and water I'll have a better rise and better flavor. I would like to add a fat to add more flavor as well. I don't know enough about food science to know the ratios and what the impact of those additions might be. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks,
What kind of flour are you using? For breads with just the basic ingredients, flour is actually important for good flavour.
6 cups of flour is ca. 840g, 3.5 cups water is 830g. So we are looking at close to 100% hydration. Is that correct or is there a typo in your recipe?
@Stephie I would assume no typo, since that explains the "flat" part and can be one of the reasons it is suggested as a Dutch oven recipe.
@rumtscho it does, I just wanted to double-check.
Step one if you want to start understanding ratios in bread is to get a good kitchen scale, and start measuring by weight, not volume. For flavor development, time is your friend, as Carlos mentions - even putting in the fridge for a day or two...
Considering the amount of flour used, the basic bread proportions are:
Water: 60% the weight of the flour. Of course this percentage may vary among the different recipes (even above 100%).
Salt: 2%
Fresh yeast: 1%
It may seem a tiny amount of yeast, but the trick is that in order to make bread, you just need time. Time for the yeast to do its job. If you leave the bread to rest for a while (a couple of hours or even more in a banneton before putting it in the Dutch oven) you will get a better rise and flavour. Also, as Stephie said, use very good quality flours. Both things combined and you're done. No need to add sugar, fat or other things.
If you do not have the time, adding more yeast will reduce the resting (and rising) time, but the bread will get less flavour. But if your bread is going to be very hydrated (as it seems), I would really recommend to have patience in the process of kneading and letting rest the bread before cooking it.
As already mentioned, your choice of flour is important. So too the quantity of yeast and time to rise can make a significant difference. The most direct change would be to add 2 tbs of Sugar, honey, or (real) maple syrup. As additional fuel for the yeast this should allow you to suffice with a shorter rise. You may also enjoy adding some savory herbs to the mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.933155
| 2017-05-23T00:31:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81908",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
102833
|
Ate raw beef patty that I microwaved for 2 mins first, Is it safe?
I was given this Great Value brand beef patty from a person who didn't like them.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-100-Pure-Beef-Patties-8-lb-32-Count/10804578
I don't have a grill or stove so I decided to just microwave them. I did 1 min each side. It was brown and tasted fine.
Just want to be sure this is safe before doing it again. Also if anyone else does this, please explain your process.
Buy a thermometer. 160F, 70C is considered safe. Cooked throughout to that temp, not with a little frozen parch, as microwaves are prone to leave.
You can cook meat products in a microwave, and be safe, but you need to make sure they're fully cooked.
Microwave ovens vary a lot in both their power output and how evenly they cook, so 2 minutes may not really be enough to be certain of cooking thoroughly. Next time I suggest you cut it in half when you think it's done, and check that the middle is both brown and very hot to touch. A thermometer would be the gold standard, but you're not running a restaurant, you're feeding yourself with limited equipment. If in doubt, cook a little longer, and you'll know for the future. Repeat the test if you cook extra another time.
Yea it was a frozen raw beef patty so sadly I dont think the 2 mins was enough to be "very hot to touch". However, the middle seemed brown tho as I did look at it while eating. Do you think I should be fine? I know people eat raw / medium raw steak so was thinking this shouldn't be a big deal as 2 mins in a microwave should kill anything in a patty but unsure now.Will do that test next time for sure tho as I don't have a thermometer.
Even if it wasn't properly cooked, you'd need to be fairly unlucky to get ill - but don't make a habit of it! Some burgers can look rather brown without being fully cooked, so the colour isn't enough on its own. Steak is different, because the inside hasn't had the chance to be in contact with anything, and the outside is normally seared. Steak tartare and burgers severed rare have to be prepared under careful conditions
thanks, I cooked another one for 4 mins(2 min on each side), it was kinda hot to the touch this time. Maybe I will try 6 mins(3 mins on each side) next time. Any issues with microwaving frozen raw beef patties for too long? I would rather be on the safe side. Taste doesn't matter to me. What microwave time is 99.9% safe?
It really depends on the microwave. All overcooking will do is make the texture change, so don't worry too much about that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.933382
| 2019-10-12T08:15:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102833",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Micro",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78978"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122757
|
Bread from bread maker turns out strangely shaped
I am a bread making newbie. I purchased a break maker and followed the instructions for white bread to start and pushed the button that outlined and got this:
What did I do wrong?
When you say “followed the instructions”: Did you measure your ingredients by weight or volume? Is your yeast fresh and active? And beyond these two points (aka “the usual suspects”), could you share the recipe and the instructions with us, please? How’s the taste? Can you describe the texture of crust and crumb? Can we perhaps get a photo that’s better focused, so that we can see the interior and the crust better? Just [edit] your post as needed. In the meantime, I would also recommend you take the [tour] and browse through the [help], especially [ask], to learn more about how the site works.
that looks like what happened when a relative forgot to put in the paddle for mixing...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.933590
| 2022-12-23T03:37:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122757",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117811
|
Making overnight bagels - may have underkneaded, can I knead it tomorrow?
It's my first time ever making bagels. I followed this recipe with the overnight alteration. I kneaded for about 10-12 minutes. After trying the pull test, it kind of breaks before becoming translucent. It has been in the refrigerator for some time now. My question is whether I can knead them in the morning until they pass the pull test or should I bake them as is?
If you really want to re-knead it, I’d recommend shaping half the dough without kneading, then lightly kneading the rest and shaping. This way, you can compare the two, and decide what you like better. It’s difficult to judge when you haven’t made a recipe before what each stage is supposed to look like. Or divide in thirds, and really knead one part, but then it won’t get as much rest before boiling and might be even worse
The given recipe is a very dry one - the author points it out herself - and it’s hard to get a good windowpane test with a low-hydration dough.
Gluten develops in two ways, either by kneading or over time when the flour comes together with water. An extreme example that relies only on the latter are no-knead types of bread.
In your case, the overnight rise should be enough to give you the desired gluten structure. Would probably bake them as is, only if especially large holes have formed would I do a quick re-knead, just to break them up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.933704
| 2021-11-10T09:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117811",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128805
|
Is a soybean puree safe to eat if cooked for a constant 195°F, but not heated to boiling?
Trying to use a double boiler to make tofu, but the puree will not exceed 195°F (90°C) in temperature.
Is it absolutely necessary to bring to a boil and if not, how long to cook at 195°F?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.933834
| 2024-07-13T23:14:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128805",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49558
|
What is the difference between traditional Mexican cooking and Tex-Mex?
Most Americans (including myself) have grown up on Tex-Mex thinking it was traditional Mexican cooking. I was able to eat traditional Mexican (I thought) at a small cafe in downtown Denver. It was delicious and savory.
My question is what is traditional and what is Tex-Mex? What spices are used, etc?
I see sour cream, cheese, etc., in Tex-Mex but the traditional was a taco platter, stewed meat or meat in a sauce, a bit of garnish but absolutely delicious! Simple but great flavor. Thanks!
(To clarify my statement to avoid confusion, I like Tex-Mex but the "traditional" Mexican I believe I experienced was delicious, simple and different. I was seeking spices used to differentiate, ingredients used in traditional and not used, and example dishes)
Since you seem to be somewhat answering your own question, it may be worth your while to follow through and do so in a formal way, as it is okay (and even encouraged) to both ask and answer your own good question; beyond this I just know that traditional Mexican cuisine tended often to contain fish and rarely if ever cheese, as many Mexican villages were coastal and, more broadly, because villagers were generally not dairy farmers (which brings to a point the fact that what's traditional varies from region to region, just as it does in any large and diverse topography).
There's nothing wrong with Tex-Mex cooking, nothing at all. It's just not traditional Mexican cooking. Tex-Mex is great food from a particular region of the United States. Some of it is adapted from Mexican cooking and some is the invention of early Texas settlers.
One of the statements under "What types of question should I avoid asking [on this site]?" is "If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." I think this question fails that test. A full answer must necessarily be book-length.
No I don't need in depth nuances. I believe it has be adequately explained already.
The existing answer seemed confusing to me, so I thought I'd do some research and post an answer.
