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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
55586
|
Why does cooked fruit seem to retain more heat than the other foods in the recipe?
Why does fruit retain heat when cooked?
Hi, and welcome to Seasoned Advice. You will probably need to be a bit more specific in your quetion to get the answer you are looking for. What recipe, what circumstances?
I'd imagine it's hotter because of the amount of water in fruit which is higher than most food stuffs, as appose to drier food
The same phenomenon occurs with tomato sauce on pizza, or vegetables in a casserole: the moist filling feels much, much hotter than surrounding crust or noodles.
In short, this phenomenon is caused by differing thermal properties of the materials involved. The quoted excerpts below (from PhysLink.com) provide some explanation of the physics involved, and I've attempted to extend and simplify it a bit more.
Imagine an apple pie fresh out of the oven:
Despite the temperatures being equal, your tongue is still more likely
to get burned by the [pie] filling than the [pie] crust, though. There
are 2 principles behind this: thermal conductivity and specific
heat capacity.
Thermal conductivity is just the measure of how quickly heat energy
travels through a substance.
Pie crust has lower thermal conductivity, since it has less water in it and more pockets of air (even small ones) and the heat energy is not conducted through it as easily.
In contrast, the fruit filling (which is relatively full of water) has a higher thermal conductivity, and can more easily transfer its stored heat to your mouth.
Either hot pie crust or hot fruit filling can burn your tongue, but the hot fruit filling will burn you more quickly.
Specific heat capacity is something like energy density of a
substance, and measures how much energy must be contained in a
substance for it to have a certain temperature. For example, 100 grams
of aluminum at 100 degrees C has more heat [energy] in it than 100 grams of
copper at the same temperature. If you dropped both pieces of metal
into separate cups of water, the one with the aluminum chunk will get
warmer than the other- there's just more energy contained in it. Since
the filling is mostly made of water, and water has a very high
specific heat, the filling must give off a lot of heat for its
temperature to decrease
This has 2 effects: when the pie comes out of
the oven, the filling cools down much more slowly, and as a fragment
of filling gives up heat to your tongue, it only cools down a tiny
bit.
The specific heat capacity is a bit trickier to understand, but it essentially means that the filling (remember, full of water) absorbs more energy to reach the same temperature and therefore has to transfer more heat energy (either to the air or to your mouth) to cool down compared to the crust, with lower heat capacity.
A higher heat capacity does not exactly mean that the material "holds on to heat longer" - rather, it means that more heat energy is stored in the material per degree of temperature change. Cooking oil, for example, has a heat capacity of 2J/gC while water is 4.2J/gC. It takes more than twice as much energy to heat water one degree than it does to heat oil one degree. Mixing 100g of water at 80C with 100g of oil at 20C would end up with 200g of oil+water at 60.6C - the higher heat capacity of water gives it more power to raise the temperature of oil per degree of temperature it gives up.
@J... feel free to edit, I'd welcome clarification of the wording of that sentence. I find it a challenge to translate thermodynamics into more everyday terminology.
I think the quote snippet gets it correct - water simply has more heat in it. Aluminum, as in your example, has a rather high heat capacity, but since it also has a high thermal conductivity it will happily rid itself of this heat quickly, given the chance (burning you very quickly with a lot of heat). I suppose the wording of that one phrase just risks muddling conductivity and capacity. Minutiae, I suppose... heat and temperature are difficult topics.
@Agos Sometimes the straightforward explanation for something is from chemistry, or biology or some other field. No harm saying it's a simple physical effect when that's the case. (Yes, technically it all reduces to physics, but... http://xkcd.com/1475/)
It's the sugar in the fruit. Sugar tends to hold heat FAR longer than other substances. I can't give you a whole post regarding the chemistry and thermodynamics of it all, but sugar is one of those molecules that tends to hold heat quite well.
The specific heat capacity of sugar is 1.244 kJ/kg°C, which is less than flour (1.59 kJ/kg°C) -- and much less than water (4.18 kJ/kg°C). It has a more similar thermal conductivity to water, but is again less.
You do have to be careful with sugary things (syrup, candy, etc) but it's not that it holds heat better somehow. Water stops at the boiling point (100C) but for example when making candy you can take it up to 150C, so it's actually hotter. On top of that, it's thick and sticky, so if you get some on you it'll stay there and burn you, rather than flowing off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.940098
| 2015-03-10T12:28:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55586",
"authors": [
"Alan Morton",
"Anna Damadzic",
"Cascabel",
"Christina Riddle",
"Dawn Birks",
"Erica",
"I am Shawn",
"J...",
"Johnnie Hoffman",
"Kamran Khokhar",
"Leazer Fleming",
"Richard ten Brink",
"SaturnsEye",
"Simon Hunnam",
"Susan Shaw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"user132116"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56341
|
Standing Rib Roast
I have a receipe for a 5 lb. standing rib roast but it's 10 lbs.
How much do I have the change the cooking time to accomodate the bigger piece of meat?
and related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/25326/67
Any time indicated in a recipe you are following should be used only as a general guideline. Cooking to temperature is much more accurate.
There are more variables than just weight (such as surface area) but I would use something like 1.5 times the cooking time as an estimate.
Sink a meat thermometer in that bad boy and pull him out of the heat before you reach your target doneness.
I would allow at least five degrees (probably more) for carryover cooking during the resting period.
The problem is -- it's actually an issue with surface to mass ratios, so when you have something that's twice the weight, if it's proportionally scaled, it's only the cube root of the original in terms of depth to the center of the meat. The result is that doubling can result in drying out the exterior before the center is done to your liking. For a rib roast it might just have more ribs, and so not be completely proportional.
You also have other issues that affect the time-to-cook:
* What temperature it was at before it went into the oven -- how cold is your fridge? Did you give it an hour or so rest at room temperature before it went into the oven?
* What degree of done-ness are you aiming for?
I'd recommend starting the roast earlier in the day, so that you can cook it to a given internal temperature, and then hold it in a warm oven.
To prevent drying out, you may need to tent it with foil while it's baking (which will reduce browning and/or flavor), add other moisture to the oven (but beware of basting, as opening the oven often causes more drying than the basting helps), or lowering the oven temperature slightly (which then causes it to take even more time).
If it were me ... I'd plan for:
a worst case scenario of it taking 2x as long as called for
roast it at 25°F / 10°C less than the recipe calls for UNLESS the recipe calls for starting it at once temp, then lowering the oven to a second temp (or visa-versa)
roast it on a bed of onions and other root vegetables, to both add moisture to the oven and prevent the drippings from evaporating too quickly.
trying to pull it from the oven about an hour before you planned to carve it, to allow it to rest.
If you don't have a probe thermometer or a leave-in meat thermometer that you can see through your oven's window, I'd hold off on taking the temperature until the normal recipe's cooking time has elapsed, and estimate when to next take the temperature from there (and possibly how to adjust the oven temperature to try to better hit your goal serving time).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.940506
| 2015-04-03T21:52:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56341",
"authors": [
"Chris Oleary",
"Gwyn",
"Joe",
"Mark Marcott",
"Wyl Dalton",
"Zack Dugay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"selvakumar thangavel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60189
|
What would be the result of using chicken livers when making liverwurst?
Is liver just liver or is there some basic difference in beef, swine, chicken. If I take a liverwurst recipe and use chicken liver instead of pork am I gong to get the same results within + or - 10%. Is liver from a shoat the same taste as a 60 kg sow?
I would just try different ingredients and taste test them. Personally I am a purist (pork only, please). To me the bacon and fat content are key, and you can't get that with chicken. Is there a particular reason why you want to substitute?
Let me do a breakdown of the typical ingredients of liverwurst ("Leberwurst") roughly based on food laws in Germany (aka liverwurst country):
roughly 10% - 30% (sometimes up to 40%) liver:
mostly pork because it's cheapest, using partly veal or poultry is more expensive but tastewise no big difference.
muscle meat and bacon, again typically pork, but beef, veal and poultry is also used either alone or as add-in.
usually a generous amount of spices.
The liver is influencing taste and texture, but the used regular meat and especially the spices play a big role, too. Using a "too dominant" liver or too much in total can be overwhelming, but there's no accounting for taste. While pork, veal and poultry livers are comparatively "mild" and can be used interchangeably (or as you said, the results will be in your +/- 10% range), beef liver has a tendency to make the liverwurst bitter, so it's use is not recommended.
Every recipe and article I've seen implies that there are only two options for traditional, German-style liverwurst.
Pork (more common)
Beef (usually calves' liver)
From Wikipedia:
Liverwurst usually contains pigs' or calves' livers. Other ingredients are meat (notably veal), fat, and spices including ground black pepper, marjoram, allspice, thyme, ground mustard seed, or nutmeg.
That being said, liverwurst is, essentially, a type of pâté (the French term)... of which the most iconic is, arguably, goose liver pâté or "pâté de foie gras":
The most famous pâté is probably pâté de foie gras, made from the livers of fattened geese.
Other regional versions include chicken livers:
In Russia and Ukraine, the dish is mostly prepared with beef, goose or chicken liver and thus is commonly known as печёночный паштет (Russian, pechyonochniy pashtet), however other meats also can be used.
So, it seems that it's up to you to decide what liver you want to be based on your taste preferences and how traditional you want to be.
As to your secondary question, none of the articles I could find specifically mention the age of the pig, though it's common to use veal liver if using beef instead of pork.
careful: Beef may get bitter, veal doesn't. Save your beef liver for other purposes...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.940775
| 2015-08-24T05:30:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60189",
"authors": [
"Adam Beschizza",
"David Finley",
"Duane Bagdons",
"Jayme Harford",
"Langford Williams",
"Maureen Morris",
"Rose Cashmore",
"Stephie",
"Tom Bellwood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"thrutch",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62178
|
Storing and Transporting cooked fish
I need to take fish to a cooking challenge and the fish has to be cooked, kept hot and then stored and not eaten for possibly 10 hours. Is there are way to do this without changing the flavor, texture, appearance, etc.?
All due respect, I wouldn't bother. No fish dish is going to taste, look or feel good after being food safe hot for 10 hours. Only exception might be cold served dishes that you can keep on ice.
Can you provide more information? Are you suggesting that the food must remain at the cooked temperature for 10 hours? (then why?) Or do you simply have no access to a kitchen when the fish is to be finally plated and eaten?
Cook as close the the presentation as possible. Then separate into a batch for the presentation, and another batch to be immediately refridgerated (or placed in a very cold cooler). Reheat that batch when it's ready to be eaten.
Otherwise.. good luck, glad I don't have to judge that contest.
Beyond 4 hours your risking potential food poisoning either refrigerate it or cook it at the location. Beside food poisoning, keeping fish hot for that long will over cook it, its not gonna be good.
Suggest you prep everything out then cook it at the location. It'll taste and look better.
Simply No.
You could explore (hot or cold) smoking, even curing (eg gravadlax).
The cooking challenge sounds more of a food safety challenge!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941043
| 2015-09-30T14:28:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62178",
"authors": [
"Bill Moody",
"Earlene Abraham",
"Escoce",
"Ila Agrawal",
"Kevin Fuller",
"Pete",
"Tiffany",
"Yasmin Bhimji",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"jonathan giron",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62218
|
Should the oven temperature be the same for smaller batch?
Im making the no knead ciabatta bread and it calls for 4 cups of flour but i used 2 cups. It says to throw it in a 425 degree F oven for 35-45 minutes but i did that before and it would cook quickly. before 30 min. Should it remain the same temperature or should i alter it?
Keep the oven temperature the same, as a good hot oven is necessary for the loaf to 'spring' (ie inflate somewhat). Just reduce the cooking time accordingly.
Yep, it's chemistry. Without the heat, lots of things do not happen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941207
| 2015-10-02T04:09:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62218",
"authors": [
"Brittany K",
"CARL VOLKSTORF",
"Escoce",
"Manju Thapa",
"Nest Recovery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"nova lopez"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55632
|
Maximum cooking time for beef joint in slow cooker?
I usually cook a joints of beef by browing it in a pan and then putting it in the slow cooker all day (about 8 hours) completely submerged in stock.
At the weekend I have family coming over, so the joint I have got is twice the size of the usual, and we are eating a couple of hours earlier than usual.
As I do not really fancy getting up in the early hours of the morning to put the beef on, I am thinking about putting it on last thing at night. This would be a cooking time of around 15 hours.
Is that too much? Is there a maximum time that beef joints (or any meat, for that matter) can be cooked in the slow cooker?
Would I be better to cook it the day before and then reheat it?
I do think there is a maximum to the duration of stewing a cut of beef. There is in my opinion such a thing as too tender and soft. If you plan to cook the meat as one large chunk you will have to add a little to your normal stewing time, but I would not go as high as 15 hours.
Cooking and re-heating is quite an interesting option though, as quite a few dishes benefit from this in terms of flavour. Perhaps a general question on this subject, or a more directly relevant one would be of interest to you.
For me, the smaller the size of your chunks of meat, the more you should stick to your normal stewing time of 8 hours and the more you could consider making it a day early to enhance the taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941305
| 2015-03-12T08:42:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55632",
"authors": [
"Avalon",
"Edward Capobianco",
"Fiona Clark",
"Iain McFarlane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132208",
"sam harris sr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59862
|
my freezer popped open without my knowlege
my freezer popped open without my knowledge, not sure when, but it was no longer than a day and a half, there was ice formed on the roof and the sides, is it safe to refreeze? I had hamburger, steak and green beans in there.
bobbi
What temperature are the things? If they're to fridge temp, you might be better off moving them to the fridge, and using them soon. Freeze/thaw cycles can do bad things to most uncooked things. (and even some cooked ones).
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Perhaps it would help us all of you give us some more detail on the exact state of the products when you discovered the open freezer. Were they still frozen solid, or did they really start to thaw?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941466
| 2015-08-13T01:22:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59862",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Saso Dzuljo Petrovski",
"Shaily kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"malcolm brown",
"stephen egerton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59191
|
Pure maple syrup wedding favors
i want to give 4oz jars of syrup to my wedding guests as favors. Due to the cost I'm buying it in bulk and filling the jars myself. How far in advance can I fill the mason jars and not have the mold issue? I obviously can't keep 100 4oz jars in my fridge.
If you sterilise the jars before and after sealing, it should easily last a year if not more. Sterilising will involve boiling the jars in a large pan of water for 15 minutes, filling and sealing them, then boiling for 15 minutes again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941569
| 2015-07-19T18:11:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59191",
"authors": [
"Anne Wall",
"Debbie Kennedy",
"Eva Twombly",
"Gazelle",
"Shari Stewart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59773
|
how long can I keep thawed corned beef in my refrigerator?
I took a corned beef out of the freezer and thawed it in my fridge. How long can I keep it before it has to be cooked.
Possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I don't know that it is a duplicate of that one, given corned beef is partially(?) cured, and nothing listed at that link covers that ground that I can see.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941656
| 2015-08-10T12:45:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59773",
"authors": [
"Adam Cameron",
"Ashley Willis",
"Myrna Howe",
"Ricky Steed",
"Ronaldo Muller",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57108
|
5 Day marinated chicken breast
Bought chicken breast on Sunday and put in marinade. It is now Thursday. Chicken has turned a bit white . . . is it safe to cook and eat at 5 days in marinade?
What's in your marinade? If it contains any acid (lemon juice or vinegar), the surface may have just "cooked" due to the acid.
Beside that official word on food safety I linked, we have some questions on marinade duration, they can be found through the search
2 days is usually the max for chicken in the fridge that is officially recommend, 5 days is definitely on the long side. Pending the sell by date that the chicken had originally.
Color is just the marinade, it's the bacteria you need to be concerned about. Hard to tell if chicken has gone bad in a marinade.
Good acidic or high salt marinade, you are probably safe. Really up to you if you want to take the small risk or just throw away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941834
| 2015-05-01T02:17:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57108",
"authors": [
"Bernadette McInnes",
"C Robb",
"Catija",
"Deardria Dodson",
"Jayne Roberts",
"Jose Hidalgo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kim hamilton",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46814
|
Cooking smoke safety
Whenever I make burgers (stovetop with cast iron), they produce a high amount of smoke. I usually take extra precautions to ensure adequate ventilation, but I end up inhaling quite a bit a smoke.
Is it common for professional or semi-professional chefs to use protective gear in lieu of adequate ventilation? If I do this semi-regularly (once every two weeks), should I invest in protective gear such as a mask?
It sounds like you need a fan (to send the smoke out the window), not protective gear.
@Joe, even with fans, when I'm over the pan flipping, I get plenty of smoke
...a longer spatula? No need to put one's face over the pan.
@wnnmaw : or turn the heat down. You may have to then adjust the thickness of the burger so that you achieve your desired doneness at lower heat.
A particle mask provides no protection from smoke. You would need a mask with an activated carbon filter or SCBA, neither of which is practical.
It's extremely common for professional chefs to have fans: most of the time these are mandated by regulations for the safety of those in and out of the kitchen. If you producing so much smoke to be considering protective gear my advice would be to change your method because as it stands you are at risk of fire and you aren't doing your lungs (or those of the people around you) any good.
Not just fans, but range hoods, which suck air (and thus smoke) up and slightly in, away from the chef.
...and if the baffles (covers) were removed, our hats would get sucked up while cleaning inside the stainless hoods. That's how strong/efficient they are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.941960
| 2014-09-02T14:18:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46814",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Gary Grewer",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"June Gillen",
"Michael E.",
"Mike murphy",
"TRACY HUGHES",
"evteresa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"moscafj",
"wnnmaw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41447
|
Why are my Baozi shrinking?
I've tried to make Chinese Baozi a couple of times now together with my girlfriend, who is half-chinese and knows the dish from her mother. We tried them according to various recipes, and in our latest attempt I even tried to pour all my knowledge about bread and pizza crust in -- without any success.
I have tried plain white-flour-yeast doughs with a quick proofing, as well as an elaborate dough made from 3 different flours (German type 405, 650 and 1050) with additional flour-gluten, barley malt syrup for additional amylase, as well as making a "Poolish"-style starter overnight and properly kneading, stretch-folding and resting the dough.
After filling the dough, we rest them for a small while (~10-15min), and then place them into the [hot,cold] pots with water onto the steaming trays (laid out with fine cheesecloth, to let through steam but prevent sticking), and steam them for 15min. We tried preheated (already steaming) pot, cool pot, then heat up when the buns are in. We tried shorter steaming (raw filling) or longer (after too long steaming they start to shrink) -- no success either. Following we tried lifting the lid instantly, or letting them cool over the course of ~10min, at the end of which I would open the lid very, very slowly.
The End-Result is always that the Baozi shrink heavily and quickly develop a hardish skin. Upon biting them the dough doesn't feel light and airy anymore, but only slightly airy with a "short crumb", much like German pretzel dough would inside...
What could be the cause of our problems? Thank you for any suggestions!
Nebuk, I, too, had labored over baozi many a time, only to have them fall flat. After much searching, I came to Andrew Nguyen (who has since answered many more of my questions regarding Asian cuisines) for the answer. Check out this article by her from the LA Times.
She addresses your problem specifically:
The problem arises when the dough is stuffed to make filled buns. Whether the filling is raw or cooked, it introduces moisture into the bun during steaming and can cause the dough to cave in or wrinkle after cooking. Imagine my devastation on the occasions when that happened after hours of working and waiting.
She offers advice on how to prevent this:
At the end of the day, the best and easiest bao dough is simply made by stirring together these readily available ingredients: moderate gluten all-purpose flour from the supermarket, instant (fast-acting) yeast, baking powder, canola oil, sugar and water. I often knead by hand, but when I feel lazy, I let the food processor do the work. Regardless of method, the result is fabulous...The key is having a little fat and combining yeast with baking powder in a balanced proportion. As biochemist and acclaimed author Shirley Corriher explains in "Cookwise," working in a small amount of fat tenderizes and enables bread dough to hold gas bubbles well. That lightens the dough, she says, as does employing a two-pronged approach to leavening.
The two-pronged approach to leavening here being the use of both yeast and baking powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.942138
| 2014-01-25T19:09:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41447",
"authors": [
"A. Picken",
"Bev",
"Cezar Cobuz",
"Margie",
"Patricia Bosserman",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97412",
"robinj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21593
|
How to convert between flours?
As we've seen in previous questions, certain flours have different gluten contents. Time and time again, I find reviews of King Arthur Flour recipes indicating that I really must use their flour if I want the recipe to come out right, as any other flour will make it come out horribly wrong. Is there a way to convert a bread recipe to use a more widely available brand, given that my supermarket actually sells gluten in a bag?
ETA: Also, is there a way to find out what makes a given brand different so I can evaluate it?
You're asking how to convert between types of flours (bread, wheat, ap, cake, etc) or brands (KA, Gold Medal, etc) ?
@rfusca Brands, sorry. Although if, say, using Gold MEdal bread flour can approximate KA AP flour, I'm not adverse to switching types.
If you are simply looking to convert gluten contents then you can certainly always go higher by adding the correct proportion of vital wheat gluten to dough to get the percentage of gluten that you want.
However there are many other differences between flour bags in terms of processing. How is the flour ground? What wheat variety is it from? Is it white or whole? There are a lot of variables.
I do speak as someone who has found that Gold Medal is perfectly acceptable for all my baking needs and also routinely uses store brand flour. Personally I suggest simply trying whatever flour you want to try (not including substituting bread for cake or something along those lines, that definitely will cause issues) and seeing how the recipe goes. Determine if a higher-end flour brand is for you yourself.
The problem is, if I try a recipe meant for, say, KA flour, and it comes out dense, I don't have the experience to know if that's because of the gluten content int he flour or some other variable of the flour or something else went wrong in the process... hmm. Is there a place I can find out what variables apply to what flour? (oh god, now I'm approaching this like a programmer)
Fine Cooking has the best reference I've found - KA flour has the highest protein. You can learn some about KA flours from their website, like what wheat type each is. This site has some interesting information on additives in flour. This site has some interesting discussion, but sadly most of the links are out of date.
Interesting! According to Fine Cooking, KA All-purpose has almost the same protein as Pillsbury bread flour, which I ended up using. So maybe it wasn't the flour...
King Arthur All Purpose flour is milled from hard winter North Dakota wheat if I remember their website correctly, which gives it a higher typical protein percentage than most all purpose flour brands.
See this great article, which includes a comparison of several popular flour brands:
http://www.theartisan.net/flour_test.htm
Assuming you measure by weight and not volume, its pretty simple to mix two flours to get an intermediate protein level. For example, about 1 part Pillbury AP + 1 to 2 parts Pillsbury Better for Bread is a pretty good approximation of King Arthur All Purpose.
In my limited experience, I find the KA site bread recipes are pretty forgiving, and work with slightly varying results with almost any flour. I have made their English Muffin bread successfully with Pillsbury AP and Pillsbury Better for Bread.
Our Better Homes & Gardens New Cook Book (very old), is is a 5 ring binder with stuff written on the inside of the cover--very useful stuff including a generic answer to this question.
Better Homes & Gardens New Cook Book
"Emergency Substitutions"
1 cup cake flour = 1 cup minus 2 tabelspoons all-puropse flour
The question was about brands, not types
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.942429
| 2012-02-21T21:32:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21593",
"authors": [
"Digler",
"Jeannie",
"Madelyn",
"Solomon Ucko",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65990",
"justkt",
"paul0207",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13969
|
Is it safe to eat yougurt after the expiration date that smells alright?
Possible Duplicate:
How do you know when a cultured item is no longer safe to consume?
I have some yogurt that expired. Is is safe to eat it? Since yogurt has microorganisms in it would it ok to eat it?
I believe the linked question answers this pretty effectively. Generally the answer is yes, it's still safe if it's not showing obvious signs of going off.
Of course!
The expiration date is merely a suggestion. It might well be good for months to come-- as long as green moss doesn't start growing on it, it will be fine.
I don't know...The colonies of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus will probably cause the dairy bits to get all semi-solid and taste delicious with fruit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.942704
| 2011-04-12T01:34:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13969",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adeel Sattar",
"Chi Leung",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Trogdor",
"codekitty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17906
|
What is the following cooking utensil used for?
I am interested in knowing what the top pot is used for. I have a similar pot with holes at the bottom. I used this one to steam vegetables while I come something on the bottom pot. This makes sense, however the pot on the picture has no holes so I don't know how it would be used. The boiling water will not be able to pass into the top pot. What is this used for?
If this is not a good question to ask please help me make it better.
Double boiler! If you don't have this then to "imitate" this pot, boil water in sauce pan and put a smaller pan with whatever ingredients, say chocolate, in the the bigger pan. Simple hack.
@Kumar You can also rest a larger pan over the rim of a smaller pan so that the steam does the work.
It's a double boiler. You use it when you need to use 'soft' heat.
If you need to melt chocolate, or if you are making a hollandaise, or something that can easily scorch using direct heat, you use this pot. It has a much more forgiving heat, the heat is generated from steam from the water that boils in the bottom pot.
"Double boiler" or "bain Marie".
Put simmering water (and keep it at a simmer) in the lower pot (not touching the bottom of the top pot) and then put the top pot it. The idea that the constant temperature of the simmering steam is provide an even, predictable, well manageable temperature - 100 C. Its great for tempering chocolate (although be careful of condensation) or doing fragile sauces since you know you can't get it scorching hot by accident.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.942804
| 2011-09-21T02:40:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17906",
"authors": [
"Kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53489
|
How do I make my Thai curry with paste taste better?
Looking for simple tips to improve my curries made from paste. I know of a few answers I've learned, but looking for others...
Thanks!
Original curry recipe:
Fry tofu in oil in a non-stick pan.
Bring coconut milk to a boil, add curry paste.
Add tofu and any other veggies.
Simmer for >= 15 minutes.
Is anything in particular wrong with it?
Not wrong per se; just looking to learn improvements.
Hello Cellepo! We are a Q&A site, and we follow some specific rules. One of them is that questions should be always based on a concrete problem. We know that cooks love a list of random tips, but such lists just don't work with our format. So I have to close this question with the "too broad" close reason. This just means that this one question is not a good fit for us; you are still welcome to post other questions and answers as described in the help center, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help.
In particular, feel free to post specific questions on problems you've encountered making curry and then self-answer with the solutions you found. That way, someone searching for, say, "how do I avoid drowning out the coconut flavor in my curry?" can find your tip on using thicker coconut milk.
If available, add Kaffir Lime leaves to the coconut milk.
They go a surprisingly long way in adding a more authentic Thai taste. It adds more sweet & savory flavor; not like something like Bay leaves at all.
Toast the curry paste in oil before adding to coconut milk. Toasting brings out the flavor of the spices in the paste, just like the classic technique of toasting spices themselves.
Use a thicker coconut milk (like 'Chef's Choice' brand). Cheaper brands are less thick, and do so by just having more water.
Thicker coconut milk also is more intensely flavored (including sweeter).
Add a tiny bit of fish sauce (depending on how strictly vegetarian you are). It really adds a little something to a curry.
Good idea, I'll experiment with that, thanks. I'll keep a tongue out to make sure it doesn't add too much saltiness.
@cellepo Often it'll be too fishy before it's too salty.
@cellepo In my experience, very little is needed. Just 5-10 drops will give you the enough flavour for a curry for 4.
Fry the tofu ideally in a cast iron pan. Otherwise anything but non-stick is also more preferable (i.e: steel).
That helps caramelize the surface more, which non-sticks don't really do at all (they just singe).
You can brown the surface plenty in a non stick pan. If by singe you mean it's burning... maybe you're not using enough oil? Also, your question asks how to make the curry taste better, there's not really any indication the tofu texture is an issue.
Tofu caramelizing versus not caramelizing adds flavor.
Okay, sure, the question doesn't rely suggest the tofu flavor is a problem either, since as I said you can do just fine in a nonstick pan.
Browning is different in a non-stick versus not pan.
For instance, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3124/32654
I've made very well caramelized fried tofu in a nearly new nonstick pan. It doesn't have to stick to work. (And you don't want it to stick enough to make a fond or anything, you're trying to leave the nice brown bits on the tofu, not stuck to the pan.)
the question doesn't rely suggest the tofu flavor is a problem.
My question says "taste better"...
Why don't you share your secret if it is so good, instead of just saying something is wrong.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Don't see why you couldn't have started this off in chat if that is what you wanted to do.
Glad you've been editing your comments here after the fact...
The option to automatically create the chat room doesn't appear until a large number of comments are posted; I did it as soon as possible. Please find me in chat if you do want to discuss any of this further, rather than posting more comments. I also did not edit any comments after the fact, just within a minute of posting (as you edited one of yours). Finally, please try to be polite - I'm really just trying to help here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.942965
| 2015-01-10T22:52:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53489",
"authors": [
"Ashley Jacobs",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Knight",
"David Fox",
"Dorie McCarthy",
"Eddie Wong",
"James Dickerson",
"Jean Pierre",
"Jodie Bunstock",
"Kelly Dawnay",
"Laurie Huddleston",
"Matt Demmel",
"Online Psychiatrist",
"Shog9",
"Tiffany Sweitzer",
"Will D",
"cellepo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53599
|
Shatter resistant tea carafe/pitcher/pot
First let me explain how I make tea.
In the morning I take a pot of boiling water and pour it into a carafe.
I let the the water sit for a minute. I then pour the tea into an old pot from a coffee maker, put the tea bags in the original carafe and pour the water over the tea, let steep.
Pour into another large pot to dilute with water. Over the day I either nuke the tea or I pour it over ice when I want some.
For more then ten years I had a nice pitcher ( from Ikea ) for this.till one morning it shattered. Now a second pitcher shattered after about two months.
So I need another pot. I would prefer for obvious reasons that it did not shatter. I do not want to use a stainless steel pot because I notice stainless steel leaves a taste when I boil water in it. The initial amount of tea I make is approximately one quart, and I have not found a measuring cup that large.
Can anyone make a suggestion?
Heat-resistant glass is called for, which will be much better suited to withstand the thermal shock of boiling water than regular glass.
I'd use a Pyrex measuring cup -- which are available in one quart (4 cup) sizes, my mother owns one. (I generally just stick with two 2 cups if I need that much liquid, but that won't work for your tea steeping process.) This may require hunting through a few stores (large places dedicated to kitchen goods generally have them) or buying online. I even found a 2 quart measuring cup on Amazon, which I've never seen in a store.
You could also get a second old coffee pot, which is similarly designed to cope with hot liquid, or do the steeping in your existing old coffee pot before diluting.
You can buy a 2qt measuring cup at Walmart. At least here. Though not Pyrex.
Another option (though probably more expensive than Erica's suggestion) is Corningware Pyroceram. It's a glass-ceramic, so it shouldn't absorb any odors. Originally all Corningware cookware was made of this material, but now its only some of their stuff.
You can easily get these in 1.5 quart and larger sizes.
Pyroceram can actually be used on a burner or under the broiler. It's incredibly shatter resistant (supposedly, you can freeze it then hit it with a blow torch, to no ill effect), and actually pretty good even if you drop it.
Thermal shock is what is breaking your carafes. Simply stated, you're heating them up too rapidly and unevenly.
While it's true a nice heat-resistant carafe is probably your best solution, you can also try heating up your glass carafe with hot tap water before pouring in your boiling water to temper the rapid increase in temperature.
Pour in hot water to the top to get it evenly heated and let it sit for perhaps a minute, pour it out, then do your tea thing. This isn't a guarantee to prevent breakage, but gradually warming it like this will certainly reduce the likelihood.
I use this trick with my French press beakers, which are thin and love to break easily.
Here is a very readable explanation of why glass breaks under thermal shock. The example is the opposite of your hot-water-in-cold-glass, but still applies in reverse:
So in our hot-glass-in-ice-water example, the surface is trying to shrink but can't, meaning it is suddenly under tension. And the core is put into compression by resisting the shrinkage. It's not hard to figure out which section of glass wins the tug-of-war -- the surface fails first. And a crack grows out of some microscopic scratch or flaw, growing and spreading until the stress is sufficiently relieved or the glass is broken clean through.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.943344
| 2015-01-14T09:21:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53599",
"authors": [
"Amanda Nichols",
"Dental Crowns Bucks County",
"Edwin Koldenhof",
"Harini Karan",
"Rumana Reaz Arifin",
"Valentine Fernandes",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"ptzptbellsouthnet",
"shoib000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69453
|
Equivalent tomato products: paste, sauce, puree, diced, whole
Doctor says low sodium so now I have to make my own tomato sauces ( pizza, spaghetti etc ).
So I look up a bunch of recipes online to decide what to add and in what proportions ( using no salt added tomato products of course ).
The problem is that one recipe calls for whole tomatoes, another calls for diced, another puree and paste.
What are equivalent amounts ( in terms of "tomatoness" ) of each so I can compare these recipes?
To clarify as asked by Jefromi.
I'm basically trying to compare ingredients and instructions
For example (made up off course ):
Recipe 1 calls for
15 ounces Tomato sauce
8 ounces Tomato paste
1 lb ground beef
3 cloves of garlic
1 large onion
...
Recipe 2 calls for
32 oz Diced Tomato
1-1/2 lb ground beef
5 gloves of garlic
3 medium onions
...
I want to "normalize" each recipe so that they contain the "same" amount of tomato product, then see which contains proportionally more beef, more garlic, more onions etc.
So in these recipe, if the 32 ounces of Diced Tomato is the same as 1-1/2 times 15 oz sauce +8 oz paste then they contain proportionally the same amount of beef, Recipe 2 calls for slighty more garlic ( about 10% more ) etc.
What aspect of the recipes are you trying to compare?
You can get a decent idea just from nutrition labels. Tomatoes are the only ingredient, so pretty much all the numbers on the nutrition label are proportional to the amount of tomatoes in the can. Calories have the most granularity, so:
peeled whole tomatoes: 0.21 calories/gram
diced tomatoes: 0.21 calories/gram
tomato sauce: 0.33 calories/gram
crushed tomatoes (aka puree): 0.41 calories/gram
tomato paste: 0.91 calories/gram
No big surprises there; whole/diced tomatoes have plenty of water in the can, then sauce, crushed/puree, and paste are in order of thickness.
I'm sure it varies plenty by brand, but it doesn't sound like you need a lot of precision (it's not like the recipes specify a brand either), so hopefully that's good enough.
That said, I would probably focus more on just finding recipes you like. You can always adjust the amount of meat and other ingredients to suit your preference, no matter what recipe you start with, but a sauce made with diced tomatoes is never going to come out the same as one made with crushed tomatoes, even if it the same amount of raw tomato went into it.
I wish I could give you a second upvote just for the last sentence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.943648
| 2016-06-03T21:00:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69453",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
}
|
61917
|
Lemon Thyme Substitute
In the following recipe, lemon thyme is used. Unfortunately, I can't find it in my local grocery store.
1) Can I substitute thyme + lemon zest? If so, how much?
2) The recipe notes rosemary and lavender both work and these are significantly easier to find. If I wanted to use these, how much would I use?
I'd be interested in knowing the answer for dried and fresh herb substitutes.
Despite the recipe using metric measurements and spelling, I am American, so if this stuff isn't common in the US, it would be good to know that.
"Lemon Thyme Shortbread (Makes about 20 fingers)
You can add all sorts of flavourings to shortbread, from vanilla and cocoa powder to hazelnuts and almonds. Herbs are good too: rosemary and lavender both work well, as does lemon thyme, which gives the biscuits a lovely delicate perfume.
340 g plain flour, plus extra for rolling
1/4 tsp fine sea salt
225 g unslated butter, softened, plus extra for greasing
140 g caster sugar, plus extra to sprinkle
2 tbsp finely chopped lemon thyme
Sift the flour into a bowl with the salt and set aside. Put the butter and sugar in a mixing bowl and beat with an electric mixer until smooth and creamy.
Turn the mixer to its lowest setting and, with the motor running, add the lemon thyme, then the flour, a little at a time. Stop mixing as soon as the dough comes together. Shape into a flattened ball, wrap in cling film and chill for at least 20 minutes.
Meanwhile, preheat the oven to 180 deg C/ Gas 4.
For shortbread fingers, gently pack the dough into a lightly buttered Swiss roll tin (roughly 30 x 20 cm). Score the surface to mark out the fingers and prick all over with a fork. If you want to make circular biscuits, roll out the dough on a lightly floured board to 5-7 mmm thick, then stam out the rounds using a 6 cm cutter. Transfer to 2 lightly buttered baking sheets, leaving a little space between each biscuit, then prick them with a fork.
Bake for 15-20 minutes until pale golden, checking often as ovens vary and the shortbread can easily burn. Cool in the tin or on the sheet until firm, then transfer to a wire rack to cool completely.
Sprinkle with caster sugar, if you like, and store in an airtight container."
Source: Gordon Ramsay's Ultimate Cookery Course, pg. 279
Lemon zest and thyme would be a perfect substitute for lemon thyme. Lemon thyme is an entirely different species from regular thyme, but the name is very apropos. Figure maybe 1 part finely grated zest to 3 parts thyme. As with all herbs, the ideal amount is really very subjective. Start with half of what your recipe calls for, taste your dough and guess from there. You won't really know until you taste the baked shortbread, but you won't be terribly off either.
As a general rule of thumb, 3 parts of fresh herbs equals approximately 1 part of the same herb dried (whole leaf). If your dried herb is ground (or rubbed), figure just over half of the dried, whole leaf amount. Know that ground herbs and spices lose flavor quickly (as in they are pretty tasteless after a matter of a few weeks).
It means nothing, but I hate lavender: Is there a typical ratio for Herbes de Provence? :)
I love lavender, at least the smell of it. It's so pleasing. Basil is my second favorite scent.
You asked about availability. I'm also in the US and I have never seen lemon thyme in the grocery store, but it grows well in the garden. It is reasonably hardy and I think it is cute and decorative, as far as small shrubby things go.
I multiplied the recipe by 1.25 to fit my pan and used ~6 tsp thyme, 1 tsp lemon zest and a half tsp of lemon juice since I didn't have enough lemon zest on hand. It worked, it seems!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.943832
| 2015-09-22T03:14:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61917",
"authors": [
"Amanda Cooper",
"Audrey Owen",
"Batman",
"Donna Pelham",
"Escoce",
"Jeliesa Fisher",
"NadjaCS",
"Priya Sundaram",
"Simon Gill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83595
|
Drawback of Kullenschliff (Granton) knives
For many knifes are available with or without Kullenschliff while the price differs just a few $ (or few EUR).
