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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18524
|
Are glass jars from the supermarket oven safe?
I recently discovered from the working class foodies video on french onion soup that mugs are oven safe, or at least their mugs and my mugs seem to be by experimentation. I also happen to be one of those people that saves pickle, salsa, etc jars to store food, so I was wondering if these are oven safe too.
The jars in question are trader joes corn and chili salsa, and the bottom has the following symbols and numbers on them, which might hint as to the qualities of the glass.
So, are these jars oven safe? I currently bake my french onion soup at 450°F, but I might want to broil it as well to brown the cheese.
I can't tell you about your jars, hence only a comment, but my mother sterilises ordinary jam jars in the oven to reuse them for her homemade jam.
What temperature does she sterilize them at?
100 degrees, I believe: I don't think she puts salt in the water, so it won't get higher.
So she boils them in the oven? In theory I could do the same, except I'd have to leave a bit of exposed glass, and the cheese would not brown.
@Peter Taylor: you will have to add a lot of salt to the water to increase its boiling temperature of a noticeable amount. To increase of 1°C the boiling point of water you have to add ~60g salt.
Those numbers on the bottom are likely just Mold Numbers: http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/numbers-on-base-of-bottles-containers/
Short answer: They're probably not safe.
Unlike "microwave safety", there isn't a safety risk in contaminating the food contents of the jars due to heating in an oven; in this case you just run the risk of the jars breaking.
I am not sure what the symbols on the bottom of your jar mean; (see edit below) from what I understand—unlike plastic resin identification codes—there isn't a standard set of symbols for glass. Those symbols likely represent the manufacturer, production date, and patents.
Unless glass is processed in a special way, it is prone to breaking when it goes through rapid temperature changes. Therefore, if your glass is run-of-the-mill soda-lime glass (which is extremely likely), and if you were to put it from room temperature directly into a 450°F oven, the shock of that rapid temperature change would likely crack it. Furthermore, even if you were able to gradually heat it up to 450°F without it cracking, it would likely crack even as it naturally cools down. In order to try and ensure that the glass doesn't crack you'd have to both gradually heat the jars up and then very gradually step the oven temperature back down to room temperature.
If you want to use glass, your best bet would be to use something like Pyrex.
Even Pyrex, which is explicitly designed to be oven safe, can't withstand the direct heat of a broiler, though.
Edit: I believe the symbol on the bottom of your jars reads "A.G.C." surrounded by the outline of the state of Arkansas. This implies that your jars were made by the Arkansas Glass Container Company. I believe the numbers indicate the model number, which appears to be this jar. AGC unfortunately don't have anything on their website listing the oven safety of their glass. If you're really interested, you could try contacting the manufacturer.
+1 for your internet detective work, +2 if I could.
Pyrex isn't glass. Since the brand changed hands years ago, it's developed a habit of sometimes exploding in the oven (or the cook's face) under some conditions.
Did you try it? What happened? I put TJ’s same empty clean jars and lids in an aluminum pan and placed everything in toaster oven cold. Turned on heat and experimented on several settings and times. They were fine. I filled them with solids and liquids and did the same with lids on. They were fine. Note: All were placed in cold and then heat was turned on. Let cool down to almost touchable before removing and opening. Based on sand science, which is what glass is primarily composed of, it’s the temperature changes that cause breaking so the heating up and cooling down is crucial.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.012000
| 2011-10-23T13:23:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18524",
"authors": [
"Justin Dearing",
"Mihai Rotaru",
"Peter Taylor",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"anonxen",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"mskfisher",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
98934
|
Can quinoa be used as a soup thickener?
The normal method for preparing quinoa is to boil water, drop the quinoa, wait until it "sprouts", then strain.
My question is about the last part: the straining.
Suppose you are making a soup (lentils, bean soup, ...) and it turns out there is too much water. You do not want to discard liquid, and you do not have patience for reducing by simmering. Is dropping quinoa in, partly as a method for thickening, reasonable?
In other words, what is undesirable about the water one normally boils quinoa in, for one to discard that water? Is there anything undesirable?
Update (Long comment to GdD's nice answer and pointer to saponin)
I didn't wait for an answer. I ran two experiments (on only myself). The result on both occasions is that quinoa is indeed an excellent soup thickener, on account of the amount of water it absorbs. But on both occasions the meal required a few (5 the first time, 2 the second) tablets of Tums to neutralize the stomach acidity (a rare occurence for the foolish volunteer in question). This doesn't establish that saponin, or even the quinoa, is the cause, but that's perfectly plausible. Incidentally, on both occasions the quinoa was carefully rinsed in a fine mesh strainer. That didn't help.
Do you expect to get the quinoa out by straining?
@GdD Lol! No, the idea is for the quinoa to become part of the soup.
In that case I have an answer below @Calaf.
Sorry to hear about the bad stomach @Calaf!
Cooking grains in soup is an effective way to thicken it, but quinoa is probably not the best choice. Quinoa has saponin in it, a bitter tasting phytochemical which has been known to irritate the stomach. Much of the quinoa sold has been presoaked to get rid of much of the saponin, but some may remain which is why you boil it separately and discard the water. If you put quinoa in the soup any traces of saponin could ruin or at least add off flavors to the dish.
Rice or barley would be my first choice for that sort of thickening, they take longer but they don't impart much flavor to the food. Couscous is faster, but would give the soup a grainy texture. Giant couscous may work okay, I've never tried it in a soup myself.
Another possibility is bulgur as a soup thickener. Also, when I make salmon patties or a salmon loaf I thicken it with baby oats resulting in absolutely no oatmeal flavor. I used to use cooked rice, but baby oats are even better. I think it would work for a soup.
When you boil quinoa you don’t discard the water. It’s absorbed into the quinoa like it is in rice. So I’m not sure it’s accurate to say the saponin is being discarded.
I have used quinoa to thicken soup and have never had a problem with it. I don't even taste the quinoa and there was no bitterness. I used organic quinoa.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.012499
| 2019-05-11T20:48:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98934",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"Calaf",
"Food lover",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99564
|
What is the secret to avoid bitter-tasting rapini?
At a certain pick-your-own-food-and-stamp-your-card-then-pay-at-the-exit restaurant, the salad bar includes a delectable rapini, even though it looks like it is prepared with nothing more than steaming or boiling, followed by sprinkling with olive oil and toasted sesame.
Yet my many attempts at duplicating the flavor have all resulted in an unpleasant rapini that is quite bitter.
I've tried steaming and boiling. I've used a lavish amount of water. I've cooked the stems twice to three times as long as the leaves/tips/flowers, as one might do with asparagus, all to no avail.
What is the secret to preparing rapini correctly?
I think the secret is in either the type or how it is grown. I know a friend who has a farm and his wife grows Rapini and he swears it is not bitter like store-bought types.
@SunnyskyguyEE75 I was worried that the difference would be procurement rather than treatment.
Maybe the restaurant adds sugar.
@GdD Very interesting! Just like one might obscure the flavor of low-grade coffee beans one is stuck with, with a bit of sugar. That would be cheating though. It'd be healthier to forego rapini altogether.
To get the best out of rapini, you need to blanch it first. Use well-salted water. Detach the thickest stems from the leaves (these can be peeled and used). Add to boiling water and cook for 3 to 4 minutes. Remove from the water and chill (if using later), or add to a pan with plenty of olive oil and garlic to finish cooking. Remember, though, that bitterness is a characteristic of this vegetable, so you will not completely eliminate it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.012761
| 2019-06-15T23:46:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99564",
"authors": [
"Calaf",
"GdD",
"Tony Stewart EE75",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57964"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16433
|
data about the rate of nutrient decay in fruit/vegetable juice
This is a related question to Do centrifugal juicers destroy vitamins through friction?
Is there any quantitative data about the rate of vitamin & nutrient decay in fruit/vegetable juice?
We just bought a centrifugal juicer, and I want to make an educated decision about whether to use the juicer as needed (maximizing nutrient content but increasing cleanup effort) or to produce fruit/vegetable juice 6/12/18 hrs ahead of time (reducing cleanup effort but perhaps reducing nutrient content).
I think you might get better results if you post this question here: http://fitness.stackexchange.com/, since the fitness and nutrition site is more focused on questions of this type, rather than the "cooking" site. (Perhaps I have a personal bias about "cooking" involving technique over ingredient nutrition analysis)
I maintain that this is on topic, albeit barely. If questions about storage are on topic, and questions about nutritional content are also on topic, then it follows that questions about the impact of the former on the latter are also on topic. Certainly if there is a useful answer then it would be best known by someone in the food industry, not a dietitian.
Some years later, our guidelines are clearer. Asking for the decay of a specific nutrient would have been on topic. But "nutrients" altogether is not allowed, as we'd need to define all of them(!) and then answer about each too, so both off topic and too broad.
Yep, agreed. Thanks for being nice about it. I disagree that it is a good thing for StackExchange sites to have such stringent standards, but it's what the community has determined.
I'm looking for this information as well. I have posted the question on Open Data Stack Exchange.
I decided to look into this question out of personal curiosity and here is what I found:
Some nutrients will naturally decay over time - mainly due to oxidation, but also on their own. The lifespan of most vitamins I looked up was at least a few days, so if you are making your juice ~18 hours ahead of time I doubt you'll lose much (if any) nutritional value.