Distinguishing paragraphs of the article for me are:
The cuisine we now call Tex-Mex is rooted in the state's Tejano culture (Texans of Spanish or Mexican heritage who lived in Texas before it became a republic) and also Mexican immigrants who hailed largely from Northern Mexico. Until the 1970s, though, most people referred to it simply as Mexican food.
and
If you're looking to identify the distinguishing characteristics of Tex-Mex, enchiladas are a good case study. In the classic Tex-Mex version of cheese enchiladas, grated yellow cheese is wrapped in tortillas, and then covered in a dark red chili sauce mixed with ground beef. You'll also find other typical Tex-Mex ingredients like pinto beans and rice served on the side.
and
But Iliana de la Vega, the chef and owner of the Mexican restaurant El Naranjo in Austin, never ate cheese enchiladas while growing up in Mexico City. She recalls eating foods like chiles rellenos and salads composed of chayote or nopales. Beef was a bit of a rarity. "In traditional Mexican cooking, we eat a lot of chicken and a lot of pork," she explained. If they had enchiladas, they were usually smothered in a green tomatillo sauce or mole, and sprinkled with a white cheese. "My mother was from Oaxaca, so we had mole maybe twice or three times a month," she said.
and
Another difference is the abundant use of cumin in Tex-Mex cuisine. "We use it a lot in the north, but it's not a spice we use much in the southern part of Mexico," says de la Vega. Robb Walsh links the heavy use of cumin to the first wave of Canary Islanders who emigrated to San Antonio in the 1700s. Today it's still a key ingredient in chili con carne, along with chili powder, which, according to Walsh, is a uniquely Texan invention developed by a German immigrant in New Braunfels in the late 1890s. In the late 1800's, chili con carne was regularly ladled out at bargain prices in the streets of San Antonio at its famed chili stands. "Tex-Mex was never the cuisine of the upper echelon of society," Bayless observes. "It's a peasant, working class cuisine."
but Tex-Mex has been evolving too:
The Tex-Mex that most of us think of, full of Velveeta cheese and pre-made taco shells, was shaped by the development of convenience foods in the 1950s. That time period left Tex-Mex, and even Mexican food in general, with a reputation as "just a cheap cuisine, full of sour cream and processed cheese, and that everything is greasy," says de la Vega.
[Source: http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/draft-tex-mex-and-mexican.html]
Summing up: Cheese enchiladas, chilli con carne, use of beef, and use of cumin, etc separate Tex-Mex from traditional Mexican.
I'm not an expert by any means, but here's my understanding of the situation:
There are many different regional cooking styles in Mexico, not all similar to the northern Mexican food upon which Tex-Mex is based.
Overall, relative to Tex-Mex cooking, there tends to be less focus on heat, cheese, and beef.
Cheddar cheese is a more recent addition in some northern Mexican cuisines (eg, Sonoran).
Although wheat is used (for rolls, empenadas, etc.), flour tortillas are typically only in northern Mexican cuisine.
Common "Mexican" dishes that were created in the United States : fajitas (Tex-Mex, inspired by arracheras), mission-style burritos (San Francisco), chimichangas (Arizona).
I think this hits the most important point. There are very different traditional regional cuisines in Mexico, some as different from each other as they are from Tex-Mex.
I've found that most authentic Mexican food is much milder than people realize. Some regions do have a lot of spice (heat) in their foods (like Oaxaca where they are known for moles), but these spicy regions aren't the norm. Usually authentic Mexican food uses a lot of flavorful but not hot spices. Mexicans do use cheese, but not cheddar like us and not as often. Their cheese usually comes from specific regions. I always think of Tex-Mex as good food (depending on the chef of course) but not Mexican.
This is from Wikipedia:
"Tex-Mex" (portmanteau of Texan and Mexican) is a term describing a regional American cuisine that blends food products available in the United States and the culinary creations of Tejanos influenced by Mexican cuisine. The cuisine has spread from border states such as Texas and those in the Southwestern United States to the rest of the country as well as Canada. Tex-Mex is most popular in the state of Texas. Tex-Mex is very different from the Southwest cuisine found in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. In some places, particularly outside of Texas, "Tex-Mex" is used to describe a localized version of Mexican cuisine. It is common for all of these foods to be referred to as "Mexican food" in Texas, other parts of the United States, and some other countries. In other ways, it is Southern cooking using the commodities from Mexican culture. In many parts of the U.S. outside of Texas the term is synonymous with Southwestern cuisine.
Common dishes:
Some ingredients are common in Mexican cuisine, but other ingredients not typically used in Mexico are often added. Tex-Mex cuisine is characterized by its heavy use of shredded cheese, meat (particularly beef and pork), beans, and spices, in addition to Mexican-style tortillas. Dishes such as Texas-style chili con carne and fajitas are all Tex-Mex inventions.[citation needed] Moreover, Tex-Mex has imported flavors from other spicy cuisines, such as the use of cumin (common in Indian cuisine, but used in only a few central Mexican recipes).
I'm not debating your answer, but there's a few things that I'm not clear about from reading your answer. You've used the word "spice" in at least 3 different ways in the first few lines of your answer, in terms of heat, as in actual spices (like cumin) as well as for Cilantro, which is technically a herb. Also, it appears you're suggesting Mexican food is blander than Tex-Mex, but in your third sentence you suggest they use "a lot of flavorful, but not hot spices". It seems those contradict a bit?
When I said blander, I was actually thinking milder (more mild?). I've edited to say milder. I also removed the cilantro sentence. They do use it a lot, but you're right, it's not a spice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.933906
| 2014-11-06T09:19:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49558",
"authors": [
"Alicia Cooper",
"Brooke",
"D Moon",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Epoxy Resin Flooring LTD",
"Garden Outbuilding Company LTD",
"Helay Said",
"JayCouture.com",
"John Keenan",
"Peter Taylor",
"SourDoh",
"Stephanie Horgan",
"Thomas Raywood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"talon8",
"weight loss fast weight loss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71218
|
How to avoid too hot pan that causes fire
I've start cooking large batches of food on Sunday in preparation for the week.
One item is cooking chicken at a high temperature on my cast iron skillet until it is cooked through. Last night as I removed the first batch to put on the next I added some oil as it was needed. It'll probably come as no surprise that the skillet became alight with a grease fire.
How can I avoid this in the future?
Would it be best to let the skillet completely cool, add oil then, and cook the next batch? Any advice would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
Did the oil splatter or spill and catch fire from the stove, or was the pan hot enough that it just ignited in the pan?
There didn't seem to be any spill, it's a large cast iron skillet and it was on full heat.
Not likely that pan itself was hot enough to ignite. The auto-ignition point for cooking oils is 400 to 435°C (750 to 815°F).
You must have splashed some oil and it contacted an ignition source (e.g. flame).
One option would be to kill all flames before adding any oil. Note that on an electric stove, it'll take some time for it to cool down, so you'd have to kill it and wait.
Have a proper lid on hand to smother a fire.
A deeper pan will help.
Pour only what you need from a measuring cup.
Most important - stop cooking so hot. The oil will splatter more, the oil will be more volatile/flammable, and you have a bigger ignition source.
How Hot Does Cooking Oil Need to Be Before It Catches Fire?
What @paparazzi said.
Also, 390 F (191 C) should give you the cooking result you want, at lower safer temperature. I recommend using a thermometer and not exceeding that temp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.934535
| 2016-07-05T05:52:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71218",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"denizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47843"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40375
|
Do the Properties of Oils Change if They're Cooked?
Someone told me a while ago that if you cook with olive oil (in a curry, for example) that its properties change compared with using it in a cold dish (e.g., salad dressing).
Firstly, is this actually true of olive oil, or any oil, for that matter? If so, how are things like the vitamins, antioxidants or saturated/unsaturated fat balance of a particular oil changed when it's cooked?
Sorry, but health benefits of anything are a big offtopic here. You can find some older questions which explain smoking point/pyrolisis of oil, but none of the information will be health related.