The positive effect is that soft and sticky food such as cucumber sticks less on the blade due to air pockets.
For example these two identical knifes with and without Kullenschliff:
WÜSTHOF CLASSIC Cook´s knife No. 4572 / 20 cm (8")
WÜSTHOF CLASSIC Cook´s knife No. 4582 / 20 cm (8")
You can find similar examples for other manufacturers too.
What are the drawbacks of the air pockets?
When is the knife without air pockets the better solution?
(beside the very little higher price)
I think we may have a question that addresses this already... this one, perhaps?
@Catija thank you for the link. That question is rather on the positive aspects. I am only interested in why not to use a knife with air pockets.
The biggest downside I can think of was touched on in the top answer to the question Catija:
In fact, the thickness of the blade tends to have more of an effect than the voids in most cases.
Specifically, in order to have room to add those air pockets without them just being holes, the blade has to be thicker. This is a potential downside in a couple ways:
If you're cutting something big and sturdy, the knife can get wedged in more easily. Winter squash might be the best example. When you're halfway through, the squash is squeezing together on the knife, so it'll be harder to force a thick blade the rest of the way through than a thin one.
If you're cutting something delicate, you'll mess it up more. For example, crumbly or flaky desserts tend to fall apart more when a thick knife blade is forced through them than a thin one.
Of course, thicker blades are also usually heavier (probably still are even with the removed bits), which also has pros and cons. Nothing's ever simple!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.944244
| 2017-08-08T21:58:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83595",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jonas Stein",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34087"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82864
|
What is ' chicken garlic chicken '
I was at a Brewers Fayre pub and saw this on the menu (pictured)
When it arrived it was an egg on top of a garlic and breadcrumb chicken breast. Why call it chicken garlic chicken? The waitress didn't react in the slightest to the name, and it's still on the menu now
Am I missing something here?
Maybe its cause the egg is from a chicken, so you have the chicken cutlet with garlic and a pre-fetus of a chicken in the fried egg? Or a typo they've been rolling with? You could just ask the waitress the next time you're there.
@Batman ah yes, hadn't thought of that, smart idea!
Perhaps they feed the chickens garlic, too...
I've posted my thoughts but I'm afraid this may be something the pub only knows. :)
Yes I think you might be right, still your answer makes a lot of sense, I'll ask next time and update you all!
Please do! I'd love to know the reason!
Maybe it was named by "Bond James Bond" ;)
Purely conjecture but...
You've heard of chicken fried steak... right?
We also have chicken fried chicken... which is chicken prepared in the same way as chicken fried steak. It's different than "fried chicken " because it's a boneless (often pounded) piece of breast meat.
It's amusingly recursive.
So, based on the description on the menu, it sounds like a version of chicken fried chicken but with lots of garlic, so maybe they decided to replace the "scary" word, "fried" with the delicious word "garlic".
Unfortunately this conjecture falls apart somewhat since chicken fried chicken is a staple of the southern US and the menu seems to be from a pub in England somewhere.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.944663
| 2017-07-08T11:36:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82864",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"tomh1012"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77029
|
Sous vide cooker and beer cooler
I just ordered an Anova Precision Cooker. Most of the pictures I have seen show the cookers being used in large cooking pots of water, like Dutch ovens.
Does it make more sense to cook in a small beer cooler, like an Igloo?
Doesn't cooking in mostly-aluminum pots with one of the highest heat conductivities of any metal commonly used in a kitchen cause the cooker to have to work more, and waste more electricity?
People do beer cooler cooks with a sous vide circulator (in fact, its noted by Anova, one of the most common sous vide tool manufacturers) -- primarily for going past the ~20 liter specification of the circulator to say 40-60 liters (e.g. by cutting a hole in the top of a cooler lid and sticking the circulator down in it; spray some insulation in the hole as well).
For a small container (e.g. a stock pot, dutch oven) at room temperature, the common circulators have more than enough power to heat and circulate the water. But, you could wrap the thing with towels (as in the Anova link above) or something to help prevent heat loss. This can help with reaching higher temps too if you're losing a lot of heat. But yes, the circulator would have to work less hard at heating if you prevented evaporation loss and insulated the container.
I normally do meat/eggs, and in my stockpot which I use for sous vide, my Anova (the current bluetooth model) doesn't have a problem maintaining temps. So, I don't use any towels or anything, just because its one more thing to deal with. I suspect most people use dutch ovens or stockpots or cambro containers just for convenience, and also get fine performance from the circulator.
I thought I had an old Igloo Playmate hanging around, but I cannot find it. Walmart seems to have them at about US$13. I may pick one up. Thanks.
@Ralph - You might as well try with a stockpot or something to start; bring it up to the temp you need and see if it holds it. If not, then you can go to gutting a cooler and what not, and using spray insulation and stuff. Simplest cases first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.944823
| 2017-01-02T12:51:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77029",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Ralph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9901"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57359
|
How long can I freeze uncooked rice noodles for (not dried but in sealed bag)
I live in a rural area and don't have transport so when I get chance to shop I tend to buy in semi bulk and I bought several packs of rice noodles (not the dried ones) and put them in the freezer. How long can I keep them in storage? Thanks for any advice.
Welcome pam! According to this article about rice noodles on everything2.com , you should be able to store them frozen for up to 2 months. Excerpt below:
If you really need to store them for a longer period, keep them in the fridge for up to a week, or in the freezer for up to 2 months.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.944998
| 2015-05-10T13:49:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57359",
"authors": [
"Amy Headrick",
"Deborah Nicole",
"Diane Peters-Nguyen",
"Dora Perez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136480"
],
"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
}
|
12582
|
Is it normal to see flames inside my self-cleaning oven?
I spilled some sauce in the oven, so I decided to clean it today.
I wiped the bottom and glass door, but the rest of the stuff was crusty and stuck to the bottom of the oven. I started the cycle and went about my business.
About 15 minutes later I hear a loud POP and saw little flames dancing at the bottom of the oven. I freak out, turn off the self-cleaning feature, grab the fire extinguisher and try to open the door, which wouldn't open.
I later found out this was a safety feature because the temperature inside was close to 480 °C (900 °F).
So, were these little dancing flames and the resulting smoke safe and normal in the operation of the self-clean cycle? If not, what can I do before running the cycle again to minimize flames and smoke?
Damn. That safety feature probably saved your life. For future reference, if you ever see a fire in an enclosed space, let it burn itself out.
900 °C or 900 °F? Please use a proper unit in "900 degrees"
Smoke is normal in an electric oven, but flames are definitely not.
In order to start a fire, you either need a spark, or you need to heat something beyond its autoignition temperature (AKA kindling point). You might have had a short - or you might actually be using a gas oven with spark ignition - but I'm guessing your issue was the latter.
Cooking oil or grease being heated beyond its autoignition point is one of the most common causes of kitchen fires (grease fires). Supposedly, some oils have autoignition points as low as 550° F (or 288° C), though I'm not sure which oils those are. Olive oil would be my guess as the lowest, but pepperoni grease could very well have ignited at self-cleaning temperatures (which, as you noticed, go up to nearly 1000° F).
Fortunately for you, all modern ovens have a mechanical interlock which prevents them from being opened during a self-cleaning cycle. If you'd opened it, you would have made the problem a lot worse by (a) supplying the fire with abundant oxygen, and (b) drawing all the hot air and flames out of the oven and into your kitchen, quite possibly setting your whole home on fire. Heat wants to move to where it's cold; that's why you keep your doors and windows closed in the winter.
There are a multitude of oven cleaners available for self-cleaning ovens - you are supposed to use these before you run a self-cleaning cycle. Yes, I know it's odd, but "self-cleaning" doesn't really actually mean that it cleans itself, it just gives you a little extra help. You need to try to clear out all the grease and big chunks of food first using one of these cleaners, then run the self-cleaning cycle to deal with anything you might have missed.
Thank you for the detailed explanations and the Easy Off recommendation. :) I picked up a can at the grocery store, liberally coated the inside of the oven with it and letting it soak overnight. This morning I was EASILY able to wipe off all the grease and crustiness with a DRY paper towel! I guess that's why they call it Easy Off. Some areas are still crusty, so I'll repeat the overnight soak for them, but this product is GREAT! Thanks again for the recommendation. I don't even NEED to use the self-clean feature now... Easy Off did all the work!
@rosalie: As a very general fire safety rule I would always recommend shutting off the heat source if you see fire, although there's no guarantee that it will actually stop the fire (it probably won't). The most important thing is really to keep it contained; oven or microwave, don't open any doors until the fire is out.
Another thing to add is that, in general, if you are worried about a fire, call the fire department.
The interlock also keeps user from getting burned by hot gases coming from oven. It also protects oven from warping. The thin sheet metal in the oven would probably warp due to drastic variations in temperature caused by opening the oven.
@MichaelMoussa - I used to work form IBM. I have often mused that there was no way that spray oven cleaner would have been allowed on IBM manufacturing floor unless user was in a full hazmat suit. It is a sprayable lye that is extremely caustic. Most users don't take enough precaution while using the product.
You should change the wording of "I'm guessing your issue was the latter". The latter thing you mentioned was "gas oven with spark ignition", but you were actually referring to something you said previously ("heat something beyond its autoignition temperature").
A oven is a box for containing high heat. It really is the best place to have a fire.
Though electric ovens are not supposed to have fire in there they do a fine job of containing it. Even if you somehow manage to set the heating element aflame (I've done this and still don't know how).
Leave it closed and wait for it to go out.
+1 for A oven is a box for containing high heat. Mine usually contains half pizzas.
this happened to me yesterday. The flames were so bad, that my entire oven is charred from it...and the inside panel of tempered glass broke. Fortunately, the fire dept came and made sure everything was okay...but I unfortunately had to go out last night and buy a new oven (it was only 2.5 years old). so much for 2 year warranties.
I suppose this can be interpreted as "no, it's not normal, it can destroy your oven", so it sort of answers the question.
I had a little fire going on in my self-cleaning oven, and I was worried about it too. I called the fire department, and the fire guy was a tad snarky with me. He informed me that that's what happens when you use the self-cleaning feature. No worries.
This isn't exactly correct - while unless the fire is enormous it will be fine, as other answers mention, the idea is to clean it a bit yourself first so that there's not significant fire during the cleaning cycle. So this is what happens when you use the self-cleaning feature on a dirty oven you haven't cleaned first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.945117
| 2011-02-25T15:03:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12582",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Asherah",
"Cascabel",
"Christoph Safferling",
"Dr. belisarius",
"JoelD",
"Jonas Stein",
"MaxW",
"Michael Moussa",
"Not Me",
"Sally",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/858",
"pacoverflow",
"patricia",
"vegcook",
"witchmarta"
],
"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
}
|
3038
|
What kind of coffee grinder is best?
I need to get a coffee grinder. What kind is best? I have heard that burr mills are better; are they worth the extra cost? Which ones last longer?
Update: I ended up getting a Hario hand grinder.
The folks at America's Test Kitchen did a review of coffee grinders and found that the burr mills didn't result in superior consistency to blade grinders.
They found that if you stop grinding every now and then and shake the coffee grinder and grind for a total of 25-30 seconds, you get the best results.
From the video review:
"Lots of people said that these blade
grinders chop the beans unevenly. They
also said they heat up the beans more
because of the friction and that
degraded the flavor of coffee. I had
dozens of people tasting this coffee
and no one picked up flavor
differences between the blade-ground
and the burr-ground. There were
differences in the body but not the
flavor... and we found a way to use
the blade grinders to match that
body.
From the text review:
"We found we could improve the evenness of the blade grind either by grinding in short, quick bursts, with stops in between to shake the grinder to redistribute the grounds, or by shaking the grinder as it ground, much as you would a martini in a cocktail shaker."
Their favorite was the Capresso Cool Grind, Model 501.
They did note that you will need a burr grinder for espresso.
You also need a burr grinder for a French press. Blade grinders are fine for drip coffee, I think, but if you need a consistently fine (espresso) or consistently coarse (French press) grind, you'll likely need a burr grinder for good results.
Note that they had a self-imposed price limit of 50 USD. No self respecting snob would trust existing grinders at that price point -- especially for espresso, where it definitely does make a difference. So at the low end, they're probably right, but I wouldn't trust those results for the general case without further testing.
It depends on what kind of coffee you want to make. If you are making espresso and you're going with a more expensive machine, you'll want to spend some cash on a nice burr mill grinder as well (this will be able to achieve a more consistent grind and result in tastier espresso.
If you are just using a drip or a french press and need a coarser grind, then a regular blade grinder will do nicely. In my experience, you can get a finer final grind from a blade grinder, but it won't be as consistent in the grinding. For a drip or a french press, this isn't such a big deal. However, you don't want to grind too much with a blade grinder or you'll burn the beans and mess up the taste of the coffee.
It can really make a big difference with espresso. coffeegeek.com recommended that you spend as much on your grinder as you do on your espresso machine (up to a few hundred dollars).
I would disagree about the French press. The problem with a blade grinder is that you can't get a consistently coarse grind, so your French-pressed coffee gets gritty.
It sounds like this is for home use, if it were for a coffee shop, you need a burr mill so you can get all the coffee ground uniformly and to be able to vary the grind.
For home use, a burr mill gives you that same uniformity and control over the grind, but they do sometimes need the wheels replaced and they're typically more money. You might be able to use one of the cheaper rotating blade grinders, but you can't get a good medium or coarse grind with them, and you won't get a uniform grind. If you always want a fine grind, they can be good enough.
Burr's are where it's at if you want uniformity and the ability to vary the coarseness for multiple uses (like press vs espresso machine). Plus, the right burr grinder can last years if cleaned properly once in awhile.
Bottom line: blades can give you uneven grinding but for coffee you would fine they are inexpensive. Burr are expensive but the amount of options for grinding make it pefect for espresso and any other needs.
As cheap as possible. I have a $5 grinder from 3 years ago that I still use several times per week. All you need it to do is grind beans. You can spend $20-40 on one, but it will still just grind beans. It will not be exponentially better than a $5-10 one.
Well, this might be true if you're not too picky about your coffee, but the fact is that a simple "propeller" grinder gives you a pretty broad range of gound bean particles, and you'll either not grind enough and waste coffee, or grind too much and get cups of grit. Chacun à son goût of course :-)
Strongly disagree - I notice a significant difference between my $25 Bodum blade grinder and the $10-$15 one I bought from Wal-Mart. And that's just with blade grinders. Grinders just grind beans, yes, but they grind them with differing degrees of consistency. Further, good blade grinders cut the beans while bad blade grinders just bash them to death.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.945609
| 2010-07-23T22:13:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3038",
"authors": [
"Andre Dublin",
"Femaref",
"Harlan",
"Ignacio",
"Jon Galloway",
"Michael Ekstrand",
"Pointy",
"Steve S",
"VoutilaD",
"bguiz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8170",
"mwgarrett17",
"pyko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87035
|
Can I take a glass baking dish from the fridge and put it in a hot oven?
I have a glass baking dish my husband put together a meatloaf in it last night and put it in the fridge. Can I put it right in the hot oven? I think no so I have had it sitting on the kitchen table most of the dish is warmer but the bottom is still a little cold not as cold as it was but cold. I'm scared to put it in there. I have no idea who it's made by.
It would depend on the type of glass.
If the oven is say 300 F then starting from 40 F (fridge) versus 70 F (room) is not a big difference.
If the glass is oven safe then that 30 F difference should not cause failure.
70 F to 375 F is a bigger difference than 40 F to 300 F.
Thanks for running the numbers. I didn't have time and would have done it in Celsius anyway. +1
Thermal breakage of glass and similar bake ware normally is far more common with cooling rather than heating as the applied temperature stress is much faster. That is dumping a hot dish into cold water is much more likely to be an issue that putting a cold one into the oven. The oven is a more gradual heating even when pre-heated. As long as it is an oven safe dish, this answer should be accurate. It is not as if you are putting onto a pizza stone or iron heated to 550+, I hope.
Mine are (British/European) PYREX, which is borosilicate and has better thermal properties than US soda-lime pyrex.
It would almost certainly be OK, but to be on the safe side I'd put it on a room temperature baking sheet (ideally quite a thick one) before putting it in the oven. This will avoid the thermal stress caused by the bars of the shelf. Note that the difference between room temperature and fridge temperature is smaller than the difference between the coolest and hottest ovens you'd cook in.
Why a thick baking sheet? Unless the food is directly in contact with the oven rack, I would expect almost any receptacle to even out hot spots. I've never seen rack lines on my meal unless it was put directly on the rack.
(1) The rack and dish are not going to be absolutely flat. So there will be stresses in the dish due to uneven contact. The pan will just even that out some since it has a thermal mass which will slow the heating of the dish. (2) Also a larger flat surface minimizes local hot spots since metal is a much better heat conductor than glass.
@NuclearWang my reading of the Q is that the OP is worried about the dish cracking due to thermal stress (which MaxW has described). The baking sheet won't just act as a heat spreader but will slow the rise in temperature a little.
Also have to remember that used glass dishes have scratches. Such scratches will weaker the glass. // My notion is that a baking sheet isn't going to make a gigantic difference. But it is something and it would be at least slightly helpful. It is all that one could reasonably do to lessen the stress on the glass dish.
Another point missed is that a glass dish shouldn't be put on the bottom rack of an electric oven. That would put electric coils much closer to some parts of the dish and cause stress due to uneven heating.
I've moved a lot of discussion to chat. If you'd like to continue discussing, please focus on the subject at hand.
A google search reveals claims (e.g., on Wikipedia) that not all kitchen Pyrex-brand glassware is borosilicate anymore. So if you really want the borosilicate performance you might have to move to laboratory equipment - perhaps these petri dishes would suffice for baking or roasting something small. Covers are available too. But they're rather pricey ...
@davidbak PYREX (sold in Europe) is still all borosilicate. pyrex (sold in the US) is not, it’s soda-lime.
It is impossible to answer this question without knowledge of the exact material and temperatures. Perhaps it is made of Pyrex.
The glass will break, if the thermal expansion is not homogeneous and causes high stress. Modern glass and glass ceramics minimize the thermal expansion coefficient a(T). This coefficient changes with the temperature so you can not assume that the effect is the same, if the temperature difference is the same.
The stress is maximized at the fill line, if your glass is heated up on the top, but still cold on the bottom, where the wet food with high heat capacity is.
Say the temperatures are
fridge T_f = 7 °C = 266 K
room T_r = 17 °C = 290 K
oven T_o = 350 °C = 625 K
Q: If the glass can resist the stress of dT_1 = T_o - T_r = 335 K, will it likely resist dT_2 = T_o - T_f = 345 K?
The data sheets of glass ceramics show usually little difference for 10 K variation. You want to lookup a(T_f) and a(T_r).
I expect, that the glass ceramic will withstand heating up from T_f to T_o. A nearly full or nearly empty dish has a constant inner temperature and will withstand a higher temperature difference than a half filled dish.
Bonus: Schott is one manufacturer of glass ceramics and you can look up data sheets on their website, but also view this impressive movie about NEXTREMA glass ceramics while you are waiting for the meal.
Thermal shock resistance of SCHOTT NEXTREMA® glass-ceramics
Some discussed °C/°F here, but in this question neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius but Kelvin is the correct temperature unit if you want to do any calculations.
C and K difference is the same. What makes F an invalid temperature for calculation?
@Paparazzi Kelvin describes the temperature in a physical sense and it is a bad advice to use a different unit for physical properties. But you are of course right that the Kelvin unit is just a Celsius with an offset. It is very complicate and error prone to use F or C for calculations.
Very complicated and error prone? C and F work fine for me.
How about placing your meatloaf in a 'bain marie' - another larger dish, containing warm water? That way, your glass dish can gently adjust to a warmer temperature. I would let it sit til the glass dish no longer feels cold, (change the water to warm again, a few times if necessary - til your glass dish is slightly warmed) then why not put the whole thing in the oven, like that, bain marie and all? I think this will protect your dish quite well. Good luck!
Er what's with marking down my perfectly helpful comment without saying why? So obsessed measuring temperature that you can't even try a practical suggestion? That works - I use this a lot in both directions cold to hot and hot to cold. If I want to put something still warm in the fridge (as I cant just leave it out because I live in a hot climate and it will go off right away) I put it in a bain marie of ice water, chill it quickly and put in the fridge. Works well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.946010
| 2018-01-12T16:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87035",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Jelila",
"Jonas Stein",
"MaxW",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"Tim",
"davidbak",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64393",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56194
|
How long can i cook a bone in Pork Shoulder?
I have cooked bone in pork shoulder many times before and I am about to do it again but I feel the need to experiment slightly...
My plan is to cook the pork shoulder in the oven for 8 hours at 100 degrees celcius (212 degrees faranheit) then transfer it to my smoker, where i shall smoke it for another 8 hours between 90-100 degrees celcius (194-212 degrees faranheit). I'll have internal thermometers etc so i know it will hit the correct temps, i am just wondering if I will end up drying the crap out of it. I can't give a weight on the pork shoulder as I don't have it yet, it will be the entire shoulder though around 4.5 kg maybe
What do people think, good plan or bad plan?
I will be using a temperature probe, I forgot to mention that there would also be a cider bath in the oven and smoker as well. Can't change the order of the cook as I won't be there for the time it spends in the oven (I would have just gone for smoker straight through if I had). Thanks for your advice, I'll let you know how it goes.
I think you are risking some seriously dry meat.
I just cooked a chunk of shoulder (maybe 3 to 4 lbs) for 36hrs ... but it was in an immersion circulator at 158°F (70°C). Your issue is temperature, not time.
Don't cook by time, cook it until it's done (you can slide a probe into all parts of the shoulder with practically zero resistance. That said, 16 hours for a 4.5 kg (10 pound) shoulder doesn't seem outrageous. In fact, at those cooking temperatures, I would be surprised if your pork was done cooking by then. Bear in mind, I am assuming that your intention is to make pulled/shredded pork.
I would suggest starting the shoulder in your smoker, and transferring it to your oven to finish, rather than vice versa. The reason you would want to do this is because you can kick up the temperature in your oven to speed cooking and get past the stall. Temperature control will be much easier in the oven, and it will be the latter part of cooking where you would want to vary temperatures. Otherwise, you are dooming yourself to being stuck waiting an extra 3-4 hours waiting for your shoulder to finish cooking.
I have never done it, but I have seen a guy explaining how to do it and he cooked it for 9 hours in the oven at 110ºC, when it was done it looked pretty juicy and moist. He also said that he would cook it for longer periods, up to 18 hours, so your 16 hours at a lower temperature seems to be fine.
Ideally you should cook to temperature and texture you are looking for you not time. Since size, composition, moisture levels, heating control of your cooking vessel all influence the cooking in ways you really can't account for.
If you have you a temp sensor, just stick in the meat deepest part and cook to approximately 90-95C.
16 hours isn't crazy for that size piece of meat but I still wouldn't base the cook on time alone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.946631
| 2015-03-30T10:01:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56194",
"authors": [
"Avi Berger",
"Connie Miller",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"John Pritchard",
"Mehrab7fm",
"Ranae Truscott",
"Samantha Meyers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"Øyvind Brønstad Rørbakken",
"Анастасія Петльована"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13810
|
How to make pizza that has a fat outer rim?
Possible Duplicate:
Shaping thick crust pizza dough
When I make pizza, I stretch my dough to the wanted size and shape, with even thickness all around...
I'm finding it difficult to understand at which point I leave room for the outer rim...
As I see it, to make a outer rim that is fatter than the rest or the pizza I either:
Leave a thicker outer rim in the dough before putting it in the oven,
Roll the edges inwards to form the outer rim after I stretched the dough evenly, Or
Do nothing and simply leave the edges without sauce, and the crust will form by itself?
Which is it?
And in case it's the first one, how do I accomplish this while stretching the dough?
possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10273/shaping-thick-crust-pizza-dough
@ Jefromi There is a quality answer there too, but the question title here is more clear.
@Matt: Maybe it's more clear to you - not to me. In any case, the point of closing duplicate questions is to help let anyone searching for the same thing using different words find the single place for all the answers. If people want to close my question as a duplicate of this one, that's cool too, but they're definitely the same question.
This is fine by me as well... I'm all for creating an informative database of cooking information. Thanks
If by crust you mean a raised lip, simply pinch/push the edge up all the way around. Leaving the edge free of sauce won't make it rise a great deal more than the rest of the pizza.
Another way to get a lip is to first make a round, hemispherical mound of dough, like a D on its side. Form your hands into a circle and push them into the dough so you have a ring of dough surrounding a central mound, with a little dip in between the two. This ring is your crust.
Finally, push the pizza into shape, spreading the central mound of dough out to form the base, leaving the outer ring/crust in place.
Thank you. I changed the question to reflect what I was trying to ask...
No problem. Expanded my answer a little.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.946906
| 2011-04-06T20:15:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13810",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fokstrot",
"Hilary Knight",
"Kyle Baran",
"Mark",
"Matt Broerman",
"Michele Lacret",
"chris",
"hizki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/670"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7475
|
I bite my nails. How can I keep proper hygiene in the kitchen?
I'm not a professional chef, but I think someone will have this issue, somewhere, and is a chef. A similar question asked about having a cold, but nail biting is much worse due to the obvious amount of cuts one develops on fingers.
Apart from the obvious (and difficult to achieve) goal of stopping the habit, how can I maintain proper hygiene and food safety while cooking?
I would say gloves, but I think it's going to be a problem for complex manipulations, and it could affect the taste of what is prepared. Is there a special brand specifically for this purpose? If not, what other precautions can I take?
You bite your fingernails until they bleed? Ouch... Have you considered switching to Tex-Mex?
maybe make community wiki for multiple answers.
Hi Stefano. I believe that kitchen safety/hygiene questions should be on topic, and since we're just starting to tiptoe into this area, I've edited the question to make it as clear as possible that this is still about cooking. I've tried to keep as much of the original question as possible intact - but let me know if I've inadvertently changed the meaning.
I've heard of people using bitter orange or other flavorings they don't care for on their fingers as a reminder not to bite their nails. Unfortunately, if you're cooking, you'd hopefully be washing enough to get rid of it, and I'd be afraid of it otherwise getting into the food and causing off flavors ... and hopefully you're not biting your nails while cooking, but it might help doing it for other times of the day.
@Knives: yes I do, since I was four years old. My granpa was a similar nail-biter, so I think it's likely to be genetic, because I never met him nor I had any chance of seeing someone doing the action. I just feel compelled to do it, because nails are painful for me and I never have something to cut them easily available at any time.
I also I bite my nails (occasionally until they bleed). Then I took a month off work, and my nails magically grew unmolested! Until I started work again :( So I guess my point is, think about trying to reduce stress too.
Not really an answer to your actual quesion but: straneg as it soudns, I was totalyl unabel to beat my nail-biting habit until I decided that I was slightly longer and shiny nails. Making that decision stick was a LOT easier than decidign to STOP something. Perhaps that may help, too.
There is a basic set of criteria when cooking in any kitchen, either industrial/commercial or personal. These include but are not limited to:
Don't touch your face or hair
Wash your hands frequently
Don't use the "kitchen rag" for
drying your hands after washing them
Sneeze into your elbow pit
Don't taste your food with your
fingers
Keep your cutting boards CLEAN!
Follow the Danger Zone temperature
guide
Don't work in a kitchen with a open
cut (obviously, and I would say, even
if it's bandaged, don't work in the
kitchen until it's partially healed)
Keep your hair back and clothes clean
And generally avoid cross contamination
Obviously, there are more and this should probably be a community wiki for further exploration on the topic.
Great list! I actually pull my shirt away from my chest and sneeze down into my shirt, I feel like this stops more germs that might spray out around the top and bottom of my arm if I were to use my elbow. Not sure if that's a sound method or not but thought I'd throw it out there.
Too funny! I sneeze down my shirt as well!
Don't wear rings, bracelets, etc and keep the nails short.
Whether you bite your nails or not wash your hands thoroughly and keep your hands out of your mouth while cooking. If you have an open cut then wear a bandage and a glove.
If you can't keep your fingers out of your mouth, you must wear gloves. Yeah, it sucks, and it does inhibit sensation, and is a general PITA. Eventually, you should learn to keep your fingers away from your mouth, and THEN you will be able to work glove-less.
Use a nail biting stopping paint like "stop'n'grow". They are food safe, as long as you don't soak your nails in the food, other people won't taste it
You need to keep using the paint for a few years, best with kids, but adults I guess can make the decision? Maybe ask a trusted person to check you have it on every day
NB I use it on the end of Scout scarves, it stops the junior Scouts sucking their scarves
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.947143
| 2010-09-20T22:18:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7475",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ally Harvey",
"Beth Beck",
"Blorgbeard",
"Chef E",
"Display Name",
"Joe",
"Juju",
"Kirti",
"Layna",
"Nipun Gogia",
"Sharon",
"Shog9",
"Stefano Borini",
"aslum",
"ctype.h",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"plor",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"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
}
|
54711
|
Attempting to make Coconut Pringles - dough too crumbly
not a cook here. Attempting to make coconut based "pringles".
here's my recipe:
3/4 cup coconut blended into essentially coconut butter
3/4 cup coconut flour
1 tbsp arrowroot powder
1/4 tsp baking powder
1 cup water with 1/4 tsp salt
the idea was to run these through a pasta maker and cut out thin as possible circles that would crisp into pringly type chips. the dough is too crumbly. i'm assuming lack of starch? trying to make a coconut bacon type thing but in the shape of actual chips. http://www.phoneybaloneys.com/bacon/
any ideas on what i can do to make the dough less crumbly?
Um, your dough has no binder whatsoever. I don't know how commercial Pringles are made, but if you want to handle these like homemade dough, you'll need to get lots of raw protein into them. Starch won't help any. And the method used for commercial Pringles is not sure to help, because yours are so full of fat. Your "dough" is closest to a pie shell dough, out of any known homemade doughs. It's crumbly by nature.
ok thanks for the comment! Do you have any suggestions? eggs? whey protein? i thought the arrowroot powder was a binder? total noob here. thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.947531
| 2015-02-13T21:06:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54711",
"authors": [
"Josh Mudse",
"Kirsten R",
"Mike Riley",
"Tamra Mueller",
"coconutlover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33506",
"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
}
|
110471
|
What is salsa criolla campesina of Nicaragua?
I got some pepper seeds called criolla de cocina peppers. In the seed catalogs, they are said to be essential for "salsa criolla campesina", a condiment of Nicaragua. However, I haven't been able to find a mention of this salsa anywhere, either in my cookbooks or via Google.
Is this actually a real dish? If so, where can I find out more about it?
Note: "salsa criolla" is a general category of salsa across all of Latin America. I'm looking for the specific Nicaraguan salsa that uses criolla de cocina peppers.
Google without the quotes, salsa criollo returns quite a bit of information.
from google, it looks like any other fresh tomato/bell pepper salsa made with the local ingredients, in this case the criolla sweet pepper
I'll update the question. "salsa criollo" is a general category, and doesn't find me a specific recipe for these peppers.
I haven't found a specific recipe so far - but I did find this:
'Criolla de Cocina' is a unique chiltoma pepper from Nicaragua. It is a sweet pepper characterized by a strong flavor, thin walls, and wrinkled appearance (like an oversized habañero). These types of peppers are used in Nicaragua for the classic sauce known as salsa criolla campesina, which combines thinly sliced onions and peppers with tomatoes, salt, sugar, and vinegar, and is served with grilled or fried fish or chicken throughout Nicaragua.
from here.
Of note is that campesina translates to peasant and criolla to creole or native in english, so you might translate the name as the sauce made by the native people (says me with no Spanish beyond a few basic words) - so it is likely a regional dish without a defined recipe - a true dish of the people if you will.
However: look what I just found here: http://www.recetasnica.com/Salsa-Criolla.php. Translated below:
Creole sauce .
Ingredients:
2 Large Tomatoes, Finely Chopped
1/4 Cup of Bitter Orange or Lemon Juice.
1/8 cup of vinegar.
1/4 of Cup of Water.
2 Fine Chopped Chiltomas.
2 finely chopped onions.
6 Fine Chopped Jalapeño Peppers
2 Tablespoons Ketchup (Tomato sauce).
1/2 cup of finely chopped coriander.`
Procedure:
Mix all these ingredients and add salt, pepper and hot sauce to taste (you can also make it without chili). Put it in a separate container. This sauce can be added to any type of food or soup. You can keep it in the refrigerator indefinitely.
Yeah, the quoted text is what's used by all of 5 seed companies that stock these seeds. I wrote a couple of them, and they admitted that they got the copy from the seed grower and didn't know anything additional.
The recipe is promising, except that it only uses a minority of the criolla de cocina peppers, and uses 3X as many jalopenos. I could adjust it, though ...
I'm gonna leave this open for another day or so in hopes of getting someone actually from Nicaragua to speak up. If not, I'll take your answer.
@FuzzyChef - yeah, there was a bit of variation in what the seed companies say, but it was all essentially the same thing, suspiciously similar - I even found it in a book.. It took some pretty deep googling to find the recipe, I think I used the terms Nicaraguan and criolla and salsa then excluded any that weren't in Spanish or from Nicaragua. Looks like it, or a very similar dish is very common elsewhere in South America.
Bob: one of the things I was wondering when I posted my question was whether the peppers were actually from Nicaragua at all, or just a variety created by seed companies.
@FuzzyChef: A bit of googling tells me that the seeds were collected in 1988 from a farmer in Nicaragua, possibly as part of the Roughwood seed collection. How true that is, is debatable, but it seems likely as a lot of the places selling it are very opposed to "big business" style operations.
Yeah, and I've seen that text from other seed catalogs, which means they weren't collected for Baker specifically, which means the info is not trustworthy. It is a Chiltoma pepper, though, and they do eat those in Nicaragua, so it's not totally off-base.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.947678
| 2020-08-29T02:48:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110471",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93825
|
Roughly chopping large batches of hard nuts
For my breakfast oatmeal, I use a variety of nuts. I tend to make large batches beforehand. My biggest issue with the way I do it now, is how to prepare large batches of hard nuts that I'd like to chop roughly.
I have tried several methods:
A blender, or food processor, which grinds the nuts into a paste
Smashing them (covered with a cloth or in a bag) with a rolling pin, which completely pulverizes some and tends to skip a bunch as well
Chopping them with a chef's knife
Chopping them with a knife gives the best results, but it's very laborious and I can only do a handful or two at a time.
I've been trying to search online for suitable methods, but they all seem to use nuts like pecans or walnuts, which really aren't an issue at all. My problems are with Brazil nuts, macadamia nut or even peanuts, for example.
Is there any other tool or technique I can use to get roughly chopped nuts (they don't need to be perfectly even) suitable for an oatmeal mix?
A chopping jar:
(photo from Etsy)
should be exactly what you need.
(You may also want to look at multi-blade mezzalunas, but they're really meant for mincing herbs.)
Pamper Chef has a chopper that is similar to this, but (IMHO) is far superior. I use it for chopping nuts and am happy with the results.
This essentially answers my question because it seems like the go-to tool. I am leaning a little towards Chris' answer, since it provides some alternatives and a bunch of information on chopping nuts specifically.
I find different results using a blender vs a full size food processor (the latter tends to leave some whole while chopping the others rather too finely, while the former tends to make a paste with lumps in). On that basis the food processor is better. It's much more successful if run in brief pulses.
My food processor and stand mixer share a mill attachment that does a much better job of nuts. That's one of the things it's designed for, it's also a stopgap coffee grinder. Again it's better pulsed. If you were dedicating it to nuts, bending the lower blades slightly upwards would probably improve it further.
Mini-choppers/mini food processors are also possible - in general a food processor gives more even results if not too empty. With all mechanised approaches, you'll need a little sorting -- tip everything out and put the biggest bits back in for another few seconds.
Some nuts are also more brittle toasted and chop better, forming less of a paste
I like your answer because it covers a couple of common kitchen appliances, and offers some general information and advice on chopping nuts specifically. Your mention of the mill attachment put me on the right track of finding a similar tool, such as the chopping jar / food mill mentioned in Wumpus' answer. I am not sure which answer I should accept.
@IvoCoumans if Wumpus's answer is eaxctly what you're looking for, then accept that -- acceptance is about what's most helpful to you, the asker. If others find my answer helpful they can vote for it.
Chef's trick: bag them, or double bag, them in a sturdy gallon ziploc bag. Squeeze the air out. Tap the nuts with a rolling pin or sledgehammer (seriously) to break them up. Be careful not to hit too hard or the bag will split.
I like your answer because it does not require a special-use kitchen tool
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.948005
| 2018-11-12T08:48:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93825",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cos Callis",
"Ivo Coumans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"manu muraleedharan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91359
|
How can I BBQ everyday without the cleaning?
I want to BBQ everyday with a small BBQ but I do not want to wait to have to light coals, and then wait on the grill and then clean.
Is there an easier way to BBQ frequently?
I think it's a perfectly valid question after some editing. Some old timers would say BBQ'ing isn't something you can rush - that's what grilling is for ;P
Besides "disposable barbecues" (or "camping barbecues" as we call them here) I don't see how this is possible. I think your options are either to make enough money to have someone clean it after every use, or get someone to make a TV series about you BBQ-ing everyday, and make the producer pay for the clean up. There tends to be quite a gap between TV series and reality, sorry.
Ouch - not sure on all the downvotes
In general a gas grill will get one ready to cook faster than using charcoal. Using gas also cuts down on cleaning out ashes.
If grilling everyday I would clean the next day when the grill was hot, right before I started cooking. And cleaning would be a quick scrub with a grill brush. A periodic more through cleaning might be needed.
If it's a natural gas BBQ you also eliminate the trips for propane (and propane accessories).
DON'T use a grill brush. It will bring you to the hospital! https://www.thespruceeats.com/quality-grill-brushes-333585 Better: heat up the grill, then take tin foil to scrub it.
Not really an answer. You're basically saying 'do something else' rather than answer the question.
Is grilling with natural gas systems the same as a George foreman?
No, @TheBlackBenzKid . George Foreman is simply one brand of grills/bbqs. Generally, grilling can be produced by burning coal, burning gas, or electrical. Gas has the advantage to not have coals or ashes, and get burning on full roar in one second (but you can't buy it in bags).