According to this article: http://www.ultimatecitrus.com/vitaminc.html
When fresh citrus is stored at 38°F for 12 weeks, there was no loss of vitamin C, but when stored at high temperatures, the loss was great.
Vitamin A, B6, K also last for a very long time before decaying. Only a few have a low half-life, eg. B3 with a half-life of 20-45 mins, but your body can produce that on its own.
Based on that, it doesn't seem like you have anything to lose by making the juice in advance and storing it. If you were leaving the juice to sit in the fridge for weeks at a time then I'd say you might lose a tiny bit of nutrients (also the juice would go bad :-P).
A good tip is to minimize the exposure to oxygen by using either a sealable container or a jug with a lid that closes, and keep your juice in the fridge and the loss of nutrients is sure to be minimal even after the length of time that you plan to store it for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.012935
| 2011-07-27T02:14:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16433",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Franck Dernoncourt",
"Jennifer S",
"Milliek",
"Sherry Jennings",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"rumtscho",
"sibbaldiopsis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20096
|
What made these red lentils 'brick' together?
The lentils in the above photo are raw. They did not form a solid block when they were dry, but after I poured a bit of water in, they suddenly did this.
Obviously, they need a bit of washing. Red lentils stick to the pan easily.
Red lentils have no skin and are thus more absorbent. They literally sucked up the wee bit of water clinging to them along with their neighbors. Surface tension of the water couldn't be broken by the light-weight pulses.
When crumbled apart, the brick doesn't feel pasty, no?
Next time maybe pour lentils into water; either way, no harm to finished dish.
If they got wet, and were not washed, they likely had some kind of starch on them that turned to paste, thus binding those little guys into a brick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.013208
| 2011-12-31T13:32:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20096",
"authors": [
"Ladina",
"Ray",
"coderMess",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44052",
"jeanschwalenberg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33173
|
How to build steam in the oven for getting an oven spring?
From: What makes a bread either close or open crumbed/textured?
Oven spring
Yeasts continue producing CO2 until they die at 60C/140F. Also, gasses
expand with heat, so it will also help holes to grow a bit (if I
remember well, up to 30%). But that grown will stop when dough gets
baked and strengthens, and when crust begins to form. To retard this 2
tricks are used:
Use steam in the oven the fist 1/3 or 1/4 of baking time.
Steam will keep the "outer skin" of the bread humid, so it will prevent it from getting dry and forming the crust.
How to use steam in the oven for getting an oven spring?
Well, by steam the only thing I understand is the "vapors". How do you get them in oven? By boiling uncovered water in the oven? How much steam is needed? What is the exact procedure to get the required steam?
Steam in this sense is water vapor, the gaseous form of water. "The vapors" in English implies a certain type of fainting.... http://www.wisegeek.org/what-were-the-vapors.htm :-) :-)
@rfusca did a blog post some time ago about this.
The most common method of getting steam into the oven during the first five minutes of baking when it is critical for crust formation, at least for a home style oven is:
Place a pan at the bottom of your oven, and pre-heat as well it while pre-heating your oven. An empty metal loaf pan or even a cast iron skillet would be suitable. The pan should be metal (ceramic or glass may not fare well with this kind of treatment).
Bring some water to a boil separately, a couple of cups worth.
When you put the loaf into the oven, pour the hot water into the pre-heated pan, which will result in immediate steam production (this is why the pan was preheated, to help it immediately transfer energy to the water, and produce a burst of steam).
In previous questions, you have indicated that you have a toaster oven, not a full sized home oven, at least as we would think of it in the US. There may not be enough room for this method in such as small oven.
Another method, which may be more suitable to your oven, although possibly less effective:
Obtain a spray mist bottle, such as the kind used for misting plants. Fill it with clean water.
Preheat your oven thoroughly.
Immediately before putting the loaf in the oven, mist the oven floor and walls. This will cause a small burst of steam.
The downside of this method is that it only produces a little steam, and it also cools your oven slightly.
thanks for the helpful answer. My oven has the space for placing a pan at the bottom. It has actually 3 shelves to be placed at bottom, center, and top.
Question: Does the water vessels have to be placed there throughout the baking time, or we have to take them out after a center period?
You can just leave it there... that is part of the reason to use metal, so that it is able to tolerate being boiled dry in the hot oven. You want to minimize opening your oven and losing heat. This is especially true in a small oven.
Should my intention be to place enough water such that it lasts the full baking duration?
No, you only need the steam affect for the first 5 minutes or so.
Can I use stainless steel vessel?
Yes--you want something that can take the heat, the thermal shock, and has a fairly high rate of heat conduction. Stainless steel meets all those needs.
Assuming I set the temperature at 180 C, can you tell me how much ml water should be placed which will last for 5 minutes? Sorry, If I "experiment", I fear failing for the first time itself.
Sorry, I don't have an exact answer for you. It depends on too many factors. Note that this is not an exact process, and the failure case is that you will get less crust development and maybe slightly less oven spring, not that you will have a completely unpalatable loaf.
While the water / pan method is spot on, and I use this myself when baking bread, there is also another alternative:
Indirectly creating steam directly around the bread you are baking through using a cast iron or enameled cast iron pot with a lid. Heat the pot and the lid together with the rest of the oven. When oven reaches the correct temperature, and your loaf is ready, take the pot out of the oven, and remove the lid. Sprinkle flour/cornmeal/etc, insert your loaf, slash as you normally would, sprinkle more flour, and cover the pot. Insert it in the oven and bake as normal (I do 45 minutes @ 250 C).
So, if you're not able to create steam with the tried and tested method of a pan at the bottom of the oven, this is also a good method. Results in delicious bread, even crumb and a great crust every time.
Granted, this way you are limited to the size of your pot, and shape.
With any and all free-form or baguette loaves, the pan of water is the much better method.
Use the steam wand from an espresso machine. Aim the nozzle into the oven vent under the heating element under the right-rear burner. Remove the element prior to injecting the steam. One minute is enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.013340
| 2013-04-01T08:03:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33173",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bob9630",
"Cerno",
"Cos Callis",
"Human",
"Jujosiga",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Terence",
"diana",
"hclemens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81104",
"javi1996"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121771
|
For smash burger patties, are you supposed to wait until the meat releases from the pan before you flip it?
This is what I've read about stainless steel pans:
You are supposed to preheat the pan up to the Leidenfrost point (379 ℉ / 193 ℃).
You can test that the pan has reached the Leidenfrost point by throwing a bit of water onto the pan and seeing if it forms a ball that exhibits the "mercury ball effect". I have an infrared thermometer, but apparently those are inaccurate for stainless steel.
When searing meat in the pan, the meat will stick to the pan at first, and when it has finished searing, it will naturally release from the pan.
I've been trying to make smash burgers in a stainless steel pan. This is what I do:
form 80/20 ground beef into 2 oz balls and use paper towels to get rid of some of the moisture
don't put any oil in the pan because I read that you don't need oil if you're using 80/20 ground beef
heat up the pan and keep tossing in 1/8 tsp of water until it shows the mercury ball effect, then wipe away the water
use a burger press to smash the balls into thin patties on the pan
let the patties sit for 45-60 seconds, then flip them
The problem I've been running into is that after 45-60 seconds, the meat is stuck to the pan and very difficult to scrape off the pan with my fish spatula. The first time I tried it, I scraped the patties off the pan but left all of the crust stuck to the pan - totally defeating the purpose of a smash burger. The second time I tried it, I managed to scrape most of the crust off the pan, but tore up the patties in the process.
Should I be letting the patties sit longer in the pan until they release naturally? I'm afraid if I let them sit too long, the patties will be overcooked/burnt.
80/20? that's a very fat meat!
don't put any oil in the pan because I read that you don't need oil if you're using 80/20 ground beef
This is your problem. Stainless steel is one of the stickiest kinds of pan there are. You always need sufficient oil with it, the fat in the patties is nowhere near enough to let them release. The Leidenfrost is only one of many effects that happen during cooking, and the sticking properties of the beef proteins will easily overcome it even without the intentional smashing. It is a nice indicator of preheating, but you cannot rely on it to prevent sticking. You are right to think that the meat will stick more and burn, instead of releasing on its own.
To sum it up, use oil, and in sufficient quantities.
I saw a comment from J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, who is the author of one of the popular smashburger recipes, and he said that if you use oil in the pan, then when you smash the patty, it will stick to your burger press and lift off the pan. Does that mean I should put oil on the bottom of my burger press to prevent that from happening?
Even with some oil your burgers will still probably stick to the pan @pacoverflow, they'll just stick less, and give the fat some time to run out and take over from the oil. I wouldn't expect you'll need oil on the press.
@GdD I will try adding some safflower oil (high smoke point) to the pan right after it reaches the mercury ball effect.
Also, even with 80/20 beef not enough fat will render or moisture be released in only 45-60 seconds, even if the pan is quite hot. @pacoverflow I strongly suggest adding oil first and letting it heat up with the pan. Adding oil to a hot pan has a higher risk of starting a fire. Watch the oil as the pan heats up and if you see any smoke, the pan is ready for the burger(s).
@ToddWilcox If I use an oil with a high enough smoke point, like safflower oil (510F), and I add it to the pan just after it has reached the Leidenfrost point (379F), there should be no risk of fire. I'd rather not let the pan get up to 510F if it doesn't need to be that hot.