Are you seriously saying health is not considered relevant to cooking on this site? Why is "nutrition" even a valid tag if it's off-topic? Is this a wind-up!?
it is relevant to your cooking decisions, but not accepted on our site. It is such a major off-topic that it has its custom close reason. The reason for it being off topic is that there can be no consensus on nutrition topics, and the whole Stack Exchange network relies on factual information only, not discussion of opinions. The nutrition tag is reserved for nutrition label purposes, such as asking if kale has more Vitamin C than spinach. Such a statement is verifiable by a simple measurement, while alone the definition of the word "healthy" is impossible with any reasonable precision.
Maybe we should just rename nutrition to nutritional-content and be done with it? But nutrition does say in the tag description "Questions regarding facts about macro-nutrients within foods. Do not use for 'what is healthy' or similar questions, which are off-topic." so it should be clear this isn't a wind-up or something we just came up with.
The "wind-up" comment was somewhat flippant :) Then again, you have to admit that the on-hold reason of "Questions on nutrition... are off-topic" doesn't make sense if the "nutrition" tag is valid! Anyway, I've edited it now to be specific about properties so I hope this complies with your standards.
Thank you for taking the time to make an edit. I am reopening the question. I am still afraid that I will have to edit or delete answers which take a position on whether the changes are healthy or not, and simple information on the changes (of the kind "some of the saturated and some of the unsaturated fats will change to a multitude of new compounds") will not be of any help to you. But here it is, do with it whatever you can.
The "Question on nutrition are off-topic" reason makes perfect sense when we consider that language is ambiguous. The [tag:nutrition] tag covers a very tiny area of the whole area of nutrition, which is an exception to the general off-topic rule. It is just that the language has no word for this subarea, so we are using the best name we could come up with. The rules make perfect sense, they are just easy to misinterpret and we have found no better way to communicate them yet.
@rumtscho, instead of [nutrition], I propose [properties]
@BaffledCook this is a terrible tag. People who are thinking of macronutrients may or may not think to call the nutritional content of a dish its "properties". People who are thinking of anything else about a dish - texture, transportability, whatever - will also think that "properties" applies to their case. In the end, the word is way too generic to distinguish between different types of questions.
@rumtscho understood.
Usually this is said specifically about extra virgin olive oil. The reasoning is that extra virgin oil is pressed cold and processed without heating in order to preserve specific flavor profiles in the finished product. Cheaper oils are extracted using heat to maximize extraction, but lose some of these flavors. Generally heating is discouraged because you're paying a premium for unheated oil, so using it in hot applications would defeat the purpose.
These links have a lot of information on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_oil
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2008/cooking-oils.html
This link specifically answers - Why it's best not to cook with extra virgin olive oil
http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=dailytip&dbid=261
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.934710
| 2013-12-18T20:23:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40375",
"authors": [
"ATG",
"BaffledCook",
"CC Tyres Penrith",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"JBH",
"Lana Pierce",
"Melbourne Portable Bathrooms",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94000",
"jesse",
"jwpfox",
"maP1E bluE",
"rumtscho",
"sinekonata",
"user93996"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119869
|
What to look in a truly dishwasher friendly non-stick cookware?
Dishwasher + Non-stick = Disaster. I know that, but still I'm wondering what type of non-stick cookware I can buy which would be more resilient towards dishwasher?
I know ideally you don't want to put your non-stick cookware in dishwasher but let's say if I choose to do so, what sort of non-stick cookware would last longer?
Are there certain non-stick technologies that are more dishwasher "friendly"? Would choosing steel over aluminum help longevity of the cookware considering daily dishwasher wash?
----/ Update 1 /----
Just to show why I'm looking for a more durable nonstick solution, here is the Heritage Rock Nonstick pot I used and washed in dishwasher everyday for 6 months.
Heritage Rock pot
Nonstick is gone!
Rim is destroyed
Nonstick is peeling
Compare to less used one from the same set
How nonstick used to look like
----/ Update 3 /----
In case anyone is interested, Starfrit (the company behind the Heritage Rock brand) did decline my warranty claim on the basis of incorrect use.
They mention high temperature and metal utensils. I have induction stove so there is no direct heat, and the generated heat at the base of the pot should be very balanced. Also I mostly made rice which you don't use high heat for. I never use metal utensils on nonstick. It is the dishwasher that killed it and they don't want to admit that.
Anyways, I think this is how most of warranty claims end up. I think a $20 pot from Ikea would do better than my pot in 6 months :D
Actually, your last picture is not "how nonstick used to look like". If you look carefully, you will see that the coating is worn off on the highest "hills" of the surface. These are the places where the detergent seeps between coating and pan and attacks the bond between the two, as well as the exposed aluminum surface. This is not about the pan brand, it is about how you use the pans - it looks as if you are using metal utensils on them or abrading them in other ways. Also, if I were to wash nonstick in the dw, I would use a mild cycle, certainly not the heavy wash.
I only use nonmetal on my nonstick cookware. But I do wash them in dishwasher on heavy duty cycle with tablet. I did know that this is not the best way to treat nonstick but I didn't think it would get damaged in 6 months so badly! If it could last even 2 years that would be good for me. Basically I'm just looking for a nonstick pot that can only take more dishwasher abuse. It doesn't need to be metal utensils resistant.
I left an answer. But here for short: It is not about the pot being metal utensil resistant (no nonstick pan is truly resistant to that), it is that using a metal utensil makes the dishwasher damage come sooner. I have no idea if you can get 2 years out of a nonstick pan with daily dishwasher use even if everything else is perfect, but you can try.
The issue is as much the dishwasher as it is the pan— dishwasher detergent has some grit in it to help scour as it sprays onto the pans, so it’s like using a scrub brush. It might be that there are ones out there specifically for cleaning nonstick pans (but would do a poor job on stuck-on foods and the other things detergents advertise as doing well)
After your added info - I have a ScanPan Pro IQ 12.5" frying pan. It's too soon to know how long it will last, only had it a year, but it's doing very well so far. I wouldn't dream of ever putting it in the dishwasher at that price. It takes seconds to clean under the tap.
Sorry, I had to rollback. We have a rule that we don't do shopping recommendations for concrete brands or producers. We can list criteria, as your original version of the question asks for, but you have to use other sources to decide which product fits them well enough.
@RedSonja does my stackoverflow profile look like an advertiser to you?! I'm just trying to figure out if there is solution for nonstick + dishwasher.
@Joe I agree. I think the main issue is the abrasive detergent. But if you don't use one most probably dishwasher cannot do a good job and you'd be better off washing by hand.
@unlisted3 I was thinking the same thing. If I buy an expensive pot, I will not end up putting it in a dishwasher. So I guess I have to aim for midrange cookware.
@rumtscho I understand. Fair enough. My intention was to get feedback on whether that brand model fits the criteria we were discussing or not.
@kaptan I think it might be worth asking a new question on how to clean non-stick pans, as we have a similar one for cast iron, and there are much different considerations for either of those vs. stainless cookware. (I know o ruined someone’s non-stick decades ago, as I tried to scrub stuff that had gotten stuck; I probably should’ve let it soak or something)
@Joe haha... : )) Believe it or not, I do know how to wash a nonstick gently by hand. It is just the sheer amount of other chores I have to do, that I would rather leave washing nonstick to dishwasher :D
Look for one with a ten-year guarantee that states specifically is is dishwasher-friendly.
Keep the receipt.
There is a general rule that the more you pay, the longer it will last, but even just cooking in it if you can get more than a couple of years' useful life out of a frying pan without it getting sticky, you're doing well. Maybe 5 on the expensive stuff.
Personally, I wouldn't dream of putting my non-stick pans in the dishwasher. You can just about rinse them in hot water if they're good.
Tnx for your answer. I cannot find any brand that specifically say it is really ok to put their non-stick cookware in dishwasher. They always say "dishwasher safe" but then say that it is better if you just wash it by hand. I haven't found a brand that claims their non-stick cookware is really dishwasher friendly.
Agreed. Besides, if it's really non-stick, it should be really easy to hand-wash.
I just read your profile... did I miss something?
Rinse in water directly after cooking. That is the point of non-stick, that's why we buy it.
@AnastasiaZendaya - long story.
@unlisted I see. Well, good luck! I I just thought I might be able to relate, given what I've been through in one particular Stack Exchange site in the past :)
Would choosing steel over aluminum help longevity of the cookware considering daily dishwasher wash?