Sorry @Aganju your last point that you can't buy in bags meaning?
I just meant that buying/storing gas is more complex than buying coal
Some friends bought a gas barbecue and line with tin foil to save on cleaning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.948277
| 2018-07-31T13:41:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91359",
"authors": [
"Aganju",
"Cindy",
"SnakeDoc",
"Spehro 'speff' Pefhany",
"TheBlackBenzKid",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49739"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103742
|
How to cook a Turkey in the Microwave?
I wish to expedite the cooking process of my turkey this year.
How do I cook a full 25 lb. turkey in the microwave?
It must be edible - preferably delicious!
By „cook“, I assume you mean „heated to a temperature that makes it safe to eat“, not a whole bird with crisp skin?
You do know how microwaves work? This is a bad idea.
@Stephie I've updated the question to be more specific
Does it fit, or are you planning to joint it?
NIce try: https://www.khq.com/news/can-you-prank-your-mom-the-pound-turkey-challenge/article_04f4def5-6ed5-5351-ae7b-da5a63aaba50.html
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a prank.
The only feasible way I see is to poach/braise it in liquid, low and slow, but you need quite a sizable microwave for that. However, if you are able to cut the bird to major pieces, maybe it will fit into a regular microwave.
@ChrisH Maybe if I cut it into two pieces?
It may be inspired by a prank, but can be answered, e.g. here.
I agree with Stephie, and I applaud her attempt at an answer. People who are interesting in this "prank" may very well wonder whether it is actually possible and search for answers online. I think it's a really good thing for us to have some informed thoughts on the issue here.
I'm voting to reopen. I agree with Athanasius, this is answerable under the site rules AND it already has a great answer.
Ok, I‘ll bite.
While according to Today.com Butterball posted a recipe, my contradicting answer is
You don’t.
At least not when you want a whole bird with crisp skin. Like this:
(Source)
The inner volume of your microwave is most likely not big enough - for the experiment, I checked my freestanding 25l model: inner space is 215.0 x 337.0 x 354.0 mm, and the turntable has a diameter of 315mm.
No 25-pound bird will fit in that.
Cooking can therefore be done only in batches and you need to cut and portion the bird prior to any cooking attempt. The time needed to sufficiently heat the different batches (and reheating etc, so that you can serve your party) means you will not save any time.
Microwaves cook, they don’t bake or grill and they are notorious for uneven heating. So to get a food safe bird, you need to plan a lot of extra time to ensure heat distribution which will almost certainly mean you need to overcook parts to get the whole entity to a safe temperature. Plus you don’t get the coveted crisp skin (at least not without a few tricks and even then the results are more dry than crisp, believe me, I tried). This means that it will barely meet the “edible” requirement and “delicious” only to those with rather uncommon preferences or expectations.
So if you have only a turkey and a microwave, I see these options or a combination thereof:
Forget about the classic thanksgiving turkey dinner with the whole bird a showstopper on the table.
Find someone who has a suitably large oven, for a 25 lb bird, you will need one that can hold a 16 inch roasting pan and don’t underestimate the needed height. Alternatively, a grill or barbecue, a turkey fryer or other suitable equipment should do.
Cut the bird in parts, ideally separating various kinds of meat (breast, thigh...), find microwave recipes for the different types and prepare multiple turkey dishes.
Get a significantly smaller bird and follow the USDA’s instructions or the ones from Butterball.
Yes! That's the spirit! :)
I applaud you for making the effort with an answer here. I'd just note two things: (1) cooking a roast chicken or small turkey was actually a standard marketing gimmick for early microwave ads (see images here), and (2) it is possible to get somewhat crisp skin in the microwave, and various techniques could actually get better crisp skin. Aside from the size problem, this can be done; just not a very good idea.
I also would second your point about "not saving time." Even with a whole roast bird, the way to counterbalance the unevenness of a microwave's cooking is to use lower power levels, use periodic resting, etc. Microwave manuals of the 1970s and 1980s were filled with such recipes to roast large cuts of meat, etc. (along with special probes and other gadgets supposedly to improve cooking). But to get a somewhat decent result in a microwave for a whole bird, it will probably take as long (or longer) to cook than in a conventional oven.
@Athanasius somewhat crispy ;-) and the answer is based on the 25lb premise.
"According to Today.com" Never, EVER use popular TV shows--especially purported "news" shows--as a source for ANYTHING! Source: me. Worked in television news for 10 years (though not a "reporter") and have a niece who is a television "news" producer.
@Rob hence the link to the USDA.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.948499
| 2019-11-27T17:00:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103742",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Chris H",
"Johannes_B",
"Luciano",
"Rob",
"SnakeDoc",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"moscafj",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121692
|
What key skills are important when preparing onion and garlic
I was reading this column in the Guardian, where Yotam Ottolenghi and Noor Murad are answering questions from readers. One answer which made me pause is this one from Yotam Ottolenghi on key skills to sharpen when starting out as a cook:
There are certain processes so fundamental to cooking that you want to get them right: when you saute onion and garlic, how far to take it and what you are going to get with different temperatures – low and slow for sweetness. A dish can stand or fall on how you cook your onions at the beginning. It’s amazing how important it is.
So, I guess I kinda get what he's going for - depending on how long you cook onion for, it will affect how sweet it is. Similarly it matters if you add a bit of vinegar and so forth.
At the same time, I feel he is being frustratingly vague about exactly what skills it is you need to sharpen for getting better at cooking your onions and garlic.
Can some some chefs more experienced than me please explain in some more depth what key skills it is important to develop for cooking onion and garlic?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/274/67 (and probably others)
My interpretation is that this is a combination of knowing ingredients and technique. How you treat ingredients like onion and garlic, whether you cut, slice, crush it...or turn it into a paste, will dramatically impact the dish. In addition, how you cook those ingredients, whether high heat, and quick to brown, or very low and gently will also greatly impact the results...and there are all sorts of permutations on just those few variables for just those ingredients...add more ingredients and more variables...it can get complicated quickly. However, I believe his point is that building your cooking knowledge from a basic understanding of ingredients, and what happens when you treat them differently is a critically important foundation, upon which you build the flexibility to be creative.
My advice-- play with onions and garlic...observe the difference in flavor as you treat and cook them differently...low and slow, high heat with browning...adding ingredients near the end.... How do you want the flavor to be noticed...background...up front....bright...muted? Notice the impact on your final dish. You just have to get a feel for how your ingredients behave so that you know how to get the result you are looking for.
I don't think this has a name other than "basic cooking skill", it is the same skill as the experts in any field have: based on past observations, predict the effect of your actions.
Let's make a very simple example. Imagine a curious home cook who has cooked attentively for a couple of years. This cook may have frequently sautéed onion cubes as the base of a mixed vegetable pan, and knows how these quickly fried pieces of onion taste. But three or four times, the cook has also made a French onion soup. It contained large pieces of onion caramelized for an hour on very slow heat. Today, our cook wants to make dip, and decides to base it off cream cheese with onions. Now, before cooking, the cook mentally pairs the taste of cream cheese with the taste with sharply sautéed onion pieces, and the taste of cream cheese with slowly caramelized onions. Based on this mental experiment, they decide to make it with caramelized onions.
So, what did the cook do? They have a library of tastes in their head, and can access it, and try out new combinations mentally, and predict the result. And the library includes not only the sensory memory of the taste, but also the knowledge of how to achieve it in the kitchen.
Every cook has this library, at least in a rudimentary form. The difference between cooks comes from:
the scope of the library. My grandma cooks everything to perfection - but she only has a repertoire of around ten main dishes and a handful of desserts. If you give her a novel recipe, she will likely fail, even if trying to follow it to the letter.
the precision in your library. Now this is the reason why these ten dishes get so great when my grandmother makes them - she instinctively knows the exact moment at which to stir the onions in the pan. A novice will try to guess the moment, but will generally do it too early or too late, because they can't yet recognize it - to them, the onions look kinda like they may need a stir already, but maybe not yet.
the resolution of your library. The novice cook in my example above knows only two points on the onion preparation spectrum. Somebody like Ottolenghi might know a dozen or more, and have them all ready for use when needed.
the ability to filter your library. This is an automatic skill which all experts in all areas have, and happens automatically during the "library building". When you are mentally looking at possible solutions for your current situation (the "which kind of onion to use in my new dip" problem), the novice's brain suggests random solutions, while the expert's brain only lets the best ones float up to consciousness. So, if you are a great expert who knows fifteen different ways of preparing onions, when you are imagining a new dish, you won't go through all fifteen internally, you will intuitively think of two or three only, and all of them will be suitable.
And now, if you ask how you get this skill, the answer has a few elements, which you may recognize from other areas.
You have to cook a lot. It doesn't matter how much theory you read, without cooking, you will never get the library in your head. Reading is useful, but as a complement to the practice.
You have to pay attention. This is the clichéd mindfulness - it is so ubiquitous, because it works. If you chat on the phone while you have your onions in the pan, you won't add much to your mental library. If you let your full attention rest on these onions, you will soon know them well enough to play with the taste in your head.
You have to fail a lot. If you have never burnt an onion, you won't get the precision mentioned above. Just make sure that you use your full attention every time you fail, exactly as when you succeed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.948987
| 2022-09-18T01:20:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121692",
"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
}
|
59574
|
Why wooden sticks for ice cream bars?
Why are wooden sticks usually used for ice cream bars?
This seems to hold for every commercial ice cream bar I have ever had, yet I can't find the reason... Why not use plastic instead, for example?
I am not an expert, but I presume plastic can be cheaper to manufacture...
For what it is worth, I remember having ice cream bars on plastic sticks. They had holes in the designed so that you could build things with them after you collected some. So it isn’t completely unheard of.
@Lilienthal this is why I am seriously considering closing the question. As popular as it is, it requires second guessing the motivation of someone's behavior, and this type of question has always been unanswerable. "I'd love to know why" or "I have a guess which will explain it if it's true" are not good reasons to keep a question open.
One element is tradition. The popsicle was supposedly invented by Frank Epperson when he left a drink mixture on the porch overnight in with a wooden stirrer in it. (Some historians have questioned this narrative, however, given that Epperson claimed this occurred in 1905 in San Francisco, but weather records show that it never got cold enough in the 1905 winter there for Epperson's story to hold up.) The choice of wood, according to this traditional story, was somewhat accidental, though given that plastics were not yet available in 1905, Epperson's main choices for stirring would probably have been metal or wood. (And obviously metal would be uncomfortable to hold in a frozen treat, regardless of whether this origin story is true or not.)
In any case, Epperson later patented his invention (including the wooden stick) in Oakland in 1923 and started selling them. Again, this would have been too early for plastic to be a reasonable alternative, so part of the reason for wooden popsicle sticks may just be that they are traditional and familiar to customers.
A business seeking to make a change away from such a tradition would need motivation, either an economic reason (a cheaper but still acceptable product) or an actual product improvement. Given that wooden popsicle sticks are intended to be disposable and already function well, economics would be a primary reason to switch, if there were a cheaper material. But Memj's answer is correct here. It's simple economics: wood is cheaper in this case, which is the reason it is used for various small uniform disposable items from toothpicks to chopsticks, utilizing technology that has been in wide use since the early 1900s. (For more information on the reason for manufacturing and process on producing small wooden items cheaply, I'd recommend Henry Petroski's book The Toothpick: Technology and Culture.)
It's also important to note that some businesses actually have experimented with disposable plastic sticks. The most common type were so-called Elsie Stix or Icetix, which were distributed by Borden Dairy in the U.S. They were intended to be collectible and manufactured to be used as toys after serving their purpose in the ice cream bar. (See photos and further description here and here, for example.)
I would note that these sticks easily solved potential problems brought up in some of the other answers: A series of holes allowed the popsicle to be frozen through the plastic and thus added to adhesion. And the holes also decreased thermal mass and heat transfer, which would negate any potential discomfort from holding a piece of cold plastic, which seems to be a strange concern to me anyhow.**
In any case, these plastic sticks were undoubtedly more expensive to manufacture, but they were marketed as a novelty item. And their interlocking nature and use as a toy required people to buy more popsicles to build with them, thereby providing an economic incentive to justify the added expense.
Without such an economic incentive for "standard" disposable popsicle sticks, and with wooden sticks being traditional, there's little reason for businesses to make a switch to plastic.
** More details about thermal properties: While some plastics are somewhat better at transferring heat than wood, there are many types of plastic which would not be noticeably uncomfortable compared to wood in a small stick, even if they were solid. Note that the thermal conductivity of many standard plastics is around 0.2-0.3 W/m-K, only roughly double that of wood, which is around 0.13 W/m-K. Compare that to most metals, which could actually freeze one's hand to them, which have conductivities which are hundreds of times that big. Specific heat is roughly the same for plastic and wood, and the density of most plastics is only a little higher than birch, which is a standard wood for popsicle sticks. Bottom line is that plastic popsicle sticks would absorb heat somewhat more quickly and stay colder a little longer, but not enough to produce significant discomfort for a small, thin piece of plastic.
But, theory aside, one can easily buy reusable plastic sticks for homemade popsicles -- just search Amazon for "plastic popsicle sticks". (Here's a review comparing 26 different varieties of plastic molds, almost all with plastic sticks/handles.) And I don't think I've ever seen a review complaining about discomfort in holding them. I've also seen multitudes of baby teething toys, for example, which are meant to be frozen and are made out of plastic: the idea of a "damp hand freezing" to a small thin piece of plastic seems quite unlikely.
Holes also reduce the amount of material required to produce a stick with a given degree of strength.
@supercat - yes, of course you're right. And I assume that was one main motivation for producing cheap plastic sticks: the holes save on raw material required. But they also happen to solve a couple of the potential problems discussed in other answers.
If there's a particularly illustrative part of the toothpick book for this question, that might be a good thing to include - one of the comments on the question seems to think that you're "relying on" Memj's answer to demonstrate the price part of your answer.
@Jefromi - if I find something better, I'll post it. The book mostly speaks to the general method of manufacturing small wooden items very cheaply, but I don't think it has a "smoking gun" quote about the current price of popsicle sticks. As I said in my comment above, Memj's answer is supported by available wholesale pricing of large quantities of things like popsicle sticks, chopsticks, and toothpicks, where wood seems to be a fraction of the cost of plastic. In any case, I'd guess this is something that's "common knowledge" in the industry, so it's hard to find a source discussing it.
@Athanasius Fair enough. I'll let you figure out what you think is worth adding into your answer; something about the wholesale prices you've found would be reasonable enough but perhaps there's better things. (I'm deleting the back-and-forth from the question to keep things clean there.)
In terms of bulk price wood is about 3x cheaper than plastic. (I buy both plastic and wood materials for commercial and residential uses in my profession.) Also, wood is biodegradable which makes it safer for the environment if children toss away the stick after they eat the ice cream.
That's surprising - do you have a citation for the price thing?
I also regularly buy wood and plastic for personal projects and I agree with @Memj, wood is much less expensive.
@Jefromi You may be confused since paper bags are generally more expensive than plastic bags, but that's due to manufacturing process, not ingredients
Plastic locks up carbon for many many years which is good too, and saves trees being cut down :-) . Also most plastic is made from by-product of petrol manufacturing, so if we didn't use it for plastic junk, it would be sitting around in huge piles at the refinery
Wooden spatulas (not food grade?) are <$0.01 each in bulk, a plastic mold costs >$0.01 to make and press per item regardless of plastic content from my experience
I wonder if it's partly tradition in addition to economics. In any event, it's not just the cost of materials at play here, but the shape as well. In other words, if wood is cheaper, then why aren't there more disposable wooden spoons? Because wood only works well when the item is uniformly flat, like a stick.
@TFD The carbon in plastic was "locked up" at the point the creature that turned into the oil died, millions of years ago. Sure, making oil into plastic is better than burning it but it's a finite resource that we could better use for long-lasting things than disposable things. The trees that make things like this are fast-growing softwoods that are often farmed.
I've seen and used disposable wooden spoons; the main argument against them is that you can taste the wood and it has a pretty big impact on the food's flavour.
@TFD I was more thinking of the fact that pretty much all consumer goods that are cheap and manufactured are made of plastic, not wood.
Also, if in some cases the manufacturing process does actually make plastic come out cheaper, how do you know popsicle sticks aren't one of those things? The fact that popsicle sticks are all wooden might suggest otherwise, but there could just be another reason (tradition, sticking better).
@Jefromi Depends what country you live in? We have plenty of wooden disposable things here, but we live in country with a "wall of wood"!
@Jefromi local ice-block maker does promotions sometimes with "collectable" plastic sticks, but they always switch back to wood when promo over
To add to the discussion on disposable cutlery, disposable chopsticks are almost never made of plastic. Therefore, I believe that the "straight for wood, everything else for plastic" argument makes more sense.
Given the number of upvotes you've gotten, I'd really appreciate if you could add some citation into the answer. It's not that I don't believe you about what you've encountered in your profession, but it'd be nice to see something that would definitely apply to the materials for popsicle sticks (not sure if that's the same as your profession) and more than just your word.
I would also venture a guess it has to do with the relative friction of the stick and its ability to keep the icy treat from slipping off. To get that same friction, you'd need a highly texture plastic surface, and I'd assume that would also work to increase the cost. IMO the wood wouldn't have any additional bad flavors or smells like plastic could.
A wooden utensil has to be like 3 times larger and heavier to work. Plastic is cheaper as it is far easier to shape and is structurally sound when very thin.
Plastic becomes very cheap when you have a complicated design that plastic can be easily molded into.
I suspect that the rougher texture of the wood (compared to plastic) helps prevent the lolly falling off the stick. However i have no data to back this up.
Besides the other things mentioned, wood is an insulator and is a poor thermal sink.
To explain -- have you ever tried to hold onto something plastic that's been in your freezer? It can be quite uncomfortable. (as can walking barefoot on one of those new plastic decks when it's been out in the sun).
Wood, however, so long as it wasn't soaked, can be held onto without risking a damp hand freezing to it ... both because it doesn't hold a lot of heat, but because it's an insulator, you only have to warm up the surface to make it bearable.
Texture also helps, in that it can make less contact with your skin, thus reducing the conductive transfer. (the same's true for plastic, but they have to specially mold plastic to add texture, which makes it more difficult to release from the molds)
+1: I think this probably one of the more important reasons.
Yes, I've held plenty of plastic things that have come out of my freezer. Unless they are very thick and/or filled with something, it's not uncomfortable to hold them at all. Put a disposable plastic spoon in your freezer and take it out after a few hours. It's not uncomfortable to hold. That's about the equivalent of what we're talking about here.
@Athanasius I prepared some home-made ice bar with disposable plastic spoons -- they were not quite thick enough to manage the weight and biting forces. So I guess you'll need more material. (Or I need better spoons.)
@Raphael - Point taken. I wasn't literally suggesting making ice cream bars with plastic spoons, though. My point was: with a piece of plastic of roughly that size and thickness, did you find your hand getting frozen to the plastic (or at least significantly uncomfortable holding the spoon), as this answer suggests?
@Athanasius I understand. My point is: no, but that may not be enough plastic.
@Raphael - while you're right, the question is whether the difference is significant enough to cause discomfort. I updated my answer below with detailed thermal properties of the two materials (which aren't nearly as different as this answer claims), as well as a link to a site that reviewed dozens of different types of plastic popsicle molds, most of which had plastic sticks. If you can find a link discussing actual plastic popsicle sticks (which clearly exist) which claims they are significantly uncomfortable to hold, I'd be interested.
I think the ice cream sticks better to wood than plastic
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
@DavidRicherby I think the porosity/porous nature of wood would enhance adhesion of ice cream to it. You could probably have the same effect on plastic if it were poros/rough. Porosity or roughness gives rise to more surface area. More surface area can generally lead to better adhesion. Of course, if the ice cream itself was made of non-wetting substance, irrespective of wood or plastic, you would have the lolly fall off the stick!
The plastic could be made textured, but the wood itself will absorb a little bit of the unfrozen liquid, resulting in a tighter bond between the materials.
Not scientific but anecdotal evidence; I had ice cream on plastic sticks, and they are far more prone to fall off.
I have an answer similar to this, but am waiting for the site to update my reputation in order to let me post it, since @Jefromi locked the question.
It's all about the money. Without contacting suppliers you can find wooden popsicle sticks that come in packs of 500-1000 and the prices range from $0.0055 to $0.013 per stick. Some examples:
http://www.joann.com/loew-cornell-craft-sticks/1157809.html
http://www.ssww.com/item/budget-craft-sticks-CS425/
The closest comparable item that easily searchable is "plastic lollipop sticks". The cheapest I could find was a 50 pack at $0.0382 per stick, but most were in the $0.085 range:
http://www.kitchenkrafts.com/product/Plastic-Sucker-Sticks-Primary-Colors/
http://www.rakuten.com/prod/100pcs-plastic-lollipop-sucker-sticks-for-chocolate-cake-candy-mould/275891293.html
As for the thermal 'feel' of the popsicle stick, you can find lots of reusable sticks and molds for home use and they are exclusively plastic. I own a set of the Zoku brand and have never found holding the plastic to be uncomfortable after being stored in the freezer.
Thanks, this is a lot more convincing about price than the answers simply asserting it.
I am not for the bounty, because my answer is by no means complete; but I would like to share my experiences / what I have come to hear with regards to this.
I once had the very same question in mind, while I was at my neighbors during a summer day in the western part of Germany. She had some home-made ice-cream bars
for the children. The sticks were made out of wood.
Her answer was simply „Well, it’s just what they did in the old past, with wood; I carved these sticks out of wood from the logs my husband chopped. But how could I fabricate plastic sticks at home, even if I wanted to?“
Another answer I received was from a man, who worked for a candy company in Germany. He was not really sure why, but claimed that one of the reasons is that some ice-cream bars consist of corn syrups and other syrups that are some what acidic; with plastics, no matter how safe they are claimed to be, breaks down over time by the acidity from the syrup and while it is not an immediate health concern, but might be over the course of time.
Another reason he said, was that one cannot be sure what might occur during the course of delivery by other vendors. If it so happened that the weather is hot and the freezer
in the delivery truck malfunctions, it would be highly likely that the melted ice-cream would not stick as „good“ when it is once frozen again to a stick that is made out of plastic than a wooden one.
Again, just sharing what I have heard.
Personally, I like sticks that are made of wood. It feels better; and as far as tradition is concerned, it reminds of the old times how people were used to enjoy / make things and the way they were used to cook that was more natural.
The second answer seems much more relevant than the first; the OP's not asking about homemade ice cream bars :)
I think the main reason is for technological reasons:
Price (other users says wood is cheaper than plastic)
Grip (no one mentioned, but wood should hold ice more strictly than ice: a flat plastic stick will just make the ice slide away)
Regarding thermal sink mentioned by @Joe , I'm not convinced, I remember I had (when I was a Child) plastic shapes to make homemade Ice Lollies, they had even plastic sticks but they were not cold once removed from freezer (unless those had a special plastic and not a common one).
You saved me from writing an answer with the grip part. Plastic stick with slightly melted ice-cream means certain drop while wood will not let it slip that easy. Plus it's easier for wet fingers from ice-cream dripping to hold the wood.
One major factor besides economics which no one has taken up is consumer perception. Even if you use a biodegradable plastic which may have a lower carbon footprint people will perceive a wood stick as more natural and therefore more environmentally friendly.
Which is not to say that plastics have not deserved their bad wrap.
Another issue is the recent scandals caused both by plastic toys leaking toxins and Bisphenol A in water bottles might have made mother a bit more attuned to what their children are putting in their mouths.
Even if the fear may not always be completely rational since the ice cream is wrapped in plastic... People will be people.
The anti plastic sentiment is relatively recent and still not universal, so this can't really explain why they've been wood the whole time.
Well, ice cream bars predate practical plastics - Chris Nelson is said to have invented the ice cream bar with the eskimo pie 1934. Plastic utensils were not common until the 1950s and the introduction of polypropylene. But I was mostly reflecting on the recent change to wood sticks (for which I only have anecdotal evidence).
Polystyrene was actually invented in the 1800's but practical manufacturing processes and an abundance of cheap oil was not available until after WWII. Without plastics than you really don't have that many other choices if you want an extremely cheap material which is easy to shape and will allow ice cream to stick to it.
There is no recent change to wood sticks. They've been wood the whole time, not just the last 10-20 years as people have started to be irrationally afraid of all plastic, but through say the 80s and 90s when everyone was buying plastic everything.
Because plastic leaves behind toxics, whereas wood doesn't.
There are many types of plastic which are considered safe for food packaging. And many foods which are packed in plastic, including ice cream bars.
And there's also many kinds or wood that are toxic! ;)
http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/wood-allergies-and-toxicity/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.949536
| 2015-08-04T04:04:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59574",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Cascabel",
"Charles Schupman",
"CodeAngry",
"Daniel",
"David Leonard",
"David Richerby",
"Donna Broyles",
"Elaine Lambe",
"Erik",
"GdD",
"George Achache",
"Georgia Christopoulos",
"Gillian Stearn",
"J HRHarris Barnes",
"J.R.",
"Jasmine White",
"Jessica Balog",
"Joe",
"Jonathon",
"Julie Parton",
"Kari Schramel",
"March Ho",
"Max Williams",
"Melody Hesson",
"Morgan Schull",
"Nick Hatzis",
"Raphael",
"Rhonda Benight",
"Robert Fisher",
"Ronda Boots",
"SF.",
"Syed Raza",
"TFD",
"Tertia Koch",
"WetlabStudent",
"Winifred Ho",
"andrewgu",
"baldev patel",
"dearN",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"papirtiger",
"rumtscho",
"supercat",
"Наталья Бондаренко"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63921
|
Can you freeze yogurt
Can you freeze yogurt? It was on sale, and I am going to use it to make smoothies.
There is a desert in the (UK at least) called "frozen yogurt" :)
Yes, yoghurt can be frozen - according to this Canadian government agency, freezing it extends its shelf life to 1-2 months past its sell by date. Note that they do not recommend freezing an opened container of yoghurt. However, considering that it keeps for quite a while in the refridgerator as well you may not need to. This answer point out a couple of issues with freezing yoghurt, namely that it can get separated - if you put it in a blender that may not be a huge issue, as you kinda mix it together again anyway.
I live in UK and am used to frozen yoghurt as a dessert. To work it needs some sugar and churning.
This article might help.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/16/how-to-make-the-perfect-frozen-yoghurt
Here's the recipe..
makes one litre
1l whole-milk plain yoghurt, chilled
100g unrefined caster sugar
100g white caster sugar
1/4 tsp fine salt
1 lemon (optional)
Good luck!
@MarkWildon I don't see the question asking for later eating as yogurt, merely for use in smoothies. I agree however, not about making frozen yogurt.
Welcome to the Cooking Stack. Please take a [tour] and visit the [help] pages for more information on this site and how to write a good question and/or answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.951450
| 2015-11-27T23:39:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63921",
"authors": [
"Adrian",
"Doug",
"George Willis Seje",
"Helen Hardy",
"Mike H",
"Virginia Damiano",
"Wendy Hebert",
"bob1",
"chillidude2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rabbit carrots",
"sew eager"
],
"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
}
|
116130
|
Why do my mini pizzas have microwave trays?
I have these frozen mini pizzas which come with a silver piece of cardboard (see image at the end). I disregarded it at first, but then read the cooking instructions and it says that it is a microwave tray, which you put between the pizza and the plate.
What is the purpose of this silver cardboard tray? Does it make any difference, or would the pizza be identical without it?
If it didn't do anything they definitely would have saved the penny or two it costs to add in cause that all adds up
Could you add a picture? I never seen of those in my area
@AdilMohammed Check out this Google Images search for "silver cardboard". If you scroll down a bit, you'll see a bunch of round trays (often also used for cakes and the like). It's just plain cardboard with a metallic layer on one side (imagine a really thin aluminum foil on cardboard).
@TooTea The one i had was square actually
The piece of cardboard is a microwave browning element.
Ordinarily, most of the heating energy in a microwave is absorbed by water in the food. The result is similar to steaming. The material on the cardboard is designed to absorb microwave radiation and convert it into heat, attaining a higher temperature than boiling water would reach, to allow the bottom of the pizza to crisp up a little and keep it from getting soggy.
In laymen's terms, it partially converts your microwave into a localized oven, giving you slightly toasted pizza instead of a sloppy piece of bread. Do not reuse these cardboard or even with the pizza if the pizza does not completely cover the top. You will damage your microwave and/or set things on fire.
Wikipedia says this is called a Susceptor. Personally, I've mostly encountered them in sleeves for things like hot pockets.
@Nelson In the Lean Cuisine frozen pizzas, the browning element is square, the pizzas are round, and the corners of the browing elements stick out. So it's not possible for the pizza to completely cover it.
@Barmar Hmm, the exact mechanism of these things are actually not standardized. Just pay attention to how hot things get when using it, and if it catches on fire, obviously stop and don't use it anymore.
@Nelson Been using them for decades with no problems.
@Nelson The rule against using metal in microwaves is a bit overstated. It's only certain metals that cause problems, but they don't trust the average user to be able to distinguish one metal from the next, so it's easiest just to say "don't put any metal in". Clearly, Lean Cuisine and other food producers have done the research and know which metals are okay to use, or they wouldn't be allowed to sell them that way.
"What's this contraption that came with my deep frozen lasagne?" -- "Oh, that's a peltier element and a magnetron which absorb heat and convert it into microwave radiation, so that the lasagne gets warm fast on the inside instead of just burning from the outside when you put it in your oven."
It makes a huge difference as it makes the pizza much crisper and allows it to cook all the way through
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.951629
| 2021-06-18T19:01:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116130",
"authors": [
"Adil Mohammed",
"Barmar",
"Brian",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Makonede",
"Nelson",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"TooTea",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94431"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56131
|
Pan size affecting evaporation time
I've got a pasta sauce which I create from scratch. I currently add various ingredients like vegetables or tinned chopped tomatoes that come with some water. One of the steps in the recipe is to simmer away the vast majority of the water.
The issue is that the quantity of the water implies 4H+ simmer times.
Can a bigger pan affect the time taken to simmer, assuming all else is constant?
Edit: The previous pan was roughly the same size as the hob size. The new pan is a bit bigger.
The amount of energy required to evaporate the water stays the same, no matter what the size of the pan is, but a bigger pan could potentially collect more energy since the area in contact with the cooktop would be larger. There is also a larger portion of the water in contact with the pot, making it easier for more energy to transfer to it.
This question on the physics stackexchange basically ask the same question you do here, and states that the surface area of the water will have a significant effect on the rate of evaporation if the stove transfers enough energy. Given that there is no change in the temperature of the sauce during the reduction, the rate of evaporation will be proportional to the surface area of the sauce (as stated in the final formula there).
I guess also that a newer pan could simply be made of more efficient materials.
@Puppy Once you reach a simmer, it won't really matter what material the pan is made out of. It'll only affect the speed at which you'll reach a simmer, which is pretty negligible when dealing with something that takes a few hours.
That's an interesting link in your answer. So the rate of evaporation, assuming that the energy input is enough, is proportional to A- so bigger A, more evaporation.
Exactly, I was a bit surprised myself, I wouldn't have expected it to have that large an effect on the evaporation! @Puppy
Increased surface area could easily speed up the rate of evaporation.
That is what the second half of the answer says, I believe? @Catija
But that's the important part of the answer and you don't even quote the other discussion.
I paraphrase the relevant part, I believe. I changed things around a bit to make everything more clear, but for a quote to make sense I'd basically have to copy the entire answer into my own, in which case you may as well just go to the actual answer. I did try to copy parts of the answer over, but considering that I couldn't get the formulas to work over here, I figured that I'd just state roughly what was said there in my answer, and leave those interested in the actual physics to head over there to read the details themself. @Catija
Yes, it can. The issue is the amount of surface area available for evaporation.
This will result in evaporative cooling which will result in additional heat being needed to maintain that same temperatre (and thus a simmer), but it does mean that you can reduce things faster by putting them in a wider vessel.
You may also be able to speed the evaporation by improving air flow in the kitchen -- moving the moist air away from the cooking vessel.
If you'd like to test this experimentally, you'll need two similar glasses, a sheet pan, and some rubbing alcohol:
pour some alcohol into the two glasses, as equal as you can easily get them.
dump the more full shot on the sheet pan.
wait an hour.
pour what remains (if any) from the sheet pan back into the empty glass.
compare
If there's any left will be a function of the ambient temperature and concentration of alcohol.
In theory, you could speed the evaporation up by using a broader pan. But first, as erikadude noted, it depends on the energy pumped into your sauce. If you are on an electric burner with a fixed size, and put on it a pan much wider than the burner, the sauce in the outer parts of the pan will not get hot enough, and your evaporation rate will go up, but not proportionally to the pan surface.
But the more important point is that there is a reason for the recipe to require that much time. If it prescribes to be cooked for such a long time, then it is a slow cooking recipe which intentionally blends the taste of the ingredients by having them spend a long time on low heat. If you change the times needed, you will change the finished taste. If it is not convenient for you to make a 4h recipe, the better alternative would be to use a different recipe. You could either use recipes which start from a concentrate (tomato paste, ajwar, kyoopoloo would all fit) or choose a sauce which is thickened by a roux or by melting grated cheese into the sauce. This is usually much more energy and time efficient than speeding up a traditional slowcook recipe.
It's my own recipe, and the only important part about simmering away the water is to, well, get rid of the water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.951932
| 2015-03-27T20:02:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56131",
"authors": [
"Alexis Thompson",
"Catija",
"Dawn Smiley",
"Dayna Davenport",
"Joe Rahn",
"John Stephens",
"Kareen",
"Louise dixon",
"Margaret Thompson",
"Phyllis Engel",
"Puppy",
"Sidra Sultan",
"Trevor Mask",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"mike burch"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56979
|
How to convert a specific cake recipe I have to make brownies?
I have a cake recipe which I love it and would like to turn it into brownies. Can someone help me?
- 3 eggs
- 2 cups sugar
- 3 cups flour
- 2 cups powdered chocolate
- 1 cup oil
- 1 cup of bowling water
- 1 tbsp baking powder
Mix eggs, sugar and oil. Add bowling water and let it still for 5 mins. Add flour and chocolate. Mix for 10 to 15 mins. Add baking powder for baking.
Tks!!!!!
Can you explain why you're trying to convert this recipe rather than finding an actual brownie recipe? You'll have to redo almost every amount and it likely won't be recognizable as the original. You can certainly make this recipe as a one-layer cake and consider it a brownie.
To put Catija's question another way: is there something special about this recipe? From the ingredients it doesn't look terribly special, so it seems like you could regard just about any brownie recipe as a converted version of it.
I just love the taste in this cake! But thanks anyway!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.952374
| 2015-04-27T00:35:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56979",
"authors": [
"Aundi Davis",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Kevin Watson",
"Rafa M",
"Simran Seehra-Khan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35160",
"nikkee copus",
"ted dudek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58059
|
To thin chocolate candy coating, how much oil to use?
I am trying to use chocoate candy coating on chocolate transfer sheets. The normal chunk of chocolate candy coating is too thick when melted, so I used vegetable oil to thin it for better spreading.
I used 1:2.5 ratio for this, 20ml oil for 50ml chocolate. It was thin and soft enough for spreading and hardens nicely in the refridgerator.
The problem is, however, that it stays soft and even a little bit runny at room temperature :(
I don't think this is a problem if my chocolates stay in the fridge but it will be problematic when stored outside.
Is my ratio off? Any other tricks you can suggest? Or if you have a golden ratio of your own please share!
P.S.: I used a kroger brand white chocolate candy coating
(SUGAR (SUGAR, CORN STARCH), PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED PALM KERNAL OIL, COCOA PROCESSED WITH ALKALI, CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, NONFAT DRY MILK, MILK POWDER, COCOA, SOY LECITHIN (AN EMULSIFIER), NATURAL FLAVORS.)
I have a hard time imagining a good answer to your question, because I can't pinpoint your goal. There is no "golden ratio" which is good for any case, because each ratio leads to a different consistency. Maybe you can describe in more detail what final consistency you need? Else nobody can guess how much less oil you need.
Yes your ratio is off. After melting if your coating is too thick add vegetable shortening (Crisco) a little at a time until you reach the desired consistency. Start with a tablespoon per pound and add just enough to get to the consistency you need. Crisco is solid at room temperature unlike veg. oil so your final product shouldn't have to stay in the fridge.
Generally speaking, I +1'd the answer about crisco, but I've had some trouble with that method in the past when I made cakepops. Even with oil-based food coloring (Americolor brand if you're wondering), my white chocolate started seizing up a bit, and I used too much crisco trying to compensate. While the chocolate did solidify at room temperature, it took forever, which might not cause a problem in itself, but in the case of my cakepops the coating continued to run down the sticks and made a mess.
I spent some time googling to figure out an option besides crisco, and wound up at "paramount crystals," which sound magical. I have not used them, but Amazon reviews indicate that chocolate moderated with paramount crystals dried quickly and hard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.952499
| 2015-06-06T18:06:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58059",
"authors": [
"Duriel Golden",
"Eddie Franklin",
"Julie Armstrong",
"Matt Lambertson",
"Wally Miller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59362
|
Is there a non-alcoholic substitute for rice wine?
I'd like to cook something that calls for rice wine, but alcohol is prohibited for me. What can I use as a substitute for it?
Hello and welcome! Can you please give us more details such as what you are using it for? That will help us to better tell you what a good substitute may be.
Cook's Thesaurus is of no use here -- all of their recommendations are alcoholic : , much like our question on the topic. Related on the non-alcohol front : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1332/67
I haven't used it, but you might try Kikkoman Kotteri Mirin, also this link.
The first choice would be a non-alcoholic mirin such as Honteri mirin, made by Mizkan, or the Kikkoman Kotteri, mentioned in the comment above. I have a bottle of Honteri mirin and on the bottle it states that it is a non-alcoholic mirin.
However, it should be noted that any of these products containing fermented rice can have trace amounts of alcohol. Even soy sauce can contain alcohol. From Kikkoman :
Is there any alcohol in Kikkoman Soy Sauces?