@pacoverflow Oh looks like you’re right. Adding oil to a cold pan is advised for non-stick, hot pan for iron and stainless steel. Sorry! See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99543/why-do-you-need-to-heat-the-pan-before-heating-the-olive-oil/99544
possibly you don't need oil for 80/20 ground beef in a cast iron pan, or something like that. But in stainless steel you always need oil
To add to @rumtscho's answer, some sticking will occur regardless of the oil or material used - unless you use non-stick pans, which while difficult, can still make acceptable smash burgers. In addition to adding oil, you can try a different scraping technique:
George Motz demonstrating meatball flipping prior to smashing, and scraping with a flat scraper:
https://youtu.be/vy9XvHqJYgI&t=6m45s
Kenji Lopez demonstrating scraping with a rigid grill scraping razor (smashed with wax paper):
https://youtu.be/Wwgn5k_TzKM&t=2m23s
The problem I've been running into is that after 45-60 seconds, the
meat is stuck to the pan and very difficult to scrape off the pan with
my fish spatula. The first time I tried it, I scraped the patties off
the pan but left all of the crust stuck to the pan - totally defeating
the purpose of a smash burger. The second time I tried it, I managed
to scrape most of the crust off the pan, but tore up the patties in
the process.
To efficiently release the smashed patties, you'd need a more rigid tool than a fish spatula and apply a forceful scrape at a sharp angle. On the extreme end of smash burger tools you have George Motz's Smashula. On the more affordable end, I'm using either a clad stainless steel pan or Lodge cast iron griddle with two dollar store yakisoba spatulas:
Metal utensils can damage the polished surface of some high quality stainless steel pans, like All-Clad. But this is a great way to make burgers on an iron pan or griddle.
@ToddWilcox Yes, surface damage is a concern - with proper technique the risk of scratching is minimized, i.e. scrape with a very low angle of attack, ensure the entire leading edge and not just corners of the utensil are in contact. It's completely possible to make smash burgers on nice pans without damage - I'm making them on a Demeyere Proline.
That "razor scraper" that J. Kenji Lopez-Alt uses is a wallpaper/paint removal tool from the hardware store. Extremely rigid, and intended for hard-to-scrape uses. Search "4-in Steel Paint Scraper" on the website of your home center of choice. Will run you $10-$12. Not recommended for stainless but perfect for cast iron.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.013801
| 2022-09-24T08:33:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121771",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"GdD",
"Jason Clark",
"Todd Wilcox",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"njzk2",
"pacoverflow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29904
|
Can you freeze avocado in a dish?
I already know you can't freeze an avocado and have it come out usable. Is this mitigated at all, however, by the avocado being in a dish? The specific example I'm thinking of would be avocado slices or chunks in a freezer burrito. Would it be better to make guacamole? Or what if a dish has avocado cooked into it, but not pureed?
As a rule, avocado should only be frozen in pureed form. When frozen, it should be placed in an air-tight container (such as a sealable dish or freezer bag) with only enough room for expansion as it cools. The variable fat and water content of avocados is not well suited to freezing, and renders the thawed product spongy and elastic, a far cry from the normal texture of avocados.
The thawed puree, however, can be used as a sandwich spread, in the creation of dips (such as guacamole), or any recipe where solid pieces of avocado are either not desired or not required. If a dish has avocado cooked into it--again, non-solid form is preferable--the freezability of the dish would be dependent on whether or not such a dish is normally freezable (if not normally containing avocado).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.014298
| 2013-01-08T20:39:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29904",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"Jesus Rodriguez",
"Netherzapdos",
"Tony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69673",
"user69659"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67968
|
Can a clear glaze be made without gelatin or starch?
I'd like to press some edible flowers onto a cheesecake I will be making. I'll need some sort of a glaze, and my first instinct was egg whites, but then I learned that those tend to brown, which is why they're mostly used for bread and pastries. I then looked into clear cake glazes, and all of them used a thickening agent such as gelatin or corn starch, but I don't want a very noticeable glaze, I just want something that'll keep the flowers pressed to the surface of the cake without being too sticky.
Would just sugar and water (and possibly a bit of rosewater) work as a glaze?
I've heard of people using either corn syrup or honey for this. Never tried it myself, though,
Those make sense, but if possible I'd like it to set to some extent so it's not that sticky.
King Arthur Flour makes something called CLEARJEL. I've never used it, so I don't know if it will have the effect you want. Maybe someone here has used it.
Clearjel is starch (usually corn) that's already been gelatinized so that it doesn't require further cooking.
Can I ask, why the need to avoid starch or gelatin?
@Escoce I just want to keep the glaze from being too thick.
Then I would recommend corn starch, just experiment so you know what consistency you are getting. And remember corn starch takes time to activate, so add it a little at a time and wait to see what happens.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/41369/67
Bakery glazes are frequently made with pectin, so that is an option. It would still be a noticeable glaze, though it would be clear and could be flavorless. If you just want the flowers to stick to the top of the cheesecake, it's possible that it would be tacky enough without any glaze. They might just stick to the surface. Alternately, you could use one of the other glazes, but just put a dot under each flower rather than glazing the whole surface.
just a thought -- if the petals are airtight, and they can make good contact with the surface, then they should be held on by air pressure. In a cheesecake, you can deform the surface to get it to take the shape of any stiff part of the flower ... but a drop of something behind each petal would ensure there's good contact. (sort of like wetting down a window cling)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.014435
| 2016-04-02T21:33:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67968",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Paulb",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jackwise"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88019
|
Getting rid of raw onion taste without the frying process?
I'm trying to find a reliable way to make a good base gravy for British Indian Restaurant (BIR) curry -- for those that don't know, this is essentially the adapted form of Indian curry cooking used in Indian takeaways in the Western world (I know, glamorous!).
Base gravy is essentially some alliums and sometimes tomatos / carrot / celery cooked for a long time and then blended to a soup-like consistency (after this, spices and other flavorings are added to achieved a finished dish). The basic sauce of the curry world, essentially.
The key determinant of success seems to be sweetening the onions. I can carmelize them using the standard technique (frying and deglazing), but I'd ideally like something that only uses boiling because it is less work (also, adding a lot of oil to base gravy and then again in the finished dish - to temper the spices - seems unhealthy to me).
And even in the more varied base gravy recipes in which carrots/cabbage/tomatoes have been involved, these ingredients have only been introduced towards the end of the cooking process after a base of well-sweetened onions has already been achieved.
TL;DR Can brown / sweet / onions that don't taste raw be achieved without frying?
Even if you start with frying, can the sweetening process continue to take place while the onions are boiling (once cooking temperatures are below what would be required for the Maillard reaction to take place)?
And if so, how long would the onions need to be boiled to achieve reliable results?
I notice that some base gravy recipes call for boiling the onions for very long periods of time (2 hours) but I didn't achieve what I expected using a slow cooker.
(I feel a little stupid even asking this, but take solace in the fact that learning to produce tasty, consistent base gravy is apparently something that it takes every Indian chef a while to master.)
Onions can stay ‘raw’ for a long time at slow cooker temperatures, I have seen a number or recipes (not for base gravy itself though) which recommend microwaving the onion for a minute or two with a little water before adding to the slow cooker. I’ve never used the technique myself though so can’t vouch for it.
I used to cook in a school kitchen that had a lot of problems so I had to figure out untraditional ways of doing things. About once a week I would chop 4 full size pans worth of onions and bake them on 400. Took quite a long time but you can walk away and check and stir them once an hour after 2 hours. I always mixed in a little oil but I don't know how necessary that was.
Cook's Illustrated recently published a recipe for caramelized onions that took only 20 minutes. The key points:
Cook them in some rapidly boiling water to break down the cell walls, about 15 minutes.
After they are fully cooked, add a small amount of baking soda (about 1/4 tsp to three pounds of onions).
The slightly basic solution aids the quick conversion of starches to sugars, and aids browning. In five minutes, you cook off the excess water, as well as rapidly browning the onions without turning them crispy.
The small amount of baking soda suffices to change the reaction rate, without substantially altering the taste. The result is a big pile of sweet, brown caramelized onions; they can be turned into French Onion Soup simply by adding some stock.
Cook's Illustrated recommends slicing pole-to-pole (Lyonnaise) rather than across for this preparation. Apparently it makes them firmer; otherwise, they risk collapsing entirely.
Give this experiment a try, and you may be able to adapt the technique. I don't know if it would adapt well to smaller quantities, but you could cook three pounds and set the rest aside for many, many other uses. (Top goat cheese; put it on a pizza; add to green beans; save for another curry.)
adding baking soda to caramelise usually results in mushy onions - does the blanching help with this?
Should have mentioned (and will edit) that they recommended slicing the onion pole-to-pole rather than across, which helps them hold their shape. I have, however, done it the other way, and they held up well enough. (They are supposed to be soft in this preparation; maybe I can't tell the difference between soft and mushy.)
@Spagirl's comment is right - cook too cool and they seem raw for ages. When I slow cook, to get nice soft onions, I lightly (or more, depending on colour) fry them first. In a heavy pan (not non-stick) you need very little oil to a lot of onions, so the fat content per portion is pretty much rounding error unless you carefully measure the oil you use later and always use the same meat (if any).
I've made the "basic curry sauce" from The Curry Secret successfully. It's reproduced here, but essentially par-cooks the onions, purees them in a blender with a little water and the other ingredients before boiling gently for a bit longer. It does use oil but on re-reading I don't think you'd need to use anything like as much, and you should lightly fry the spices in it. I've also found it to freeze well. You can soften/sweeten onions in a microwave, which might work in place of the first simmering step.