Not in my experience.
I use my dishwasher for essentially all my washing up but I am careful to load it so that things can't rub against the inside of the pans.
I've got a set of 3 non-stick aluminium saucepans bought several (at least 5) years ago which are as good as new. They go through the dishwasher every few days, and are stored stacked inside each other. I got them at sale price, and they were the best of a stores own brand (I thought they were discontinued but some sizes are still available). A lot of their use is frying or sweating, then adding wet ingredients to build a dish; for pure boiling tasks I tend to use my stainless pans where possible to save the non-stick for when it's needed.
My frying pans are one sandwich-base steel (probably ikea), one large aluminium (ikea), and one small aluminium (supermarket own brand), all at least 10 years old. The two smaller ones are now getting a bit sticky in places but still pretty decent; the larger is used less.
So moderately-priced steel and aluminium non-stick has been about the same for me.
Tnx for sharing your experience. If you don't mind could you share the brand and models that lasted you 5 years? I bough a Heritage Rock Non-Stick Set. Cooking in the pot and washing it in dishwasher (with tablet + heavy wash) daily, only lasted 6 months. I will post a picture later of how damaged the non-stick coating and the body is.
@kaptan the ones I bought are discontinued and were only sold in the UK under that name anyway. Everything I can remember is in the answer already. In the dishwasher I use either Finish brand tablets (when they're on offer) or supermarket own brand but not the really cheap ones because they don't get things clean. And the 50°C eco program
Having seen your pictures, I reckon all of mine were made a bit smoother than yours. The rim is the biggest issue, but on my set the non-stick coating goes down the outside of the sides as well, so the edge of the coating is at the bottom edge of the pan, not the more vulnerable top
I think smoother nonstick probably can make a more durable finish because water and soap has less chance to get under it as @rumtscho mentioned. I also agree that the rim is very vulnerable but apparently manufacturers don't put much effort into building a durable one.
@kaptan they do still exist, or very similar. I remembered to look at the branding and I've added a link
My parents wash all their pans in the dishwasher. They haven't seen as much use as yours, but I am still surprised at how well they hold up. I cannot see much problems in their coatings. Sure, they are somewhat burnt and so less non-stick, but that's because of improper use of heat, not because of the dishwasher.
From what I have seen in their pans, and from your pictures, I would suggest that you can do the following:
Choose ceramic-coated pans, rather than PTFE-coated ones.
Look for pans with a very even finish, especially if they are PTFE. You can see in the photo that the hills-and-valleys surface on your current pans is working against you.
I would probably recommend aluminum over steel, even though it doesn't seem to make a difference for Chris H and for my parents. It is obvious that your damage includes a lot of peeling, and the aluminum at the edges of the peeled areas is corroded by the detergent, which worsens the peeling. With bare (non SS) steel, the corrosion in these places will be rust, which is crumblier than corroded aluminum.
A lot of your peeling has started on the rim of the pans. Try getting pans which are only nonstick-coated on the inside, and have enamel or something else on the outside. Bare stainless steel is good - it should also be better than aluminum wrt last point. You will have less damagable surface that way, and the rim is also highly endangered because of rubbing with lids.
Since there was a version mentioning a brand: if a brand states that their pan is dishwasher-friendly, it is a good sign. Sure, it may be a lie (a lot of the claims surrounding nonstick pans are a lie, or at least exaggerated), but it improves your chances of getting more use out of the pan.
Not shopping advice, but make sure you handle your pans with utmost care. Sometimes people do get away with using metal on theirs, or overheating them, but as you see in your case, the combination of scratches or heat-degraded coating and dishwasher detergent really damages the pan. You should gently use soft (wood or plastic) utensils on them, use them only for low-temperature cooking, and protect them while stacking (if you don't want to buy felt protectors, a piece of kitchen paper works).
In the meantime, you mentioned that you don't use metal. Nevertheless, it is clearly visible that some of the coating was abraded in the newer pan, and it happened by rubbing against a flat surface (or against a wide edge, such as a spatula edge) and not by scouring dust in the detergent. If you are doing any rubbing with anything harder than wood, stop it.
Again a part of maintenance: never expose your pans to thermal shock. Heat them slowly, with food already in them, and once hot, don't add cold (or room temperature) liquids to them.
And lastly, get used to the idea that nonstick pans are an item with a limited timespan. If you use a nonstick pan everyday, you need both luck and perfect care for it to last maybe 3-5 years. With a dishwasher, its lifetime will certainly be shorter.
Tnx a lot for the tips. I do think as well as you said that I need to choose a nostick with a smooth finish. But I still think stainless steel will hold better in dishwasher though. None of my SS cookware is damaged in dishwasher. Very good point on ceramic coating. Thaty a good idea. I do agree with all of your tips and honestly other than using the dishwasher I do not abuse my cookware. I just believe we should push the industry to build better quality nonstick that are truly dishwasher safe and more sustainable. I do believe nanotech has lots to offer in this field.
+1 on the ceramic pans. Of all non-stick I've had the ceramic coated ones are the sturdiest, and they did survive a bunch of dishwasher cycles (I started washing them by hand when the aluminium outside started to get damaged)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.935199
| 2022-02-16T03:31:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119869",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"RedSonja",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"kaptan",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40653
|
How do I make my own chocolate chips?
I'd love to make my own chocolate chips from scratch. But everything I've produced seems to melt during cooking. It would be nice to make them based on the percentage of coco I like and it would be fantastic to make sugar-free chocolate chips for some diabetic friends. Any suggestions?
What I need is a recipe for making chocolate chips that I can bake with.
Update:
I now have a family member that is soy-intolerant. Most chocolate chips and chocolates that can be chopped up have soy-lecithin in them.
So I still have this problem. I'd like to make a sugar-free, soy-free "chocolate chip" for my family. It doesn't have to be teardrop shaped or look pretty, that was never a goal.
So my question is still: How can I make a chocolate product at home that can be broken into pieces and used like chocolate chips. It makes sense to buy pure chocolate that has already gone through the conche process. What should be done then? What is the recipe to change the pure chocolate into something that has coco-butter, sweetner etc.
See related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36645/from-elastic-to-fragile-chocolate It is not practical to make chocolate at home.
Hello Maelish, I just read through the existing answer and your update. I fail to see what you are looking for which is not covered in the answer? It doesn't say what not to do, it tells you what to do: buy the chocolate you want and break it into pieces.
Agreed: there's really not much to do here besides buy chocolate and chop it up. If you still really want to know "how do I add sugar to existing pure chocolate?" that's a new question and you should post it as one.
Pure chocolate already consists of cocoa butter, sweetener and cocoa solids. You don't have to add anything to it to make chocolate chips. The only difference between chocolate chips and chocolate bars is the shape. All you have to do is to chop the bar up. And that's what the answer says.
Chocolate chips are a convenience product meant to simulate chopped up chocolate. Your best bet is to find the chocolate that you like, and chop it.
If you really want the droplet shape, you would need to temper the chocolate, and then pipe it into little droplets which would be incredibly tedious, and almost certainly not worth the effort.
piping isn't that tedious, once you get the hang of it ... I would think the issue would be working fast enough so it didn't sieze up on you and you had to re-temper it.
I assume the OP is looking for the droplet shape for aesthetic reasons. While I agree with you, maybe there is a handy way to recreate this form in the home kitchen?
@PrestonFitzgerald Absolutely there is. Melt, optionally temper, and pipe chocolate. Or even use a squeeze bottle.
No I am not looking for the droplet shape in particular. What I need is a recipe for making chocolate chips that I can bake with.
@Maelish Yes, chop up chocolate. That is what you want.
Nope. I want to control the amount of coco and sugar in each chip. You guys are missing the point.
Chocolate chips are just chocolate (at least the quality ones are), and that is not something you can practically make at home. You control the percentage of chocolate and sugar by selection of the chocolate you use, not by creating your own chocolate. You could conceivably melt together two different chocolates, to get a blending of their levels of cocoa and sugar, but then you would be back to needing to temper.