Kikkoman Soy Sauces contain greater than 2% alcohol by volume. The alcohol is not added, but is a result of the fermentation process. Like wine or beer, our soy sauces are brewed and they are made from wheat, soybeans, salt and water. During fermentation, the wheat starches are broken down to sugars and part of the sugar is changed into alcohol.
So, while you may not see it listed as an ingredient, products may contain alcohol as a result of fermentation processes.
If you want absolutely no alcohol, there are a few other options such as white grape juice, a broth that complements the dish, or an additional amount of another cooking liquid used in the recipe. If your recipe only calls for a small amount, you could replace it with water.
Even fruit juices have tiny amounts of alcohol.
I don't have enough reputation to leave a message, but alcohol in the rice wine will evaporate very quickly, I've seen Buddhists use rice wine in cooking, so it seems okay for them.
...But if you're really strict, I'd say use rice vinegar. Not the dark coloured kind, they are too strong, but the clear, white rice vinegar.
Only a fraction of alcohol evaporates when you cook it.
For more info on Jay's comment, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/659/67
Okay, ignore my first statement (however, I technically didn't state that it will evaporate 100%, just that it will evaporate =p ).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.952722
| 2015-07-26T13:32:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59362",
"authors": [
"Ann Gibson",
"Ching Chong",
"Cindy",
"Jay",
"Jenny PPD",
"Joe",
"Linda Arconge",
"Liza Leano",
"Robin Bear",
"Wize Man",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"lzl",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82807
|
How to know if a recipe is acidic enough for storage/bottling?
I've made some hot sauce that consists of:
Whole large white onion
Jalapenos (about 5, seeds and veins)
Poblanos (about 3, seeds and veins)
Sweet Peppers (about 6, seeds and veins, unknown name, small and bright colored)
Can of roasted tomatoes with garlic
1 Tbsp Kosher Salt
1 Cup of White Vinegar
I blended all of the hard ingredients together until it was a fine puree, then added the vinegar, and blended some more. Then I simmered on the stove in a covered pot for about 20 minutes, until reduced, then blended again before using a wire mesh strainer and plastic funnel to put into cleaned squeeze bottles (most solids removed).
Similar questions such as How to determine if canning is safe? seem to indicate it's all about the acid content.
As does: http://foodinjars.com/2010/08/canning-101-why-you-cant-can-your-familys-tomato-sauce/
My concern is if I don't have enough acid content, or if the tomatoes have caused there to be a risk.
I would ideally like to store my sauce in the fridge for a few weeks (or longer, if conducive to proper home bottling) so that I don't have to think up 101 dishes that use hot sauce all before it spoils.
I've read that a pH of 4.6 is "good"... should I get pool water testing strips and test it against that?
How do I determine if my recipe has enough acid content to safely store longer than a couple of days in the fridge?
How much volume was there before and after you reduced it?
@Catija Only slightly reduced... about maybe 1/4 of the original amount (3/4 remaining)... I'm no pro, so just "eyeballed" numbers ;)
The ultimate solution is just bite the bullet and get a pressure canner, and then you don't need to worry about the pH. Costs a little once, but lasts a long time. If checking the acidity, I'd aim for some lower number to have a safety factor. I don't know if "pool test strips" are the best choice here, either - they are optimized for clear water, and reading a color test on a thick, colored liquid can be tricky at best.
On the surface, the recipe would seem OK, but you can't really go by on the surface. What is is the source of the recipe? Is it a tested, reliable source such as a well-established book, say one in the Ball series or is it a home devised or family one? From the eye ball test, the onion and garlic would yell high pH to me, though all the peppers are well over 4.5. One cup of vinegar is a considerable amount, though, especially if it was say 7.5% instead of 5%.
But eye tests cannot be trusted. No, I would not come even close to trusting pool strips. Those would simply test the pH of the liquid which you know is there, they would not test he solids and without real testing I cannot say that simmering 20 minutes is enough to equalize levels and make the strips accurate. A pH meter, maybe, but still iffy I would think. What you need is a test on the recipe that was canned and then sat for months. Just one person's opinion though.
This is a home-made recipe that I'm experimenting with, so no authoritative source for canning info or it's actual acidity.
(Thanks Catija. Wow was that poor typing on my part. I blame the storms and Earthquake.)
Excellent question! I understand wanting to experiment with your own recipe. I hate following recipes and would much rather develop my own.
Virginia Tech has a PDF file that I consider invaluable to download at Boiling Water Bath Canning. In the downloaded file it says
Only high-acid food with a pH of 4.6 or less can be processed using the boiling water bath method. This is because only high-acid foods prevent the growth of spores of the bacterium Clostridium botulinum which can't be killed by boiling. Foods with a pH more than 4.6 allow the spores to grow.
Everything that a home canner would need to learn and know how to successfully can using a boiling water bath method is included in this 15 page file. It even includes jam and jellies and some information on fermenting foods with advice about possible problems.
Bookmarking your link myself. Would have a suggest that in this case (since I am looking at going to pressure canning myself for easing these types of questions), this type of experimenting might be an example of try pressure canning. Then, when you later open a can, say in 3+ months, PH test it. Everything should be equalized by then, so should be accurate. If it is in the safe zone, and you get the results you wanted, next time you can water bath if you prefer. Just an option.
It's a good file to keep handy, isn't it? Your suggestion is very sound and if I were to make the hot sauce following the OP's recipe, I'd definitely do that if I wished to sell it or give it as gifts to others. But personally (and only my opinion), after all the preparation he did (puree and then straining out solids, if it tested under pH 4.5 (to be safe), I'd have no qualms using it. And I'm a bit of a fanatic to most about safe practices in food prep. I just wouldn't use pool testing strips but look for an accurate testing method meant for food.
I am with you. Don't think pool strips are the right tool. My feel is that acid levels are OK, but that is gut feel only. pH is logarithmic, not simple add and subtract so gut feel can be wrong. I would what to know for sure before doing it in quantity. Botulism is one area I try not to take chances. The odds are slim as long as you play by the rules even if you miss the pH mark by a bit, but, botulism is not your typical upset tummy if you lose on those odds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.952964
| 2017-07-05T22:25:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82807",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jude",
"SnakeDoc",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92520
|
Does re-heating something "reset" the spoil timer?
I cooked a lot of pasta sauce a few days back, and have much of it in my fridge. I intent to use it all shortly, and would prefer to not freeze it.
If I heat it back up in a pot, and let is cook all the way through, does this "reset" the time before it spoils?
I fully understand the consistency will change, and I'm OK with that - I do like a thicker sauce.
Soliciting answers specific to this question.
I'm almost positive there's a question and answer on this stack that covers this, but can't find it. Lacking the actual knowledge about how things work on a bacterial size, I'll just say and repeat what my parents, my parents parents, and, presumably, their parents said: Do not reheat twice. Cook, freeze/cool, cook. Not cook, freeze/cool, cook, freeze/cool, cook.
@WillemvanRumpt Twice Baked Potatoes? lol
@WillemvanRumpt : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16872/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20978/67 . But it might be worth mentioning -- tomato sauce is acidic, so there's a little less risk. But for some things, if you cool it off / heat it up too slowly and don't bring it back up to pathogen killing temp, it might never be safe. (because the bacteria reproduce and go to spore or create toxins that can't be killed at high heat)
And nothing wrong w/ frozen sauce. It comes in handy on those days you're in a rush or bring lazy.
I don't think it is a dup of that question.
"I fully understand the consistency will change, and I'm OK with that - I do like a thicker sauce." - - It will not, if you add a little water)
@Joe: Nothing wrong with frozen sauce indeed. Freezing it by portion is my method of operation. When needed, unfreeze required amounts, prepare, eat, and no need to reheat twice.
@paparazzo: I tend to agree, but that might be because I don't know enough about the subject. The "duplicate" seems to be talking about keeping stuff warm all the time, and periodically reheating it to a high enough temperature. This one seems to cool everything down (freeze?), then reheat it, re-cool it completely, and then reheat it. Whether that matters or not, I don't know. Might be the same from a food safety point of view.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.953377
| 2018-09-28T17:39:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92520",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"OPTIMUS PRIME",
"SnakeDoc",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67385",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58443
|
Can a water bath be used to bake brownies?
I've never used a water bath when baking, but I know that people use it for baking cheese cakes (i.e., placing the cheese-cake form in a container with water), so I was wondering if the same concept could be used for brownies.
Whenever I bake brownies, all the edges become a bit too hard from overcooking. This is not a huge problem because it's only about a centimetre from the edge, and I just cut it off, but I was wondering if a water bath could help.
My main concern is whether the water evaporating would make the environment in the oven too humid and interfere with the batter. I would think the same thing about cheese cakes, but the fact that many people are doing that means it's OK in that case.
Edit for clarification: the rest of the brownie is cooked just right, so I'm less keen to change other variables like temperature and time. I've also started wondering about this because I'm aware of the ability of water to distribute and soften the effect of heat. For example, if I try to defrost meat in the microwave, it will start cooking on the outside before it defrosts in the centre; but if I microwave it in a bowl of water, it defrosts evenly.
You might want to simply ask how to avoid the edges getting too hard. There might be simpler methods than a water bath (like lowering your oven temperature). (See XY problems.)
As @jefromi suggests I would A) lower my oven temperature B) take my brownies out sooner (remember, brownies should be fudgy in the middle!) or C) invest in a light coloured pan that won't radiate as much heat onto the brownies' edges.
I think you should experiment and post the results here. @Jefromi you're totally right but the question is interesting on its own
@Jefromi You're right, but I'm curious as well about the specific method. After your comment, I thought of posting a separate question just on the hard edges, but a similar question already exists, and, interestingly, one of the suggestions is a water bath. In any case, I'll try it next time I'm baking brownies and let everyone know.
It is hard to hermetically seal the edges of a brownie pan, and condensation drips from the lid will do horrible things to a batter. I've tried. Microwave is probably a simpler option.
@WayfaringStranger, thanks. That's the type of info I'm looking for. Perhaps you should post it as an answer rather than a comment with some details. For example, I was just considering leaving the pan open; is there a reason to close/seal it? Re microwave, you mean I can bake in the microwave instead of the oven?
For cheese cakes water bath makes more sense cause you want to avoid burning of the batter by keeping the heat contact directly from the tray.
For brownies the contact of the hot plate is required, and that is how you get a little solid outer part.
When you try to water bath brownies, they would have more or less like cheese cake texture, I actually tried it.
Thanks, Giene! what do you mean exactly by "cheese-cake texture"? Is it soft/smooth vs crunchy? And does that affect the whole cake, or just the parts touching the tin or the top? The goal is to prevent the sides from getting too hard, but preserving the texture in the centre and on the top crust.
Hi Ratler, Cheese cake texture is from the inside prospective. Outside you dont want to be like a cracker hardness for brownies so water bath helps in giving softer texture outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.953684
| 2015-06-22T18:35:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58443",
"authors": [
"Bobby Barron",
"Cascabel",
"DJD",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Lynwood Skipwith",
"Meg Webster",
"Ratler",
"Shawn Harris",
"Vroni Nietzold",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wm Menzies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"shadowtalker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37188
|
How to eat/serve take no tsuyu (たけの露)?
A friend brought me some take no tsuyu (たけの露) from Kyoto.
It looks like this:
I'm having trouble understanding instructions on how to eat it.
It's served with some hot water, then crushed, then more water is added until it becomes sort of a soup?
Is that a picture of the container or the food item? It almost looks like there are seams and those are containers to be opened. Also, you might want to provide a clear picture of the document in case someone who reads Japanese comes along.
@SAJ14SAJ That is the actual dessert, not an enclosure
Place one of the take no tsuyu in a bowl then you pour boiling water over. The rice cake outer layer will soften and come apart as you stir it with your chopsticks and the red bean soup powder inside will hydrate and create a flavorful broth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.953986
| 2013-09-28T20:19:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37188",
"authors": [
"Gem",
"Luca Molteni",
"Ola Ela",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87485",
"mike",
"user445658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84405
|
Elementary Tomato Canning
I don't have the stomach for a proper recipe for tomato canning. I simply "binge" bought an enormous box and am now trying to salvage what I can.
Here is my recipe:
Gently simmer 6 quarts/litres of tomatoes in a batch on the stove for 24 hours, with a modest one tablespoon of salt as preservative.
Wash one-quart/litre mason jars in the dishwasher, along with their covers.
Wait until the tomatoes are slightly less than 100C to avoid cracking the jars.
Once they're at a still-hot but not boiling temperature (70-80C?), fill the jars.
Seal the jars while the tomatoes are still hot.
Let cool down, and then put in the fridge.
The tomatoes are still somewhat whole, and so they're versatile. They can be turned into a sauce or used as is in recipes. I could diligently add them right and left to go through them quickly.
Will the tomatoes keep for three months in the fridge?
The reason that people talk about "proper" trusted recipes in canning is that with anything less than that, all bets are off. Might keep, might not.
That's definitely true of your suggested process: they might keep in the fridge that long, might not, and as a bonus, if you get unlucky, there might be nasty undetectable botulism in there! Tomatoes aren't quite a low enough pH to avoid that, boiling isn't a high enough temperature to kill it either, your process won't even seal the jars, and refrigerator temperatures don't stop it from growing. You're really just using the jars as containers; there's nothing about the process that's actually "canning". You'd get the same results from putting tomato sauce in plastic containers.
And, honestly, a proper recipe is not even much more work than what you're talking about. For example, here's a trustworthy recipe for canned crushed tomatoes, pretty similar to what you want. It's pretty much:
blanch and remove skins
cut into quarters
mash some of them a bit and heat to boiling
add the rest
add acid (citric acid or bottled lemon juice)
put in jars and process (essentially, boil the filled jars for the time specified in the recipe; exhaustive description here)
So basically, that's your process with the addition of acid, and boiling the jars after filling, and it will make them keep at room temperature.
They have a bunch of variations if that's not exactly how you want them prepared.
If you aren't willing to put in that much effort, then I'd really suggest freezing. That removes all of the safety concerns with no complications at all. You can just prepare however you want, put into hopefully smallish containers so you can get at a manageable amount without thawing, and pop in the freezer.
Since you don't indicate that blanching and removing the skin is optional, I assume it's necessary (and to also blister one's fingertips while doing it). Is it necessary for aesthetic reasons (so diners do not get tomato skin stuck between their teeth) or for safety reasons (the skin somehow promotes the growth of botulism)?
I don't think skins in canned tomatoes are particularly pleasant, and it's not just that they could get stuck in your teeth. They tend to curl up once they detach from the cooked tomatoes, for a pretty obvious tough, stringy texture. Blending them til smooth is another option, I suppose, if you don't think they're bitter enough to bother you. You can also use a food mill to remove them easily if you want sauce anyway. As far as I know there's no safety issue, it's just that most people don't really like them so all the recipes include how to remove them. I've never searched too hard though.
From the reuse of the term "process", it appears to have special meaning. I asked for clarification in another comment.
I am not debating that it's much nicer if the skins are removed. I just want the simplest possible recipe, one that will not make me too bitter for having invested a lot of energy if mushrooms appear anyway in the cans when I open them.
@Calaf Well, like I said, there's no safety issue as far as I know, but I have not done exhaustive research, and it's difficult to find with-skins recipes from serious sources because it's not what most people want. And I clarified "process" in the answer.
Stepping back from that, your goals are fighting with themselves. If you want the simplest possible recipe, and regard this kind of thing as too complex, then you have to give up on the idea of canning altogether, or use an alternative like freezing. If you want something that lasts some length of time, then you need to can properly, i.e. invest a small amount of additional effort beyond your proposed plan, and completely remove the risk.
Three non optional steps when canning tomatoes:
use clean jars that you have sterilized and kept hot since in the oven; use new lids that you have heated in hot water to soften the rubber a bit
add some salt and acid - lemon juice is good - according to a recipe and depending on jar size
process the jars in boiling water (10 minutes for 500 ml / pint; longer for larger jars) an inch or more above the lids
One optional step:
blanch them for a minute, drop into ice water, and peel (the skins just aren't very nice in a canned tomato product)
The cooking for 24 hours thing just seems like a whole lot of trouble that doesn't gain you anything in terms of preventing spoilage.
I also sometimes put them through a skins-and-seeds-remover to make sauce, which I simmer for an hour or two to get a stronger flavour. I still add salt and lemon juice jar-by-jar as I fill and process them.
I bought "12 decorative mason 1l mason jars". (I didn't choose the decorative part; that's all there was). Does the word "mason" guarantee they will not crack when 1- they will be in the oven (250F?), 2- I pour the tomatoes, 3- process them in boiling water?
From the small sample I tried so far in a recipe, either the 24 hours were helpful, or these (Roma) tomatoes are nice to begin with: The flavor was sublime. It has nothing to do with canned tomatoes.
Is "process" insider lingo for "fill, close, then dip in boiling water"?
Not dip. Keep in the boiling water for 10 or more minutes according to recipe. Litre jars will need more salt and lemon, and probably 20 min processing. Mason refers to the shape. If they came with lids they don't mind being boiled.
Also, you won't crack glass jars from heating them... you'll crack them from shocking them...ie. letting them get pretty cold and then suddenly dropping them into boiling water, or worse, letting them get pretty hot and then dropping them into something cold. Shock will crack them... but normal boiling won't, so don't worry about that.
The 24 hours of cooking may help the taste, I'm not going to have an opinion on that. They just won't help the not-spoiling. And I think simmering anything for 24 hours is way more trouble than 20 minutes upright in a boiling water bath - even if you don't have the special lifting rack, jar lifters etc that make it simpler still.
Processing times are generally longer than that for tomatoes, from what I've seen, e.g. 35 minutes for pints and 45 for quarts in the one linked in my answer. But yes, in any case, it's not just a "dip".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.954108
| 2017-09-14T15:39:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84405",
"authors": [
"Calaf",
"Cascabel",
"Kate Gregory",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41295"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92513
|
Reprocessing Salsa
I was using a new canner for the first time and while processing salsa I could not get the 10 pound control to jiggle. I processed for approximately an hour and the canner was under pressure during that time.
All the lids are sealed but I’m not sure they reached the 10 pounds of pressure required. I now know that the weight was not on all the way.
Should I reprocess the salsa? It has been 8 hours since I processed them.
It's rare to need to pressure can salsa- it's usually acidic enough to just use hot water bath canning. Can you post your recipe?
@Sobachatina Careful, at-home cooks don't have a way to know for sure. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82807/how-to-know-if-a-recipe-is-acidic-enough-for-storage-bottling
@SnakeDoc- Of course. With all canning it's important to follow a proven recipe- and that's why I asked for the recipe. Salsa recipes generally call for enough tomatoes and added acid (usually lime juice) to put them well into a safe acidity. I actually find it hard to imagine a salsa that basic enough to require pressure canning.
212 degrees for an hour is still adequate to preserve your salsa for a year or so (12-18 months)
at 10 PSI your boiling point would have been increased to 242 degrees which would decreased the amount of time needed in the pressure cooker - The hour you used is enough for a quart jar size at both temperatures
Re-processing it a second time would likely degrade the texture of your delicious hand-made creation
Follow all other safe canning practices and you should be good to go
Hope you enjoy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.954633
| 2018-09-28T12:28:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92513",
"authors": [
"SnakeDoc",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91520
|
Can I dilute double cream with milk to get lower fat content?
I need close to 900 ml of cream 30–35 % for a mousse recipe (which requires part of the cream to be whipped). Is it possible to dilute double cream (48 % fat) with whole milk (3.6 %) to get an average in the range I want?
Using the numbers above, I calculated that mixing 600 ml of double cream with 300 ml of milk should give me 900 ml (if they add up like that) of something with 299 g of fat, which is about 33 %.
Does this make sense or are there any complications I need to be aware of?
Note: The cream/milk packages actually give grams of fat per volume (e.g., 100 ml of double cream has 48 g of fat), but I've taken it to be about the same as percentage by mass since the target fat content is a range rather than an exact figure.
APPENDIX: Since this was mentioned in the answers/comments and it might be useful to other people, here's the formula I used to calculate the necessary quantities to achieve the target fat percentage.
Given two milk or cream liquids with different fat percentage (I will refer to the one with lower fat content as "thin" and the one with higher fat content as "thick"), a liquid quantity Q_target and fat concentration TargetFatConcentration can be achieved by mixing
and
The fraction is a ratio (pure number), but I'm using the word "concentration" instead of "percentage" (which is normally used for fat content) because the products you have (as in my case) might be giving you grams of fat per volume, which is, technically, not a percentage. The point is that units need to be consistent, whatever they are.
Either volume or mass can be used for the "quantities".
It should go without saying that the target concentration can only be between the "thin" and "thick" one; i.e., you cannot dilute a cream by adding a thicker cream to it and vice versa.
For those that aren't in the UK, see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca-nz (look for the heading 'dairy')
Related (not exact duplicates): Why does diluted half & half not make a substitute for whole milk? and Cream based substitute for milk
Can you do it is easy (yes, you can). Should you do it, and will it taste nasty is far harder to answer :-)
This will work just fine. Many people will get the math wrong, but your calculations appear correct. Give it a good stir and everything should come out as expected. Most recipes are sufficiently tolerant that substituting the double cream would likely be fine compared to just using the heavy (if not an improvement).
The only concern would be where the cream is used without any cooking or modifications, like on fruit for example, as the fat won't be completely mixed. However just mixing very thoroughly should fix that.
@GdD, part of it will be whipped and then "cooked" into a mousse, so sounds like it should be OK.
That's fine, I do that all the time @Ratler
I've already tried it, and I got a very nice mousse! So it does seem to work.
That is the number I get:
600 ml × 0.48 = 288 ml
300 ml × 0.036 = 10.8 ml
(288 ml + 10.8 ml) / 900 ml = 33.2%
I think they would mix fine but I'm not positive on that. Mixed in recipe with dry goods like flour for sure they should mix.
Volume versus mass would be very close to the same here as density is close, if not the same.
Those are the exact figures I got. The mixture will go into a mousse, so no flour there, but it will be whipped/heated well.
@Ratler you should have mentioned that you're whipping, that's one of the cases where the substitution might or might not work.
Mixing butter and milk to make cream is tricky (but possible), but the fat in cream is still the same sized microscopic droplets suspended in the same watery medium as milk - it's just the ratios which are different. Just stir and they should be mixed fine.
@rumtscho, I'll update the question to mention whipping, but I've already tried it and it seems to have worked perfectly fine.
Technically, double cream has a minimum fat content of 48%, and could be higher, which might throw your numbers off. That’s unlikely with cream from a large commercial supplier, since they can always make more money by diluting it down to 48%, but I buy unpasteurised double cream pretty much straight from the cow from a local dairy farm, and I have to dilute it with milk for recipes that call for double cream, never mind single.
True, which is why I check the information on the package for the exact figures rather than going by generic names such as "double cream", "heavy cream" etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.954797
| 2018-08-07T15:22:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91520",
"authors": [
"1006a",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Ratler",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57655
|
Does anthocyanin still exist once the purple beans have changed to green during cooking?
When purple beans are cooked and they turn green I understand that is because the anthocyanins are only purple in an acidic environment.
So, when the beans turn green after cooking does that mean there is no anthocyanin remaining?
The anthocyanins are still there; they've just changed color. They're an indicator, like litmus, except that they range in color from red to purple to blue to green to yellow, depending on how acidic or alkaline the liquid is that they're in, instead of just pink or blue.
Red cabbage will do the same thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.955158
| 2015-05-21T04:21:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57655",
"authors": [
"Alice Mayen",
"Gemma McKenzie",
"Naomi Miller",
"Peter Simpson",
"Vicki Poe Wall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144563",
"keyanna daniels"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100165
|
What material is best for cast iron handle covers?
I recently obtained* my first cast iron skillet with a lid. I cleaned it up, seasoned it and am so far happy with the cooking results.
However, it has rapidly become obvious that I need some kind of handle cover, as juggling oven mitts and towels is not really cutting it.
I see that covers are generally made out of one of:
leather
fabric (like oven mitts)
silicone
Which of these materials is best for everyday cooking? Unsurprisingly, leather seems to be the most expensive. I also like the look best, though that's not a deal breaker. Does leather justify its higher price here?
*My neighbor was moving and was about to throw the skillet in a dumpster!
I contacted a local volunteer fire dept. and bought an old pair of firefighter gloves from them and cut the fingers off. It works great!
The best cast iron is always found in the trash. Good work!
The leather would cost more to produce and therefore it is higher in price. I can never justify the high price of leather since some hand bags made of leather cost thousands of dollars
I've never used leather handle covers, but I have used the fabric and silicone ones.
I will say that I am not a fan of the silicone ones. For the 'helper' handle on larger pans, they're the only thing that you can get, and so for that, I'd say they're okay.
But for the main handle? They're too slippery. If you try to hold a larger pan so that the pan is dangling (it's a trick to make it easier on your wrists when scrapping food out of them), the pan starts to slip from out of the cover.
You might assume that I'm using a generic cover that's not properly sized for my pan, but this is a Lodge 12" skillet and a Lodge silicone handle cover.
I've been using the fabric covers for well over a decade, and I've never had a problem with them, even with off-brand ones that seemed like they would have been too large.
I would go with silicone or leather. I used fabric mitts before and the one I used became brittle with the heat.
If you can "obtain" a silicone sleeve for the handle, that would save you the effort of putting on mitts every time you need to handle it. Test the silicone before you purchase it by putting a fire to it. If it burns, it's not real pure silicone.
Good luck!
How does one put fire to a silicone sleeve before purchasing it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.955269
| 2019-07-13T02:49:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100165",
"authors": [
"Huangism",
"J Crosby",
"Rob",
"Scribblemacher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
111102
|
Where did the apples in Japanese Curry come from?
Japanese curry (カレー, karē) is its own distinct style, made with a roux base, mild curry powder, and grated apples or apple puree.
It also has a well-documented origin, having been introduced by British/Indian sailors during the period of British-Japanese naval alliance. This also includes an explanation for why Japanese curry uses a roux base (the navy wanted to add vitamin B1-bearing wheat to the sailor's diet). What it doesn't include is an explanation for when, how, and why the apples became a key ingredient.
Per Chopstick Chronicles:
The ultimate Japanese curry rice secret ingredients “kakushi Aji”, which literally translates to “hidden taste”, are Apple and Honey. These are well-known Japanese curry rice ingredients among Japanese people so it’s not much of a secret anymore. Adding grated apple and honey gives the Japanese curry rice the signature sweeter flavour and is a staple for any Japanese mother’s home-cooked curry.
Apples are not used in Anglo-Indian curries that I've seen or been able to find online. So this leads to several related questions:
Were apples added to standard Japanese curry when it was introduced to the 19th century navy?
If so, were they added for nutritional reasons? Or were apples common in British curries of the time (the book "Curry" does not mention this, nor are apples mentioned in Mrs Beeton's)
If the apples were added later, how did that come about? Was the Vermont Curry company responsible for it?
Thanks for any leads or ideas.
I must have eaten hundreds of variants over the years of Japanese kareraisu [in Japan] & never once noticed apple in it. Meat, potatoes, carrots for sure, but sweet, nope, though I would always order the hottest if there was a choice; perhaps the sweetness is only in the mild variants. British "chip shop" curry [revolting sugary goo] always had raisins in it - so perhaps there is a Raj connection...
Whether or not you noticed it, it's there.
The biggest brand of "curry blocks", sold in Japan and the US, is Vermont Curry, so named because of their use of apples and honey. https://housefoods-group.com/products/en/vmt/
I have seen a few other supposedly East Asian (but in Britain) curries using apples, sometimes in large pieces - so maybe there is a British origin
Chris: if you have citations, that would be an answer.
+1, I like to blend the Java and S&B brands of Japanese-style curry because I can add a little honey and not do any apple. I don't like Vermont because it's too bland for me. But while I recognize apple/honey as a common ingredient in recipes I've seen in blogs and yt videos, I've seen just as many that don't use either. I've just as often read that the use of butter specifically is what makes it sweet... I'll be really interested to see a complete answer to this.
I've always avoided House [probably because it's too sweet; only tried it once or twice 30 years ago, never went back] in favour of S&B [which does contain sugar but not noticeably] but these days all I can get locally is Yutaka which is milder so I have to add chilli powder. The sweetness is also not so noticeable. I have a major personal aversion to sweetness in savoury foods.
@FuzzyChef unfortunately I only have recollections. One was definitely from a book though not one I've ever possessed; the other could have been a family recipe or adaptation. Searching turns up plenty of recipes, but nothing definitive. They could also have been a substitute for a genuinely traditional fruit, that became established
@Tetsujin yah, so you probably aren't eating the curries with apple in them. The only place I've had an actually spicy Japanese curry, though, is in the US; the ones I've had in Tokyo were all very mild.
Curry and apples were both introduced to Japan in the late 19th century. Curry did not receive widespread popularity until the beginning of the 20th century and apples were not introduced to the curry rue until the 1960s (When the sweeter honey and apple curries increased their popularity with children). In 1963 House Foods Corp introduced House Vermont Curry made with honey and apples.
https://gogocurryfranchise.com/the-evolution-and-spread-of-japanese-curry-rice/
Name the company who introduced the apple curry for home cooking, and you have the answer!
Just to chart how British and Japanese tastes for apple in curry developed:
The first published recipe for curry discovered so far in British recipes is from Hannah Glasse's The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, first published in 1747. Page 101 of 1755 edition, as digitised by Google, has a recipe To Make a Currey the Indian Way, which makes no mention of apples.
From the late 18th century to the early 19th century, as the Georgian era yielded to the Regency in the United Kingdom, the Hindoostane Coffee House in London, opened by Sake Dean Mohamed, became the most famous Indian restaurant, and although these dishes were certainly mild in spice (by modern British standards), no mention of the flavours of apple is made in London's first restaurant guide, The Epicure's Almanack, published in 1815.
Fast forward to 1845's Modern Cookery for Private Families by Eliza Acton, and we see a range of curry recipes, including tripe curry, chicken curry (which includes the mention of grated coconut), country captain and curry balls. No mention of apples in any of these curry recipes, but there is this tidbit about making curries on page 333, under the heading for "Madras Curry Powder":
In India there is always something acid in the mixture, as lemons, sour apple juice, or green tamarinds.
This reminded me of another beloved Anglo-Indian favourite, the chutney. Chutney, under its various spellings, reached the English language in the 19th century, and apple chutney was certainly "a thing". On tracing its history, the 1853 Indian Domestic Economy and Receipt Book by a certain Robert Riddell makes no mention of it (its "love apple chutney" refers to tomato chutney), although it speaks about both English and 'native' Deccan apples. Rather, we turn to Georgiana Hill's How to Cook Potatoes, Apples, Eggs and Fish from 1869, where recipe 192 has apple chutney, where raisins and tamarind are used alongside the "sharp apples". Only a recipes down, recipe 200, is apple curry.
Cut some pared apples into large, but not very thick, slices; mix with them an onion chopped up small ; throw this into a pan of butter, which shake over a brisk fire until it attains a rich brown colour. Take the remains of any cold poultry or meat, previously rubbed over with a mixture of one ounce of curry and two ounces of flour ; stir it about well in the pan, and when the butter is quite absorbed throw in a pint of rich gravy or new milk ; simmer it for a quarter of an hour, and serve with sippets of toast dipped into lemon juice.
It was in the 1860s that the Meiji period got underway, and when the Imperial Japanese Navy adopted curry from the British Royal Navy. JapanToday.com covered the earliest Japanese recipe for curry, dating from 1872, in the 西洋料理通 Seiyō ryōritsū (The Expert on Western Cookery) by Kanagaki Robun 仮名垣魯文. We see the establishment of the roux method, but no apples to be seen.
About twenty years later, the 1891 New York-published Tempting Curry Dishes uses apple and applesauce quite liberally in some of its curry dishes, as well as having a recipe for curried apples. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, one domestic servant working at the Manor House in Willerby has in a handwritten notebook a recipe for curry, involving frying "two sour apples", and it is likely this recipe that has been popularised by the venerable "Mrs Crocombe" on English Heritage's YouTube channel. Interesting, the above BBC article reports a comment from head chef of a Yorkshire-based Indian restaurant chain, Mohammed Aslam:
"Lamb and apples is one of the oldest recipes," he said. "It's a southern [Indian] style of cooking, because what they do in the south is seasonal - what they grow, they use, like apples.
Then again, Mrs Beeton's 1861 tome had no apples in the curry recipes; an 1895 cookbook entitled Anglo-Indian cookery at home : a short treatise for returned exiles makes no mention of apples at all. The flavour profile remained, with recipes for British "colonial-style curry" and the revered coronation chicken. These were gradually superseded by a wave of immigration from the Indian subcontinent and a new wave of British curries through the 1960s and 70s.
Thus, approaching the late 20th century, with apple in curry being a regionalism in India and an anachronism in Britain, it appears that a New England take on curry, through one doctor's obsession with honey and apple cider vinegar, a health fad (バーモント健康法 Bāmonto kenkō-hō, the "Vermont Health System") that took off in Japan, intense marketing in the 1960s by House Foods, and now Japanese-style カレー karē is virtually defined by its use of apple and honey. Until the next change in tastes...!
Howdy! While I appreciate all the references, this seems to agree with the accepted answer?
Thanks for the relevant links in this comprehensive answer. Wish I could add +2 :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.955511
| 2020-10-11T17:51:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/111102",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kingsley",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121524
|
Is there a known point of origin for Brined Cheeses?
Heavily brined cheeses, such as feta, akkawi, haloumi, and sirene are popular throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.
It is difficult, however, to find good information on where the practice of submerging cheese in brine originated. It seems to have been present as early as 5000BCE in both Cyprus and the Middle East (according to the Dairy Encyclopedia). Unfortunately, each nationality in the region claims the invention of brined cheese for themselves.
Are there any evidence-based archeological theories about where the practice of brining cheese actually originated? Was it a single place or an innovation that was repeated in multiple places? Or is this one of those things that's so far back in food history that we'll never know?
The Wikipedia page on Feta Cheese's history section has a bunch of references to sources for feta-like brined cheeses.
Yeah, I poked through those. The ones that were available online only discussed the origin of feta cheese in Greece, therefore excluding possible earlier origin elsewhere. Since the Dairy Encyclopedia claims a much earlier origin (5000BCE), I was wondering where that origin was (they don't say, or give a source).
I doubt you’ll find anything conclusive. Salted yogurt will have predated salted “cheese”, and there’s just no archeological way to know which one you’re looking at.
@Sneftel that is a possible answer.
Cheesemaking predates written history and the archeological record is not clear of its origin. It's unlikely there's conclusive evidence. One thing is for sure is that the cultures that existed back then bear no resemblance to now, so nations claiming to be the originator is IMO slightly silly.
Archaeologists have evidence of salt used as a preservative for at least 8000 years, and in locations around the world with widely varying temperatures and humidity. The ubiquity of salt, simplicity of the chemical process, and necessity of preserving food have lead to the same techniques (e.g. dry salting, salt and smoke, seaside surf hanging, brining) being discovered in parallel by numerous cultures.
There is no reason to believe a single common origin exists for brined cheese or that one must exist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.956358
| 2022-08-31T21:07:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121524",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
}
|
64379
|
prevent fiber threads in sweet potato halwa
I like sweet potato and i'm trying out different recipes with it as a main ingredient.
One of them is the sweet potato pudding/halwa.
It tastes good, but i would like to get rid of the threads of fibre that keep getting stuck.
Please suggest how to make the pudding without the threads.
I remove the ends of the sweet potato to avoid major fibrous part.
And the strings are mainly present in the middle part n not near the skin. The potato near the skin is smooth and doesnt contain strings.
Your problem has been discussed here before: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17452/any-way-to-make-sweet-mashed-potatoes-less-stringy. The only difference between yours and the recipe in the other question is the spices, so this is a duplicate and will likely be closed. (But hey: we already have a solution for you!)
i see that the description is similar, but the answer is incorrect. The part near the skin is fine, it doesnt have any strings at all. the inner cylinder has lot of fibers. i guess sweet potato in india grows in a different way than the place where Martha is from.
The answers also discuss that different varieties show a different "stringyness".
This answer is my preferred method -- beat with an electric mixer for a little while, clean off the strings caught in it, and repeat until there are few or no strings clinging to the beaters. I admit I've never tried with different varieties, though :)
I am just throwing this in here not knowing if it's appropriate for the recipe, but what about running the uncooked sweet potatoes through a food processor with a grating disk? Wouldn't that cut the fibers short enough that they'll virtually undetectable?
I think this is still a dup - the accepted answer may not apply to you, but others do. The other question isn't specific to sweet potatoes with stringiness near the skin, just the one answer.
@Escoce If you think that'll work, you might consider posting it on the question there!
@Jefromi I don't know if it would work, it was just an idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.956584
| 2015-12-14T06:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64379",
"authors": [
"Adrien Douglass Addy",
"Anu",
"Cascabel",
"Dale",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Karen James",
"Romani McCuller",
"Simon Savill",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117539
|
Deterring mold on bakery bread
Lately we've been finding that we can only keep quality bakery bread loaves on the counter for about 5 days before they start to mold. We'd like to get a little longer out of them -- say 8-9 days -- because while stale at 1 week, they're still good for toast and croutons if not moldy.
We buy unsliced artisan bakery loves, sometimes from the bakery directly sometimes from grocery stores that get daily delivery. These are large French or sourdough loaves (1lbs to 2lbs), or 1.5lbs whole wheat sandwich loaves. They are generally preservative-free.
We store them on the counter, in a heavy paper bag during humid weather or in a thin plastic bag (like a produce bag) during drier weather (we don't reuse bags between loaves). They are in a shaded spot on the counter. We live in the US Pacific Northwest and do not have air conditioning, so ambient conditions are generally between 40%-70% relative humidity and 60F (15C) to 80F (25C) inside the house, depending on the season. The time-to-mold doesn't seem to vary much with the season, though.
I'd already tried cleaning our counters extensively using soap and vinegar and some moldkiller, and that didn't seem to change anything.
So, question: What else can I do to extend the loaves' time on the counter by a few more days before they go moldy? I am asking for practical tips that you have actually tried, or have citations for real-world testing.
Notes: not looking for advice that involves freezing or preservatives or changing bread brands. I read this question, but it's about changing the bread recipe, not about techniques to preserve a bought loaf. I saw the UV idea, but haven't been able to find anyone who has personal experience with using one and obviously it's quite a project. I've also looked at most of the advice in articles like this, but they don't give sources for their advice or any evidence that they've tested it, and some of it is contradictory.