I haven't tried it in the slow cooker, but on high, starting with a boiling mix, it might just work. I had a slow cooker that was a little too hot on high and also had a metal inner pan that could be used on the stove. That would be good here, but I've gone back to the classic pottery type.
I'm tempted to give it a try with the slow cooker -- I was thinking I'd like to make myself a nice rich curry soon
Thanks! Good to know that the staying raw thing for ages wasn't my imagination. I'll start paying closer attention to how "strong" they are simmering and see if that makes a difference.
I'm still curious as to whether it would be possible to achieve browning without using the frying process at all, though.
Also good to know about oil.
I'm also into attempting to cook Ethiopian cuisine. The amount of oil used in both the YouTube videos and actual Ethiopians I have observed preparing dishes is astounding - but I guess probably not needed.
See: https://youtu.be/teDnhUCHvxQ?t=1m33s
You can brown onions in the oven. You can even do it without oil, but they tend to go hard and dry almost the instant they're brown so a little oil is helpful. The recipe I linked doesn't fry the onions though, the oil is just mixed in
Bake, don't boil! Here's why:
What we call "caramelisation" in onions is really a combination of lots of processes, including enzyme reactions that produce simpler sugars, physical breakdown of the cells that release sweeter juices, dehydration which concentrates the flavours, plus the actual Maillard and Caramelisation reactions that give the distinctive brown colour and caramel notes.
Both Maillard and Caramelisation only really happen above around 150°C, so they're basically impossible to achieve while cooking in water. Cooking in water also dissolves the sugars, so they end up in the boiling water, rather than staying to sweeten the onions.
Caramelizing onions in the oven is very effective and really easy. Here's how I do it:
Slice a roasting dish full of onions, make sure the layer is at least 5cm deep so the lower layers can sweat and soften. You can chop and add your other veggies here, too.
Sprinkle and toss with salt. I sometimes add a small amount of olive oil, brown sugar/and or a splash of red or white wine vinegar at this point, though that might not be the flavour profile you want for curry bases. A bit of neutral flavoured oil won't hurt.
Add half a cup of water, and cover the pan tightly with foil.
Starting in a cold oven, roast at 150°C for 2 hours or so
Remove the foil, increase oven temp to 180°C, stir and continue to roast uncovered until you have the colour you want, maybe another hour.
At the end of this, you'll have a very soft, sweet 'onion jam', where the onion slices are barely holding together. Blending that mix with a bit of water should make a very nice sauce base.
I am more used to the term sweat onion.
I fry sweat onions with no oil on low heat. I just use a little orange marinade. On low heat you could even use nothing but onion and cover (open to stir). Once stared the onions release moisture. You can then remove the cover if you want to steam off water.
For the temperature to caramelize you need oil. You can push it to caramelize without oil but sticking can be a problem.
When making broth I usually roast an onion. So just stick it on and put over open flame until it's start to turn brown, 5 minutes maximum. If the edge start getting charred it's last call.
Then I just put with other vegetables and that's all.
And of course later I'm using veggies from that broth with a little chicken fat to make curry. I make it to taste like Japanese curry so probably something similar to British one (not so spicy and little bland compared to Indian one).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.014777
| 2018-02-27T01:14:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88019",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Chris H",
"Daniel Rosehill",
"Joshua Engel",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68024
|
How to make my cinnamon rolls less bready?
I make it like this 3/4 cup milk, 1/4 margarine, 3/4 flour, 25 ounce yeast, 1/4 white sugar, 1/4 water, one egg.
I leave it for thirty minutes, and it hardly rises. When cooked, the taste and texture are a bit too bready. How do I make it less bready?
Didn't write the filling because that turns out right, I just have problem with the dough itself.
I use self-rising dough meant for cake.
Are you looking for more cakey or more biscuity?
Scott Downey, I'm looking for more cakey, like what you get at Dunkin Doughnuts.
You've stated the ingredients but not how you prepare them, which can make a world of difference. Also, 25 ounces of yeast is a lot. And what does the last statement mean?
Thirty minutes is a very short time for proofing, you won't get a decent rise. Why so short?
Erm... Are you buying yeast dough? The "25 oz yeast" seems to indicate this.
This is borderline unclear what you're asking but I'll take a shot at it. Cinnamon rolls are made using a fortified yeast dough. Fortified means that there is butter/shortening and/or eggs added, which slow down the yeast action.
There are a few things that aren't right with what you are doing.
you are using self-rising flour in a recipe that is supposed to be leavened by yeast. Self rising flour is usually lower in gluten content and contains leavening agents. You want to use regular flour so you get the right gluten content, also you may not have the right acid balance for your self-rising flour which could lead to the leavening agents not working and adding off flavors. You don't need the leavening agents if you are doing it right
too much yeast: I think you aren't adding 25oz of yeast, but if you are then one packet is enough!
I don't think you have the right balance between moisture and flour. Your recipe has 1 cup of water and milk to 3/4 cup flour, this will make a batter, not a dough. You need to at least triple the amount of flour
too short a rising time: 30 minutes is simply not enough time for the yeast to work. You need to wait until the dough at least doubles in size, which usually takes between 1-2 hours. You need to aim for the amount of rise, not a time as there are many factors which can affect this. If it's not rising at all then you've got dead yeast - either it's gotten too old, been exposed to too much heat, or exposed to salt
I suggest you start with an entirely different recipe as the one you have put up has a lot which needs to be fixed. Given that there's not nearly enough flour and you are not proofing it anywhere near long enough I can't see you getting a decent result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.015531
| 2016-04-05T07:43:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68024",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Felines are superior",
"GdD",
"Scott Downey",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44790"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112474
|
Gluten free bread initially rises but collapses into itself later
I've noticed that the gluten free bread I make in the breadmaker does reach the size of the gluten one but later ends up collapsing into itself later.
I've tried to make this recording of the process which seems to show some specific points in the process:
In the raising phase the dough reaches a maximum size after which it goes int the cycle of fall-raise
Once the baking phase starts the bread keeps on shrinking continually
There seems to be a general consensus about "gluten-free bread not raising as good as wheat bread because it doesn't have the gluten to keep the structure together". However the video I made seems to show that the gluten-free bread does seem to be able to set up the initial structure but fails to maintain it during baking.
Recipe:
2dl hot water
1.8dl oat milk
7g sugar
5g of salt
10g psylium (this was a suggestion for hardening the structure in lack of gluten)
5g olive oil
165g buckwheat flour
150g rice flour
25g oat flour
60g corn flour
Egg
[In the dispenser, added after mixing] 5g dry yeast
I'm hoping to see if this the actual behavior of gluten-free bread when people say "gluten-free bread doesn't raise" (but what it's actually doing is raising and later falling)?
Is there perhaps a remedy?
I don't know if it'll help, but there's an earlier question about gluten free bread not rising in general, and one of the people answering specifically mentioned what they do for their bread machine
We need the recipe for your bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.015758
| 2020-11-05T17:24:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112474",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
21997
|
Did I make butter, or something else?
Tonight I tried to make some butter from some raw cows milk. I followed the instructions here, and let the cream I skimmed off a gallon of milk sit for about 24 hours to "culture." It didn't really smell "slightly sour" yet, but as I had already gone twice the prescribed time, I decided to move on anyway. I divided the cream between two quart jars, and shook them for about 20 minutes each, as described, and although solid clumps formed in each jar, there was no yellow tint.
So I transferred the contents of each jar into a mixing bowl, and used an electric mixer, per the instructions here, but it made no real difference, except to move the stuff around, so I finished off the batch by straining the butter milk from the solids, rinsing the butter under cool water, and adding a little salt.
The final result looks like this:
In the silver bowl is the finished "butter", in the bowl to the right, the strained off buttermilk, and I'm holding a stick of store-bought butter (Ingredients: Cream, Natural Colors) for color comparison.
This "butter" tastes okay, but doesn't have much of a buttery flavor. It is is also the whitest "butter" I have ever seen. But is it really butter, or did I make something else? To get "normal" yellow butter that tastes butterier, what should I do differently?
Just curious, what is the room temperature of where you were "culturing" the skimmed cream? That will affect the culturing process of the cream.
@Jay: The house thermostat is set to 68°F (20°C), and I set the culturing cream on top of my refrigerator where it's a little bit warmer. So maybe 72-75°F (22-24°C)?
Notice your ingredient list for your store-bought butter has "natural colors" in it. That means added coloring, it otherwise would not be so yellow. The color, I believe, depends on the cow's diet (but, commercially, they just add color to make it look "right").
It is normal for handmade butter to be white; my great-grandfather's butter was always white. But it was harder than your picture, its texture was more similar to lard. I think you didn't separate well enough, and left more water in than usual.
@derobert: Right, that's why I included the ingredient list... because I knew that might be the only reason my butter was a different color.
@rumtscho: So should I have continued to beat it (by hand in a jar, or with a mixer) longer?
@Flimzy I don't know, never made butter myself. But I have heard that churning (at least per hand) is lots of hard work. BTW, the temperature is only important for the fermentation, but you don't need any fermentation at all to produce butter; there is a difference between cultured and non-cultured butter, and both are a good product in its own right.