@Maelish If you want to control the amount of cocoa and sugar in each chip, just find a chocolate with the proportions you want and chop it. As has been pointed out, chocolate making is a whole elaborate process that can't easily be done at home.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.936130
| 2013-12-29T03:07:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40653",
"authors": [
"Anne Rowley",
"Cascabel",
"Dawn Shuck",
"El Risco",
"Griz",
"Joe",
"Jon Moody",
"Maelish",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shewanie J",
"SourDoh",
"Tamara Reid",
"Zainab Naskandi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94749",
"rumtscho",
"user94619"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41018
|
How can I make my black beans less dry?
The dish is simple. I usually just boil beans, add sautéed onions and garlic, season with cumin, then eat with steamed rice. I love the flavor as it is.
I have a problem with the texture. If I leave the water in the beans, the dish becomes, well, watery (I don't want soup). If I drain the water, I'm left with a rather dry rice and bean dish.
Rather than draining the water, I'd like to add something that would change its texture.
I've tried thickening the dish with flour and cornstarch, but I end up with a pastey texture. I'd like a more syrupy/creamy texture (think baked beans from a can).
Suggestions?
This question appears to be off-topic because it is what compliments X question -- see
http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1645/should-we-close-questions-structured-like-what-compliments-does-not-work-with
@SAJ14SAJ Could it possibly be interpreted as a "Recipe repair" as on the about page?
You have already addressed the repair issue, adding a sauce. Now there are an infinite number of things you could do, including ketchup itself.
@stewSquared I'm with SAJ14SAJ on this one. If you come up with a sauce and want help with it, it'd be different, but this is too open ended. There is virtually no limit to the sauces that you could use.
What if I rephrase it this way: "Which sauces are most commonly paired with black beans?"
@sourd'oh Roger. Give me a minute, and I'll try to fix my question.
@stewSquared I think the "which sauces..." would probably also be too broad, unless you're asking for a sauce from a specific black bean dish... This might be better suited for chat.
@SAJ14SAJ Alright, I've changed my question! How does it look?
What I would suggest is rather than adding a syrup, to take some of your cooked beans, cook them a bit more, then liquify them in a blender. This should give you a thick sauce that tastes like the beans, therefore compliments them perfectly. You can then thicken them very slightly if the consistency is still too runny, be sparing with the flour though.
In fact, you could probably make something satisfactory by simply using less thickener. If you have a pasty, sticky sauce it's a classic symptom of too much thickener. Try making a roux with some butter and flour, cook it awhile for a dark roux which gives deeper color and more flavor. You can then add the roux in small amounts to your cooking liquid until you get the right consistency.
If you are pressed for time and have some available a couple big spoons of refried beans may just do the trick too.
If you're lazy about cleaning things like I am, or you want a more 'rustic' feel to the dish, just mash a few of the beans and stir 'em back in, then let it cook for a while longer so the starches disperse.
Baked beans have a syrupy texture largely due to... syrup. They are cooked with a lot of sugar, so the liquid becomes a syrup. You could try draining off most of the water from your beans after cooking them, add your seasonings, tomatoes of some form (canned?), and sugar. Simmer that until the liquid is reduced and thickened.
Another common way to get a creamy texture in bean dishes is to remove some of the beans, puree them, and then stir them back into the pot. Upon further simmering, the starches from the pureed beans will thicken the remaining liquid.
Aha, I might just try pureeing. Sugar is essential to syrup, isn't it? Is there a less-sweet alternative to syrup?
Hmm, a quick google search reveals "brown rice syrup." I just might try that, too!
@stewSquared Brown rice syrup is still a sweetener, albeit a bit less sweet than sugar. You might try a little bit of molasses? That's fairly typical in baked bean recipes and would add more complexity than just sweetness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.936473
| 2014-01-10T05:01:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41018",
"authors": [
"Abdul Munem",
"Brandon Rhodes",
"Joe",
"Ruby",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sonny Lane",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95574",
"jjasper",
"stewSquared",
"user95538"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24082
|
Turkey bacon a good stand-in for bacon?
On a kosher diet, I can't eat bacon. Someone who knows this recommended turkey bacon as a close substitute. Is it really? That is, does turkey bacon truly have the taste and texture of bacon? Is there any particular kind of turkey bacon I should get for this purpose?
(I see that the question "Non Pork Bacon Alternatives" implies that turkey bacon is not a good substitute for bacon, but perhaps the asker simply ate the wrong turkey bacon.)
Non-helpful but accurate answer: NO
Certain of my in-laws claim it is. They are wrong. It is a close subsitute if you are far enough way that you can't smell or taste it. If you have to squint your eyes to see it, you might mistake it for bacon. I am deeply sorry about your being unable to eat bacon.
What part of a turkey do cuts of bacon come from?
@Callithumpian, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3591.
From a 'culinary' perspective, you can use turkey bacon anywhere you might otherwise choose to use real bacon. It is fine with eggs or on a BLT. You can crisp it, crumble it and put it in a salad or an omelet. I have even wrapped a filet with turkey bacon. While my personal opinion is that the result was not "as good as" the real McCoy it also was not "BAD".
The only 'real' answer to this question is for you to answer the question "Do I LIKE turkey bacon?" If you like it, does it really matter if it is a 'good stand-in'? Conversely, if you don't like it, would it matter if the whole of "Seasoned Advice" rang out in a single voice, "Yes"?
Well, the question wasn't so much whether I like it, or whether it's good (which is the same thing). I like rakott krumpli, but it's not a good stand-in for bacon. Nor was my question really whether one can use turkey bacon wherever one can use bacon. One can use oleomargarine wherever one might use butter (maybe), but they certainly don't taste the same. One can use lasagna wherever one might use duck à l'orange (maybe), but they certainly don't have the same texture. My question was whether turkey bacon is similar to bacon (in taste and texture, say).
Similar, Yes. Duplicate, NO. "A Good Stand-In" that would up to you to decide. When I said "you can use turkey bacon anywhere you might otherwise ...use real bacon." I was implying that the similarity was sufficient (at least more so than Lasagna and Duck).
Turkey bacon tastes like turkey, which is a rather different flavor than pork. In addition, turkey is a lot less fatty, so I've found turkey bacon hard to crisp. Turkey can be a substitute for pork in, for example, turkey sausage, but I've never had turkey bacon that tasted anything like pork bacon.
Personally I like my turkey bacon extra crispy - you can get it to that point if you microwave it for a while.
Turkey bacon is mostly problematic in other recipes where the fat is a primary constituent of not just flavor but the structure of a dish. The first example that springs to mind is gravy; rendering the fat in turkey bacon will never yield the quantity it would in pork bacon. Also, for grease eggs, where you make bacon and then eggs and cook the top of the eggs by splashing the bacon grease on top, turkey bacon won't provide enough for this technique.
Turkey bacon also doesn't taste right when candied as it has less of an intense flavor to pair with the brown sugar. Turkey bacon does not really have the rigor when fried of pork bacon, so if you intend to plate with turkey bacon you would probably do well to bake instead of fry.
Those concerns aside, turkey bacon isn't pork bacon, but it works in the vast majority of situations just fine. That said, relative to the difference, you could also use fakin' bakin (or your own thinly sliced, marinated, and fried) tempeh strips if you liked those, and you'd be able to serve them on a cheese plate as they're vegan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.936811
| 2012-05-29T20:44:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24082",
"authors": [
"BImarsha Khanal",
"Betsy Magcalas",
"Callithumpian",
"Cos Callis",
"Dmitri DB",
"Jen Wright",
"Paul",
"Toffomat",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"msh210",
"talon8",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16457
|
Trying to adjust a recipe to recreate Peruvian "Tres Puntas" rolls
Having visited my family I fell in love with "Pan de Trigo" that we call "Tres Puntas." This is a wheat bread that appears to be folded over to have three points.
After baking, it puffs up and a large hollow exists in the center; the bread "shell" itself is chewy and slightly sandy in texture. I believe the hollow exists due to the folding. It reminds me a bit of a focaccia-style roll flavor and texture.
I found a recipe a while ago on a site that is no longer active, and have copied it here for comparison. I'm sorry that it's partially in Spanish but I am posting it here as I found it. I did try to make it but it didn't resemble what I was hoping to create.