From my experience with home made (mainly sourdough) preservative-free bread, I think getting more than about a week is optimistic.
I know the closure is rather unsatisfying, because the other question's answers don't offer some kind of great insight. But I think that this is just one of the situations where our desires outpace available technology :)
@rumtscho the chosen answer to the linked question is "freezing", and my question is specifically "without freezing". So I don't see how the other question answers mine.
In fact ... NONE of the answers to the other question apply to mine. One is Freezing, one is a product that no longer exists, and the other is to let it go stale.
Our baker suggests a stone ware or clay pot for storing bread and putting it with the cut, open side to the ground of the pot so that this side is protected and not in direct contact with the air.
Using a bread bin or putting the bread in a linen bag into a bread bin also works very well.
Usually we keep our bread fresh using these methods for a week, speaking for German baker made darker breads with a high part of whole grain flour.
The clay pot ... is this a lidded jar?
Mostly they have a lid out of clay or stoneware but there are ones with wooden lids. To get an idea how they look like have a quick search for römertopf or roemer Topf. These are used for roasting/baking, too
oh! a cloche! those are usually used for baking, but yeah, I could see how those could work.
I did not know this term, thank you . The basic idea is that the pot can regulate humidity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.956805
| 2021-10-17T18:50:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117539",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jmk",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123651
|
How should I use Mole Amarillo Powder?
On a recent trip to Oaxaca, Mexico, I bought an unlabelled bag of mole amarillo (yellow mole) powder from a spice vendor. I neglected to ask them how it should be used in recipes. While I'm used to working with mole negro paste, this is the first time I've dealt with a powdered mole. Also, the resulting consistency for mole amarillo is different from mole negro or coloradito -- it's more souplike.
I'm not sure how to use this in a recipe. Among my questions are:
How much powder should I use for one 2-3L pot?
Should I use water or stock?
How much water/stock should I add to the powder?
Do I boil it before adding any meat/vegetables to the mole, or do I just use it right away? If I cook it first, for how long?
I've looked up some commercially available mole amarillo powders online, but they all have rather vague instructions, and none are consistent with each other. Any experienced advice, from someone who has actually used one?
I have found (through my own experimentation) that:
Use about the same volume of powder as water or stock.
Water or stock can be used.
Flavor is less assertive than mole negro, so milder dishes - shrimp, not carne asada ....
But I could be wrong on any if these. If so, let me know at hkerfoot_at_gmail.com. I was just gifted 2 500-gram bags of powder!
So 1 cup water, 1 cup mole amarillo powder? Loosely packed, I assume?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.957408
| 2023-03-16T19:56:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123651",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51770
|
Is there a difference between freezing meat at 26°F and 0°F?
According to this answer, you are allowed to market turkeys as fresh as long as they haven't been frozen below 26°F. What is the purpose of this law/regulation?
Possibly related is that sushi fish is often "deep frozen" in order to kill parasites, but at temperatures of at least -4ºF, usually -31ºF.
Water freezes at 32F, but turkey contains more than just water. Alton Brown answers this question in his original turkey episode of Good eats. The meat freezes at 26F, so they can call it "fresh" if it's kept at say, 30F (below the freezing temp for water).
The USDA recognizes "frozen" for a turkey as having been brought down to 0F. Apparently the middle range is called "refrigerated" (frozen, but not quite as rock hard as a bird at 0F).
More information here.
Edit: The rules themselves make sense I think. At 30f your turkey meat isn't frozen. Now whether the transport and stores have it at 25f or 27f I don't know how strict they are. I could see turkeys crossing that 26f threshold because of human error.
Edit 2: As Ben pointed out. Surface ice is very likely as the bird itself is below the freezing point of water. Condensation will freeze on the surface as normal. It is the quality of the meat that is of concern.
Explaining why I always have ice on my "fresh" turkey.
Wow that is depressing
@satanicpuppy Surface moisture is still just water (e.g. evaporated from the moist bird) and freezes at 32F like any other water. The freezing point goes down when something is dissolved in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.957554
| 2014-12-19T17:52:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51770",
"authors": [
"Ben Jackson",
"Denise Kirkland",
"Edie Cooper Sicher",
"Jhw",
"Lou Blackett",
"Mary Hanks",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Shani Schneider",
"Sharon Surridge",
"Zombo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4701",
"user2813274"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24395
|
Where to rent vacuum chamber?
I am testing out ideas for edible fruit cocktails that I would like to serve as an opener at a dinner party.
So far, my tests have been successful, but it occurred to me that vacuum sealing, or "compressing" these fruits might intensify the flavor and make for interesting textures. Based on these answers: Is there a way to make compressed watermelon without a vacuum machine?, it appears that an industrial strength vacuum chamber is my best bet.
Anyone know where I can rent such a machine? I'm considering creating my own, but before I commit to this insanity, I'd like to explore my options.
This is an interesting idea, but the question as currently phrased has a couple problems. 1) It's actually multiple questions that should be split up: how to improve your recipes, and where to rent a vacuum machine. 2) The improving recipes part is both overly broad and borderline off-topic. We don't do recipe requests, and you don't give definitive criteria for "improving" the recipes. Are you looking to improve texture, flavor intensity, create new additional options?
Thanks for the comment. You really shouldn't take this stuff too seriously. I've edited the question for clarity (i.e. stripped out all the excitement, joy, and playfulness).
Was just trying to help you get answers to your question. You can keep the list of ideas you have if you want; it was just the part about "improving the recipes" that was kind of unanswerable. Since your focus is now on renting the machine, it's a much more answerable question.
@Derek Hunziker, also Laura here is an official employee of SO, so it kinda is her job to take this seriously ;)
Just a warning to the casual reader: "industrial strength vacuum" equipment is hazardous, especially when large containers of glass or other hard, frangible materials are involved.
A commercial strength home vacuum bag sealer (example: http://www.cabelas.com/product/CABELAS-COMMERCIAL-VACUUM-SEALER/1661927.uts) would give you an acceptable result, would be less expensive, less hazardous, and could also be used for other purposes.
I think you are going down the wrong route. Compressing fruit will intensify the flavor of the fruit and change the texture, but that's not really what you're trying to do. You want to get the fruit to absorb your alcohol and additional flavors. Vacuum can work well for this, but not compression. When you create the vacuum, all the air comes out of the spaces in your food. When you release the vacuum, the air fills those spaces again unless something else does first. So you submerge your fruit in liquid, create a vacuum, and then release the vacuum. The fruit will soak up the liquid rather than air. Voila! So what you're really looking for is vacuum marination rather than vacuum compression.
Fortunately, vacuum marinade machines are two orders of magnitude cheaper than chamber vacuum sealers. You can get a hand one for $15, but you'll probably have better luck with one that integrates with a food saver or some other home vacuum sealing product.
You could also try a syringe and inject the fruit with your solution of choice. Combined with soaking the fruit for a while, this might work quite well too.
FWIW, I use sous vide (under vacuum) compression for infusing alcohol into fruit. I've done it with Malibu Rum and Pineapple Spears and the result is delightful. So you can do it with a chamber vacuum and get both infusion and compression simultaneously. However, if you just want vacuum infusion, as you mention, vacuum marinaders are much less $$$$.
Yes, that's correct. I didn't mean to imply that the chamber sealer wouldn't work, but rather that compression was not really the technique in question here. The vacuum is what's important and there are other ways to do that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.957744
| 2012-06-12T18:15:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24395",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"CircularRecursion",
"Derek Hunziker",
"Jay",
"John B",
"Laura",
"Paulb",
"Sahand",
"StuffyNose",
"Vivian Ho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rackandboneman",
"user6209294",
"voidstar69",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5671
|
Why are my caramelized onions dried out?
I've tried a few different methods of caramelizing onions - several combinations of butter, olive oil, medium heat, low heat, occasional/constant stirring. It seems that no matter what I do, they dry up and turn crispy as they brown. The flavor is there, but the texture is more like onion straws than the soft, juicy onions I'm trying to make. Am I cooking too long? Not stirring enough? I'm sure it's something simple I've just missed.
I am aware of this question. I've followed similar techniques, I'm just not getting the results I'm looking for. I hope that's enough to constitute another question.
Without seeing the result and knowing your exact technique, my best guess is that you're not using enough liquid, or that you're using heat that's too high. High heat will essentially fry the onions, like you would expect by dropping chicken or potatoes into a pan full of hot oil.
Properly caramelized onions should take at least 20 to 30 minutes, I try to go for an hour whenever time permits. I actually stir as little as I can without allowing them to sit long enough to burn. Over-stirring shouldn't be a problem; under-stirring may be.
To start, you want the bottom of the pan to be covered with a thin layer of oil, and then make sure you stir the onions very well to coat them completely right after you toss them in. Begin with the pan on medium-high heat to get the oil up to temperature, once it ripples and you put the onions in you can lower it quite a bit. I rarely put it above 5 (out of 10, glass-top stove), and if I see things going crispy, I'll often drop it to 4. I'd rather take more time and have softer onions.
Are you adding any liquid along the way? Sometime, when doing large batches, 15 minutes in I find that I don't have enough oil in the pan, and I can see them starting to crisp up a bit more than I'd like. When that happens, lower the heat a notch, and add a touch more oil (or, as I prefer, a cube of homemade stock) to the pan. It'll take some practice, but eventually you'll be able to know how much liquid to use instinctively. The reason I prefer stock for my "second add" is because I know the stock will evaporate off, as mentioned in the question you linked to, you don't want to be pouring off flavor at the end of the cooking time, so evaporation is a good thing!
If you're using cast iron, I recommend trying stainless steel, I get much better results with the latter than the former. I'd guess that it's because I can dynamically regulate the temperature better with the stainless steel - with cast iron, once you realize you're at too high of a temperature, it's hard to lower it quickly.
If you need a step by step guide to start you off until you get a feel for everything, there is a great guide here and another here. The difference is that one recommends 1 teaspoon of oil per onion; the other uses 3 tablespoons per onion. I find that for my kitchen, it's somewhere in the middle (I just eyeball so I can't give you an exact number, unfortunately) - but if you try both methods on your stovetop you should be able to use that data to determine the right amount for you.
The last time I tried, I had the burner set to 5, and still had oil in the pan when they started getting crispy. I was actually trying to follow the SimplyRecipes instructions at the time. I'm using a nonstick pan, could that be affecting my outcome?
I think you've nailed it, with high heat being the most likely culprit.
@kecoman: I haven't used nonstick for caramelizing onions in a while, but I don't think that's the problem. If you still have oil in the pan and they're coming out crispy, my guess is that the heat is too high. Although 5 (I assume out of 10?) isn't a lot, it might be hot on your stove, especially if it's gas. I'd suggest heating up the pan at 5 or 6, and then after you drop the onions in, take it down to 3 and see what results you get that way.
I have also found that the lower the heat, the better the result. I will warn not to add stock at the beginning, since you don't want to steam the onions, which will change the flavor and texture. Make sure you start with only oil. Once the onions are cooked through, though, adding stock to keep them moist shouldn't be a problem.
I once had this problem and solved it by slicing my onions a bit thicker.
I've tried caramelizing in the oven with good results. If you want to try that, just put some parchment paper down on a baking tray and scatter your sliced onions evenly and sprinkle with salt and olive oil. I don't remember the exact temperature I used, but one online source suggests 425 degrees F. That was way higher than what I used. Sucrose and glucose caramelize at 320F, so I would try somewhere in between, say 320F and 400F. Move the onions around from time to time and have a quick taste each time you do that to see if they are reaching the sweet spot. This will take at least an hour.
Nice! I've never caramelized in the oven. Sounds like a cool technique to try.
I've asked my wife who does this often. If you have enough oil, then as you fry the onions they will get dry and crispy, but you should have seen the nice juicy stage before that. Our guess then is that your are using too little oil. For 280g of chopped onions use 2 tablespoons of oil. It takes close to 15 minutes to get the caramel color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.958103
| 2010-08-20T21:00:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5671",
"authors": [
"Abee Normal",
"Jackie",
"Martha F.",
"Michael Natkin",
"Morbo",
"Trevor Artingstoll",
"ch.bailey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"kecoman",
"selelee",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57619
|
How are Oil Types Differant?
I recognize that Canola, Vegetable, and Corn oil are all Vegetable-Based oils, but many Recipes call for different kinds of oil. I don't know why. Is there a major taste/other difference between Vegetable, Corn, and Canola Oil? Is there any reason why I couldn't just use Canola for everything?
I know of many popular types of cooking oil including: Soy Bean, Coconut, Olive, Palm, Corn, Vegetable, and Canola. There are so many, and I don't want to have 7 different containers of oil.
Are there a few that I really need to have? How are they different and what should I use them for?
Are you only wondering about those three specifically? If so, I'd say you're free to interchange as much as you like. I'm a fan of canola myself. :)
I know coconut oil is different, and I rarely see olive oil called out, so I'd say yes, just the three
I see no reason not to flip between those choices willy-nilly. They are all fairly neutral, largely unsaturated, relatively high-smoke-point oils. That makes them pretty much interchangeable, and good for shallow frying, deep frying, baking (when unsaturated is desired), and uncooked applications.
I generally keep one bottle of oil that fits that description. I use that oil whenever an oil of that type is called for. I have no loyalty to any particular type (e.g. soybean or peanut).
If the author of a recipe specifies, it's generally just his favorite. There is no real reason for it. Certainly there are differences between the oils, but it usually makes no difference culinarily. The one exception I can think of is super high heat applications, like Chinese restaurant stir-fry or searing steak in hot cast iron. Even in those cases, I never worry about it, the differences don't really matter.
Ratios of saturated/monounsaturated/polyunsaturated fats, and ratios of which kind of polyunsaturated (omega-3/6/7/9) are different for each oil. While the ratio of polyunsaturated fats to each other will mostly be a health matter and out of scope here, the saturated/mono/poly ratio has an influence on consistency at a given temperature (eg the coconut oil mentioned is pasty to solid at room temp), freezing point, and heat/storage stability - poly will break down at high heat more easily, resulting in potential off flavours, and will also reduce room temperature shelf life of the oil.
Taste will also be slightly different, and more different if heat stressed (eg to me canola smells and tastes fishy if it has been fried with even without overheating it).
Also be aware there are unfiltered/unrefined varieties of canola/rapeseed oil on the market, these are rather unsuitable as a frying/sauteing medium.
"Vegetable oil" can be a refined oil of canola,corn,sunflower,soy,safflower,others (but not often since most other oils are just more expensive), mixtures of these...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.958556
| 2015-05-19T20:46:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57619",
"authors": [
"Binod Sharma Neupane",
"Catija",
"Chanelle Peterson",
"Glenna Pullins",
"Kay Wells",
"Luke Channer",
"Mary Kidd",
"That One Actor",
"antonio padilla",
"heriyulianus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"marjan mumu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57391
|
Why does my fry-bread turn out so oily?
I like making fry-bread to go with my chili, but they always seem to be really oily. I like having well browned scones, but I can't seem to do that without plenty of oil, which apparently gets absorbed by the fry-bread.
While this is NOT a "recipe exchange site" this type of question does benefit markedly from both the recipe and a detailed description of how you ad making them now. Click the edit link and put that in. When I make scones I use the oven, not a frying pan or oil...
I had never thought about the oven, how do you do that?
On a baking sheet, in the oven. Close enough to this well-written-and-illustrated version to make it better than me describing mine in more detail: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/scones-recipe
@Encerwal: There are some places that call fry bread "scones". I didn't know what a real scone was until I was 40.
Should I edit my post to say Fry Bread? What is the the difference?
Maybe @JustWondering I am confused because scones are usually not browned or just very lightly golden from an egg wash. To me a scone is most similar to a U.S. Biscuit but not flaky and sweeter. Edit: or maybe add a photo?
Oh. I just googled it! Looks like a Utah thing? Yummy. But not what most people will call a scone.
When making lángos, which is pretty much identical to fry-bread in every respect except the name, there are two keys to preventing an oil-logged outcome:
First, make sure your oil is hot enough, but not too hot. You want to achieve the desired toasty brown color on the outside in precisely the same amount of time as it takes to cook the dough all the way through on the inside, and not a second longer. (Well, OK, so that's exaggerating a bit; you do have a little leeway, but you shouldn't be frying a piece of dough much past the point of doneness just to achieve the color you want; and obviously, you also don't want the outside to be burnt but the inside still doughy.)
Second, when you remove the bread from the oil, blot the excess oil. As in, don't just put it on a metal rack and expect the oil to drip off. Go ahead and use that cookie rack or what-have-you, but line it with a couple of paper towels. Or half a dozen paper towels. Or an I-don't-know-how-people-made-fry-bread-before-paper-towels quantity of paper towels. And then use a second paper towel to blot the top of the bread.
(Important: to prevent sogginess, once you've blotted the bread, remove it from the paper towels, and either serve immediately, or put it in a suitable serving pan in as close to a single layer as you can manage.)
Another aspect that people often mention is how many times you flip the bread. Just like with hamburgers on a grill, there are advocates of the "flip exactly once" method, and advocates of the "flip many times" method, with very little middle ground. I tend to flip once, just because that's less work; I don't actually know if the number of times you flip has any effect on the oiliness of the outcome.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.958920
| 2015-05-12T00:42:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57391",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"James",
"Jean Partridge",
"Jim Gardner",
"Michele Michele",
"Noel Norstedt",
"Preston",
"That One Actor",
"connie taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"user18757977",
"user8151275"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52134
|
Can I make any modern improvements to this Russian cake recipe from 1971?
I found a recipe in a 1971 Russian booklet on holiday recipes, (see it below). I translated it to English. My questions about the recipe will be these:
are there any advancements known to culinary science that will bring this recipe to 21st century?
(I am thinking of things like mixing egg yolks and egg whites separately, mixing liquid and dry ingredients separately, use of baking soda vs baking powder, when to put ingredients together in what order, baking it at what temperature and so on, or is it fine as-is?)
there is no temperature listed at which it is to be baked, but I am guessing 180C
it mentions crushing star anise and cloves. Do I use the old methods and crush them in a mortar and pestle? Or do I use ... a blender? I do have the spices in whole uncrushed form.
in a word, can I make improvements to this cake, to make it better, without changing its authenticity?
The Recipe
3 eggs
200 grams of butter or margarine (1 cup or vegetable oil, better
corn)
2 cups sugar
1 cup of thick (candied) jam
2 cups of buttermilk or yogurt
1 teaspoon each of cinnamon, cloves, star anise (crushed)
1 teaspoon baking soda
about 4 cups flour
Mix eggs with sugar, add the butter, jam, crushed spices, sour milk.
Pour baking soda and flour (flour pour as much as necessary to achieve consistency similar to a thick porridge).
Prepare the form (line bottom with oiled parchment, well-lubricate the entire form and sprinkle it with flour), put it in the mix, filling in the form only as much as 3/4 since the cake will rises.
Bake the cake on low heat in the oven.
Note. You can add chopped and sugared lemon and orange peel, raisins, nuts. If you do not have all of these spices, you can restrict it to 1 1/2 teaspoon of crushed cloves. Instead of jam you can try putting in the same amount honey or preserves. This cake should be kept in cool place, wrapped in a wet cloth and a plastic bag. Thus it can be stored even 2 weeks, but when it is necessary to change the cloth.
UPDATE
I tried baking it today with brown sugar, butter, plum jam and I put just a tad much flour (just under 4 cups which I put in right away), which I compensates with half a cup more buttermilk since the dough was too dense. Then I had it in the oven for about an hour at 180F, but it turned out heavy soggy and a little bit tasteless, despite me pulling it out after a toothpic stuck in the center of cake came out dry.
Next time I will try less flour and white sugar, or maybe even splenda, and olive oil instead of butter. And I will bake it for longer and I might just bake it at something closer to 350F.
It sounds like soft brown sugar would be better in this dark, spicy cake! Also, oil instead of butter would, I think, give a moister texture, especially since you are not aerating the butter and so it is not needed to help leaven the cake. Also, cook it in two halves instead of one large cake and fill and coat it with cream cheese icing (because why not). The whole thing actually reminds me of the Hummingbird Bakery carrot cake recipe but with jam instead of carrots to provide the extra liquid content.
I have to laugh at the idea of a recipe from 1971 being "old".
that recipe is older than me!
This refers to a truly old recipe: How can I make this antique ginger wine recipe using ingredients available today?
@Shai: do you think instead of two halves I can use a single bundt?
@Shai: also, are you suggesting to use soft brown sugar instead of white sugar completely or use half and half?
You do not need to update the recipe ;-)
Please remember that the way the ingredients are mixed / prepared might significantly influence the outcome: It does make a difference whether eggs are separated or not or whether eggs are beaten with butter first, butter with sugar or eggs with sugar or even everything dumped in the bowl at once (yes, there are examples for all these types!).
An anecdote: My mom - a proficient baker - had major trouble with a recipe she'd gotten from my dad's family. Should have been light and tall, was always only half the height as the ones the other family members served. It took her years to figure that it did not require separating the eggs and incorporating the stiff whites at the end. Well, it didn't say so in the recipe, but as she always did it that way, she'd just assumed...
Have you tried the recipe yet? If you did and have hings you'd like different, we might come up with more ideas.
As for the spices:
If you are grinding up whole spices (method doesn't matter much), be aware that the flavour might be much more intense than with pre-ground ones. And a teaspoon of cloves and star anise sounds a bit much - IMHO. I'd probaply aim for 1tsp cinnamon, 1/4-1/2 tsp of anise and not more than 1/4 tsp of cloves.
Regarding temperature:
In baking lingo, a "cool" oven is usually around 150-160 °C - that would be about 300-320 °F
thanks. I have tried it, it is actually a family recipe made before by my mom. One trouble I usually have is not knowing what kind of jam/preserve to use. I have used apricot and peach I think, and they do not seem to affect the flavor, or maybe they do but I don't know it
Indeed, tweaks like those suggested aren't 21st century advancements, they're cooking techniques with real purposes that have been around quite a while. It could be there are things you can improve (if there's anything you don't like) but I doubt any of it is really new ideas.
Taking the spices into consideration - how about something with a bit more "character", like plum jam? What did your mom use?
Oh, and regarding the date and origin of the recipe, I'd guess the jam would have been "whatever could be bought or grew in the garden".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.959193
| 2014-12-31T01:51:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52134",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bethan Waite",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Spatz",
"Jolenealaska",
"Ken Adams",
"Shai",
"Sheryl Morris",
"Skye Jerrolds",
"Stephie",
"dennismv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"mcathywilliamscomcastnet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54798
|
Modernist / molecular cuisine with a microwave?
The microwave is usually frowned upon by ambitious chefs. It provides a convenient way to quickly heat ready made meals or the leftovers from the day before, but it is usually not regarded as a serious kitchen utensil (as is testified by one of the answers below).
However, it seems to me that the unique way in which a microwave delivers heat should open up possibilities for food preparation that simply did not exist before the introduction of this device.
Not being an experienced "microwave chef" myself (in fact I never had access to one until very recently) I ask myself:
Aren't there any crazy avantgardistic or molecular cuisine type ways of preparing food that exploit the specifics of a microwave oven in an unconventional way?
Google "modernist microwave cake"...it is a common technique.
One creative invention that requires the use of a microwave oven is the Frozen Florida - a reverse Baked Alaska. And seeing as this was invented by Nicholas Kurti, it surely counts as Molecular Cuisine. (see https://blog.khymos.org/molecular-gastronomy/history/ )
The inverted baked Alaska, described as a Frozen Florida, consists of a container made out of meringue. The container is filled with an alcoholic liquor and put in the freezer. After a couple of hours, the container is taken from the freezer and put into a microwave oven. The result is a dessert which is hot inside, but remains cold on the outside
I just found something else - a Vacquelin is an egg-white foam stabilized in the microwave oven. I haven't tried it, but it sounds a bit like a cross between warm ice-cream and meringue.
You can fry thin leaves such as parsley in a microwave.
Use a microwave-safe stretch film to cover a plate or a bowl.
Lightly oil the surface and place the leaves.
You can now use the microwave to fry a thin layer of leaves.
here is a molecular gastronomical cheese sauce method https://skillet.lifehacker.com/make-gooey-melty-slices-out-of-any-cheese-with-melting-1778257068
skip the immersion circulator and make it much more simply in your microwave in a microwave-safe bowl
zap everything but the cheese to a boil.
dump in the cheese.
zap another 30 seconds.
stick-blend until smooth.
(whisk or electric beaters just won't make it smooth, stick blend or nothing)
serve your glorious microwave cheese sauce.
very flexible on the types of cheese used
No, a microwave is not a cooking tool. It destroys food. A microwave is a convenience when needing to warm something quickly, it doesn't heat uniformly, when food starts to dry out and burn it does it quickly while another part of the food is still icy cold.
Use the microwave for what it is good for, softening butter (3 times at 8-10 seconds a pop usually works well), TV dinners (which are still better if you take the time to bake them), or softening up some bread.
I use the microwave when I don't have time to cook properly or to warm something up conventionally. That's what it is good for. Warming and reheating leftovers faster than usual.
EDIT: I stand corrected. Apparently there may be something avante-guard about something cooked on the edges but still cold in the middle, but we aren't talking black and blue here.
Aside from being wrong, there are cookbooks full of things you can make in a microwave, you haven't addressed the question at all. Conceivably there could be some "crazy avantgardistic or molecular cuisine type" recipe that deliberately makes something cooked on the outside and icy in the middle, for example.
I'm sorry, but this is a little unnecessarily negative. As you say, there are things it's actually perfectly good for, and your list isn't complete. For things that can properly steam or boil, the heat evens itself out and they can't dry out. It's possible you're right that there's still nothing unique you can do (obviously you don't need a microwave to steam/boil) but you haven't really said that in a convincing way.
boiling in a microwave is dangerous. That fact has been documented over and over. Water can become superheated before it boils, which means it simply hasn't been given a vehicle to bubble off steam, such as the heated bottom of a pan or speck of dirt in the water. Without going through experimentation in the microwave, if you want to see superheated water, start up your fryer and spritz a little water in there from your wet finger tips. That popping is the water exploding popcorn like because it didn't boil off before it exceeding boiling temp.
Boiling water is dangerous regardless of how you boil it... Any way try this; Pork belly, microwave on 10% power for 60 to 90 minutes until fat is rendering, then grill (broil) for 20 minutes at 200°C until skin is crisp and bubbly. Same result as in the oven for hours, and much less power used
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.959661
| 2015-02-16T17:26:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54798",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Elysabeth Irvin",
"Escoce",
"Gail Price",
"George",
"Gerda Trant",
"Jayne Leatherby",
"Ladonna",
"Mary Gabbard",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sheri Hale",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"julie goldberg",
"moscafj",
"Екатерина Гусева"
],
"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
}
|
54411
|
Does preferment add sourness to taste of bread?
I have made bread using both sponge and preferments. The sponge bread does not taste as sour as preferment bread.
Does preferment add sourness to taste? What other flavors can we expect? What can I do to obtain other flavors excluding sourness?
Preferment (this is what I do): I raise a part of the total dough over night (12 -16 hours). The dough contains only yeast (nothing more). There is no special process. Just letting it sit in a pot overnight or during day for 12 - 16 hours.
I thought sponge is kept for a smaller amount of time as compared with pre-ferment. Other than that I don't know any difference.
Can you clarify your terminology? In most contexts preferment is used as a general term that can include many distinct processes including prolonged autolysis/soaker, sponge/biga/poolish, pâte fermentée, or sourdough starter.
Is my question clear now? @Didgeridrew
I'm afraid it's still not clear (to me). I use "sponge" and "pre-ferment" to mean the same process (cf. sponge vs. straight). Are you contrasting sponge and straight? Also, I do not use salt in any pre-ferment or sponge that contains yeast...
@hoc_age I too understand it to be the same except that preferment means letting it raise for a longer period of time. I corrected the error - My mom does not add salt or sugar when prefermenting
I would add a slight clarification to hoc_age's great answer, since the question mentions using "only yeast" and does not mention sourdough explicitly.
Assuming the question is referring to commercial yeast, a long pre-ferment can still result in some sourness in the flavor. However, unlike sourdough, the types of bacteria and acids produced may not be as consistent. Sourdough cultures are selective environments that only grow certain types of bacteria, like certain Lactobacillus strains, which can survive in an acidic environment.
Flour and water mixed with commercial yeast is generally not a particularly acidic environment, so all sorts of things will grow -- and your dough will resemble something like the early stages of a brand-new sourdough starter, with a variety of naturally occurring yeasts and bacteria, many of which live naturally on flour or come from air or water. Eventually the waste products from the yeast and bacteria will create acids.
In comments, the question of acetic vs. lactic acid came up. The quantity of acid produced by yeast is not appreciable. However, bacterial fermentation will produce both acids (and a few other minor ones in very small quantities). In general, the ratio of these two acids depends on a number of conditions as well as the ingredients. Fermenting at higher temperatures and with a wetter pre-ferment (e.g., a sponge) will increase the lactic acid production compared to acetic acid, while dry-dough fermentation at lower temperatures will often have a stronger acetic acid taste. Note that acetic acid is more volatile and thus gives a stronger taste and smell, so not very much of it is required; it also has greater mold-inhibiting properties than lactic acid. (This is probably the original association of particularly "sour" dough with prospectors in cold temperatures; in those conditions, the bread produced could taste much more sour.)
So it's not only time but temperature and hydration (i.e., "wetness") of the pre-ferment which will effect how much sourness and the type of sour flavors produced. (In sourdough, the initial amount of starter used in the pre-ferment will also be significant.)
The question asks how to avoid excessive sourness. Aside from the advice mentioned above -- especially pre-fermenting at warmer temperatures and with higher hydration -- one can also just use a soaker instead (i.e., water and flour, and perhaps other ingredients -- particularly grains -- without yeast). If the goal is to maximize other flavors beyond sourness, a soaker will allow enzymes to break down the grains and release flavors, but acidity will be less without the yeast. Another possibility is to use a "mash," which is effectively a soaker heated up somewhat to speed up and maximize enzyme activity. Sometimes various dough enhancers (e.g., malt powder) can also be used instead or in addition to speed up flavor development.
Your question has a couple layers, so I'll peel those away one at a time!
What causes sourness?
Sourness (the taste, speaking generally) is caused by acidity. The acid (i.e., sourness) in sourdough is created by bacteria (e.g., Lactobacillus spp. which are generally benign and sometimes beneficial, such as inhibiting the growth of some harmful bacteria). More bacteria makes more acid, and more time permits bacteria to make more of the acid, and to multiply. Hence, more time (generally) makes more bacteria and more acid.
Fundamentally, pre-ferment does add sourness to the taste bread, for the aforementioned reason: the extra fermentation time (of the pre-ferment portion of the dough) permits additional time for bacteria to cultivate and produce acid.
The other part of your question makes a distinction between time: The time duration of pre-fermentation does have an effect on sourness. This is for the same reason: More time permits more acids to be produced by the critters in the dough, which makes the bread more sour. This is supported by your experience: What you're calling "preferment bread" has a longer first (pre-)fermentation stage, and you report it as more sour; in contrast, your "sponge bread" has a shorter pre-fermentation, and you report it as less sour.
I'm using some hedge-words ("generally", "basically", ...) because there's undoubtedly a lot more happening with interactions of starches, acids, enzymes, bacteria, yeast, etc. than I'm discussing here.
I hope it helps! Have fun with your sourdough. Let me know if I've missed the point, or missed part of your question.
More musings below the cut...
Your question (and associated dialog) got me to think about the connotations of terms. This glossary includes some definitions and examples of terms, and how certain types of pre-ferment (e.g., biga, poolish, sponge, pre-ferment) have subtly different connotations. But basically a pre-ferment by any name consists of flour, water, and some source of yeast: either a previous pre-ferment, commercial yeast (e.g., active dry), or some other source (e.g., grape skin).
Other SA questions for additional reading... This question discusses sponges and pre-ferments as pertains to sourdough. This question discusses the soaker as a non-yeast-containing portion of dough, which permits more autolysis ("self-digestion" by enzymes that exist in the flour/grain itself) without necessarily much fermentation.
Other sourness musings... Even straight dough ("single stage" mixing all ingredients together at one time; i.e., without using any pre-ferment technique) can become (desirably) sour; using less yeast and a correspondingly longer fermentation time will produce a similar (albeit less pronounced) effect. Separately, actual acid could be added directly to the dough, as suggested by this KAF recipe, but that's not necessary or common.
Wow! Thanks for the excellent answer! I will accept it in a few days. It answers all points of my question. The delay is to basically see if some other thoughts can be obtained on the topic. I have one question though. Would not yeast itself cause production of acetic acid? (upon further fermentation of ethanol). I mean acetic acid, being an acid can cause sourness, right?
Thanks for raising an interesting topic! Acetic acid will surely also yield sour taste. The KAF link above states that acetic acid is (relatively) more sour than lactic acid, but I can't find any more-reputable reference. According to Wikipedia on acetic acid, it looks like the bulk of acetic acid is also produced bacterially. The Wikipedia article on fermentation and other sources suggest that some yeast produces acetic acid, but I can't tell to what relative extent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.960063
| 2015-02-05T01:40:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54411",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Kathy Trathen",
"Kroman Renasanx",
"Nicole Cantwell",
"One Face",
"Sharon Ward",
"Viel Malabanan",
"Zafar Yazdani",
"gio heuvel",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54765
|
Can I make risotto without wine?
I want to make risotto without using any alcohol. I am a vegetarian and I want to use vegetarian or mushroom stock only (without any meat).
What is the role of wine in making risotto? Does it help in getting the consistency or does it add flavor?
What can I substitute instead to get a comparable flavor?
see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44638/is-there-a-substitute-for-port-wine-in-a-dessert-risotto?rq=1. I wouldn't close as a duplicate, because the other question is about a sweet red wine, but the general principle is very much the same.
I too do not drink alcoholic beverages, but I make my risotto with wine or vermouth. Eating risotto is not drinking an alcoholic beverage. :-)
@EricLippert I am not so much concerned about drinking alcohol as getting alcohol into my circulation, which taking alcohol in any form will achieve :P
@CRags there's a big difference between drinking alcohol and using it in cooking. Alcohol evaporates quicker and more eagerly than water (at 78 degrees celsius not 100), so a long simmering process (such as risotto) that boils off liquid will also result in alcohol evaporating, it's the other parts of wine that are supposed to remain for the flavor.
@Peteris Yes but all alcohol does not evaporate. I don't want even an inkling to be in my circulation. I do agree that eating food to which alcohol was added during cooking is far removed from drinking alcohol. For that matter I tend to avoid cough syrups with ethanol in it.
@Peteris: (In all seriousness this time) alcohol actually cooks off more slowly than a lot of people estimate. Yes, faster than water, but just as you don't cook the risotto until all the water is gone, you often don't cook it until all the alcohol is gone either. If the OP has a medical or philosophical reason to want to avoid all alcohol, I wouldn't put any in the risotto.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1332/67
You actually cannot cook out all of the alcohol, no matter how long you cook it. There was some thermodynamic reason for it, I forgot the name. But yes, if somebody wants to stay 100% alcohol free, they cannot use it in sauces.
@OneFace what is the purpose for keeping trace amounts of alcohol out of your system? Are you an addict, or is there a specific medical contra-indication for avoiding it? Alcohol is really just a simple sugar that happens to make red blood cells sticky. That's what makes you tipsy, a measured but usually non-harmful reduction in oxygenation of your brain cells so long as you don't over do it. Anyway, no judgement here, just looking to understand why so can better advise.
@Escoce There are also quite a few religions that prohibit, or at least frown upon, alcohol consumption, even in such trace amounts. For some people it's simply a moral choice.
Yes, all it is, is flavour.
Apple juice and grape juice are 2 things I've used in the past for non-alcohol people. You can also get away with not using anything as a replacement as long as you use enough of everything else (butter and Parmesan etc).
Wine just gives a little depth and a sort of 'freshness'.
Edit:
I just read the vegetarian part of your question. I'm assuming you already know, but Parmesan isn't vegetarian, as it is made from rennet (rennet is extracted from the lining of the inside of the stomach of mammals), and most commonly from the fourth stomach of young calves. The vegetarian substitutes I've tried in the past (Called pasta cheese), are not great. However, unlike Parmesan, Gruyere is allowed to be made with vegetable rennet and tastes great (I personally prefer it over Parmesan).
I wouldn't recommend either apple juice or grape juice as substitutes for wine. They're much, much sweeter than wine: after all, wine is grape juice with a large proportion of the sugar removed. Of the two, apple juice is probably the better, especially if it's reasonably tart and/or you add some lemon juice to it. Different wines taste of all kinds of different things but none of them tastes like grape juice.
Once reduced down neither wine nor grape juice taste like they did before reduction. The point is a little freshness, not to taste like wine. Plus as a substitution for a teetotal it works great. I know from experience (my grandparents have been teetotal all their life and this is how I've cooked for them in the past, plus Muslim friend's)
This is a bit late, but still: Often, juices contain some alcohol from naturally occuring fermentation (less than half a percent). While that is not significant in any practical sense, if the OP wants to absolutely avoid any trace of alcohol at all, that probably rules out using most juices for cooking (or drinking).
I've made risotto plenty of times without wine (as it's not something that I typically keep in my house).
The main issue is that wine is both acidic (which can affect how quickly things break down when cooking, like onions), and it's a solvent (so it helps to distribute other flavors). Although it does add some flavor on its own, you typically won't miss it.
Personally, I just use extra onions, and sometimes add a splash of a sweet vinegar (rice or cider) with the first addition of liquid.
I don't use butter or cheese in my risotto, as I find that those can dull some of the other flavors.
I agree completely. Although I've never added vinegar before, I think I'll definitely have to give it a go. I do like to drizzle balsamic reduction over the top for serving though. I think in my post where I said "freshness", really what I was referring to is the acid. It just helps clean your palette. With heavy and rich (fatty) ingredients like butter and cheese you need an acid to clean it up a little (Think washing up liquid for your tongue).
@Doug : people often describe acid as giving 'brightness' to a dish, to differentiate with what you'd get from adding fresh herbs. (although, some fresh herbs at the end wouldn't hurt, either).
yes again this is what I fall freshness :-) can't beat a good handfukk of chopped parsley to tidy up the flavour.