It's not hard: First milk cow :-), then let the milk settle in the fridge for a day or two. Skim the cream off the top
Use a food processor, or hand shake in a cocktail mixer or similar sized jar (only about a 100 ml at a time)
First you get whipped cream (2 to 5 minutes), then another minute of shaking and suddenly butter appears
It should separate very cleanly, with watery whey (save for soft cheese making), and lots of rough yellowish fat globules. If it still looks smooth it needs more shaking
If you want to keep the butter for any length of time you will need to wash it a few times with clean water, and squeeze the water out of it after each wash
The colour you get depends on what your cows have been eating. It can be quite white
There is no need for heating, or any other additives
It sounds like I did everything exactly right then... I just got white butter. If that's just the result of the cow's diet, then I won't worry about it. Thanks for the info!
How safe is that without heating / pasteurization?
@baffledCook if you are culturing the butter, it is as safe as making your own yogurt.
Your butter is probably white because the cow was feed on corn, grass fed cows produce yellow butter. It's also probably why it doesn't taste of very much as the quality of butter is very closely tied to the cow's diet.
The farmer says they feed their cows mostly grass (and I saw them grazing), and "some grain" during the winter. So they may eat some corn, but not purely corn. Thanks for the info, though...
Might be down to the type of grass then, here in Ireland the grass we have is rich in betacarotene which means all our butter is bright yellow.
If you'd like naturally yellow butter, add a little turmeric to the cream. A little goes a long way and I find that just little doesn't change the flavor too much.
First ...Yellow Butter you get in stores is that colour because they add yellow to it.
Second ...butter intensity that you normally associate with it is really the salt they add to it. Buy yourself some unsalted butter and do a taste test to see the difference.
Pure cow milk fat is mild in flavour and colour varies; both items are factors of what feed the animal was eating before being milked.
To make butter follow TFD's post. That's it in a nutshell.
My family has had dairy cows for generations. It mostly depends upon the breed of cow whose milk you are using. The cows we mostly picture for milking (the black and white ones) are Holsteins and produce LOTS of milk but lower fat level. A Jersey (smaller brown very pretty cows) produce less milk but LOTS of butterfat. When you set up Jersey milk the cream will be super yellow and almost a solid when you skim it. The resulting butter is bright yellow and churns easily. It is hard. There are other cow breeds that are in between those two extremes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.015937
| 2012-03-05T03:50:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21997",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Flimzy",
"Jay",
"Stefano",
"Stéphane Lam",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"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
}
|
23722
|
What variety of squash produces "flor de calabaza"?
In Mexico, flor de calabaza is sometimes served on quesadillas, in soups, or in other dishes. The literal translation of flor de calabaza is "flower of pumpkin/zucchini/squash". As calabaza is a rather broad term in Spanish, I don't really know specifically what kind of flower(s) are used for this.
I'm interested in cooking with some of this myself, and am happy to grow the squash plants in my yard, but which type of squash plants shall I grow? Or are various varieties of squash equally suitable for the harvesting of their flowers?
They're commonly called squash blossoms in English - as you might guess, this is because it doesn't matter too much what kind of squash they're from. They'll most commonly be from smaller summer squash plants (e.g. zucchini) though, since they produce many small squash instead of a few large squash (like pumpkins), so you can get more blossoms for your trouble.
The flowers you're picturing there certainly appear to be zucchini flowers.
As for what's traditional, Mexican cuisine also uses a lot of pumpkin seeds, so I'd think that pumpkin flowers, which are also quite edible and tasty, would be considered appropriate as well. In the USA, zucchini flowers are much easier to find than pumpkin flowers, however.
I think some other summer squashes may tend to produce similar blossoms to zucchini, and given that there are other popular squashes in Mexico, I wouldn't be completely confident that those are zucchini - though they do look like it!
Yeah, I'm not entirely certain what, for example, a chayote blossom looks like.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.016406
| 2012-05-11T23:36:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23722",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hitchmo",
"Miro Krsjak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"shadowoflight_",
"user2665617",
"user53778"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49586
|
What is it about boring, normal ketchup that makes it "fancy"?
Ketchup, at least in the USA, is about as boring as a condiment can possibly get. It's hard to imagine anything "fancy" coming out of a tube like this:
Why, then, is it frequently called "fancy"? Is there some other type of tomato ketchup that is less fancy, and has fallen out of popular usage, such that the "fancy" designation actually carries some meaning lost to history?
Well, what is it about fancy ketchup that makes it boring and normal?
@thinlyveiledquestionmark Quibble much?
Interesting that McDonalds actually uses a higher quality product. I mean, it's just ketchup, but it looks like they are using a higher grade here.
Found in this wiki article , is the following information:
"Fancy" ketchup
Some ketchup in the U.S. is labeled "Fancy". This is a USDA grade, relating to specific gravity. Fancy ketchup has a higher tomato solid concentration than other USDA grades.
USDA Ketchup Grades
Grade Specific Gravity Total Solids
Fancy 1.15 33%
Extra Standard 1.13 29%
Standard 1.11 25%
Hope this helps! :)
"Extra standard"? Talk about contrived, abused language...
@tubedogg Perhaps their "extra standard" is analogous to the word "extraordinary".
@tubedogg according to MW (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extra), "Extra (adv.): beyond the usual size or amount" -- so "Extra Standard" is beyond the usual amount for "Standard" -- which, when you look at the numbers for Specific Gravity and Total Solids, it indeed is. No contrivance or abuse required.
@DoktorJ My point was more, why even use the word standard at all in the middle tier? Two of the three grades use the word standard, despite the fact they are all equidistant in both Specific Gravity and Total Solids. The use of the word standard in the lower two grades implies they are much more closely related than they actually are.
@tubedogg I'll agree with that. "Standard", "Fine", and "Fancy" might've been better nomenclature (or, looking at the list Stephen Eure provided, maybe "Standard", "Choice", and "Fancy").
@Flimzy, Very nice edit! You deserve some of the credit for how well this answer has been received.
Flimzy, I agree totally with @Jolenealaska. Excellent edit! Thank you very much!
"Fancy," when used in the labeling of foods, is almost invariably tied to USDA standards for the classification and grading of the foods. Foods traded on the wholesale market are not required to grade their foods - the use of the system is voluntary. The USDA grading names tied to different food types aren't always consistent or intuitive.
Examples: Vegetable grades, in descending order of quality, are: US Extra Fancy, US Fancy, US Extra #1, and US #1. Fruit grades, in descending order of quality are: US Fancy, US #1, US #2, and US #3. Frozen fruit grades, in descending order of quality are: US Grade A (or Fancy), US Grade B (or Choice or Extra Standard), and US Grade C (or Standard).
Ketchup has its own USDA grading system based partially on the specific gravity of the product - ketchup grades, in descending order of quality are: Fancy, Extra Standard, and Standard. A "Fancy" ketchup isn't all dolled-up in some way, but is likely to have a better and more uniform consistency with fewer undesirable characteristics or flaws than lower grade ketchups.
But, again, just because a ketchup doesn't state that it's "Fancy" doesn't necessarily mean that the contents don't meet the specifications for a fancy ketchup. "Fancy Ketchup" is always "Fancy." "Ketchup" might be fancy quality and not labeled as such.
Yes, there are tomato ketchups that are less fancy than "Fancy Ketchup," but I imagine that the "Fancy" designation for fancy quality ketchups has fallen out of popular usage - except perhaps in the realm of fast food packets where people have become accustomed to seeing it written that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.016572
| 2014-11-07T15:20:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49586",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cindy",
"Dan Mannell",
"Doktor J",
"Hlinka",
"Jeff Davis",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Hudson",
"Marchand Cameras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"judy rawlings",
"pacoverflow",
"sandra ellis",
"tubedogg",
"yuritsuki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113263
|
I found a tamarind that was mostly powder, how do I avoid buying these?
As someone new to tamarind I'm learning new things about the fruit, and discovered something off in one (it was hallow with some black powder inside). Why did this happen, and how can I avoid purchasing a bad one again?
I suspect that like all fruit you want to select ones that are "heavy for their size", showing that they haven't dried out. But if you don't have experience to know how heavy it should be, all you have is the others for sale at the time, and they might all be bad. (I've only purchased paste or compressed into a block, never loose pods, so can't really give specific advice)
What about buying it in a case like kiwi, and guava are sold?
It sounds like you’re describing mold spores, which I’ve occasionally seen in tamarind. I don’t know of any way to check for this, short of cutting them open to check, but tamarind isn’t particularly expensive so you might just buy a bit more than you expect to need. Often people buy tamarind extract instead, which of course isn’t subject to this problem. (Except for beverages, you really don’t lose anything by using the extract, IMO.)
I eat tamarind like a fruit similar to how I would eat an apple, or pomegranate
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.017251
| 2020-12-20T23:11:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113263",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"a coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"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
}
|
78465
|
Why does almond milk make eggs stick to a nonstick pan?
I was doing an experiment when I was making eggs this morning, and tried friendly farms almond milk instead of regular milk in my eggs, and the eggs stuck to the pan, when they normally won't without anything. Why did this happen?
Method:
crack eggs
pour in a little almond milk
cook
scrape out whatever skin formed to the pan
I would just like to say that I solely use almond milk when I cook eggs and I have never had this issue. I have both scrambled and made omelets this way and never have had them stick. I do use butter in the pan as an oil for extra "non-stick" and flavor, if you are not using a little bit of butter or oil in the pan I would suggest doing that (but not too much!!).