It had more of a crumb than a "hole" (if that makes sense) but this may be due to my method more than anything. Having mentioned focaccia, I was thinking of reviewing the process and recipes for this style of bread and combining the two so maybe this is the trick.
Could someone more knowledgeable in bread making review this recipe and see if I'm on track? Could this recipe create what I've described provided I adjusted my technique?
Here is the recipe. Note that this is not the wheat version that we prefer. I'm concerned that a wheat version would be even heavier if not done correctly.
PAN DE TRES PUNTAS
INGREDIENTES:
1 lb flour
1/4 C + 1 t sugar
3/4 t salt
2 packets active dry yeast
1 C water
2 Kilos de Harina sin preparar
1/2 taza de azúcar
1 y 1/2 cucharadita de sal
70 grs. de levadura fresca
2 tazas de agua
PREPARACION:
En 2 tazas de agua tibia disolver la levadura con una cucharadita de azúcar. Dejar fermentar en un sitio tibio por una hora.
Agregar el resto de la harina hasta conseguir una masa que desprenda de las manos y la mesa. Dejar reposar por 1/2 hora en un lugar tibio y cubierta por un plastico.
Aceitar la mesa de trabajo y comenzar a tomar pedazos de masa. Hacer bolitas de mas o menos 50m gramos.
Sobre latas aceitadas darles la forma de 3 puntas y dejar levar por 1/2 hora mas.
LLevar al horno de panaderia por 10 minutos con calor fuerte
Are those ingredients meant to be equivalent? I ask because the Spanish calls for four times as much flour as the English, but less than twice the amount of sugar and water.
There is not enough water in your dough to form the hole you want (focaccia is a good point, look at focaccia hydration). You probably want at least 375 g water per 500 g flour, more is better if you can work with the dough.
Your conversion is off, your English recipe contains double the amount of sugar of the Spanish one. I would go with the smaller amount first, 25 g sugar for 500 g flour. Makes the dough easier to handle, and the taste isn't too sweet.
That's way too much yeast, both the Spanish version (21 g fresh yeast per lb flour) and the English version (a correct conversion from the Spanish would have had 7 g active dry yeast per lb, 2 packets is probably more than twice that). 21 g per 0.5 kg would be around the upper limit of yeast, used for richer breads like brioche. Use 10-12 g fresh yeast or 3-4 g active dry yeast per 0.5 kg flour. A bigger amount of yeast rises quicker, but the first cells die and start stinking of the waste products of their own fermentation (including acetic acid and ammonia). Don't rush the recipe, let it rise well in a not too warm place, you'll probably need more than 1/2 hour per rise.
Don't forget that for high hydration dough, you need bread flour, not AP. Else the dough will fall apart. Also, bread flour will make it chewy.
The procedure with a quick sponge, a rise of the kneaded dough and a rise of the formed shapes seems pretty standard (I hope this is what your Spanish text says, because I don't understand it well). As I said, rising times will be longer with less yeast, giving you better taste. The dough will be somewhat hard to handle because of the higher hydration, but it shouldn't be too problematic. Once you have mastered it with 75% hydration (375 g water per 500 g flour), you can try more water.
Thanks much for the detailed response. I greatly appreciate your effort in explaining your reasonings. This is also one of the reasons I've loved books such as 'Cookwise' and the like. I am wondering, though, about your point #2. How does a little over 1/4 C sugar double the 1/2 taza (cup)?
The Spanish text lists 2 kg flour, the English one 1 lb. That's roughly 4 times less. Now I look at it, the only mistake could be the unit of flour, I was probably too tired to notice.
Ah yes, that was how I copied it and never verified but you're right. It should be nearly 4 lbs of flour. Thanks for catching that.
@McArthey : it's actually 4.4 lbs flour (1 kg = 2.2 lbs)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.937246
| 2011-07-28T02:30:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16457",
"authors": [
"Abimbola Adetoye",
"Gareth Davies",
"Joe",
"McArthey",
"Peter Taylor",
"aff",
"anotherdave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mbm29414",
"rumtscho",
"therealssj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20916
|
Can I par-bake this pot pie recipe?
Once a week I gather with friends for an evening of gaming; trying to cut back on fast-food, I'm looking for a recipe I can make ahead and heat up in their oven while we play. I found a pot pie recipe that looks tasty and can be frozen here; however, it bakes for an hour. Can I do anything to reduce this time? Or would a different type of meat pie work better: pasties, shepherd's/cottage pies, et cetera?
This question is similar but seems to be dealing specifically with fruit pies, whereas I'm looking at meat pies.
As far as I can see, you don't defrost the pie before baking in the recipe so some of the time in the oven would just be defrosting the pie; so this could be done in advance by bringing it out of the freezer an hour and a half before baking say. As the chicken is already cooked it looks like all you're doing is cooking the pastry so you could just use thinner pastry which would cook quicker, or better you could use layers of phyllo pasty which would cook a lot quicker but of course wouldn't puff up like the puff pastry.
If you follow this it could probably bake for just 25 minutes or there about.
Hope this helps!
That might work well considering it's about a 45 minute drive to their place, so I just have to remember to take it out maybe 30-40 minutes before leaving
Phylo in this case won't be made into a shell (would be too dry), but would be layered with filling like lasagne. And it will still need its time in the oven until the heat reaches the middle layers. So, while it can make for a tasty pie, I wouldn't say it will have a significant effect on baking time.
Really? I've got a particularly good recipe for chicken pot pie with phylo and if you look at this google search you can see that it's not alone: (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pot+pie+recipe+%2Bfilo)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.937623
| 2012-01-30T17:43:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20916",
"authors": [
"GGMG-he-him",
"Giuliano",
"Sebiddychef",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52150
|
What is the top layer of separated turkey gravy called?
When turkey gravy sits undisturbed for hours in a clear jar, a dark layer develops at the top. This layer contains a lot of flavour but it is not fat because the gravy had been skimmed of all fat. I used the gravy for dinner, poured the remaining gravy into a mason jar and left it sitting for about 3 hours. When I went back to the kitchen I noticed this dark layer about 2 inches thick on top of gravy. I think the collagen had risen to the top.
I know gelatin comes from the turkey bones, but what is the proper name for this dark layer?
I can't understand you when you're yelling.
How do you know it's not fat at the top? Generally the fat ends up on the top when a mixture of liquid, fat and protein separates; it's definitely less dense than the liquid, and more hydrophobic than the protein.
The gravy had been skimmed of all fat, used gravy for dinner, poured remaining gravy into mason jar and left it sitting for about 3 hour. Had forgot i left gravy on counter. When I went back to kitchen I noticed this dark layer on top of gravy. I think the colligin had rose to the top.I dont know the name of that layer.
Seriously, ease up on the caps.
@Carmen It's rude, and we expect you to be courteous to others here. Please type like everyone else so we don't have to keep editing your posts.
Will try, been on caps 10 12 years
It may not have a formal name. If this were water treatment, we'd likely call it 'sludge'.
Although it's possible that you missed some of the fat, it's very unlikely that it would be 2 inches thick. What's more likely is that the gravy is still undergoing some sort of settling, and that's what you're seeing:
Type 1 settling : Free-settling : iImpurities accelerate with gravity. The oil goes up while the solids precipitate out.
Type 2 settling : Flocculation : Impurities collect together until they become large enough that gravity will overcome other forces
Type 3 & 4 settling : Sludge thickening : Bands slowly form and become more distinct with time. May require hours or days.
The exact rate of settling depends on a lot of factors. One of the largest ones in water treatment is ionization. (you have to neutralize any charge so that the particles won't repel each other). Some systems use microbes to speed up the process after type 1 settling.
You have to leave it in still water for the whole time; disturbing the vessel can cause the layers to mix, undoing the type 3 & 4 settling.
(note: it's been almost 20 years since I took a water treatment class, and I never went into the field. It's possible that terminology has changed in that time. And when I say 'water treatment', I really mean 'sewage treatment')
There doesn't appear to be a name specifically for that layer. The closest I could come to anything like that is "Schmaltz", which is traditionally derived from chicken or geese. But that would be more of a fatty part, rather than the dark layer you are describing.