Rather than respond on my own, I would simply say that I would have combined this answer with the one from ethalfrida below. Wine is not required. It is a flavor enhancer and there are lots of creative ways to substitute for that flavor you can use. However, as a standard stcok for the cook, I would use Vegetable Broth. if you hadn't mentioned the vegetarian aspect, I would have said chicken broth. But that is what is so great about risotto. You can influence the flavors quite easily based on what you use for broth and other accouterments.
Since I'm a picky Risotto eater, I usually only make the one kind of flavoured Risotto (Cranberry,Mushrooms, Ramson, PineNuts,S&P) & I use my granny's foundation recipe, that does calls for wine, but she and I both substitute the wine with juice made from Elderberries. But if I don't have EBjuice at hand, I add a splash of Lime or Lemon, and up the broth for liquid and acidity.:)
You can usually substitute vegetable or meat stocks for the wine/alcohol in savory dishes.
It's not necessarily the wine that is necessary, it's more of the freshness and acidity. You can imitate this by adding a little bit of citrus (lemon) to brighten it up. Fresh herbs may help too!
I have an Italian recipe that my mom had and her mom had and it goes on and on. I have never seen any recipes online that has my moms and I'm surprised. It is a great creamy risotto and I make it. I'm a full-blooded Italian. My dad was and so was my mom. This risotto is the best I have ever had. It doesn't have wine in it. I make a sauce with my spices. It's only 1 can. Most people just use wine. I think sauce is much better. I boil a chicken for the broth. I add the rice to the sauce in a large pan. I continue to add the broth to make it thicker. I stir steady on medium for 45 mins. straight and at the end I use Asiago cheese after I grate it. The meat in my sauce that I use is gizzards. It has the best flavor ever.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.960645
| 2015-02-15T10:43:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54765",
"authors": [
"Annelise Nell",
"Christine Harmon",
"Dave Sharp",
"David Richerby",
"Doug",
"Eric Lippert",
"Escoce",
"JAB",
"Jennifer Hoskin",
"Joe",
"Joyce Brown",
"Kenneth Cavander",
"Moira Scothern",
"One Face",
"Peteris",
"Puneet Khehra",
"Siri Adams",
"Toffomat",
"geoffmpm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104445
|
How does pH and temperature affect emulsification of vegetable oils?
This question discussed about how the molecular properties of the fat in vegetable oil affect emulsification in the making of Mayonnaise. The answer in there suggested that lemon has minimal role (if any) in the emulsification.
I made mayonnaise using home made unsweetened soy milk. I made the milk by soaking the soy beans overnight and boiling them before blending. Then squeezing out the milk, I added 100 ml milk to 200 ml of corn oil (2:1::oil:milk ratio). To this I added 5 lemons squeezed out. And then used an immersion blender to blend it. Initially the milk and oil were immicible. But on blending the layers mixed together.
However the mayonnaise I made did not become creamy. It was a watery liquid where the oil did not form a separate layer. I do not know why it did not become creamy.
I would like to know how the environmental factors external to the fat molecule like pH and the temperature of the solution to be emulsified affect emulsification.
How does temperature affect emulsification?
What is the best temperature for emulsification?
How does pH affect emulsification?
What is the best pH for emulsification?
Edit 1:
After reading the answer below, I was able to make excellent mayonnaise.
I first blended the soy milk with salt while slowly adding oil. After all the oil has been added, I added the curdling agent (lemon juice or vinegar). I visualize the emulsion being contained by the curdling of proteins. This produced very nice mayonnaise even without mustard (which is a stabilizing agent). It was a little thin compared to the mayo with mustard. Thank you all for helping!
This sounds like a school project. What cooking problem are you trying to solve?
Lol, I am trying to make Vegan Mayonnaise using just Soy milk, lemon and corn oil. I was earlier interested in how the oil affects emulsification. Now I want to know if pH and temperature has any role in emulsification at all
@RalphMudhouse The mayonnaise I made did not turn creamy. So I am trying to find out why. I also want to know all the factors that affect emulsification so that I can make great Mayonnaise
I'd suggest editing the question to include the full recipe that you're using, and carefully outlining anything you did or didn't do that you view as pertinent to the undesirable outcome. The question you asked assumes certain causes for you problem, but some more tangible basis would be helpful to any answerers.
I've never made vegan mayo, just traditional. I have a lot of faith in the emulsifying power of egg yolks, but no knowledge of soy milk. If it's as watery as regular milk, I'd guess you need more lecithin. I believe dry soy-derived vegan lecithin crystals are available. I don't think fine-tuning the pH and temperature of your recipe is going to make much difference.
@RalphMudhouse I would actually say that adding the recipe here made the question worse, not better. The theoretical question was fine as it was - but the OP's cooking problems and the theoretical question are independent of each other and cannot be answered together.
@rumtscho - I see what you mean. (I didn't ask for the recipe, but I agree...) My 1st comment was motivated by the feeling that the question had a lot of moving parts. And in the 2nd, I wasn't answering the question as it was asked, so it seemed like a quick comment was enough. Still learning the ways of the site.
This is a rather complicated issue, so I will answer it in steps.
Only oil and water
This is not something that is usually done in the kitchen, since the emulsion is not stable. But it is useful to consider this simplest version first before going on to the more complex ones. Let's assume that all you are mixing is water, oil, and maybe a bit of citric or ascorbic acid.
Here, the only influence of temperature is that you want the fat to be properly liquid when you start out. If you have fat that is solid (e.g. coconut oil) or cloudy (e.g. oilve oil you have kept in the fridge), let it warm up before you begin. In theory, higher temperature will be somewhat better, because the particle movement will give you a bit more mixing. In practice, you have to do so much forceful agitation to build the emulsion without any emulsifiers, that the contribution of higher temperature will be negligible. So the lowest possible temperature is given by freezing one of your components, and the highest possible is 100 C, where your water will evaporate.
You don't have any chemical reactions happening in this case. The pH doesn't matter.
So, in this case, the best temperature and pH are: any, within the typical range.
With an emulsifier
As above, it assumes that you are using water, oil, maybe some acid, and the emulsifier.
There is a wide range of emulsifers used in cooking, each of them with rather complex thermodynamic properties. Each of them has its "preferred" range of temperature and pH in which it performs best - in fact, some of them don't even work outside of a narrow pH range, and others require the presence of additional chemicals, such as sugar or calcium ions, to work at all. So nothing more specific can be said, it really depends on the exact emulsifier.
To find out the best temperature and pH range for a given emulsifier, consult a reference book on emulsifiers.
With protein
Traditionally, the only emulsifier frequently used in the kitchen was the lecithin contained in egg yolks. Also, many foods used in emulsions contain proteins by themselves. So you will most likely find yourself making an emulsion that contains proteins.
Here, it becomes more complicated. You have both emulsification and curdling going on at the same time. Your goal is to have the curdling happen, but at a slow pace, and not all the way, so the proteins will build a weak silky mesh interspersed with the oil bubbles of the emulsion, instead of having them create hard pieces separated by liquid.
In this case, temperature and pH become very important, and they are also interdependent. Also, it is not only temperature per se that matters, but (at least for eggs), the speed at which the temperature changes. Slower warming up leads to better sauce textures (that's why you should start with room temperature eggs).
If you do it without acid, you have to gently heat your mixture while emulsifying, and stop at the right point, before it curdles too much. For egg yolks, the ideal temperature is 72 Celsius, it will be different for other emulsifiers and/or other sources of protein. If you also add acid, it promotes curdling, and makes it difficult to achieve the right texture. So, texture-wise, the best pH will be neutral. But if you do have to change the pH out of safety or taste considerations, you will have to heat slower and to lower temperatures, and/or add buffers (e.g. sugar in a sweet emulsion) that counteract the acid effects.
This means that in the end, the pH will be determined by your recipe, and the optimal temperature will vary. The recipe is likely to give you vague instructions on how to heat (e.g. with a water bath), but not an exact temperature. So you have to go by the instructions and observe the process, using your experience to decide whether the heating has to be sped up or slowed down.
Thank you so much, you have clarified the prices very clearly!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.961361
| 2019-12-30T14:46:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104445",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"One Face",
"RalphMudhouse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104390
|
What influence does the properties of fat in vegetable oil affect emulsification of oil?
I am trying to make vegan mayonnaise. In my first attempt I used soy milk and corn oil as the major ingredients. I tried adding lemon juice instead of vinegar as the emulsifying agent and used the immersion blender to blend. However I could not get the creamy texture. The resultant product tasted like mayonnaise (at least in my imagination) and was white in color (due to soy milk?) but was watery in consistency. The volume did not expand.
Most of the recipes online calls for avacado oil or soy bean oil. I am wondering about the relation between length/saturation of the fatty chain and the ease of emulsification.
Are long chain fatty acids difficult to emulsify as compared to medium chain and short chain fatty acids?
How does the degree of saturation affect emulsification?
First, read ralph's chemistry lesson below. Then, whatever you end up doing, consider adding some mustard and/or garlic to the sauce, because both of those enhance emulsifyers
Hi, as all Stack Exchange sites, we work best with small, focused questions, not with a bunch of questions in the same post. So I reverted your edit. If you want to know these things, please post them as separate questions. As a side effect, you'll also get more rep from upvotes on more questions.
Fatty acids are not the emulsifiers here. Long chain fatty acids are excellent for emulsification, if they are deprotonated. But then they would be called “fatty acid salts”, and their flavor would be soapy - bitter. If they're neutral fatty acids, they're not ionized enough to retain a sphere of water around the micelle, and block aggregation of the droplets of fat in an emulsion.
Note that the term “fatty acid” is often misused. It is used to describe structural components of triglyceride fats, but in that form they are esterified, and not in their acid forms. They only become free fatty acids after the saponification (breakdown) of a fat, which can happen when cooking fats at high temperature. It's convenient to talk about them as fatty acids when they're still inside triglycerides because of their roles in nutrition (saturated vs. unsaturated vs. polyunsaturated, etc.).
An emulsifying agent like lecithin has two non-polar (electrically neutral), lipophilic (fat soluble) “fatty acid” (but still esterified) hydrocarbon chains, and a polar head consisting of a phosphate/choline (-/+) ionic structure that is very hydrophilic (soluble in water) due to having both positive and negative standing charges. Because of its net electrically neutral structure, the flavor is mild and fatty, not soapy. Phospholipids like lecithin are available in all cells, since they form the lipid bilayer that defines each cell.
Neither vinegar nor lemon juice would act as an effective emulsifying agent. Acetic acid, citric acid, etc., are all too water soluble, and wouldn't stick to the surface of the fat droplets in an emulsion. Rather, components of the soy milk, particularly soy lecithin, would fill that role in this recipe for vegan mayonnaise. In traditional mayonnaise, of course, egg yolks are a rich source of lecithin. The vinegar has little effect other than flavor.
The degree of unsaturation in the non-polar tails of a phospholipid would not significantly affect the stability of an emulsion once formed. Unsaturation of fatty acid esters in triglycerides does affect the texture of a fat, and how it varies with temperature.
I am super impressed by the chemistry lesson here. Thanks for your answer!
One factor not mentioned yet is when emulsifying make sure all the ingredients have sat at the same temperature for a few hours first as it enables all the chemical reactions to occur more evenly.
Emulsification does not involve chemical reactions.
When physical reactions are affected by temperatures though
Under mechanisms of emulsion in wiki A number of different chemical and physical processes and mechanisms can be involved in the process of emulsification
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.961920
| 2019-12-27T05:02:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104390",
"authors": [
"Colin Ellis",
"FuzzyChef",
"One Face",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79876",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62763
|
Bread: Higher rise/coarser crumb
I tend to make a starter for my bread, typically a poolish. Sometimes I make ciabatta without a starter. I tend to see the same results either way. I give the starter 10-12 hours, then rise the dough to double(4-8hrs), then form the loaf, then proof to double(30min-2hrs) it before baking at 475F with a few ice cubes in the bottom of the oven.
A few things I suspect:
The flour I use
The temperature of my kitchen(though I always rise to double, not by time)
Not using enough yeast(~1/4tsp in starter + 1/8tsp in dough)
Over proofing
Under proofing
I need to adjust my level of hydration(I noticed my loafs tend to rise out more than up)
Living at high altitude(9,000ft), though I hear this is supposed to increase speed of the rise.
Too little gluten
What would cause my bread to always have a fine crumb? With my ciabatta I feel like its not really ciabatta because its crumb isn't coarse enough. Its more like a dense american style bread with a ciabatta crust. My french bread has the same exact crumb. Its very consistent through out the whole loaf, and I rarely(almost never) find any large holes in the bread.
My bread recipes:
Note: I measure to consistency, so any measurements are going to be crude.
Cibatta:
4c flour
2c water
1/4tsp yeast
Mix warm water (~175-180F), yeast, and a dash of sugar to feed the yeast. Sit for 15min(until water froths). Mix remaining ingredients together. Wet knead dough in bowl till consistent and gluteny. Rise overnight(10-12hrs). Punch down, pour dough out and shape by pulling to a crude oval shape. Proof till doubled(~1-2hrs), rises out not up due to high moisture and no added surface tension. Bake at 500F drop to 475F. Bake until bottom produces a hallow knock.
French bread:
Starter/Poolish
1 1/3C flour
1/4tsp yeast
1C water
Dough
3C flour
1/8tsp yeast
pinch of salt(1/8tsp)
starter:
Mix warm water(175-180F), yeast, and dash of sugar. Sit for 15min(until water froths). Add remaining ingredients. Let stand for 10min to hydrate completely. Mix until smooth. Let sit overnight(10-12hrs).
dough:
Mix flour, yeast, and salt. Add poolish. Mix until consistent. Adjust hydration if to wet/dry(add flour or water). Knead until consistent, firm, and gluteny.
The french bread is a much less hydrated dough. It's not firm like pasta dough, but it can hold its shape unlike the ciabatta. The ciabatta just spreads out on its own, but holds together enough to be picked up(carefully).
I just added the recipe along with the method above. It may be a little crude. But I formed these recipes in my head out of many other recipes I've tried over the years. So if any clarifications are needed, feel free to ask.
I thought of leaving the question open, as it is somewhat more specific than the dupe target. But it seems that you're only getting generic advice for answers, and really, I don't know if it is possible to give you more ideas about what is wrong with your batch without having handled the dough. So there is no need to replicate generic answers when we already have a question on that :(
175-180F water and yeast? Major typo or conversion error? Over 120F tends to make dead yeast.
@Ecnerwal Definitely a typo on my part. I must have flip flopped things in my mind. I heat my oven to 180F, then turn it off before I put my starter in, and do so as well for my bulk rise.
@rumtscho Not a problem, the linked question provides sufficient information for my answer, so you were right to close it. Seems I need to search with broader search terms next time. I usually rely on the title to generate a search for duplicate and give a scroll through.
A few rules for bread with big holes:
You need a good gluten network, so:
Use bread/strong flour or add a spoonful gluten to all-purpose and be generous with the water.
Do not knead (or at least as little as possible) after the first rise. Consider the stretch-and-fold technique instead. Give the gluten time to develop. (The alternative to mechanical kneading). There is a reason baguette dough is made one or more days prior to baking - a refrigerator is your friend here.
You want to keep the bubbles that have formed during the first rise, so:
Do not punch down your dough. Punching down is done to ensure even, small holes, exactly the opposite if what you want in this case.
For baguette, you need surface tension without much "rolling with flat hands" (like you would for a log of cookie dough). So shape it by first rolling it up to a fat cylinder (seal the seam), resting a bit to relax, then stretching the dough carefully over your thumb (positioned along the long edge) and sealing. Rest in a floured linnen cloth pulled up between the loaves. This video shows a few different methods.
For chiabatta, you simply pour the dough on your well-floured work surface, cut into pieces, rest and bake. Chiabatta is typically flat - not higher that two or three fingers wide. Lack of surface tension doesn't allow it to go higher.
In my limited experience (I bake bread a lot, I don't chase "big holes" a lot, and I don't mind) you'll want to adjust your hydration, but not in the direction you seem to think you might. If you want to "rise up" then find one of those baskets for the bread to rise in - you need an annoyingly wet dough for the big holes.
What about hand formed rolls? I'm generally fine with the finer crumb, and I really enjoy the bread I make(and so do my room-mates). I'd just like to make some coarser breads once in a while for dishes that I'd like to make. I've been considering getting a basket for rising, however I'd also like to make baguette/torpedo loafs.
High hydration and gentile handling helps to form/keep big holes. Thorough mixing tends to create a uniform crumb.
My ciabatta is generally high hydration, I used to get coarser crumb, but that was when I lived at much lower altitudes. I read that I should add more flour at this altitude to prevent over-proofing or over rising the bulk rise. Perhaps I've over done it. I usually punch my dough down before shaping the loaves and proofing. Perhaps I should be more careful and not punch the dough down as much or at all?
@tsturzl They make baguette/torpedo (long, narrow) baskets, or you can rig up something less formal.
@Ecnerwal I have these coated metal rising racks, but admittedly my baguette shaping skills could use a bit of work. I'm also slightly confused as to whether I'm supposed to bake them in this rack, or just proof them. So I usually just bake them without the rack, because I've never seen anyone do so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.962245
| 2015-10-24T01:29:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62763",
"authors": [
"Andrea Dailey",
"Brian Hamilton",
"Cheryl Bocnuk",
"Ecnerwal",
"Janice Mcglinchey",
"Joe Burke",
"Marni Reeves",
"Optionparty",
"Randy Altenhofen",
"Sam Frankian",
"Simeon Westbrooke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55704
|
roasting potatoes at low temperature
Has anyone successfully roasted potatoes at the same time as slow-roasting meat? I usually par-cook my potatoes then roast them for an hour at 180 degrees C to finish/crisp, but when I'm slow roasting meat at 150 degrees C I'm never sure how to do the potatoes. Any suggestions that would allow me to finish the meal at the same time?
When I do my roasts on a slow cook, I generally sear the outside in the pan, then cook at 350 or so for an hour before turning the temp down for a slow roast. Throwing the potatoes in at 350 would certainly crisp them up...
Are you roasting the potatoes whole? If so, what is the approximate weight of each potato? What type of potato (I need this info, even if they're not being roasted whole)?
Actually did this last night while roasting a chicken, made some schmaltz from the fat I trimmed off the quarters, large diced them and coated them with the clarified chicken fat, S&P on hot cast iron and into the oven @ 375 with the chicken about 20 minutes before the chicken was done. Raised the temp to 475 and took the chicken out to rest. Raised the rack to the top for another 15 mins+/- finished under the broiler. Nice and crispy outside and fluffy but not mushy i.e., over cooked. Very similar to cooking FF or Pommes Frites 2x in 2 different temps of oil
I put the potatoes in at some point while the meat is cooking, depending on how long the meat needs to cook, so that they cook through and then crank the heat while the meat is resting to crisp up the potatoes.
Another option would be to par-boil them first and then put in the oven once the meat is cooked.
Either way, make sure you have a good bit of fat in the pan to aid in crisping (I almost always go with bacon fat), and don't over crowd the dish that the potatoes are in, otherwise they are basically just steaming each other instead of roasting.
You could try tossing the potatoes in at the same time as the meat and then take them out ten to fifteen minutes before the meat is done. Then, brush the potatoes with some oil and go over the surface with a blowtorch to crisp it up. I've also found that coating potatoes in sugar (brown sugar in particular) and melting the sugar with a blowtorch forms a wonderful sort of glaze over potatoes, which when cooled turns crispy and adds a nice sweet touch to them.
No need for a blow torch -- large hunks of meat generally require a bit of resting time, so you can pull the potatoes once they're cooked through, then once the meat's done, crank the heat up to get a bit of a crust on the potatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.962767
| 2015-03-15T07:29:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55704",
"authors": [
"Bernie Melnick",
"Chef_Code",
"Isaac Kotlicky",
"Joe",
"Midnightfirewolfgacha",
"Rosalie Yeary",
"Yensly Gonzalez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kelevesz",
"liji niyad",
"ref1947"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55166
|
Help! Chicken and Wild rice soup needs some extra flavor
I made a creamy chicken and wild rice soup for the first time following a recipe I found online. However, now that it's finished, I think it needs more flavor. The only seasonings I used was a the package of seasoning included in the Uncle Ben's Long Grain and Wild Rice box. What's the best way to add spices to it now that it's finished, and what are some good spices to add to this soup (Ingredients thus far are: Chicken, long grain and wild rice, carrots, celery, onions, chicken broth, heavy cream). Thanks!
Thanks for the extra questions. Here's the recipe I used:
http://www.food.com/recipe/copy-cat-panera-cream-of-chicken-and-wild-rice-soup-438883
As for what's in the seasoning mix. It was the pre-package of seasoning in Uncle Ben's Long and Wild Rice Box. Per the box, the seasoning blend contains a mixture of the following: Hydrolyzed corn/soy/wheat protein; dried onion; dried parsley; sugar; autolyzed yeast extract; dried spinach; garlic powder; salt; spices; torula yeast; celery; onion powder; hydrolyzed yeast protein; nautral smoke flavor; natural flavors; dried tomato; dried carrot; extractives of paprika
Can you post the full recipe along with a link to the recipe online?
Especially what is in the incuded seasoning mix? We would want to enhance, not contradict the flavours;-)
Did you use the same amount of heavy cream like it said in the recipe for light cream? 3 cups? If yes, we might have found the culprit...
Great observation; I used 2 cups of heavy cream and 1 cup of fat free half and half.
Ah... tasty hydrolyzed wheat protein - just like mom used to make.
Yup. Love recipes that need "scientific" solutions for culinary problems.
The rice package contained enough seasoning for just the rice, and then you added a bunch of unseasoned ingredients to that. It's typically best to season every layer of your dish, so you definitely need to add more salt and spices.
This largely depends on what flavor you want to get out of your soup. If you want more chicken flavor, the only way you'll get that is with more chicken, or more broth, or with a bullion cube (though the bullion can be a little overpowering), but for a particular flavor of spice, you're going to need to do some fine-tuning, and maybe even a bit of experimentation.
I can't remember having a canonical question to make for this type of question, but we probably should have one to close it as a duplicate. Basically, the problem with "not enough flavour" question is that the answer is either "put in more of the seasoning you are already using" and then it does not need one question per recipe, or "put in [random other seasoning]" which ends up being a poll. Bertie, I'm sorry I have to close your first question, please don't take it personal. We just realized that questions where each answer is equally valid don't work well on our site, so they get closed.
@rumtscho I disagree here -this is an example where it points out that heavy cream soups often need lots of salt and that soups in general need salt . The recipe posted is just an example of something with no nearly enough salt - and that's common.
All, Thanks so much for the help! I was able to achieve more flavor by adding more salt. A simple, yet very effective solution. I do not have much experience with making soups, and was unaware of how heavy creams impact the flavor and seasonings in soup. I also added pinches of onion powder, garlic powder, and pepper. The soup came out great and I received many compliments at the Potluck I took it to. Not only were you able to resolve my issue, but I learned a LOT from the collective responses. Thanks again for helping out a novice, such as myself!
This may not be your issue, but the number one problem that cooks have is in the area of salt. Soup needs a lot of salt unfortunately or it tastes bleh and insipid.
Yup. Especially if using a lot of cream.
Yah, it looks like most of the salt would be coming from the chicken broth, and if that's a low-sodium or no-salt added stock there would be very little in the soup.
This is the chef's note on the recipe: I tried a similar soup at a restaurant and decided to recreate it at home. I use low sodium chicken broth and skim milk. I don't add additional salt, so you might want to taste and add it as necessary to meet your preferences. If you use plain wild rice (the box usually comes with seasonings), you'll probably need to add some additional seasonings. I also like to use leftover wild rice in here and adjust the other proportions according to the amount I have on hand. I like food.com, and I use it a lot, but it's recipes by ordinary users and not chefs
On that note...I am one of those people who avoid salt, I didn't even own a salt shaker until I had guests that wanted/needed salt. My girlfriend now demands salt. She thinks things need salt when I think they are perfect, so...it's all personal taste.
Thanks for the additional insight. I did use a low-sodium chicken broth.
This need more attention. Adding enough salt is literally 80%, if not more, of cooking.
Escoce, you solved my problem. Thank you! I was able to achieve a more flavorful soup by adding more salt. A simple, yet very effective solution. I do not have much experience with making soups, and this insight made all the difference.
@Bertie just for the record, salt does a hell of a lot more than "make food taste salty". As a matter of fact, if you can taste the salt you've added too much.
I'm going out on a limb here and assume that using heavy cream might have dulled the percieved intensity of the flavours.
So to add more "omph" you should add more of what is already in there. As the soup is done, you can't use anything that requires a long cooking time because you'd be turning everythinhg to mush.
Granted, you could cut more vegies, sauté them separately and add to the soup, but that would be probably too much effort. The veggies in this recipe are a classic mirepoix or, in other words, the flavour base for a soup. In a pinch, I'd add either (part of) a stock cube and/or a bit of extra salt and a generous dash of pepper.
If this still needs more "herby" accents, try adding what is in the seasoning mix, but stay clear from all herbs in your cupboard that are to large or woody, because they would need a while to soften. Powdered or fresh is your friend here: I'd try
some powdered allspice and a quick grating of nutmeg, black pepper and a pea-sized blob or two of yeast extract (stir well), if at hand.
a pinch of oregano, and a very small pinch of basil and perhaps a dusting of dried rosemary or
1/2 to 1 tsp of paprika, a hint of chili and perhaps some cumin or
fresh parsley or fresh chives, or some chilantro, but I know that that's either love or hate for most.
If you happen to have fresh lovage, that would be my first choice: chop finely, add a teaspoon or so for a really intense "soupy" flavour. Cook for another minute or two to mellow the flavour, serve.
Stephie, Thanks so much for your advice and the quick responses! I'll post a follow up to let you know which I try and how it turns out!
Are you cooking the celery, carrots and onions before you add them to the soup?
As @Stephie says, you've got a classic mirepoix in those ingredients. I like to chop them pretty finely (though a food processor gives results that are much too fine, like a paste; don't use one for this) and cook them together in a tablespoon of olive oil until the onions are soft, translucent and golden. Throw a couple cloves of garlic or a shallot in there, too.
My other suggestions are a little sprig of fresh dill or chopping up one of the entire tops of the frilly leaves of the top of a carrot, if you have carrots that come with leaves.
Also, if you ever buy hard cheese, use the uneaten rinds as an ingredient. The rinds of Parmesan work well. Grocery stores that sell fancy hard cheeses in plastic-wrapped blocks can also sell you rinds if you ask at the cheese section. Like a bay leaf, rinds are meant to be removed before you serve the soup. This can increase the perceived saltiness, so adjust your salt, but it adds many earthy and wonderful flavors that are softened by cream.
Powdered soup mix can be a little light on flavors. Fortunately, a few common spices make for great additives to your soup. Here's a few things you can try.
Bay Leaf: A tried and true flavor additive to any soup. Add one or two for a little extra flavor.
Bullion Cube: Sometimes the broth doesn't have quite enough flavor, and adding a proper bullion cube (in this case, Chicken) can liven it up a bit. Take care, as bullion cubes are high in sodium. Don't add more than one.
Salt As Escroce said, some soups just need a little extra salt to bring out the flavor. Don't overdo it, for the same reason you don't want to overdo the bullion cubes.
Another option is to just add more of what the spice pack supposedly has already. Out of the listed ingredients, you could add more: dried parsley; sugar; garlic powder; salt; onion powder; paprika
Out of those options, I'd recommend adding additional parsley, garlic powder, salt, onion powder or paprika to keep the original flavor, though only in small amounts so as not to let any one flavor overpower another.
Final suggestion: Since these are seasonings, you should add them a little bit at a time after the soup is done cooking, mixing it in and taking a small taste to see how it affects the flavor. You'll eventually find the flavor you're looking for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.963154
| 2015-02-26T17:26:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55166",
"authors": [
"Bertie",
"Catija",
"Dominic Worsfold",
"Emily Pasternak",
"Escoce",
"Hilary O'Brien",
"Jessika Lopez",
"Joseph Diehl",
"Judith Cunningham",
"Kathy Adkison",
"Nick Brammer",
"Ross Ridge",
"Sharie Leblanc",
"Shirley Liddington",
"Stephie",
"User1000547",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"smcg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63253
|
What made my pancakes taste fizzy?
I made pancakes a couple times recently, and they had a strange reaction to some frozen raspberries we had. When we put the raspberries onto the pancakes, they had a strange fizzy and sour taste. We could still taste the sweetness of the pancake and toppings as well, but this fizz kept coming back. It was erratic, but probably due to not being evenly mixed.
The raspberries ingredient list just say that they're 100% raspberries. There were also blueberries from the same brand that didn't at all have this effect.
The pancakes contained:
Flour
Baking soda
Salt
Sugar
Vanilla sugar
Oil
Soy milk
We used two different recipes but it happened both times. The second time we purposefully chose a recipe with less baking soda in case that mattered but it didn't seem to make a difference.
Also I live in Ireland if the locality affects how the frozen berries might be stored.
So... only the raspberries had that taste? And was it just a taste? The title makes it sound like the pancakes physically fizzed.
I also find this unclear. In addition to not knowing what you mean by "fizz", you say "a little sour and very acidic". This is impossible. Acidic is not a taste. Sour is the taste which you sense when you put something which has the chemical property of being acidic in your mouth. The difference is not that important in everyday life, so people will frequently say "it tastes acidic" when they mean "it tastes sour", but in this usage, it is impossible for something to be "a little sour" and "very acidic" at the same time.
@Jefromi I made some edits to try make it clearer. There wasn't physical fizzing, just a taste. I also removed the reference to acidic taste.
When I wrote my comment, my intention wasn't to point my finger at you and say "bad language, ha ha". If you describe something as "a little sour and very acidic", my guess is that you noticed two different tastes at once, but chose an unfortunate word for the second one. Can you find a better description for the second taste? It can be important. Also, are all recipes you tried free of acids? Could you have tasted the unreacted baking soda?
Do the berries taste fine if you eat them by themselves (outside of the pancakes)? Did you see a "fizzy" reaction of any sort when you put the berries in, or is it only the taste affected? Does any of the surrounding pancake batter taste "off," or is it only confined to the berries?
@rumtscho It was me and someone else both describing the taste, I said sour and they said acidic. In light of your comment I just folded the two into one because they couldn't think of any other way to say "acidic". There were no acids, just the ingredients listed above in both recipes. It may have been unreacted baking powder, I guess it could just be coincidence that it always occurred with raspberries?
@Athanasius The berries were fine otherwise. There was no visual reaction at all. And the pancake seemed fine when it wasn't in direct contact with the berries.
I find it hard to believe that the taste is due to something like unreacted baking powder (which doesn't exactly taste "acidic") - the baking powder would clearly react with the acid in the raspberries, thereby reducing acidity. At this point my only suggestion is that there was no reaction (since none was observed) and for some reason the flavors of the raspberries were just incompatible with this particular pancake batter. Just as a pairing with the right food can enhance the flavor of a good wine, so a bad pairing of ingredients can sometimes bring out or strengthen bad flavors.
@My initial guess was that he noticed two different tastes and had a hard time describing the second one, picking "acidic" where he meant something like "chemical". But after reading Jefromi's answer, this seems like a pretty good explanation. Superbiasedman, your baking soda still has little to nothing to react to. I would suggest that you try this recipe either with buttermilk instead of soy milk, or with baking powder instead of baking soda. It probably won't solve your taste problem, but it is likely to improve your texture.
Not that this is "scientific" evidence, but I happened to have some tasty fresh raspberries on hand last weekend, and I decided to throw them into some pancakes (which otherwise tasted delicious). The raspberries in the pancakes tasted horrible, though -- for whatever reason, the sour notes were much stronger and almost bitter. All who tried them unanimously agreed never to put raspberries in pancakes again. I'm thus still convinced this is a recipe and flavor incompatibility problem, rather than due to some chemical reaction.
I am willing to bet the high acidity of the berries reacted with the baking powder component of the pancakes.
Pancakes are just barely cooked batter and the carbonates are still pretty active, which is what makes good swiftly fried pancakes fluffy while pancakes cooked on too low a heat become rubbery and floppy.
It's also why if you replace fresh milk with fresh butter milk (not buttermilk pancake mixes), it makes fabulous fluffy and tastier pancakes.
I am willing to bet your pancakes are pretty darn good aren't they?
Thanks for the answer! These were unusually good, fluffy batches, so you are probably correct. In future I'll save the raspberries for the rubbery pancakes.
Raspberries are pretty sour, especially if underripe, so it could've just been that, if not for the fizzy taste.
That part makes it sound like the berries were a little fermented. That's unusual for frozen fruit, but possible if it wasn't stored right at some point along the line. If the fizzy taste was similar to too old orange juice or kim chee or anything else fermented you might've had, could well be it.
They only tasted fizzy when on the pancakes, when eaten by themselves or put on some brownies they tasted perfectly normal. Would fermented raspberries have reactions with food in the pancakes? Or were you suggesting they'd generally taste off?
This probably isn't it if they were fine on their own, unless maybe the contrast with the pancakes made you more sensitive to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.964138
| 2015-11-07T15:46:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63253",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Jayjay",
"Jennifer Lim",
"Jeramie Sivley",
"Jessica Jessica Jerk Shuck",
"Kristie Weiberg",
"Momoko",
"Richard Scott",
"SuperBiasedMan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35584",
"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
}
|
96427
|
Alternative Binding Ingredient for Sugar in Flapjacks? (British style)
First, I'm talking about oat bars not pancakes.
The basic recipe for these flapjacks is that you get some oats with a little flour and chopped nuts. Then you melt together butter, sugar and golden syrup. You mix wet with dry and oven bake.
I'd like to reduce the amount of sugar being put in, without making the flapjacks more brittle and crumbly. I intend to try using honey, but does anyone have alternative suggestions? I'm not concerned that they wont be sweet enough because I primarily want a more savoury nut and oat taste.
Honey is almost all sugar anyway, just not refined. Have you tried just using less? What proportions are you currently using? Also it's not clear whether you want less sweet or not.
I haven't tried honey yet and plan to, though it's not my favourite flavour. I did try less sugar and golden syrup but got very crumbly results. And I'd prefer less sweet, but I'm open to replacements that are more sweet too.
I had success replacing about half the golden syrup with agave nectar (to use it up). This is just as sweet and only marginally lower in sugars so I won't propose it as an answer.
This might affect the texture too much, but if you're willing to experiment you could try some mashed banana.
I made these banana and oat cookies a while ago, which have the ratio of 1 banana to ~90g of oats. The recipe says to blend the oats, though I didn't bother, and the cookies came out pretty chewy.
The recipe is way too heavy on banana to come out like a flapjack, but you might be able to use a little to offset a reduction in sugar in a proper flapjack recipe. I'm not speaking from experience though, so no promises that it won't be a disaster!
I'll test it out so I can report my findings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.964636
| 2019-02-19T12:43:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96427",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"SuperBiasedMan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35584"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43916
|
Will newspaper covering a cake pan catch fire in the oven?
I need my cakes to bake flat. I have been told to cover the cake tin with newspaper secured with sellotape, but wouldn't this catch on fire in the oven?
Doubt it very much, but I'd be concerned about transfer of printing ink to your cake at high temperatures: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-chemicals-are-used-in-newspaper-ink.htm
Sellotape (plastic sticky tape?) will most likely burn
plastic sticky tape is unlikely to burn at cake baking temperatures. But it will most likely melt, and when it cools back down, it is a pain to get off the tin. I don't know what "sellotape" is, fabric-baked tapes might work.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13167/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/25117/67
@rumtscho Sellotape is what we call sticky tape here in the UK. I think it is or was a brand name but it's used ubiquitously, regardless of brand.
@rumtscho most seem to call it "Scotch" tape in the US. Which is a 3M brand I believe. They sport a nifty little tartan color scheme. "Sello" here is for "cellophane" I believe.
Having actually tried this following a recipe, I wouldn't recommend it. The paper singed quite soon even at the low cake-baking temperatures. The odour was unpleasant as well. I'm surprised it is even recommended. (mine was from a published cook book). The answers below are good alternatives.
Cakes are not normally baked a temperature high enough to ignite paper, although the newspaper will probably singe and brown, and possibly produce an unpleasant odor--some of which may be transferred to the cake. If you are going to go this route, I would recommend using baking parchment, which is intended for the heat of the oven, not newspaper.
There are several more common methods for ensuring even cake layers:
Simply cut off any doming with a knife
Use an inverted flower nail at the center of the pan to better conduct the heat of the oven to the center of the cake
Use cake strips to cool the edge of the pan, again evening out the cooking
In truth, unless you have a very special application, cutting off any doming is often the simplest, most straight-forward solution.
Actually, a newspaper may catch on fire while baking a cake, I'd expect it to be in the lower range of the ignition-temparatures for paper, and I believe I've seen recipes where the oven is set to 225 °C.
No the paper will not catch fire (Remember Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? You aren't cooking your cake that hot). But it's still a strange, unhygienic idea. Between ink, germs, and paper fibers... it doesn't seem like a way to make good eats.
In addition to the great suggestions by SAJ, you may be able to flip it upside down once it's out of the oven to "flatten out" the dome. This especially common in layer cakes where you flip the top layer upsides down to provide a flat surface.
Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451.
@SAJ14SAJ of course he did. Doh! Edited.
The ignition point for paper isn't uniform for all types of paper, the lower end of the range might be reached while baking a cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.964820
| 2014-05-05T22:25:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43916",
"authors": [
"Angelo Sole",
"Bruce",
"Emaly ",
"Joe",
"Preston",
"Rebecca MacBain",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Tirtha R",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"carole",
"decvalts",
"eirikdaude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64270
|
What is an 8.5 x 4.5in bread pan in UK lb based pan sizes?
An American relative has asked for an 8.5x4.5in bread pan for Christmas, but UK pan sizes are by weight: 1lb loaf, 2lb loaf, etc.
How much dough would you put into an 8x4 (or 8.5x4.5) pan?
Unfortunately sorting bread pans by loaf weight is very vague. A 1lb light and fluffy white sandwich bread might have about the same size as a 2lb heavy, dense wholegrain or rye bread. Also, do you expect your bread to rise really high over the rim or should that be more of a limit? In short, the size of "a 1lb bread" depends a lot on the kind of bread you have in mind.