As noted in the existing answer, it's a bit difficult to answer your question if we don't know your entire method. Do you use any sort of fat to grease the pan? Also, is this unsweetened/unflavored (hopefully... I can't imagine vanilla eggs unless you're making French toast!)?
no, I didn't use any fat of any type in the pan, and what I normally do is milk, eggs, mix while cooking, then add salsa after.
If the friendly farms almond milk you used is the original variety, this has sugar in it in the way of cane juice so that's why your eggs did what they did.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.017389
| 2017-02-16T17:12:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78465",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"JayRyGeo",
"a coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53875"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113290
|
When mixing eggnog with brandy, which is poured first?
Liquids often mix due to different densities, so which one should I pour first in order to have them mix properly?
I think we are talking about viscosities here. In industry, mixing fluids with different viscosities seems to be a real problem. According to this:
Combining liquids with different viscosities can be much more difficult than combining liquids with similar physical properties. Adding a high-viscosity liquid to a low-viscosity liquid is usually easier than adding a low-viscosity liquid to a high-viscosity liquid. A low-viscosity liquid that is well-agitated can become turbulent, and the turbulence can act to disperse the high-viscosity liquid. Once the more-viscous liquid is dispersed, it can dissolve in the other liquid, eventually achieving a uniform blend.
But eggnogg-brandy is a whole different problem. link
The alcohol is an comparatively very acidic solution, so when you're first adding a milk product to it, you are exposing the milk (and the casein micelles) to a very acidic environment, and they will immediately start binding together.
The right way to do it is by pouring the nog first, and then slowly pouring in the booze while stirring. Finish up all the whisking of the cream, sugar, and eggs, and at the end, add in in the bourbon (and/or rye, rum, brandy, etc). Add acid: It's a law of the lab. In this case, it uses a high volume of fat content to give you the highest chance of clot-free success.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.017518
| 2020-12-22T03:29:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113290",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51917
|
Why should or shouldn't I peel button mushrooms?
I've peeled my button mushrooms since cooking with a friend once, who did it, but I've never understood why, if at all, it's advisable.
Searching shows a fairly wide range of opinions but I see no reason attached to either side.
Is it purely aesthetic?
I don't peel mine, I brush them. From what I remember, most of the nutrients are in the skin. In Australia at least, Australian Mushroom Growers Association recommend not to: http://www.powerofmushrooms.com.au/health-nutrition/health-nutrition/myths-facts/ "If there is some residual compost still on the mushroom when you buy them, just brush it off. [ ... ] There is no need to peel mushrooms either; they can be consumed as purchased."
Are we talking about store bought agaricus bisporus?
The only motivation I'm aware of for peeling button mushrooms other than wanting a very clean, white appearance is to remove dirt, dust, grit, compost, etc. from the surface without the trouble of brushing or washing. It's arguably quicker to peel mushrooms than to brush them (though not in my experience) and many people don't like washing them because they absorb a little bit of the water, which is counter-productive when e.g. sauteing. However, peeling them means you are wasting some of your ingredients, and even a very dirty button mushroom is trivial to clean by washing or brushing.
I rarely find it necessary to clean supermarket mushrooms at all as they tend to be very clean on the shelf. If they're dusty, a gentle pat with a clean, damp sponge does the trick. I would advise against peeling unless you're going for a specific visual presentation that requires it.
See also: How to clean mushrooms?
The old wives' tale that washing mushrooms adds water and prevents a good saute is complete nonsense. Unlike vegetables, mushroom cell walls are made of chitin, which will remain stiff in boiling water, so you could put mushrooms in a pot with a gallon of water, and they would stay crisp until all the water boiled away, then saute perfectly.
The subject of washing mushrooms in water is very thoroughly addressed in the linked Q&A.
I only peel my wild mushrooms if they say to peel them in the field guide, otherwise I leave them as is.
I don't peel mine, or didn't until I found a "working woman" cookbook which used the stems & peels to make mushroom stock for soup the day after making grilled mushrooms. Aside from doing that, I've never done it. You need to be doing a lot of mushrooms to make this cost effective and I don't think mushrooms freeze well, so that's out.
It's my understanding that peeling mushrooms is like washing meat, advice previously given as a default and no longer viewd that way. Washing meat is considered dangerous now. I think that the mushroom thing is optional at this point, mostly I do NOT, unless I plan to make soup the next day!
..I have a ziplock bag in my freezer for stock ingredients.. my mushroom stalks get thrown in there until the time comes.
My mother is from England, growing up they used to forage for mushrooms. She was told to always peel them. I found on line the probable reason; there is a folklore that if you could peel the cap - it wasn't poisonous. BUT that is a myth! She still wants me to peel mushrooms, but since any mushrooms I use come from the supermarket :) , I decline, and she oftens picks them out of salads. If the mushrooms are cooked I can usually sneak them by her. She is now 97
I`m sure it might be a good idea if eating raw mushrooms. But I`m also sure that if cooking, all the germs and bad stuff will be killed and your mushrooms will be perfect and safe to eat.
While this is constructive, it is more of a comment than an answer. I realize that you don't have enough reputation to post a comment. In the meantime please feel free to read the Help page and take the Tour. Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
I peel mine, because they’re grown in manure! As a health professional, I have an aversion to eating fecal matter, not to mention anything else that might be living in the manure, such as the nematodes mentioned below.
I think you'll find that commercial mushrooms are grown in Pasteurized compost, which may or may not be derived from manure; it's easier and cheaper to get plant based ones for the volumes needed.
Yes wash mushrooms, you don’t want to eat bacteria or ringworms can be found on mushrooms. Also, you can’t just give them a quick rinse in plain water and expect the bacteria or ring worms on them to die. For gut safety just peel them and then give them a rinse in water.
I always peel my mushrooms if purchased from the bulk department. Just watch the other store patrons sneeze,cough, hack over the produce and you will become a peeler too.
I peel mine, just the 1st outer layer as my mother did. Mushrooms grow in mold or manure so I really think one should peel and rinse them. I can't imagine wanting to eat mold or manure for health reasons
I work in a research lab as an undergraduate and our postdoc fellow has us peel mushrooms before we feed them to the flies. Apparently the skins can host nematodes, tiny roundworms, which can be bad for the flies. That’s why I peel my mushrooms now
Argument against one of the comments above: mushrooms can freeze well depending on the use afterwards. I wouldn't slice and freeze them to sauté later, they'd be mushy. However, I always cook with peeled caps, and save both stems and peels in the freezer to make broth later. They'll stay in the freezer for a long time and if they're just getting boiled and reduced down you don't need to worry about their texture.
I peel them specifically to build up my "stockpile" though. All the parts, cap, skin and stem, are good for cooking up. I just hate the idea of wasting caps in broth, so I set aside the not-as-desirable parts for that. I can cook a dish with just caps, but not with just stems and/or skins.
Welcome! I'm sorry to say it but we have a strict policy that questions need to answer the main question - in this case "why should or shouldn't I peel mushrooms?" Answers that are responses to other answers or comments are likely to be deleted. Please consider editing your question to focus on answering the primary question.
I think we can keep this answer because it is also usable without knowing what the other answer said - it gives suggestions when to peel and when to not peel. In general, what Catija said is right, but it seems we can make the exception this time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.017687
| 2014-12-24T07:45:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51917",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Ana Martin Annie",
"Catija",
"Daniel McCarroll",
"Darrin Strong",
"Gary Walker",
"J Crosby",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Ming",
"Robin Betts",
"Shari Haskins",
"TC CAT",
"a coder",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"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
}
|
17904
|
What is the impact of repeated cooling and reheating of maple syrup?
Today I discovered a 1/4-full bottle of pure maple syrup had gotten moldy, so searched this site and came across this question: Should maple syrup be stored in the refrigerator?
My follow-up question is: Will there be any ill effects (such as altering the flavor or changing the molecular structure such that it's dangerous to eat, etc) from repeatedly heating maple syrup for serving, and re-cooling in the fridge?
If so, I'll try to only heat as much syrup as I'm likely to use at a time, although this will be more hassle, naturally :)
It behaves similar to honey, with the sugars (which are more than 95%) not changing, but the rest (which gives all the aroma) may change. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13162/is-there-any-reason-not-to-decrystallize-honey
Flimzy,
If you use a lot of maple syrup, you won't need to refrigerate it; it'll keep at room temperature (depending on the temperature of your room) for a few weeks.
Repeated heating and cooling, in my long experience with pure maple syrup at home, does not affect the flavor or color of the syrup. This makes sense when you realize that maple syrup is boiled for hours in its manufacture.
However, it can cause the syrup to crystallize, and I haven't found a good easy way to decrystallize syrup (the hard way is dissolving it in water and boiling it down again). For this reason, I only heat up the amount of syrup I intend to use at a time.
I am not a food safety expert; I'm just speaking from my experience at home.
Clearly I don't go through it fast enough to keep it from molding. :) That's interesting about it crystallizing... that's probably good enough reason to only heat as much as I need at a given time.
The Cornell Sugar Maple research program website has a couple of relevant points:
If you find mold inside a newly-bought, previously unopened bottle of syrup, it is probably spoiled because of improper packaging.
What causes syrup to have a musty or moldy flavor or smell?
Syrup that is improperly packed will mold, sour, or ferment. Syrup must be packed
at 180°F and at a minimum of 66 Brix to avoid spoilage.
(Brix is the measure of sugar in the syrup.)