See the Wikipedia article about it.
Hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.937810
| 2014-12-31T18:13:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52150",
"authors": [
"Adrienne Regnier",
"Air",
"Carmen",
"Cascabel",
"Denise Sanborn",
"Jack Pakkebier",
"Jasmine Jones",
"Karen Callahan",
"Marie Robinson",
"Riten Solanki",
"Ute Tegtmeyer",
"Yungeck",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31367",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59227
|
How do I prevent jams from turning brown?
I have been a jam maker for years. We live in an area of fresh fruit so it's always naturally sweet. I decrease the sugar in each recipe by at least 1 cup and I always add fresh lemon juice. My question is: do I need to water bath the jam to prevent it from turning dark on the top?
It doesn't affect the taste but it doesn't look very pretty. I have jams I recently made & I'm also wondering if I could water bath them now even though I made it a few weeks ago? I pack hot jam into scalding hot jars with hot lids. I always have good seals & I love the sounds of the jars sealing! I call it the Canner Symphony!
Turning brown on top is usually a sign of too much oxygen in the jar.
The NCHFP FAQ covers this exact topic (search for "dark"). There are a few primary causes:
too much headspace, or bubbles left in the jam before processing;
not enough liquid to cover bits of food/fruit; or
not enough processing time.
All of these result in the surface of the jam being exposed to oxygen. The first two are fairly direct: there's too much air on top. The third is because processing drives some of the air out of the headspace, leaving lower pressure air, which not only prevents browning but also creates a reliable vacuum seal.
Too much headspace is an easy possibility for you to check. The right amount varies depending on the jar size, but you might well have too much.
The processing time is the really worrying thing to me in your case; you're not processing your jam at all, just packing it in hot and letting it seal. That's actually a good way to get unreliable seals, but it sounds like you're getting lucky and it's working out. (But be really careful to test the seal later just to make sure after it's cooled - push down on the middle and make sure it doesn't pop back up.) Still, I might suggest trying a couple batches of jam with a tested recipe that involves water bath processing just to be sure. It might well solve your problem, and it'll make your canning safer.
What turns your jam brown is the same substance that turns cut fruit brown: Oxygen.
The head space in your jars is filled with air, albeit less than at normal pressure. A jam jar has no genuine vacuum (= nothing there), but low pressure. To decrease the amount of oxygen that can react with your jam, you need to reduce the amount of air in the headspace.
One way is to fill a bit more jam in your jars (check with the manufacturer on appropriate fill level, different systems have different requirements),
another to can your jars after filling, which typically expells a bit more air. You can boil already filled and cooled jam jars, but if the surface is already brown, it won't reverse the process.
A third method is to pour some (1/2 tsp. or so) high-proof alcohol in the jar after filling, light it and close the lid. Don't burn yourself, though. The alcohol will burn off some of the oxygen. If you use too much, the taste will be quite discernible and you might even get some caramelization on the surface, so this is method can have it's disadvantages. The trick is to use the right amount and find the right moment to close the lid so that "all" alcohol burns off yet uses up the oxygen. (And not set the kitchen on fire while doing it ^_^.)
On a more general note, I found using some citric acid (or lemon juice) in my jam helps with thickening and prevents browning. I think it also improves the taste, but that's subjective, obviously.
My mother and my wife have been making jams for a total of about 90 years. Based on what I have seen, I think all jams made with either hot bath or open kettle method oxidize a bit near the top of the jar. Lighter coloured jams, such as peach, show it more obviously. The taste is generally unaffected. We have always eaten these and never had any problems. I don't think you have to tighten the lids super tight, it's more important that the lid and top of jar are clean. I don't believe any bug was let loose to turn the jam a bit brownish. Jars are sterilized in the oven.
Darkening could be caused by several factors including: Stored too warm, too little sugar in the recipe & improper sealing. More details here Canning Questions
Open kettle canning (filling hot jars with hot ingredients) is no longer recommended due to a higher likelihood of spoilage. While your jam may not spoil, you may not be removing enough air to stop oxidation of the jam at the top of the jar. You can reprocess the jam. You will need to put the jam back into a pot and bring to boiling, then process in water bath as described here making sure to leave the proper head space and processing for the proper time for your altitude.
Sterilization of the jars is of the utmost importance. This sounds like some sort of bug has been let loose on your concoctions and has ruined everything.
Some people think that you can sterilize the jars in a dish washer but I would not chance it. I boil my glass jars in a big 5 liter pot of water to ensure everything is sterile.
Also you need to close the lids of your jars super tight. They must form a seal until the day they are to be consumed. Also full them up right to the brim.
Not sure about "right to the brim". Too little headspace can prevent good seals.
@Jefromi Depends on the type of jars. Those that go in a waterbath canner (Weck) need some headspace, twist-off manufacturers recommend as little as possible w/o spilling. Not sure about Bell / Mason jars, though, they are uncommon here in Germany.
@Stephie No matter the type of jar, there has to be some headspace to create a vacuum seal, right? If the lid's going right down on top of the jam, there's no hot air in there to shrink and seal the jar.
@Jefromi Yeeeessss, but I have (right in front if me, in fact) some jars with a slightly raised lid that have a minimum of headspace even if I fill them to the brim. A few mm will suffice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.938346
| 2015-07-20T23:21:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59227",
"authors": [
"Angela Henders",
"Ann Houghton",
"Ben Goldsmith",
"Brian Crook",
"Cascabel",
"Daan Nortier",
"Gerasimos Galatis",
"Harriet Uzoma",
"Jessica Williamson",
"Lauren",
"Sombat Somchai",
"Stephie",
"Wayne Schwartz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56428
|
Can I subtitute water for milk in crêpes?
I want to make crêpes, but I have run out of milk. I do have all the other ingredients I need. Can I somehow substitute the milk by water or anything else?
You can substitute but don't expect them to be exactly the same, of course.
The fat, protein, and sugar in milk all interfere with the flour and egg protein binding in the crepes. Milk will produce a more tender product.
Also expect the flavor to be a little less luxurious without the fat and sugar. You can use vanilla or replace some of the oil with butter (if your recipe doesn't already call for them).
Powdered milk or evaporated milk are good to have on hand for when you get in situations like this.
You may substitute water, yes, but be sure to also add in a flavorless oil, egg and some Vanilla. The water should only be a bout a cup or so so as to not dilute the batter to much.
I guess adding a little oil to make up for missing fat might make sense, but adding an extra egg would have some pretty substantial effects, and vanilla sounds unrelated to this substitution.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.938823
| 2015-04-06T14:08:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56428",
"authors": [
"Amanda Valentine",
"Cascabel",
"Donna Bradley",
"Joanne Quinn",
"Lois Bradford",
"Pip Baker",
"Portraitheads8",
"Stage and Sound Rental Co",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"triona feehan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56960
|
White wine v cider vinegar
I am about to use a recently viewed tv recipe for Rhubarb ketchup. Official ingredients include white wine vinegar but does say any vinegar 'will do'. I have some cider vinegar, will this dramatically alter the flavour or sweetness? Might I have to alter sugar quantity?
Cider vinegar is generally a little bit sweeter and not quite as sharp as white wine vinegar. With the other flavors you're adding, the difference isn't likely to be major. A good approach might be to hold back about a quarter of the sugar in the recipe, taste, and adjust to preference.
One thing in the cider vinegar's favor is that most of the acid present in the rhubarb is malic acid, the same compound that gives green apples their tartness. Apple and rhubarb typically get along quite nicely and I see no reason why they wouldn't here as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.938954
| 2015-04-26T14:49:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56960",
"authors": [
"Cassidey Bradford",
"Ivette Sierra",
"Michelle Burrie",
"Sabine Gagnon",
"Ursula vanLangenhove",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135578"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55196
|
Can dried shrimp be used as a substitute for shrimp paste in a recipe for thai curry paste?
I'd like to make my own thai red curry and green curry pastes but both of these call for shrimp paste which isn't widely available in my country. I do have a packet of small dried shrimp (with heads/legs on). Can I use these to subsitute for the shrimp paste, or should I use fish sauce instead? or perhaps both?