A quick Internet check of pan dimensions from various manufactureres confirms that there is no standard size, it seems they vary by up to 50% in volume.
So if your relative's wish list states a pan of a certain size, I suggets you go shopping equipped with a meassuring tape instead of looking for a certain "pound value".
Side note: Most 2lb pans are a tad bigger that the requested size and 1lb ones a bit smaller, but I found one sold in the UK by Williams Sonoma (what a coincidence!) that seems to have exactly the sought-for dimensions.
Thanks! Found the pan and lots of useful baking knowledge :)
Rectangular
11 x 7 x 2 inches 6 cups
13 x 9 x 2 inches 14 cups
28 x 18 x 5 cm 1.4 liters
33 x 23 x 5 cm 3.3 liters
Loaf
8 x 4 x 2 1/2 in. 4 cups
8 1/2x4 1/2x2 1/2 6 cups
9 x 5 x 3 inches 8 cups
20 x 10 x 6 cm 948 ml
21 x 11 x 6 cm 1.4 liters
23 x 13 x 8 cm 1.9 liters
That is the best I can do...
3 1/2 cups of flour is approximately one pound.
Further research and some measuring ...
A 1lb Loaf Pan will have a volume of around 1 litre (or 4 Cups).
You can assume that a Cup is around 240ml, hence the 4 cups to the litre I mentioned above.
The volume of yeast breads will be about twice the volume of flour since you rise the dough to double before baking.
Also you add water - I'm not sure that the volume of the dough pre-rise is the same as the volume of the flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.965110
| 2015-12-10T06:56:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64270",
"authors": [
"Adrienne Goetz",
"Cascabel",
"Christy Carpo",
"Debbie M.",
"JoAnne Hutchinson",
"Neville Lingwood",
"Robin Brown",
"Sam Hadden",
"Steve Cooper",
"Yvonne Woodcock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"user153202"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11916
|
Cleaning brown/gray spots on overheated stainless steel stock pot
So my roommate forgot about his boiling water and burned one of the pots pretty bad. The bottom is a dark brown/gray with colored spots underneath (electric range).
What are some household remedies to restore the pot? I'm worried that the heat might have changed the properties of the metal (such as annealing).
I would say have your roommate buy you a new pot!
At least, it's his!
Barkeepers Friend is a product that works wonders on steel and aluminum cookware. With a little elbow grease, this stuff removes discoloration very well. If you can't find BKF, Zud is another product that uses Oxalic Acid for it's cleaning power, although it seems to be less potent.
I used Cameo which uses sulfamic acid and that worked well.
Don't worry about the properties of the pot being altered. The metal was heated to many hundreds of degrees in forging, so your stove adventure can't match the initial het.
That being said, it can warp and discolor, but this will have little practical effect on the pot's properties, mostly the aesthetics of it.
The suggestion of a cleaner with Oxalic Acid is right on, and safe for Stainless Steel.
So, if it is warped, then it will be harder to use for some applications, but it is safe and usable otherwise. The discoloration can be cleaned and will fade further over time.
It might not fade much ... I have a pot that I scorched pretty bad years ago, although it was more than just water (I was reducing stock on a hard boil, and got distracted ... it smelled like burning hair... not good, and the pot's still got some black splotches on it)
There is nothing wrong if it is outside of the pot to use Easy-Off®. Take it outside, turn it upside down, spray and leave overnight.
Easier to understand with capitalization, dash, and link: Easy-Off ®.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.965315
| 2011-02-08T12:04:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11916",
"authors": [
"Curry",
"Joe",
"Kloppie5",
"Nicky McCurdy",
"boxed-dinners",
"gaah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"shroudednight",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90909
|
What is "fine ground cornmeal"?
I frequently run across recipes in books that require "fine-ground cornmeal", which isn't a classification that exists in the USA (particularly baffling when the cookbook was published in the USA). This leaves me unsure of what to substitute; whether I should be using medium-grind cornmeal, or corn flour. As such, below is a listing of types of cornmeal in the US, as labeled by flour mills*.
Coarse Ground Cornmeal: usually yellow, otherwise known as Polenta, 1mm large grains used mainly for boiling.
Medium Ground Cornmeal: usually yellow, a rough grind larger than wheat flour and about the same size as pasta semolina. Used for cornbread.
Corn Flour: cornmeal, usually yellow, ground to the same consistency as wheat flour.
Corn Starch: superfine ground husked corn flour, usually white.
So, when a recipe asks me for "fine ground cornmeal", what is it asking for, if no other information is supplied? A US recipe? A British recipe? An Australian Recipe?
I am looking for a generic answer here for each nationality (or region), because I have seen this in multiple recipes, not an answer for a specific recipe.
(* there's also grits and various grades of masa, which aren't relevant for this question)
I suspect a British or commonwealth influence, as what Americans call corn starch is corn flour over here, leaving a gap in the terminology for your corn flour
It would be helpful to see the full recipe for context.
Agreed w/ Nat ... and knowing where a recipe is from helps, too. (a new england cornbread recipe is going to use a finer grind than a southern one)
It's not a single recipe, I've run across this multiple times across multiple recipes from different english-speaking countries (and for non-English-speaking countries, translators often use British standards). I really want a generic answer rather than "what does this mean in this specific recipe?"
Chris: yeah, that's what I've been thinking for British recipes, especially since the distinction between meal/flour seems fairly arbitrary. However, what do Brits call the grade of cornmeal used to make cornbread or corn fritters?
@FuzzyChef we don't eat much corn bread and the only corn fritters I've had were a different thing, made from crushed sweetcorn. The corn bread recipe I make uses polenta because it's really available, with nothing between that and the very fine stuff
I'm an American cornbread lover living in the UK, so I have some experience with this. In the UK and commonwealth corn flour = US cornstarch, and in the UK corn meals are coarser then their US counterparts. Coarse polenta is like ball bearings, fine polenta is still too coarse for decent cornbread and fritters. You can get fine corn meal in the UK now, which is slightly finer than your average US cornmeal, but not as fine as US corn flour.
So if I'm in the US using an American recipe that calls for fine corn meal I'd just use regular corn meal, if I'm in the US using a UK recipe and it calls for fine corn meal it would probably mean fine polenta, which is what you generally get in the US.
Well, let's be exact with terminology. "Polenta" is a porridge made from cornmeal or other grains; something dry cannot be polenta (though it may be intended for use in polenta). But since corn ground to the consistency of flour isn't suitable for polenta, anything labeled as "polenta" is going to be coarser than that.
In the US and UK you get bags of uncooked coarse corn meal labeled as polenta @Sneftel.
I've seen "polenta" used on packaging (similar to arborio rice being labeled "risotto rice"), but it's always also labeled "cornmeal". The worry with something labeled "polenta" is that it may be instant polenta, which is precooked and behaves differently.
Sneftel: sadly, that's labelling for you. In the US, since "polenta" is trendier than "corn meal", you'll see it labelled that way, even when it's from Arkansas.
It doesn't matter whether it's from Arkansas or not; corn is corn. But if it's labeled "polenta", you know that it's not really fine, and you must also check that it's not instant polenta if you want to use it as cornmeal.
The only brand of cornmeal that I have found labeled a fine ground variety is Bob's Red Mill, which calls it 'fine grind.' Bob's Red Mill is an American company. I have not used the product and cannot comment on whether it is more like corn flour or a lighter version of medium ground cornmeal, though the sources below suggest that the two are if not the same, at least interchangeable in American recipes.
The Cook's Thesaurus and Bon Appetit both suggest that you can, for the most part, use medium ground cornmeal interchangeably with fine ground cornmeal, though Bon Appetit notes that medium will give you more corn texture while the fine will be more about flavor. Cook's Thesaurus also notes that you can create corn flour by running cornmeal (texture not specified) through a blender until it reaches flour consistency. I would try a food processor rather than blender. Bon Appetit is an American magazine. The Cook's Thesaurus was created by Lauri Alden, but no biographical/georgraphical information is available on her site.
Danielle Centoni, American food writer and James Beard Award winner, writing in The Oregonian (an American newspaper/news site), states that fine ground cornmeal " is more flourlike and less toothsome than coarse-ground cornmeal." This may indicate products labeled corn flour are an acceptable substitute for fine ground cornmeal.
Finally, depending on your budget and desire to create from scratch, you can achieve your own grinds of varying fineness with a grain grinder and dried field/dent corn. You may also want flour sifters or screens to separate the different grades of flour within your home grind.
Per the question, I'm more interested in authorial intent in cookbooks than actually producing specific grinds of cornmeal. So your answer is an excellent answer to a different question. Oh, and Bob's "fine cornmeal" is corn flour.
For example: is Danielle answering about US recipes, or recipes from a different country?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.965622
| 2018-07-09T20:31:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90909",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Nat Bowman",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53682
|
Adding Pulses (Legumes) in Powder Form to Bread
I would like to add powdered pulses (dried and ground) to the bread flour and experiment on the flavour of bread.
Does anyone have any experience with this?
Will fermenting the powdered pulse (with bread flour) have any bad effect (like toxin formation, bad taste, etc...)?
What pulses do you recommend to begin with?
I live in India. And I can only experiment with locally available pulses. But feel free to talk on any pulses!
As a bit of clarification, pulses are also known as legumes. From the Wiki "Included in the pulses are: dry beans like pinto beans, kidney beans and navy beans; dry peas; lentils; and others."
@Jolenealaska thanks for clarification, I just edited the question to reflect that
Some beans require a good, strong boil for a while to break down phytohemagglutinin. An example is kidney beans. I doubt that'd happen when baking bread.
Start with dried fava bean flour, or chickpea (garbanzo) flour. Best to buy the pulse flour pre-ground, as it tends to be difficult to grind finely with home equipment. Use initially only a small amount (<5% of total flour by weight) for flavoring, and gradually increase to taste. Some other pulses can be bitter, and also be aware that any larger quantities can reduce the gluten content, which is less critical for flatbreads, but essential for risen loaves.
Chickpea flour has a rather nice nutty flavour - I've used it to make chapattis before. If you have a recipe using a mixture of wheat flour and corn flour you could possibly try a straight swap of the corn flour for chickpea flour - neither has any gluten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.966060
| 2015-01-16T04:21:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53682",
"authors": [
"Andree Downs",
"Chris Brooker",
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kete",
"Lai Woon",
"One Face",
"Tim Cox",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"jehangir khan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53468
|
Should I boil canned food in water?
Do I have to boil canned food, specially tuna can, in water for twenty minutes?
I think it's necessary to prevent food poisoning by botulism. However, currently that I am in Europe, I have not seen a written passage on tuna can to advise people to boil the can before consumption, or did I miss to see such a thing?
Please note that besides the correct answers, boiling will not protect you against botulism. Neither the spores nor the toxin produced by the bacteria are inactivated by simple boiling.
@BowlOfRed That's incorrect. Botulinum toxin is inactivated by boiling. See https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170405001311/https:/www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/CausesOfIllnessBadBugBook/ucm296005.htm if you want a source.
No, you should not need to boil your canned food. Most canned foods have already been heated to boiling — or higher — temperatures to kill all microbes as part of the canning process. Seafood is heated to temperatures even higher than boiling and canned under pressure.
Canned food is, by definition, sterilized and hermetically sealed so unless you believe the seal on the can is compromised, canned food is safe to eat as-is.
If you don't trust that it was properly canned, or you think the can's seal is broken, then simply don't eat it, boiled or otherwise.
It's interesting to note that canned food over 100 years old has been opened and — despite losing its flavor and nutritional value — deemed safe to eat.
If OP is referring to contamination through the outside of the can, so yes; you need at least to wash it before opening.
For example, when you open a can of condensed milk, it tends to leak through the lid. And if the can was not properly stored, there's a chance to be contaminated with something. It's the same reason why we wash fruits and vegetables before eating.
Altough it will not protect agains botulism specifically, washing with boiling water and soap will eliminate other germs that may be in the can.
Commercially canned food (at least in reasonably wealthy countries, which I think would include at least all of the EU) is safe to eat straight out of the can. Provided the can is undamaged, of course. Damaged, bulging, etc. cans should be discarded.
You didn't say what country in specific you're in, but your country's health, food safety, etc. department should have specific guidelines to your country, if any are needed.
Or to think of it another way, if canning did somehow leave the food prone to growing bacteria, we wouldn't be storing canned goods long-term at room temperature!
You definitely need to boil the can in order to prevent yourself from possible poisoning. It's not about trust or truth it's about your own safety.
What poisons do you expect in canned food?
Surely, you don't boil every can of everything you open, do you?
this doesn't make any sense, and as already mentioned boiling will not protect you against botulism.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.966236
| 2015-01-10T01:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53468",
"authors": [
"BowlOfRed",
"Cascabel",
"Croves",
"Depression And PTSD Ketamine",
"ElmerCat",
"Jabulani Lawrence Masuku",
"Laura Schultz",
"Luciano",
"Psychiatrist Los Angeles",
"Sneftel",
"Tinuviel",
"Tracy Stallard",
"Veronica Grewal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79259"
],
"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
}
|
53470
|
Substitution for idealmjöl
I recently moved to the US from Sweden, and one thing I sorely miss is idealmjöl. It is a very fine flour that is primarily used to thicken sauces. It has the property that you can just sprinkle it over your sauce and it will dissolve and thicken it (with a little bit of whisking), without making the sauce lumpy. I haven't seen anything obvious in my grocery store that will do the same thing. Is there anything similar here in the States?
The closest thing you are likely to find is a product called Wondra flour. Like idealmjöl, it is a pre-gelated wheat flour, but unlike idealmjöl it also includes some malted barley flour.
One post on this forum implies they may be interchangeable.
meant to help by adding the picture but it didn't format as I thought it would. If you can make it better or want to remove the picture, please do so.
You can use pure starch for that, you don't need a flour. If you are careful with the sprinkling, it will work too. But the easiest way is to dissolve a bit of starch with a bit of water in a teacup, and pour into the sauce. No clumping, and it thickens beautifully.
The sauce needs to come to a boil for the starch to work, I don't know if this is needed for your idealmjöl too.
A wild suggestion here --- go on Facebook and ask Marcus Samuelsson. Of anyone in the US that would have the definitive answer, I'd bet on Marcus.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.966515
| 2015-01-10T04:28:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53470",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Depression And Trauma Therapy",
"Gergely",
"Manuel",
"Nereida Sanabria",
"Psychiatrist Miami",
"Psychiatrist Westlake",
"RON MARCHANT",
"Sheryl Trujillo",
"Valerie Graham",
"Weiyan Tie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"psychiatristlosca0",
"sathya niran"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53621
|
Are my refrigerated pork chops & onions safe to eat?
I cooked pork chops with onions two days ago and refrigerated the leftovers pretty quickly. I checked it today and there was a lot of congealed fat around and over some of the onions (not submerged though). I looked at related questions but still not sure if this a botulism risk. Thanks!
Why do you think that would be a botulism risk?
I was concerned about fat covering the onions but now realize that it would probably have to be submerged or not refrigerated.
This is not likely a botulism risk. It should be safe to eat assuming the following:
Refrigerator is functioning properly and keeps food below 40 F.
Food was not previously sitting out longer than two hours at room temperature.
The USDA provides a useful guide on Refrigeration and Food Safety. This section is pertinent to you:
There are two completely different families of bacteria: pathogenic bacteria, the kind that cause foodborne illness, and spoilage bacteria, the kind of bacteria that cause foods to deteriorate and develop unpleasant odors, tastes, and textures.
Pathogenic bacteria can grow rapidly in the "Danger Zone," the temperature range between 40 and 140 °F, but they do not generally affect the taste, smell, or appearance of a food. In other words, one cannot tell that a pathogen is present.
Spoilage bacteria can grow at low temperatures, such as in the refrigerator. Eventually they cause food to develop off or bad tastes and smells. Most people would not choose to eat spoiled food, but if they did, they probably would not get sick. It comes down to an issue of quality versus safety:
Food that has been stored too long in the refrigerator or freezer may be of lessened quality, but most likely would not make anyone sick. (However, some bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes thrive at cold temperatures, and if present, will multiply in the refrigerator over time and could cause illness.)
According to their storage time chart, cooked pork is approaching spoilage after 3-4 days, i.e. it will start to taste/smell funky. So it should be fine to eat, but of course, use your best judgement — and consider finishing up those chops sooner than later.
Also see a good related answer here: How long can cooked food be safely stored at room/warm temperature?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.966701
| 2015-01-14T21:41:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53621",
"authors": [
"Carlos Torres Zapot",
"George Heim",
"James",
"Jason Schock",
"Kim Ball",
"Lynda Osborne",
"MrDwyer69",
"Stephen Koukakis",
"adejorin adedoyin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"padma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13323
|
Can I substitute Soy Milk when a recipe for cooking (not baking) calls for regular (or 2%) milk
This question asks the question for baking. For for regular stove-top cooking, will it work. Other than minor adjustments for cooking time.
EDIT 3/22/11: the specific items I am making are white sauce for pasta, mashed potatoes, for example
What kind of stove-top cooking are you trying to do? It's possible that some applications will be more successful than others.
You can almost always substitute soy milk for regular 2% milk in baking. Soy has almost as much protein as regular milk and slightly less fat that 2% milk.
You'll probably not notice any difference. I've used it in baking and had good results.
Here's the breakdown (according to the Silk Brand Vanilla Soy Milk from my Fridge):
Soy Milk Stats (per cup):
Protein: 6g, Total fat: 3.5g, Total Carbs: 11g
2% Milk Stats (per cup):
Protein: 8g, Total fat: 5g, Carbs: 12g
I agree completely, I just use soy or dairy milk depending what I have in the fridge and I've never had any trouble with any recipes (including baking)
The only things I would add, are that soy milk tends to separate more readily with heat, particularly in the presence of certain additives. Sometimes in savoury sauces oat milk works better as it does not separate.
Also, a lot of the fresh soya milk products (at least in the UK) are sweetened and flavoured slightly, usually with vanilla. Use an unsweetened and non-vanilla variety in savoury cooking.
I've not usually had a problem substituting soy milk for regular milk in cooking. Just make sure you use the plain kind and not the vanilla flavored kind, which seems to be rather common.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.966919
| 2011-03-21T01:19:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13323",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"nixy "
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8282
|
How long can I keep eggs past the sell by date and still eat them?
Possible Duplicate:
How long can I keep eggs in the refrigerator?
I've got some eggs in a carton (regular Grade A eggs) in the refrigerator. The "sell by" date on them is October 2nd. Today is October 19th, so that's about two and a half weeks past. Generally, foods are good for a couple weeks past the sell by date, but how many weeks do I have before they aren't edible (spoil or generally get "the funk").
If I made french toast in the morning and used them, would they be good? I'm more concerned with 100% safety than them being 10% less awesome tasting after a certain time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.967058
| 2010-10-19T04:48:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8282",
"authors": [
"Jaay",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17064",
"user17026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8153
|
How to keep Tupperwear unstained?
Possible Duplicate:
Is there any way to remove stains (e.g. from curries and pasta sauces) from plastic containers?
I find that when storing curries or tomato based sauces in the freezer they stain the tupperwear and also leave a lasting smell. Is there a tupperwear that avoids this and how do I best clean tupperwear to get rid of the colour and smell?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.967138
| 2010-10-15T12:47:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8153",
"authors": [
"Dmitry Makarenko",
"Jackie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16795"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46264
|
How to make more than one good cup of coffee with a moka pot?
I have a moka pot
I'm really happy with the coffee from this. However, after I've poured the first cup out, if I leave the heat on (however low), the coffee gets a metallic taste to it. If I turn the heat off then it goes cold.
So, my questions are: is this kind of coffee maker only good for the first cup? If not, how can I avoid either outcome? Also, can anyone tell me why it gets this metallic taste to it?
This is the exact reason why these pots come in so many sizes. The coffee is meant to be drunk right away, not kept for getting a second cup. If you are brewing for one person, you should use the one cup version, the larger ones are for more people.
@rumtscho For optimum flavor, I'd say you are exactly right; one person should use a one-cup moka pot. Holding a cup for a time (even in an excellent travel mug or thermos) is going to negatively affect the flavor of the second cup. But I make the assumption that the OP doesn't want to brew the second cup seperately, that his/her time has value too. So I offer my answer as compromise. Perhaps the OP should get a one-cup moka to use on lazy days off?
America's Test Kitchen recently tested Moka Pots. In the video, they specifically say to pour all of the coffee immediately when it's done brewing. They don't mention a metallic taste, but they do say that not leaving the coffee in the pot is important for flavor, and that it was equally true for all of the models they tested. So for your purposes, I would recommend that you use a good small thermos or travel coffee mug, and pour your second cup into that immediately upon brewing.
For what it's worth (since I was looking at ATK equipment reviews anyway), this one won their top recommendation for travel mugs:
For the highest rated thermos mugs: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=lp_13880501_st?qid=1407797078&rh=n%3A1055398%2Cn%3A%211063498%2Cn%3A284507%2Cn%3A510136%2Cn%3A8841480011%2Cn%3A13880501&sort=review-rank
The coffee simply picks up the aluminum from the pot, as the coffee is acidic. Pour it out. Most importantly - Do not leave the coffee on the heat after the brew is done! There is no water left in the bottom chamber to insulate (and cool) the pot! You could have a disaster on your hands!! At least, you will damage the sealing gasket as it is not made to handle these high temps.
Thank you for your answer. We try not to use all-caps for emphasis here, so even brief uses like yours seem jarring to eyes accustomed to this site. I took the liberty of editing out your all-caps, but I tried to keep your sense of emphasis. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
That concerns me. Doesn't cooking acidic things at high temperature in aluminium cause aluminium poisoning or something?
I have bought glass moka pots from Home Sense. It's great: I can leave my second cup in it and taste is the same as the first one.
Hale, I'm a bit sorry that this has been downvoted without explanation. We generally try to avoid specific brand or store recommendations without citation, but you bring up an interesting point about glass. Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
Theres usually two reasons for this, so it could be either.
The pot - Try rinsing out the pot with spirit vinegar followed by water and bicarbonate. You might want to use a toothbrush to get into all the corners and give it a good scrubbing.
Your water - If you live in a hard water area, this can cause what you're experiencing, or even new water pipes can also cause the problem. Try brewing a pot with bottled water to see if that's any better.
You should also note that coffee can burn from the residual heat in the pot, and you should keep an eye on your temperatures.
Bottled water is very hard so I don't see how that would solve hard water problems. If you want to try making coffee with softer water, boil the water and let it cool before using it, though that will only remove hardness due to calcium content, not any magnesium.
We personally have a filter jug that is good at getting rid if a lot of the hardness. It does mean that you have to wait a bit if you run out, but it does help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.967219
| 2014-08-10T08:59:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46264",
"authors": [
"Andi",
"Barna Bas",
"David Richerby",
"Hyde Beauty and Wellness Spa",
"Jolenealaska",
"Max",
"Monti Bioletti",
"Naresh Gautam",
"Paul Michaels",
"Pest Service Quote",
"Ruggieri Co Home Remodeling",
"The Beekeeper",
"Tim",
"Windsor House Private",
"codigger01",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"john sullivan",
"kate c",
"mats mårtensson",
"peggy",
"rumtscho",
"shanshan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57657
|
Using soft apples to make apple juice
My question is a kind of follow-up to this. When apples have turned soft or have started to shrivel, is it possible / advisable to but them through a juicer? From the linked question is would appear that they have started to dehydrate, so I wouldn't expect to get much juice from them.
It's not going to hurt anything. The apples they use for cider are usually pretty rough, so a little wrinkling isn't going cause a health issue. You very well may not get as much juice, but the juice you will get will be more concentrated.
The same principle applies to grapes used for wine...Ideally they will get very little water in the weeks leading up to harvest, so you'll get all the good sugars and flavours, and less of the undesirable water.
It depends on the type of juicer you use. If you use a centrifugal juicer, or a slow juicer, you will find you get less juice. I'm not sure why, but softer apples result in less juice from these types of juicer. If you use a cider press (and muslin cloth bags), you will find you get results that are about on par with fresh apples.
It's worth noting that, in old, bruised apples, mould tends to grow quite quickly inside the bruised flesh. If there is some mould in the early stages of growing (i.e. too small for you to see), you will then introduce that into your juice, and into your brew. This will taint the whole batch, resulting in cider vinegar, or a big mass of mould.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.967588
| 2015-05-21T05:45:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57657",
"authors": [
"Jocelyn Coronado",
"Louise Down",
"Mr. squad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137240",
"yee vue"
],
"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
}
|
53585
|
Water vs olive oil when sautéing
I was recently watching a friend sauté vegetables (specifically artichokes and broccoli) and instead of using olive oil, she used water. What's the difference between using oil as compared to using water to sauté? How do I know when to use which?
Have a look at this : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21467/what-limitations-are-there-to-sauteeing-with-water
And for those who might complain that you can't sauté without fat ... I've seen 'dry sautéing' before. (and the origins of the term refer to how the food moves (jumping), nothing about any liquid in the pan)
@Joe but "fry hot with a little fat in a wide pan" is the definition of sauté. Replacing the fat with water, or completely removing it might be a perfectly valid technique... but it's not sautéing. It's "something else". (I wrote this before reading the answers.)
In terms of sautéing, the simple answer is that using oil is going to let you develop fond, i.e. the tasty brown stuff, on your veggies whereas cooking only with water will essentially boil/steam your vegetables — and perhaps give them a little char, as well.
In cooking, both oil and water are basically just things you use to transfer heat to food. They are both useful in their own way, depending on what you're cooking.
In practical terms, oils/fats can serve a couple other purposes, too, like:
Help extract fat-soluble flavor compounds from ingredients, like herbs and aromatics.
Keep things from sticking and burning in your pan.
Add flavor.
In a hot pan with only water, your friend was probably boiling/steaming their vegetables — not truly sautéing, in which you really try to avoid steaming. If the water runs low, you risk burning your veggies when they come in direct contact with the hot metal of the pan.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it depends on what the food is and how you're trying to prepare it. There are better ways to steam veggies, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Cooking for Engineers has an illuminating article on the science behind heat transfer. Learning about the Maillard reaction is also a good read. And others more experienced than myself can tell you a lot more, I'm sure. Hopefully this is a sufficient "short" answer.
It's pretty easy to avoid charring things - just make sure there's enough water at the beginning, stir a bit, and remove from heat once the water's boiled off. I sometimes use it as a fast way to steam things like green beans, since they need so little cooking time.
As I believe has been mentioned in other posts, you really can't saute in water. Saute literally mean to fry in fat. Some vegetables which have a high fat content may saute a little in their own oils if very little water is in the pan, but it is more of a steaming process. The big difference is the amount of heat being used to cook the veg. Olive oils, at least unrefined EVOO start to smoke and burn at faily low temps 200-250 F. Refined olive oils can take more heat, but many cooks like to use high smoke point oils too fry or even saute.
Anyway, using water in the pan keeps the pan temperature fairly low, generally around the boiling point of the water (212 F). You can get it hotter using little water but the water will evaporate quickly and burning may occur. If you add more water, you continually cool the pan inhibiting the mailliard effect. This is the brownig effect that occurs on food when exposed to high heat. This creates a great flavor on most foods.
While there's nothing wrong with cooking in water, the results are quite different from cooking in oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.967847
| 2015-01-13T23:21:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53585",
"authors": [
"Ann",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Kogie Naidoo",
"Lisa Malcolm",
"Max",
"Patsy Conter",
"Pauline Taylor",
"Philip Houghton",
"RonJohn",
"Yves",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53590
|
When to add vegetables to stew?
I am participating in a stew cook-off competition with twelve restaurants involved. Rather than adding the raw, cut and prepared, root-style vegetables (red potatoes, celery, and carrots) near the end of cooking to cook and finish, I am thinking of cooking them separately in salted water, draining and adding to the stew along with frozen peas as it is finished (meat tender).
I am thinking the vegetables will retain more of their inherent individual tastes and flavors, rather than absorbing the flavors of the stew and get lost into a homogenous mix.
Any advice is appreciated, thnk you.
(side note) Some of the flavor of the stew liquid is from those vegetables, especially the celery and carrots. You'll probably want to cook some with the meat, even if you discard (or puree) them.
Thanks. I was planning on coarse chopping onions, carrots, and celery and including them from the beginning, then fishing them out at the end.
I also thought about pureeing them, but in this cometition the stew will be presented side by side, making appearance even more important. I'm thinking a smoother, clearer sauce will be more visually appealing.
I thought separately cooked vegetables might retain more original color and be a little brighter looking.
I have played around with this quite a bit myself. For me, boiling and then adding does not work. As suggested in derobert's remark, many of the veg traditionally added to a stew are there not just as filling but to give off their flavor to the stewing liquid. Leaving them out during the stew is detrimental to your flavor.
I have gotten my best results by adding the stock vegetables (carrots, unions, celery, garlic) as early as I normally would and then adding some vegetables late in the process to provide a differing texture to the whole. After some experimentation I have found that quickly stirfrying some green veg gives a very nice effect, as it adds some color and a very different texture to your end result. My personal favorite for this is quartered sprouts, quickly fried at high heat and then dunked in icewater.
Purely from a texture point of view you vcan also get nice results with diced root vegetables such as cabbage turnip and turnip-rooted celery treated in a similar way.
Thanks. My reading of the judges from the past indicates that unusual or more exotic items don't work. I'm also torn between a coarse, more rustic cut on the final vegetables, versus perhaps a more even slicing of the celery on the bias, ridge slicing carrots and potatoes.
I roast the root vegetables, then add for the last 30 minutes. I find boiled vegetables uninteresting. Roasted vegetables bring flavor and great texture.
Trying to time it just right to the meat's doneness is almost impossible. You never know how long the vegetables will take in the stew.
I would be reluctant to cook the vegtables separately. The problem is that not only do many of the vegetables give flavor to the liquid to the stew, but more bland items absorb the liquid, keeping them from being so bland. In the case of starchy vegetables, they also contribute to the body of the stew.
It's also difficult to give exact times for cooking the vegetables, as there are a number of factors:
type of vegetable
size and cut of the vegetable
acidity of the cooking liquid
temperature of the cooking liquid
personal preference
Now, all of that being said ... I make a stew in which most of the items are cooked separately. If I roast meat and vegetables (potatoes, carrots, onions, peppers, etc.), and have a fair amount left over, I'll cut up the meat, start it cooking in a pot with some extra liquid (the meat juices, maybe some stock, a can of tomatoes, etc.), then add the roasted vegetables and a grated potato (to replace the starch needed to thicken it), and if I have them, some green beans or peas. Let it all warm through and the grated potato disappear, and you can then either serve or let sit in the fridge for a day or two so the flavors meld.
Based on that, I'd be much more likely to use roasted vegetables before boiled ones. You concentrate the flavors, rather than washing them away. If you use a roasting pan that you can deglaze, you could even rescue anything that leaked out and get it back into your stew. If you roasted each vegetable seperately, you could get the control that you're asking for to ensure that everything's cooked as you want it. (but I'd still give them a little bit of time to mingle)
And I should mention that when you mention perfectly cooked vegetables in stew -- filipino menudo. I've never been able to ge it done quite right myself (I don't cook it often enough), but when it's done right (in my opinion), the potatoes hold up on their own but break apart in your mouth; the carrots have texture but aren't crunchy; and the diced bell peppers and peas are just warmed through to brighten it all up.
Now you've got me torn. I like the flavor addition of roasting the vegetables, but I'm leaning towards the filipino menudo effect you mentioned. I should have mentioned before, but I made a base stock with the classic ingredients and oxtails. I now have this semi-clear, gelatigenous base. Now, for the actual stew, I'm planning on using chuck and hoping to achieve a clear velvety sauce. That's why I thought vegetables that kept their sharp-edged cuts and textures would look better than the more rustic roasted look.
@Bascoman : I think the acid in the menudo (tomatoes + lemon or vinegar) help to keep the potatoes from breaking down, and so they'll retain a bit of a sharper edge ... but I'd think that you ensure you get one, you'd want to make sure they were cut small enough to cook full through (as acid slows that down). You could also experiment with baked potatoes, then cooled, then cubed if you wanted a stark white, sharp-edged cube. You'd need to avoid the tomato to keep your clear stock, but a hit of acid at the end would be nice (or a dollop of sour cream)
I would recommend splitting the vegetables: some from the start for taste and some later for show. The first ones are discarded when sieving/reducing the sauce. The others can be coloured by roasting or glazing in water/butter. You can also shape them the way you want and preserve that shape. This will achieve your twin objective of taste and looks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.968180
| 2015-01-14T02:26:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53590",
"authors": [
"Amber Thorpe",
"Bascoman",
"Joe",
"Kevin Tindell",
"Mark Wood",
"Sharon Pletz",
"a b",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"maxine allan"
],
"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
}
|
53810
|
Egg muffin tin cooking
I make egg muffins in a muffin tin, using cubed ham, green pepper, onion etc. plus of course beaten eggs. How long can I keep these in the fridge after they have been baked in the oven. I've tried after 3 days and they still taste fine, I just want to know the safety factor
Would you mind posting your recipe and method? It always helps with an answer.
I always limit any refrigerated leftovers to 3days...any thing beyond that throw it out. The ingredients you mentioned are all safe for consumption during that time as long as the egg is thoroughly cooked to an internal temp of 160
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.968683
| 2015-01-20T15:41:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53810",
"authors": [
"Clean CH Care",
"Darren Yellop",
"Dianne ",
"GdD",
"Patty Catalano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"kathryn blair"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76841
|
How to differentiate normal potato from the potato that has sweetness?
Sometimes, we need to add potato to our dishes like in Pulao and some Indian dry vegetable dishes. But some potatoes have sweetness to them which ruin the flavor of the dish.
Is there a way to differentiate the potatoes which are sweet in flavor from the normal one without tasting?
Note: I am not talking about Sweet potato, which is a different thing altogether.
Though there is not a perfect way you can differentiate them except tasting, but you can try following ways which are kinda based on experience as we used to run a grocery store.
1. By smelling them
You can smell them while purchasing. If you smell some sweetness, it will have sweetness. Though, it'd require some practice.
2. By texture and color
You can differentiate between them by looking at color.
For eg., this one has sweetness.
While this one doesn't have.
There is one more, but it works after boiling.
If you boil potato with sweetness, it will get glue-ish.
What about reddish colour potato ?
Actually, we don't get these ones here, so can't say.
Generally, these ones have sweetness and are rich in fibers. https://www.potatogoodness.com/potato-types/
That potato is not sweet! That's neither a sweet potato nor a yam! It has no sweetness at all. http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/garnetyam.jpg
@Chloe We're not talking about sweet potato, but potatoes with some sweetness.
There are dozens if not hundreds of potato cultivars which look like the first one in your picture, and dozens if not hundreds which look like the second. Are you sure that it is always the look that matters, or is it possible that your local markets sell one cultivar of each look, and one just happens to be sweeter than the other?
@rumtscho Well, look doesn't always matter, but I can say that most of the times it's true because I've purchased them many times and we also ran a grocery store.
@AJ How can you say looks doesn't matter when in your answer you say "You can differentiate between them by looking at color"?
@Ghostship I hope that you didn't miss the word always and the sentence This one is not always true, but mostly I purchased second ones that didn't have sweetness..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.968789
| 2016-12-26T14:04:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76841",
"authors": [
"A J",
"Ankit Sharma",
"Chloe",
"Ghostship",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76838
|
How far in advance can a vegetable filo strudel be made and kept in fridge?
I would like to make a roasted vegetable filo pastry strudel 2 days in advance of cooking, is this OK or should it be made the day before?
What kind of vegetables? In general, the less moisture in the vegetables, the farther in advance you can assemble it. This isn't a food safety thing, it's a quality thing -- a lot of moisture transferred from vegetables to dough will ruin the puffing-up effect when it's baked.
I'd cook them and freeze them; and when serving, just reheat them.
From a food safety perspective, 2 days should be totally fine. Especially since it doesn't sound like you're using animal products.
From a quality perspective, the strudel's freshness might depend on whether you used fresh vs. frozen vegetables and filo (phyllo) dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.968975
| 2016-12-26T11:36:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76838",
"authors": [
"John Feltz",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17091
|
Can you help me identify this appliance/tool?
A friend of mine asked me to identify an appliance he saw in a picture from the Internet, and I was unable to do so. Does anyone else know what this is? I've highlighted it in the background of this image (it's the best picture I have):
It's the one with two handheld drawers on the bottom and conical hoppers up top that appear to be hinged at the bottom. Given the rest of the items in this picture, perhaps it has something to do with coffee? My guess is that it's a coffee roaster.
This is WALL-E's cousin
It looks like a rotary drum coffee roaster. I can't find any pictures of one that looks exactly like it though, so I may be wrong.
Based on the confirmation from Satanicpuppy, I did a web search for "industrial coffee roaster" and I found this web gallery which seems to confirm that it is a Pinhalense two-barrel propane-fired coffee roaster. I'm going to mark Satanicpuppy's answer as correct because he/she was the first with the confirmation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.969074
| 2011-08-24T12:21:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17091",
"authors": [
"Debbi",
"Lina",
"Midhat",
"Otto",
"Robert Meehan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36680",
"tom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5124
|
Induction range vs gas
In the next few months I have a kitchen remodel planned. One item to be replaced is the range/oven. Currently we have a "vintage" electric stove.
I am undecided as to whether to choose gas or an induction model. I had gas in a previous house and I really liked it. However, I have reservations about combustion gases and unhealthy effects on air quality. I have heard great things about induction ranges, but my biggest reservation there is that I'll need to replace a fair bit of cookware. Personally, I have no experience using induction.
My question is mainly directed at those who have used both induction and gas, but if you've used either that's ok as well. So, given a choice between induction or gas, which would you choose?
P.S. - Not sure if this should be a community wiki, but if so I'm good with that.
Update
I was hoping to hear from someone who uses an induction range. The ideal answer would be something like, "I've used gas and induction and when I bought a new range I bought "x" and here's why". Anyway it's not an ideal world...
My issue is that I have used gas for cooking and know lots of others who do as well. I have one friend who used an induction range in a vacation home, and her take was that she hated it at first, but then came to like it. Another friend has a countertop induction burner, but he's not a cook as he just uses it to boil water. The thing is that induction ranges are not very common in the U.S. or at least among people I know.