In your particular case where you see mold and want to reheat it, it seems that yes, you can reheat the syrup but it may crystallize a little:
If a consumer finds bacteria, mold, or yeast growth on syrup he or she
has purchased, he or she should remove the visible growth and reheat
the syrup to a minimum of 180°F (do not boil), skim any visible
growth, filter, and repackage the syrup. If syrup still has an
off-flavor, it should be discarded. Also, the sugar content may
increase causing sugar crystals to form.
So I guess the implication then is that re-heating the syrup to 180°F multiple times won't harm the syrup in any way.
@Flimzy that's my understanding as well.
It also sounds like the issue with crystallization could be avoided if the syrup were diluted to give it the same volume as it had before reheating.
@LaurieHansen I think this answer makes it pretty clear it needs to be heated to be sure it's safe; you may just have gotten a bit lucky.
Going off of what Laura said, no, heating the maple syrup multiple times won't cause any change in the structure of the syrup, but do refrigerate the syrup after your done if it says so on the bottle.
My bottle doesn't say to refrigerate, but it still grew mold. :) It does say "no preservatives", though...
If it's actual maple syrup (not imitation syrup) and it doesn't have preservatives, it should be refrigerated.
I produce maple syrup from the sugar maples on my property. I make about 8 gallons a year, so not a huge commercial endeavor. This past year, several quart jars of our syrup grew a powdery grey mold. I processed the syrup until it reached the 219F and 67% sugar, as measured with a hydrometer. Many jars grew sugar crystals, indicating high enough sugar content. I cleaned and sanitized the jars and lids with care, as we always do. When canning - the syrup reached 180F and was then put in the sterile jars, and lids applied. Today, I reheated the syrup to the boiling point to be absolutely sure it is sterile - and also sterilized the jars in a pot of boiling water. I'm sure to grow sugar crystals again, but I'm just hoping the 3 gallons of syrup I recanned still taste alright.
So am I correct in understanding that your recommendation is to remove the mold, then sanitize the syrup again with heat?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.018236
| 2011-09-21T01:39:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17904",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Flimzy",
"Laura",
"Louic",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29820
|
How to efficiently remove the food particles stuck in the scrubbing pad?
Food bits get stuck in this. Simply washing it under tap doesn't help.
How to efficiently remove the stuck particles from this scrubbing pad?
Don't have a dishwasher.
if it is anything doughy/gluten outa luck. otherwise are we talking fatty or merely bits of veg?
@Pat You can just assume she's asking about everything and write an answer!
Don't use these sort of pads for cleaning large particles of loose food. Only for removing hard stuck stuff. Use a brush for everything else
@TFD I use this pad for iron vessels. Will the brush not scrub off the seasoning?
No, a typical nylon dish scrub brush will not damage it. These scrub pads could. They are designed to "cut in"
@TFD Can I use this brush to scrub it iron pans? http://www.colgate.co.in/app/Colgate/IN/OralCare/ToothBrushes/ZigZag.cvsp
@AnishaKaul this would be very inefficient. Brushes like these are normal for cleaning pans: http://images.containerstore.com/catalogimages/89134/RoundScrubBrush_l.jpg
@rumtscho thanks, so those brushes are safe for cleaning freshly seasoned iron pans, and that scrub pad is not?
I put the hot water tap on an extremely slow trickle to wet the pad.
Then squeeze dishwasher detergent + baking soda to work up a sud on the pad.
Then squeeze and "massage" the pad as best you could under the slow hot trickle.
My actual motivation has always been remove the stale stink from the pad. Somehow, the side effects are that the food particles are also dislodged from the pad by the suds.
This must be due to surface tension mitigation and anti-static effects of the suds (disengaging the attraction of food particles from the pad bristles) plus the washing action of the slow hot trickle. If the water is too hot, you might have to put on kitchen gloves.
Depending on stuck fat or sugary gunk or protein
run through a warm cycle with laundry (when doing dirtiest gardening/cleaning gear)
soak in weak solution of borax (I should market the stuff)
just a few whacks on edge of sink to dislodge reluctant bits
zap in microwave while moist. (probably least effective but sooo satisfying to nuke uncooperative tools)
I just put a little dish detergent on the wet pad and use my fingernails to scrape it. Get it realy soapy and that does the job for me pretty quick and easy.
Avoid asking a lady to scrape things with her precious finger nails.
@BlessedGeek Well that's the kind of thing that might offend a lady more than asking her to use her nails.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.018602
| 2013-01-07T05:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29820",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"David Nelams",
"DrZoo",
"Frank Jaeger",
"Jiaaro",
"Kareen",
"LeviTheOne",
"Pat Sommer",
"TFD",
"Tami",
"Wb10",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69539",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15627
|
How to store fresh coriander for future use, outside refrigerator, so that they don't lose their taste?
Possible Duplicate:
How to Store Fresh Herbs
I have seen this thread: How to Store Fresh Herbs, but I won't want to use a fridge neither I have any garden. All I have is the plastic bottle.
I believe suggestion 3 for that question covers that possibility: put the stems in water, and optionally cover the leaves with a plastic bag.
@BobMcGee for how much time will that remain edible? I want to preserve it for weeks.
If you want to keep it for weeks, perhaps you should leave it in the ground until you're ready :)
@Ray I said in my OP I don't have a garden. I have to purchase them from the market and they are NOT always available, specially in summer.
Sorry; just a failed attempt at some light humor. I've had some success with products like this: http://www.amazon.com/Debbie-Meyer-20317-Green-Bags/dp/B0011TMP3Y and this: http://www.evertfresh.com/?q=node/7
@Ray No that was NOT a failed attempt at humor ;) I DO understand "dry humor" very well, that's my type :) Thanks for the links, I am not sure though whether they will be available in India somewhere.
Anisha: I believe the answers to the existing question cover the various methods fairly effectively. I've summarized them in another answer to make it easier to pick the technique that meets your needs.
Buying coriander whole rather than ground is probably your best bet. As is the case with allspice and coffee, they're bound to eventually lose flavor, likely to light/heat/moisture, fresh grinding will bring back some of the spark.
If you're using fresh from the garden coriander you're not out of options. There's the floral option, and also the same rules apply here for drying herbs if you're willing to go down that route. If the fridge/freezer simply isn't an option, and having a bouquet of coriander isn't in the cards, then I would just hang them upside down in your basement/closet and then keep them in airtight containers away from direct light and heat.
I was NOT referring to the ground coriander here, I was talking about the fresh leaves, I fear they will attract fungus, if washed and then stores, should I put them under a fan for drying?
@Anisha you might add that into the question, there's the floral option, but essentially the same rules apply for drying herbs if you're willing to go down that route. But if the fridge/freezer simply isn't an option, and having a bouquet of coriander isn't in the cards, then I would just hang them upside down in your basement/closet and then keep them in airtight containers away from direct light and heat.
So, hanging them for how long? Till they dry up completely? And how does hanging downwards help?
@Anisha Assuming you want to dry them, you hang them upside down until they dry up. I have always hung them upside down for the same reason you hang flowers upside down to try; they retain their shape. (And an old wives' tale?)
Thanks, do they retain their natural taste after they dry up completely?, and no I am not talking about scent, I am talking about taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.018855
| 2011-06-20T05:50:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15627",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Jarrod D Massie",
"Kayla Kinney",
"Meg",
"Mike T",
"Ray",
"Ron Jones",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"mccc",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54670
|
How to make baking soda
I'm in a place where buying baking soda is proving to be quite difficult*, so I was looking for substitutions, and it seems there really aren't any. So this got me thinking: Baking soda is made (or otherwise harvested from nature) in some way.
How can I do this?
I realize the answer is likely to be so involved or expensive that I won't want to undertake the project, but for the determined baker, how would it be done?
*I eventually found some.
NOTE: The question is about making, not sourcing or substituting, baking soda.
It is a dread place where one can find Internet access but no bicarb. Practically speaking, if leavening is what you seek, are you willing to consider other leavening alternatives, such as yeast or eggs? If I were in such a situation, I would go with sourdough, or unleavened breads.
As it kinda sucks to make baking soda, you might want to ask about alternatives, specifically naming what it is that you're trying to make. (eg, eggwhite foams work for pancakes, but not denser breads)
The "pH up" for fish tanks is often 100% sodium bicarbonate so that may be another thing to look for.
One hint: sometimes it's placed not with baking ingredients, but with cleaning stuff... Just make sure that you get pure baking soda and not a cleaner that contains part BS.
@PeterJ: I would recommend caution. pH Up is also often sodium carbonate -- washing soda, Na2CO3 -- which is what baking soda -- NaHCO3 -- turns into when you heat it. It won't harm you, but it won't make your bread rise either. NaHCO3 is more commonly used as a pH buffer than a pH increaser as the H in there can cause it to act like an acid in certain circumstances. pH Up is also sometimes sodium hydroxide -- NaOH -- which you really do not want to put in your bread.
If it's difficult rather than impossible, note that it keeps quite well if kept dry, so buying several sealed containers may be an option. Once opened it absorbs humidity from the air, making it become slowly less effective as well as harder to measure. see: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18837/20413
As @ChrisH notes, pure baking soda keeps indefinitely in a sealed container at room temperature. If you decide to bring a large supply of baking soda back with you the next time you go abroad, be sure to pack it in ziploc bags for moisture protection, and for maximum amusement of customs officials. ;-)
According to this thread, Royal brand baking soda can be found in Guatemala.