Your dried shrimp are fresh, then dried. The taste belachan imparts has more to do with the fact that it is fermented, than is shrimp. Fish sauce is fermented, so you really would be better off adding both :)
Rehydrating the shrimp in some fish sauce with water, then adding it to your mix for blending would work best. You may not be able to blend your paste properly if the shrimp is still dried.
This is what I would do if I couldn't get ahold of belacan. Neither fish sauce nor dried shrimp will get you even close, but together, it might be close enough.
Raw belacan, by the way, is quite smelly. As in, when my neighbors are cooking with it, I absolutely know. The smell calms down when it's cooked, but it does have quite a distinctive taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.939065
| 2015-02-27T07:07:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55196",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Kieda",
"Connie",
"LMAshton",
"Rubysnaggs",
"Sheila Kandell",
"Yoann Gibb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57808
|
Unrefrigerated Mashed Bananas: Are they safe to bake with?
If mashed bananas are accidentally left on the counter overnight can they still be used for baking?
Biggest question is: Are they freshly mashed, or defrosted mashed bananas? If the latter: No. Otherwise I'm tempted to say "most likely, but taste a bit first". But I'm not an expert on these matters and not shy of trying if I know it's not going to kill me.
I recommend smelling them first. If they still smell like bananas, rather than vinegar or something rancid, I agree with @WillemvanRumpt about tasting. If they have a pure banana taste, I'd be more inclined to use them in something fully cooked. I have no documentation about safety, though, so this is my opinion. Also, sometimes my open bananas attract little fruit flies. If I see those, I immediately throw everything away!
Probably, but yuck!
If the bowl was covered, preferably well sealed with cling film in contact with the whole surface... It wouldn't have been oxidized or exposed to fruit flies... Should it not smell like alcohol or vinegar, I believe it's fine to bake with... 180℃ kills a hosts of germs IMHO...
I hate wasting, so I get why you are asking this, lol!
I agree with "osp"... SMELL it. Sour or fishy or not like banana, well, then your banana bread might taste like something sour or fishy or not like banana.
Easiest solution is to just scoop off the top layer of the mashed banana that was exposed to the air!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.939190
| 2015-05-27T14:00:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57808",
"authors": [
"Brenda Shanks",
"DK Shirley",
"GdD",
"Maryanne",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41629",
"osp",
"tomas silva"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55945
|
Can I cook chicken in the over after leaving them sitting in the oven all night?
I put some wings in the oven last night and then forgot about them and my roommate turned the oven off. They weren't fully cooked but is it still okay to fully cook them now and eat them or would it be better to throw them out?
It isn't worth taking the risk!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.939342
| 2015-03-22T13:28:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55945",
"authors": [
"Ben Johnson",
"Beth Henderson",
"Samwel Gathaiya",
"Sarah Morgan",
"Sylvia Wilder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133018",
"kelli"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55540
|
Coconut Shrimp-fry ahead for dinner party?
I see a few opinions on my question, from a few years ago. Just wondering if anyone has an updated idea. I want to serve fresh and crunchy coconut shrimp as part of a dinner party for 12 people. I would prefer to not have the smell and time of frying, as my guests are in attendance. Can I fry two hours prior to dinner and have them sit at room temp....with a very quick flash-heat in the oven? If so, how long and at what temp (450 or so)? Wracking my brain to try and come up with the best viable option. Thanks so much!!
You will never achieve the same texture and doneness after two hours that you will when your shrimp come out of the fryer...unless, of course, you have access to a CVap oven. The CVap was invented (I believe by Col. Saunders for Kentucky Fried Chicken) to solve the problem you identify. Shrimp cook very quickly, but without access to a commercial deep-fryer (which I assume), cooking for 12 on your stove will be slow. Personally, I would save something like this for a small gathering and choose a dish that I could pull off well for a larger group.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.939424
| 2015-03-08T19:15:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55540",
"authors": [
"Deb Ernst",
"Joe",
"Joseph Peterson",
"Siva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132032",
"paul phillips"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60081
|
How are puffed rice cakes flavoured?
I am working on puffed rice cakes, but I can not find how they are flavoured.
Is the oil sprayed on it and seasoning sprinkled after? Or is an oil-seasoning slurry sprayed, or is it something else alltogether?
But if oil is used, it must be in a very low quantity as it comes under health food category. Kindly help me with this.
Industrial processes spray the flavor after they are puffed. Plain rice cakes (like those from Quaker in the US) are difficult to make without some special equipment. I'm curious how you are making them?
Senbei (Japanese Rice Crackers) are made with already seasoned rice paste... However the glaze that makes Senbei attractive is added after the crackers are cooked... This may work for your rice cakes. The "glaze" is simply a combination of low salt soy, and honey which is then dried off in a hot oven after the crackers have been baked.
Could you possibly use a similar process to flavor your crackers?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.939644
| 2015-08-20T13:23:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60081",
"authors": [
"Adrian Zammit",
"Bev Doyle",
"Lennae Jackman",
"Martina Bourque",
"Pamela Dallyn",
"Pauline Westmoreland",
"Tom Haigh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63537
|
Questions about shaoxing wine
What kind of shaoxing wine should I be looking to buy?
My supermarket has shaohsing rice cooking wine which has salt added.
After looking online, there seem to be people saying that the added salt is to get around selling it without the need for a liquor license and that it is similar to other cooking wines. I am also worried that the extra salt may ruin the recipes I find online.
If you are worried about salted wine ruining the seasoning, then it would seem the obvious answer is to buy one without any salt...
@ElendilTheTall : that's not so easy in some places. In Maryland, for instance, there are a limited number of liquor licenses, and most grocery stores don't have them. Therefore, asian and international grocery stores aren't allowed to sell anything except 'cooking wines' which are heavy salted to stop people from drinking them directly. I don't know of a single liquor store near me that sells shaoxing, sake or any other rice wine. I'd probably have to go to Virginia to get it. (although I've heard that the rules have been relaxed allowing you to mail-order wine)
@Joe I would just order it online. It's 2015!
@ElendilTheTall : but then I have to be home to sign for it ... or go to UPS or FedEx or whatever when the delivery fails because an adult wasn't home. And I work at a government site, so no chance of delivering it to work (made that mistake once for electronics stuff)
@Joe such problems are not insurmountable.
@ElendilTheTall : still doesn't help folks who live in Utah : http://winefolly.com/update/whats-deal-wine-shipping-laws/
@Joe I really can't say for shushan wine, but I have never seen a "good" liquor store (meaning bigger than a convenience store) that didn't carry at least one brand of drinking saki.
You could try something in this list: http://www.foodsubs.com/WinesRice.html Substitutes: sake (smoother and sweeter) OR sherry (dry)
All the other information presented here is correct and the main problem is liquor licenses. I use the salted variety often out of convenience and price, but it is a lower quality and well, heavily salted. Typically, if I'm using the wine, I'll just reduce salt elsewhere.
If you can't find an unsalted variety and really want something that works well, as an alternate suggestion you can use a dry sherry. It will usually be cheaper than a proper bottle of unsalted shaoxing wine. Note that sherry will also come in salted, cooking varieties and similarly you don't want those.
If you live in an area where the liquor licenses aren't a problem, I hear good things about the Pagoda brand.
Unless you use everything that can be a salt source (soy sauces, fermented whatever pastes, black beans and sauces, chili-garlic-sauces, stocks, pickled chilies and vegetables...) in a chinese style dish by the exact brands and amounts the recipe writer used, you will have to manage the salt (and acid/sugar) balance yourself anyway. If you need to replicate such a dish blindly... then indeed, recipe with exact brands needed.
Availability of unsalted rice wines (they come in light and dark varieties too) will be dependent on locality (licensing laws), if the local asian grocers cannot carry it you might want to ask a liquor merchant to order it for you if he does not have it in store. In any case, expect it to be 2-6x more expensive than the salted variety, even if available off the shelf.
I was going to recommend the liquor store also, but here it is right here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.939783
| 2015-11-17T09:11:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63537",
"authors": [
"Caitlin D",
"Christine Chafer",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Escoce",
"Hazel Pritchard",
"Joe",
"Matthew Cohn",
"Ming",
"Nick Pilgrim",
"Renee Trexler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.