So, to refine what I'm interested in.... If you are an avid cook, and have used an induction system, "Is it responsive?", "Is it controllable, in that say, you can set a burner at 180 and it'll stay there?", "Is it durable and easy to clean?".
Also, my reservation about replacing cookware pretty much went away. I found flooring materials through salvage for less than half of what I expected to pay. That pretty much opened up my budget if I decide to go with induction rather than gas.
Finally, what I really need to do is find a way to test drive an induction range. I'll be checking in with some local shops to see if there is a way to accomplish that.
And by the way, I have of course googled on this.
Thanks for the input so far.
Another Update
I was hoping to get more comparative experience in using gas and induction. I suppose I didn't get much of that because induction ranges do not have wide usage in the U.S. market.
I know that I generally like cooking on gas ranges. My main concern with gas is indoor air pollution. Somewhere among my bookmarks is an article about particulate matter and CO generated by gas ranges.
On the other hand, I really like some of the things I've read about induction ranges. Efficiency, safety, control, etc.
My final decision on what I actually wind up purchasing is down the road a bit. Hopefully, I'll get to "test drive" an induction range in the meantime.
One advantage to gas : being able to cook when the power's off. (a big factor if you're in an area that loses power regularly, for days at a time)
@Joe - That particular advantage is not a big concern for me. I live in an urban area that rarely loses power + I have a propane camp stove to use in case of emergency. I'm mostly looking for insight on the cooking aspects with each type.
Converted to community wiki
So did you make a decision yet?
I grew up with and learned to cook on a resistive element (traditional electric) stove, since then I've lived in apartments with gas, owned a glass top resistive model and stayed for a couple of months in a Japanese apartment with on inductive stove.
Resistive element
Many have relatively low power (though high power unit have always been available if you had the money)
Slow to heat up and cool down, and no visual feedback of just how much heat you are using means that you have to "get to know" a stove before you can get good control.
I find the coils models to require a lot of cleaning, the glass top ones need regular cleaning and occasional heavy (but careful, non-abrasive) scrubbing
So-so with woks
Gas
Powerful and with visual feedback that mean I get good control of the heat on a new stove almost immediately
Fast on, fairly fast off (the iron grid hold some heat)
Works really well with woks
Works when the power is off, though you may have to light it with a match (it is sometimes hard to safely hand light the oven)
Bigger fire hazard than other stoves, gas leak hazard (modern models are better about this)
Induction
Pretty fast.
Cleaning is like other glass top models
Not every pan will work. Stick with iron or steel.
Probably the safest
Very efficient
Don't know how these perform with woks (as there wasn't one there) but I'm betting on "not well".
An unexpected benefit in small kitchens is that you can keep ramkins with ingredients on the cooktop as you work and drop a cutting board onto the cooktop almost immediately after taking a pan off the "heat".
I have been happiest with gas, and nearly as happy with any glass topped electric model (but the wok thing would be an issue for me when looking to buy).
I can tell you my personal experience. Then you have to weigh in. I don't have induction, I have heating elements under ceramic glass. The material is the same, the mechanism is different.
Gas pros:
once you turn it off, it's off, so if you need to stop the heating immediately, you can do it without moving the pan. This holds for induction as well, but not for electric elements, like in my case.
you generally have handles, which are a better control method, imho. I've seen induction ranges with handles as well, though.
for the oven, gas works better. you can cook pizza in a gas oven, while an electric one won't work, unless it's very powerful and ventilated. Gas creates a stronger convection, which improves cooking.
Gas cons:
it ruins the bottom of the pan
it is potentially dangerous
the thing that produces the flame (sorry, don't know the name) is relatively complex to clean, and the electric starter will most likely fail within a year.
Induction range pros:
cool design
it is less dangerous if you leave it on.
In case of spill, it generally turns off automatically.
Induction range cons:
you will have to change the pans, if they are not made of iron or proper material. induction works through magnetic induction, which heats the metal of the pan. This is the reason why the induction does not burn you if you put a hand on it when it's on. I also heard of pans that broke down, but it's not a personal experience, so I don't really believe it 100 %.
ceramic glass is a nightmare to clean, and it's basically dirty after only one use. You will have to scrub it a lot, but with the danger of scratching it. It is also relatively fragile.
you most likely have digital controls, which are generally slower to operate.
Given the choice and with the experience I have, I would probably go electric non-induction, as I have right now but with no ceramic glass. If only ceramic glass solutions are available, I would probably go gas.
Another downside for hobs with touch controls: just a little damp on the controls gets them flashing E for Error and turns off the heat. If you are working intensively at the hob, that can happen often enough that it becomes annoying.
@Chris : very true. Had the same issue.
Thanks for the input. More for my remodel file. Also, added an update to the OP.
Any recommended products to clean ceramic glass? I'm not making any progress with the non-scratch bon ami (which should've worked i thought?).
Safety: Induction ranges are safer. For those with kids in the house, there is less chance of them being badly burned by the range itself. And there is no chance of pilot light failure and build-up of dangerous levels of gas.
Efficiency: Induction ranges are more efficient than gas, and far more efficient than standard electrical ranges.
Heating capacity: Even the cheaper induction ranges are capable of producing much higher levels of heat than even high-end home gas ranges. Something to keep in mind if you are doing much wok cooking or pan searing.
Durability: The metal surfaces on the gas range are pretty tough to harm. Ceramic can be chipped or cracked.
Cleaning: The induction range is one flat surface. No nooks and crannies for little pieces of raw or burnt food to escape into. However, you can't use the same type of scrubbing and scouring without scratching the surface.
You cannot use a traditional round bottomed wok on an induction stove. The surface must be flat.
Having used both, I prefer induction due to:
The heating speed (It's almost instant)
It's probably (in my head at least) more efficient
Easier to wipe down
My hob (which was pretty expensive), has a timer which I've never seen on a gas hob
I've not tried induction but I do have trouble hitting really low temperatures on gas hobs, even on the smaller rings. On modern, glass top electric hobs I can make things that would otherwise require a double boiler (actually I've got a double boiler and it ticks me off that I don't have a use for it).
In one sense glass top hobs are easier to clean than gas; you just wipe them over. But regular glass top hobs tarnish quickly from all the scrubbing of burnt-in food. The answer I'm told is to wipe the hob clean directly after use, which may be practicable on an induction hob since they cool quicker.
I don't have personal experience with induction.
A family friend has one and it was broken down for ages. A cooking show on TV had each contestant pair cook at home during a stage. The contestant's with induction had it broken down.
I've never seen any chef using induction. Gas top and bottom or electric bottom rule in kitchens - pro and amateur alike. If induction was that great they'd be more visible in the scene. Induction is very expensive to repair and requires special pans.
Not sure anyone who prefers gas has used induction in their own kitchen. I was lucky enough to have all-clad and cast iron, so going to induction was not as expensive as it is for some and was an excuse to get rid of my dated aluminum pans. It really is much faster, cooler to use and easier to keep clean. The kitchen does not heat up like it does with gas. No "hot spots" like you can get on lower settings with gas. You can set it to "Lock" so children or cats can not accidentally set it to "on". In Europe, restaurants and chefs are going to induction to save on HVAC and insurance, so induction is gaining acceptance there faster. You can now buy inexpensive induction-friendly pots and pans at Bed Bath and Beyond. People are slow to change their cooking habits or induction would be more widespread.
I had gas stoves my entire life until about two years ago, when I got a Stellar Double Induction Hob reviews while searching on Internet, and personally, I found this article quite helpful in understanding the differences between gas/electric and induction . Now I'd never go back.
Induction hob is very similar to gas in terms of heating power (induction is probably even more powerful) and immediate control/responsiveness. The primary downside of induction, for me, is that not every pot or pan will work. But induction provides all the advantages of gas, in a flat induction hob that is easy to clean and doesn't stay hot. Instead of cleaning under a gas burner, or trying to scrape off stuff that's fused to an electric cooktop, I can just wipe it clean pretty much immediately after taking the pot off.
Induction ranges may be overrated. Sure, they are "more efficient" than gas in the sense that more of the energy goes to your cooking. The problem is that electricity is far more expensive than gas (at least where I live in central Ohio). Therefore, you will see a big jump in your energy bills than with gas. I speak from experience. My year-to-year electric bill went up for the month of June by $15 between 2012 and 2013 after we installed an induction range in the beginning of June, 2013 (June 1st, to be exact). This is in spite of lower temperatures by an average of 3 degrees, and in addition to having replaced ALL windows last December with double-pane types in lieu of the inefficient single-pane windows we had.
Another plus for gas is that using gas in winter assists in heating your dining area if it is open to the kitchen as several homes in the U.S.
The deal breaker may be different from person to person, but, for me, gas is much less expensive and, thus, preferable. As mentioned in a previous post, gas is also available in cases of power outage. Induction is much better than "standard" electric, though.
In summary, if operating cost is your biggest concern, here is how they rank:
1 (Least expensive) - Gas
2 - Induction
3 - Electric
In many countries, electricity is cheaper than gas, and is also sourced from a renewable resource (hydro, wind etc)
In the UK, electricity is about 2-3x the price of gas per kWh. Gas cooking is about 40% efficient, induction around 80%. So, induction breaks even at best compared to gas running cost wise but likely to be worse from a Total Cost of Ownership perspective given that induction hobs are more expensive. Not clear on the longevity/reliability of induction hobs, all I found was an NAHB study that puts it at 10 years for induction, 15 for gas.
Having had an Induction top in our last house, we missed the immediacy of the almost instant heat (iron or steel pans only, you can buy a steel to fit on the hob to use with non-ferrous pans), it's so much more controllable than anything else. Chefs are using it more, the main point is that it's twice as efficient as gas. The surface where the pan was cooking is hot through being in contact with a hot pan. Never as insanely hot as a halogen hob or electric ring. Unlike gas you can't catch fire or get the fumes from incorrectly burning gas. I had to buy a single induction ring for the house we moved into as the old kitchen was tired, it'll do until we can get a new induction hob.
Induction is the future, only heating the pan, not the whole kitchen. While they are saying energy shortfall in the UK maybe this could help.
What's your source for induction being twice as effective as gas?
I know that you shouldn't use Wikipidia as your source but it did say US government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking#Efficiency_and_environmental_impact
I know you can't take it all as read, but from use of Inductionhobs, De Detrich, I'm quite sold on induction,
I had gas oven all my life until a few months ago. I think that for an oven, the induction method is better. This is because in an oven you will want temperature to be roughly the same everywhere - this is incredibly difficult to achieve using a gas oven. This is particularly important for any sort of cake.
As far as non-oven goes, I highly prefer the gas option, because it is much easier to get the temperature right. I do think this is just a preference though. My ideal kitchen would have gas on top and an electric oven. Well, 2 electric ovens really - together having the same size as a normal oven.
Induction oven? I don't see how that would be possible. I think perhaps you misunderstood what "induction" means.
For me, the biggest frustration is induction pulses and as such, I've never been able to simmer easily.
This is also in turn due to the level of control many inductions hob have - with gas, you have a dial which increases or decreases the amount of fuel to burn. This gives you greater control of the amount when compared to an electronic equivalent, which changes the amount of electricity in fixed increments (such as power increments of 1 - 10).
I have had a few induction hobs, for home use and a couple of commercial, and another annoyance is they don't tend to always go low enough in temperature and I've found myself using a thin piece of wood between the induction hob and pan to reduce the connectivity between the 2.
If you want to cook. Get Gas. its a no brainer.
If you do anything interesting, like moving your pans from stove top to oven, or have any old pots you like and love.. Induction won't do it for you.
If you want to show off your kitchen, and keep it clean, get induction or glass ceramic.
You will probably have to get all new pots... your fry pans you will have to replace every couple of years.
Pans warp over time..even All clad Pro or whichever expensive pan you prefer. If you drop it in H2O while still hot even 1x it won't be superflat for induction or ceramic anymore.. (I know you would never do that.. but your teenage daughters friend or a house guest might)
Since nearly all the important pros and cons are already listed, I just want to add one more thing:
Induction cooking produces electro-magnetic hazards. It doesn't seem to be quite clear what possible effects that may cause on human body (e.g. radiation that hits your eyes). Some say none, some say there may be effects ... Just like the question wether or not a mobile phone may be harmfull to your brain while doing a phone call.
Same for the stuff you put in the pan that is exposed to this radiation. It could be possible that it may influence the food's structure/molecules.
There's no scientific evidence for the claims made in this post.
Pros and cons to both technologies but gas is not without issue as it produces carbon monoxide
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.969245
| 2010-08-13T17:29:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5124",
"authors": [
"Alan Li",
"Alex George",
"Alex Klimashevsky",
"Armando Butch Punceles",
"Brenda",
"Brent",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cynthia",
"Debbie Shaffer",
"Errol Dillon",
"Frederik",
"Gadam",
"Illuminate Harmony Candle Spam",
"JWiley",
"Jason Hennings",
"Joe",
"Jonas Middendorf",
"KT12",
"Marti",
"Mike Sherov",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Nog Shine",
"OhBeeHive",
"Roberto Baggio",
"SetSlapShot",
"Stefano Borini",
"Stewart",
"TFD",
"Virgil",
"andleer",
"angrycamel",
"calumbrodie",
"ceejayoz",
"dave",
"forager",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9975",
"kingcoyote",
"mtnwk",
"nimizen",
"podperson",
"razumny",
"ubershmekel",
"wdypdx22"
],
"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
}
|
53573
|
What is the best way to store and manage tahini?
I don't use my tahini too often, and sometimes when I open a can that's been sitting on the shelf, the oil has separated from the pastey part so much, that the pastey part is like a rock.
Is there a way to store tahini longterm without this separating happening?
Once it happens is there a way to recover it? A food processor didn't work.
The oil will always separate from the rest of the product. (home made or natural/bio peanut butter will behave the same way)
When that happens, just spend some time and elbow grease to mix it back together again.
if the tahini was stored in the fridge, it might take longer because everything will be harder.
Just leave it on the counter for a while until it gets to room temperature before mixing it back together.
(after googling) People suggest to keep the jar upside down and when you want to use it, just put it back straight and let it stand for a while, it will mix itself (a little bit) together again.
Storing in the fridge indeed pretty much prevents this. I've gone through large jars over many months stored in the fridge without really re-stirring, and there's a little bit of a harder layer at the very bottom at the end, but not enough to worry about.
My jar split even in the fridge; maybe there is a difference between brands.
Huh, interesting. Mine was split at room temperature, so I'm pretty sure it helped still, but I guess it's not the end all be all solution.
It usually works for peanut butter pretty well, to mix it and put it in the fridge. I guess tahini has more of a tendency to separate though refridgerating it might make it happen slower.
I stored in the cabinet and when I went to use it it was fully separated. I used a fork to break up the hard bottom that had settled and then I used an immersion blender and that worked great! The immersion blender made it very smooth and completely incorporated the liquid and solid into a smooth creamy tahini paste.
I store tahini upside down in fridge door area since I live in the desert and the pantry still gets warm even with air conditioning on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.970937
| 2015-01-13T17:34:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53573",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Delaney",
"Loi Poole",
"Max",
"Norma Zane Shepherd",
"Susan Summers",
"Verity Hughes",
"april26",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"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
}
|
7956
|
What happened to my duck?
This happened a couple of years ago, but I still don't have an answer. Christmas eve. I had a duck in the oven. I tried to cook it at a slightly lower temperature and a little longer than the recipe dictated. Also, I didn't turn the duck over at all.
The duck was completely done. My wife complained about the horrible taste of the breast, while I was happily eating the leg. Later on I found that the breast was foul smelling and tasting...
Any idea why this would happen? Did I cook too long, should I have turned the duck over, why should the leg be tasty and the breast foul???
A bad duck maybe? Have you tried again?
Was it stuffed?
Perhaps you could provide a link to the recipe?
No I haven't tried a whole duck again. It wasn't stuffed. I have no idea which recipe it was. This happened about two years ago.
It might have been a bad duck. That would have been bad luck. During Christmas season.
I've experienced this with duck before - it comes out tasting mostly like liver. I recommend marinating and stuffing to ensure it doesn't become too dry.
Assuming you didn't do some kind of "flavor injection" treatment, there is absolutely no reason why one part of a bird would taste radically different from another. I'm going to go with "Bad Duck."
Cooking the bird slowly seriously reduces the possibility of a "hot spot" causing some kind of local taste variance. Breast meat will become overdone at the point where dark meat is still tasty, but that wouldn't explain smell or taste, and unpleasant smells are almost always related to bacterial issues.
If it was discolored, it could have been local bruising, which would cause some taste issues, but, again, wouldn't explain the smell.
I'll try another duck next Christmas :) Nope, I'll try another duck before Christmas.
You could have bought a wild duck. They can taste very fishy, particularly in the breast meat. The traditional way of getting the fishy taste out of wild duck is to cook it with a potato in the cavity but I don't think this makes very much difference.
I never knew that. I believe I bought a farm-bred duck.
@GUI Junkie: If the duck came to you with feathers and bullet holes, it was probably wild. Otherwise, it was almost certainly farmed.
Haha, then it was farmed. No doubt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.971156
| 2010-10-08T16:57:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7956",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Dammy Tejuosho",
"Marcin",
"Satanicpuppy",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"s_hewitt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53408
|
What are some recommended methods of cleaning wooden cutting boards?
Supposedly, wooden cutting boards should not be submerged in lots of soap and water because too much moisture leads to rot. How can one optimize for cleanliness while also caring for the board?
Mineral oil is your friend
As you said, Ana, the biggest enemy of a clean — and warp-free — wood cutting board is moisture penetration. The first trick to fight this is to wipe down your cutting board fairly often with mineral oil or other food-safe wood treatment.
This helps with cleaning as it prevents liquids and bacteria from penetrating into the wood. It also has the nice effect of helping to keep flavors from embedding and transferring to other foods.
Scrape it. Scrape it good.
The second trick is to use a sturdy steel scraper to clean the surface as you go, scraping out excess moisture after each round of cutting before it can penetrate too deeply into the wood. This is something you'll especially want to do with an end-grain cutting block, which is much more absorbent than other grains.
Soap & water is (mostly) all you need
When I'm done, I usually wash with light soap & hot water on the board, followed by a good hard scrape with the steel scraper, so I have a nice dry, fresh surface for the next use. And store that board on its edge, not flat! This promotes even drying and prevents warping.
It's science
The smart people at America's Test Kitchen used science n' stuff and found that soap & hot water was pretty effective at killing bacteria, though the USDA recommends an application of bleach dilute to really sanitize that bad boy.
Maintained board = clean board
Notable board maker, Boos, has a good list of board care suggestions, including these related to cleaning:
Periodically (once every 3-4 weeks, depending upon the use and household conditions), apply an even coat of Boos ® Mystery Oil and Boos Block ® Board Cream to all surfaces of your wood cutting board. The Boos ® Mystery Oil acts as a shampoo that contains oils and minerals that penetrates through the wood surface to increase its longevity. Next, you will want to use the Boos Block ® Board Cream, that acts as the conditioner, to seal the top coating of the wood surface.
DO NOT allow moisture of any type to stand on the cutting board for long periods of time. Don't let fresh, wet meats lay on the board longer than necessary. Brine, water and blood contain much moisture, which soaks into the wood, causing the cutting board to expand, the wood to soften, and affects the strength, of the glued joints.
Use a good steel scraper or spatula several times a day, as necessary, to keep the cutting surface clean and sanitary. Scraping the surfaces will remove 75% of the moisture. Do not use a steel brush on the cutting surface of your board.
DO NOT cut fish or fowl on the work surface of your cutting board, unless you have thoroughly followed the instructions in step #1. The moisture barrier must be intact prior to cutting any type of fish, seafood, or fowl on the work surface of your cutting board. ALWAYS CLEAN THE CUTTING BOARD SURFACE THOROUGHLY AFTER CUTTING FISH OR FOWL ON THE WORK SURFACE.
Sanitize cutting board by wiping all surfaces down with mild dish soap and water. Dry throughly. DO NOT wash your wood cutting board with harsh detergents of any type. DO NOT wash your butcher's tools on your cutting board surface. DO NOT put Boos Block ® wood cutting boards into dishwasher.
Happy chopping!
storing on its edge is very important ... I've lost way too many cutting boards to mold because the counter was wet. (I do my prep next to the sink)
I usually scrub mine clean with a stiff brush, rinse it off, dry it off, and then lightly spray it with a vinegar solution and let it dry in a well ventilated place. I also keep my board oiled, which helps with all this.
More importantly, I don't submerge it in hot water and soap because it may cause the glue holding the boards together to come apart (which has happened to me).
I've made the mistake of leaving a board in dish water before and it ruined it, good advice!
You can also make the same horrible mistake I did by putting your wooden board in the dishwasher.
I prefer the vinegar solution as rfusca mentioned, I actually keep a spray bottle of white vinegar for general house cleaning. But you can also use a bleach/water solution as well. You soak it in a bleach/water solution for 2 minutes then rinse it off with a lot of water. I know some people who only do the bleach once or twice a year for a really deep clean but I've seen some people in the food industry do it every time they use their board, too.
When you dry it make sure you use a hook or dish rack so it can dry on both sides.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I've used the bleach method on porous fiber butcher cutting boards, but have you used it on wood boards? Seems like it would ruin the color pretty quickly?
Can't imagine many people get away with using wooden boards in the food industry. We have to use high density multicoloured plastic boards. Except for butchers who use wooden blocks but these are 'sanded' down a few times a day which is why when you see old ones they are all dipped in the middle.
I only bleach my board occasionally, I usually use vinegar. That said when I bleach it it's only for 2 minutes, then rinse the heck out of it. It's never messed up any of my cheap $10 boards I use at home.
Even Clorox has instructions for this on their site: https://www.clorox.com/cleaning-and-laundry-tips/cleaning/kitchen/how-to-clean-a-cutting-board/
I've seen plastic boards/stainless steel counters used most often in food industry too, as it's a lot cheaper usually. But a google search for "bleach butcher block" shows that a lot of people bleach butcher blocks too. I don't think I've ever actually even seen a butcher's block so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on those. :P
@Doug - FDA, which is usually on the super paranoid side, Food Code 2009: Chapter 4 - Equipment, Utensils & Linens, 4-101.17 Wood, Use Limitation. "B) Hard maple or an equivalently hard, close-grained wood may be used for:
(1) Cutting boards; cutting blocks; bakers' tables; and utensils such as rolling pins, doughnut dowels, salad bowls, and chopsticks; and" http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm188064.htm
If it is badly scored or cut. Sand it down.
We use a marble board for raw meat.
When I finish cutting up a turkey I wipe the grease off with paper towels then wet it in hot water then sprinkle baking soda on it and scrub it clean. Rinse in hot water, dry then put cutting board wax or mineral oil on it. Dish soap absorbs into the wood so don't use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.971391
| 2015-01-08T18:59:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53408",
"authors": [
"Adrian Pike",
"Ann Gregory",
"Centralwave spam",
"Christopher Lamont",
"Deanne McIntosh",
"Doug",
"Emily Schwartz",
"Erika Ingham",
"Erin Connolly",
"Gary Barney",
"Jemmeh",
"Jimmie Olson",
"Joe",
"Kathie Moniz",
"Lisa Linvill",
"Phrancis",
"Shinwei Lee",
"Spammer",
"Stacy Blankenship Gould",
"geoff fairman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"maritta waller",
"rfusca",
"tanktop",
"tom van bossuyt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53461
|
Can my syrupy jelly be processed again to make it set, or do I need to start over?
I have a blackberry watermelon jelly that I made and it didn't set up. I waited about 3 weeks for it to set up and then reprocessed it, adding more pectin. I added 1 1/2 packages of pectin (it was a large batch) and it still didn't set up. I've looked on-line but can't find anyone who's actually reprocessed a second time. People have asked but no one has done it to answer.
Can I reprocess it or do I just have to resign myself to having syrup?
Did you do something like cut back the amount of sugar in the jelly, vs. the recipe? That can cause it to not set.
1) Jam needs a proper mix of pectin, acid, and sugar. Are you following a recipe? If so, have you altered anything, like fresh vs. frozen fruit, ratios, etc.? 2) Your jelly should be set up when it cools to room temperature. No time in the fridge will change this.
You can use a chilled plate to test your batch before canning it next time. Pectin does not firms up with time, just temperature.
I would suspect that the watermelon juice has made your jelly too dilute, and you'll need to boil your jelly down further.
Cold plate trick is a good idea!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.971930
| 2015-01-09T21:33:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53461",
"authors": [
"David R",
"Ernie Gutierrez",
"Jason Schock",
"Jeanne Galloway",
"Priyanka Sanghvi",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"olivers4xtraconz",
"patrick maina"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120867
|
Can I freeze ice cream base before creaming it?
I recently acquired an ice cream maker, and successfully used it to make sone chocolate and coffee ice cream. The ice cream maker is actively cooled, but I doubt it makes a different.
Most ice cream recipes call for preparing some sort of mix of egg yolks, sugar, milk and cream - sometimes cooking it, sometimes not. To this base you then add the flavor, which can be almost anything.
My idea is the following:
prep ahead a high quantity of base, 8 to 12 yolks worth
freeze the base as it is, in 1 or 2 yolks portion
when I want ice cream, fully thaw a portion, add flavor, then cream it in the ice cream maker
It seems to me that this process should theoretically work, as the big crystals that form during the first freeze are then fully melted before the creaming process starts, but I am wondering if there is some additional unwanted effect. As an example, freezing vegetables destroys the plant cells, so you can freeze vegetables to make a soup, but you cannot freeze celery and then expect it to be crunchy, as the texture is irreversibly affected.
As an alternative to this, you might want to look at the Ninja Creami, a home-user knockoff of a commercial ice cream blender called the Pacojet. Both operate by freezing the base ahead of time, then blending individual portions on demand. It's not foolproof with every ice cream base, but there are recipes out there to start from (not to mention the Pacojet recipes, which should work).
The "batter" is typically called a "base" or "ice cream base." There is no problem freezing the base for storage purposes, thawing (in the refrigerator so as to stay out of the danger zone, but also to keep the base as cold as possible), then processing in your ice cream maker. There is no cell structure to worry about, like you point out with vegetables. Remember, a cold base freezes more quickly and produces smaller ice crystals creating a more creamy product.
Have you tried this out? Emulsions are rather difficult in freezing, and I would be afraid that the internal structure of a French style ice cream (made with yolks and cream) would suffer from a freeze-thaw cycle. But maybe my theoretical doubts are unfounded.
Freezing the emulsion was also a concern to me, yes. I imagine that if I freeze plain cream, then thaw it, it's not cream anymore... or is it?
The thought about the emulsion is a good point. If it breaks you should be able to hit it with a stick blender, a blender, or even just a whisk after the thaw to re-emulsify. Give it a shot with a small batch to see how it goes. I've thawed and refrozen ice cream, after not liking the first result. It's worked.
If the freeze/thaw fails for you, another option is to simply keep your base in the refrigerator. You would be good for at least a week....and, of course, there are a variety of styles of ice cream base...so some might freeze/thaw better than others...
Yep I could just refrigerate that, but we are just two in the household so my objective would be to mix together about a dozen eggs worth, which takes the same time as mixing 1 or 2, and keeping it frozen so that it lasts months. I'll give this a try soon - currently I have a couple liters of ice cream in the freezer that will last a while :)
In the comments you mention "give it a shot with a small batch to see how it goes" If I understood correctly — that you haven't done what the OP is asking about at the emulsion stage — I think it'd be good to call it out a little more clearly in the answer itself that you're suggesting it based ona gut feel rather than on experience.
@anotherdave as I mention, there are multiple styles of ice cream base. I've thawed and refrozen both egg based and "Philly" style ice creams and they have worked just fine (though not frequently). So, given that there is variance in ice cream bases, my suggestion to the OP is to try their own recipe in a small batch first. He was clearly satisfied with that...hope it works for you.
There should be no problem with your approach from a safety perspective as long as the base doesn't spent too long in the danger zone. From a consistency standpoint you are fine as long as you use a stabilizer like guar gum. Pure cream and egg custards may not take kindly to an extra freeze-thaw cycle.
The issue you may get is getting your flavors mixed in a cold base. Chocolate will solidify at that temperature, so if you are adding chocolate you'll either have to re-heat the base to mix it in, or add some oil to the chocolate once it is melted to keep it from solidifying. Coffee, mint extract and other liquid flavorings should mix in fine, as should Nutella, although you'll need to use a stick blender to get it incorporated. Real mint ice cream needs the mint leaves to be steeped in a hot base to extract the flavor.
Re-heating the base shouldn't be a problem, just make sure you build in the time to chill it again. For me going through the steps to re-heat and cool the base again would defeat the purpose of what you are trying to achieve, so it would be best to stick to flavorings you can mix in cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.972088
| 2022-06-20T10:24:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120867",
"authors": [
"Bloodgain",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"anotherdave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7975
|
How to keep a meatball round?
After seeing this question I started to think more about my meatballs and wonder how can I keep them round?
I have always been under the impression that you should first brown the outside and then cook them through. Problem is during the browning in the frying pan I end up with flat sides.
What can I do? Help my meatballs!
I saw a recommendation on 30 Minute Meals to place each one in a muffin tin (they were sized so they stuck out the top), and then bake them. You'd have to find the right sized tray for your size of meatballs, though.
I'm guessing you'd also want a large tray underneath, though, or you risk dripping grease inside the oven.
... you could probably also just put 'em on a sheet tray and bake 'em, and you'd only get one flat side, rather than from each time you turned them in the pan.
Very interesting, I will have to try this. Two thanksgivings ago, my father started making "stuffing cakes" if you will, stuffing in a muffin tin and they are quite delicious. Crispy sides all around and who does not like stuffing? I will have to try the muffin tin for meatballs and report back!
Easiest and roundest .
After reading the muffin pan idea I had to try it. I wanted smaller meatballs so I used a 24 cup small muffin pan with a quick puff of Pam in each. Meatballs did not touch the sides of the cups. Baked them in 350 oven about 15 minutes, used a spoon to lift them out onto a cooling ravk. My meatballs were almost perfect, slightly flattened on bottom, prettiest I have ever made and by far the easiest! I will never go back to turning meatballs individually while I try to cook them round.
And a clarification for those who do this -- the meatballs are above the muffin tin for the most part. If you put them in the muffin tins, they come out like cupcake sized meatloafs. (and not the good ones, the ones that are baked in a loaf pan so it never develops a good crust as it was cooking in a pool of fat). ... from experience a few months back, when tried working from memory without looking things up to verify, and did it wrong.
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about how they look, but rather how they taste! In some sense there is a trade off between the two. You can initially mold them into a pretty round shape and then cook them them immediately in the sauce; this way will retain their round shape.
However, the more effective way (and the authentic Italian method) is to bake them in an oven first with a bit of olive oil. This cooks the meatballs nicely and gives their surface a lovely texture and brown colour. It is however inevitable that they will lose some of their roundness and flatten at the bottom (depending on their firmness), as you state. A small price to pay for the taste however, I think!
I'd imagine frequently rolling them around in the pan as you sear them would help.
I nuke them in a microwave until the proteins bond, then fry in pan.
This is probably heresy, but I get round, tasty meatballs every time.
You can bake them in the oven on racks (think cookie cooling racks).
This way they brown evenly all around and they don't change shape.
The downside is more dishes...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.972613
| 2010-10-09T17:00:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7975",
"authors": [
"Carolyn G",
"Chris",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
60275
|
Can fruit juice be used to hold a cheesecake crust together?
I'm thinking of changing a Mocha-Mint Cheesecake recipe of mine to a more plain Peach Cheesecake.
Among the other things that need to be modified, I was thinking of instead of using butter as an "adhesive" to hold the (oreo) crust together, I would use graham crackers mixed with a small amount of peach juice. The idea being that the sugar in the juice would caramelize while cooking, and hold the crust together.
Does this sound feasible? If so, can anyone with relevant experience give me tips on how to have this work out as well as possible?
Provided it would work, the only downside I could immediately see was that the absence of butter in the crust may make it drier. Is this actually a concern? I'm currently using 3 tbsp of butter for 1 1/2 Cups of crust
It's baked in a 10" springform at 375F for 70 minutes; if any of that info is required.
Any particular reason you wouldn't flavour the actual cheesecake instead? I think it'd taste better anyway as butter is tasty.
@talon8 I am flavouring the cake itself. I just thought I'd this as an interesting alternative, if it'll work. I anyways use butter.
I've experimented a bit with liquid flavorings in tart crust (not specifically replacing butter -- I still had butter in there) and I find that it does tend to make the crust soggy, but if you are baking the crust first, you can cook it longer to counteract this and it comes out a little more like shortbread. I don't think I would recommend it, and I actually try to keep as much room-temperature liquid out of my crusts as possible.
On the other hand, one of the most famous NY cheesecake places, Junior's, uses a spongecake base instead of a traditional crust. If you really want to add peach to the crust, maybe you could work off of this? Maybe replace one of the eggs with pureed peach? (I was surprised and pleased to find that Epicurious has the official Junior's recipe online, actually.)
Another option would be to keep your normal crust recipe and put a layer of peach jam or compote on top of the crust (if you have a baked crust, or even the sponge cake method). You would want to make sure there is as little liquid as possible in this layer or you're still going to have soggy crust.
Mmm, cool idea. Idk how peach jam would turn out. I had an image in my head of a layer of caramelized juice holding the crust together, but that may not even be possible. Do you think boiling off some of the water would help with the soggines? I don't know how juice would fare being exposed to heat like that; especially after losing some moisture.
@Carcigenicate Honestly, peach liqueur might be your best bet.
@Tritium21 I'm going with peaches only because we just brought back boxes of them from our tree, and they're starting to turn. I'd rather not have to buy any peach-related ingredients.
@Carcigenicate Might i suggest a crumble and an ice cream instead?
@Tritium21 I'm also trying to use up excess cream cheese that someone bought me for a previous cheesecake that I forgot about. I suppose I could freeze it, although I'm not sure when I'd use it. Oh well, thanks for your suggestions.
@Carcigenicate What about something like this? There are probably other recipes out there but this was the first one that turned up in a search. Here is a peach version.
@Carcigenicate - cooking the peaches down with some sugar to a thick sauce would help reduce the risk of sogginess. I think you definitely want to keep extra liquid to a minimum.
I see three issues with omitting butter; Butter is a fat - a cooking medium that aids in heat transfer. It also acts as a browning agent (makes crusts 'crusty'), and it also contains lecithin, which is a binding agent. This helps hold the crust together.
I have omitted butter/fat exactly once... to disastrous effect+.
As for adding a flavorful liquid to the crust? I would worry about making it too wet.
+The disastrous effect of which i speak is the crust did not come together and the crumb migrated into the bottom 1/4" (about a cm?) into the cheesecake. I could not separate the cheesecake from the pan. ...We ate it with spoons out of the spring-form.
Damn. Thank you. What do you mean "disastrous effect"? What happened?
Edited to show disaster.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.972907
| 2015-08-27T00:02:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60275",
"authors": [
"Bryce Nuttall",
"Carcigenicate",
"Catija",
"Grace Njuguna",
"Hawashim Curtain",
"Kleydman Dermatology",
"Maddie Belrose",
"NadjaCS",
"Patricia Williams",
"Peter Mincher-Lockett",
"Tritium21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"spammer",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89335
|
Purpose of hole in stove leading to oven
I'm staying in a hotel and have access to a "electric coil stove" for one of the first times.
I accidentally turned on the oven light and saw that the light was shining up through only one of the stoves:
There's only a port from the oven into the top right stove, and note that the stove is not on.
Here's a view from within the oven:
Is there a hole here as a vent for the oven for some reason, or is this for the stove? I typically use a glass "flat-top stove" that doesn't have an oven underneath it. I've never seen a direct hole from a stove to the oven before, and have to wonder what the purpose is.
A simple Google search yielded the following
https://www.shopyourway.com/m/questions/1019973
All ovens are vented one way or another. You would not want to heat up the air in a sealed chamber because of thermal expansion. It would explode due to the heat expanding because it has no way to vent. A vent is also needed to vent fumes and by products that burn off during the self cleaning process.
A vent is necessary and should not be blocked
I don't think that 'explosion' is a risk... There's always a way for the air to get out somehow. Especially as the oven door (almost?) always opens outwards.
There may be an issue when the oven cools down, though. As the temperature decreases, the volume of the air enclosed would shrink (by almost half if falling from ~225°C to ~25°C, i.e. ~500K -> 300K). If the door is well sealed this could create a partial vacuum which would make it awkward to open the door. (c.f. opening a fridge door if the fridge was recently closed, but with a temperature difference that's ten times greater.)
... contd.
Another issue is humidity. There's normally a large quantity of water expelled if cooking food in the oven. This has to end up somewhere. Typically it end up being vented into the kitchen.
I assume that this is not the case in e.g. combi-ovens. I believe that they have a separate condensing circuitry, and presumably some pressure-equalization mechanism.
You want an oven insulated, but not too well, or it's hard to control the temperature. The hole ensures good heat leakage in a not inconvenient or dangerous area.
A simple Google search yielded this answer.
My oven element broke today after 2 years of use. When the landlord changed it, he showed me the element full of grease and literally ripped apart. He thought either I was cooking without a pan or the pan was leaky. Neither is true, however I had a pot blocking that exhaust and the insides of the oven were full of grease... So I guess exhausting fumes is really really important.
The vent is there to prevent stratification. In other words, to ensure the oven is heated evenly throughout. It causes a lot of issues, however, for people who are cooking more difficult fares (including those particularly sensitive to humidity).
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. :) Can you share any online webpages that would cover this in more detail?
@elbrant :I wasn't aware of it being an issue in ovens, but for buildings : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_destratification . If you've ever heated a place with heat only on one floor (eg, wood stove), you have to crack a window on an upper floor so the heat will rise.
@Joe That make sense, thank you... I was really trying to help David develop his answer.
I assume it is to help with air flow. Heat the same air over and over again and it gets stale. It also lets the wonderful smells waft about the household.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.973266
| 2018-04-22T04:48:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89335",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Joe Yahchouchi",
"Mikhail",
"Popup",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97444"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.