This might be a very naive question, however why couldn't you just order baking soda online?
I second the pharmacy suggestion, at least based on having this same issue in other parts of Latin America. Note that the "Royal" brand mentioned above is actually baking power and not baking soda. Oh, I also found this Guatemalan company which lists baking soda under the "medicines" category, which gives further weight to the pharmacy idea: http://tabsaexpress.com/ver_producto.asp?clc=283&id=11840&task=agregar#.VN7D6kcS-rX
Another substance that might be available from the pharmacy/chemist is potassium bicarbonate. I don't know if there are areas where that is easy to find when sodium bicarbonate isn't, but it's worth an ask.
I very much appreciate the value of asking this question, but you might consider asking a separate question (or two) about sourcing or substituting. If you link to those here, things will tend to end up in the right place, rather than cluttering up comments or even answers. As it stands, you're running into the XY problem and people are unsurprisingly trying to help by addressing your ultimate need, not just the question you asked.
Posted the question myself: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54883/if-i-cant-find-baking-soda-or-baking-powder-what-should-i-do
@Jefromi: The only reason I didn't ask that question myself is because I found a plethora of information on that topic on Google.
@Stephie yes, accidentally substituting a soda-based cleaner tends to elicit strong reactions, with some guests even foaming at the mouth.
What is that place ?
If you really want to do some chemistry, the next questions are:
What can you get?
Do you know how to handle these safely?
If you have a solution of carbonic acid (H2CO3) you can slowly mix in sodium hydroxide (NaOH - in a solution, not a powder!) until the pH is around 10.3, then you'll have a solution of NaHCO3. Or you could do the same thing by bubbling CO2 through a solution of NaOH.
You'll then need to dry or concentrate it without heating, or the NaHCO3 will break down (just like it would when baking).
Or you could start with sodium carbonate and add hydrochloric acid, but that would give you equal parts of baking soda and table salt in water, not sure how easy they would be to separate.
Keep in mind that sodium hydroxide will dissolve any flesh that it touches, and hydrochloric acid will do the same, plus it evaporates.
Although the above stuff is possible, I really don't think you should do any of that. Any place where you can do what I've described, you should also be able to find a pharmacy that will sell you some form of bicarbonate.
Also note that these methods require starting with a checmical that can substitute for baking soda! At least, I assume that the only reason we use baking soda instead of lye is that it's so much harder to kill yourself with it.
Sodium bicarbonate, the chemical name of baking soda, has always been manufactured using industrial processes at an industrial scale. I can't see how it could be practical to make at home. You'd need specialized equipment and you might well find that the materials you need aren't any easier to acquire.
Baking soda is known by different names, in addition to sodium bicarbonate according to Wikipedia it's also known as bread soda, cooking soda, and bicarbonate of soda. So it's possible it's available in your area on under one of these other names. If you live in area where a language other than English is used then you might find other alternative names in that language's version of the Wikipedia page. If you still can't find any you'll either have to pay to have it shipped to you or find a substitute recipe that uses some other leavening agent.
The OP has clarified that the question is not at all about sourcing, so the second half of your answer may not be helpful here. I've posted another question where it'd fit right in though: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54883/1672
@CascabelI think if the second part of my answer isn't relevant, despite it not being what the original poster wants to hear, then the question is likely off-topic here. If he wants to know how to make food grade baking soda at home, regardless of cost, risk and zoning laws, it's something he should be asking the chemistry experts at chemistry.stackexchange.com
I'd say it's probably still on topic here, even if it might get better answers on chemistry.stackexchange.com, and even if the answer is "you can't really do it at home". Certainly true that the OP might be interested in posting there though.
If you can get sodium hydroxide, you can make baking soda.
The stuff absorbs CO2 from the air along with water to produce NaHCO3, baking soda. I've had batches of commercial NaOH that were in fact up to 40% NaHCO3.
Best way to do it is to dissolve your NaOH in water, and just let it stir a few weeks. It'll suck CO2 out of the air. When the pH gets down to 6.5 or 7, you'll have reasonably pure baking soda. Evaporate the water and you're done.
Be aware that heating baking soda in an oven at over 200°F will give you sodium carbonate rather than baking soda, so evaporate gently.
What do you mean by "let stir a few weeks"?
@Flimzy, it's got to absorb carbon dioxide out of the air. That's only present at about 0.3%, so getting enough in takes a while. Stirring is quite effective at speeding up exchange between air and liquid phases.
@Flimzy: You're right. Making NaOH is an icky process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloralkali_process. The wood-ash process gives KOH, which is NOT what you want for baking. I've removed the link. You'll just have to find NaOH, if you want to go this route. Some hardware stores sell it labelled as "Red Devil Lye".
@WayfaringStranger: And that's where you're wrong. Making arbitrarily-pure soda lye (NaOH) requires only arbitraily-pure sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), using all the same steps as the wood-ash process. Wood contains more potassium than sodium, so its post-burning carbonate-ash is potassium-based; saltworts such as barilla (Salsola soda) or seaweeds such as kelp are more rich in sodium, so their ashes likewise.
If I'm understanding this right, lye dissolved in water and let sit to absorb carbon dioxide from the air will turn into sodium hydroxide. If you then gently evaporate the water (at low temperatures) the residue left will be baking soda.
My understanding is that back when everything (more or less) was made at home, lye was made from wood ash, so if my understanding is correct, this should be a way to make baking soda without resort to a pharmacist.
This would be a good answer with references.
Lye already is sodium hydroxide.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.019155
| 2015-02-13T01:37:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54670",
"authors": [
"Avanthika sathish",
"BowlOfRed",
"Brianna Muhlenkamp",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Christi Jones",
"Eric Lippert",
"Flimzy",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Jacob Stai",
"Joe",
"Lennie Turner",
"Margaret Crawford",
"Paul Scott",
"Pepi",
"PeterJ",
"Ross Ridge",
"Rynant",
"Scott Dudley",
"Stephen Queen",
"Stephie",
"Tina Oshima",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willa Hightower",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9764",
"kelsey thornton",
"octern",
"rackandboneman",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69376
|
How much salt do I use to ferment 1 quart of cabbage?
How much salt do I add to ferment 1 quart of cabbage?
Right you are, @AndyGiesler ..and you get much more accurate ratios by weight. A quart of cabbage is a highly variable thing (before shredding, after shredding, but before salting, and after salting are wildly different volumes just in the course of making saeurkraut, for the same weight of cabbage.)
According to the batch of sauerkraut I made yesterday, and this recipe 3/4ths of a Tablespoon per quart of grated cabbage is sufficient to ward off infection without making the end result overly salty.
http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-homemade-sauerkraut-in-a-mason-jar-193124
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.019956
| 2016-05-31T17:00:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69376",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70506
|
Is there a reliable source for clean dry beans?
When I clean and sort a cup of dry beans it takes a long time and I find myself discarding a good tablespoon of dirt, rocks and beans that don't look right. These are beans purchased in 1 pound packages for prices that seem like great bargains, when compared to canned beans, until I get into the cleaning and sorting again.
I would rather cook from dry than eat canned, but I would also like to start with clean beans. Where can I find them?
I am in Rochester Minnesota, US.
Thanks!
As far as I know, this is just part of buying dried beans... though I don't usually have this much trash to clean out, nearly every recipe that calls for dried beans tells you to sort through them first. Anyway, if we're going to even attempt to answer this, you're going to have to tell us where you are... different states/countries/continents have different suppliers and our site is not US-centric, so we don't make assumptions about where people live.
While every bean package warns that you should look for possible rocks that have made it through the system, I can't recall finding a single one in many years - store brand 1-lb bagged beans or Goya brand (more expensive.) Nor have I had any dirt. The occasional "floater" is easily removed, since it floats. You're evidently finding some considerably lower-quality product than I see in the Northeast USA.
Catija - thank you. I've added my location to my question. Ecnerwal - thank you. I have seen Goya in one or more stores here. I will try them.
Seek out higher quality dried beans. Not all brands are the same. Not all are fresh. Not all are clean.
I buy my wheat berries in bulk from these guys: https://www.azurestandard.com/ . Quality is very good and they do beans as well. They are in Oregon but they send a truck out east once a month or so.
In my experience, bagged dry beans (such as Goya brand) tend to require less cleaning than ones purchased in the open, bulk bins at grocery stores.
However, you should still carefully wash them and search for rocks regardless.
Jon - thank you! I will try Goya next time. Of course I will sort and wash.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.020049
| 2016-06-06T18:47:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70506",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"George DeStefano",
"Hilmar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51929",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90070
|
How do I know when yellow split peas are cooked?
After having boiled for initially 10 minutes and then simmered for an hour my yellow split peas are still firm and a little gritty.
If cooked long enough do they ever get soft like a red kidney bean?
They are the cheapest pulse on the shelf and I'm beginning to think the least responsive to cooking.
I soak these overnight so they are fully re-hydrated by the time of cooking.
I cook in enough water to cover them.
How much water have you added for what quantity of split peas?
Soaking doesn't fully rehydrate, it just gets you a head start.
You probably haven't added enough water. Split peas are dried, cooking re-hydrates them, but only if there's enough to for them to absorb. You need to add at least double the water as peas, a bit like rice in that respect. It's also possible you have old peas, or they are a variety that simply needs a longer cooking time. Hard water can also slow down cooking.
Try using softened water if you can, and more of it. An overnight soak can also work wonders.
I had that happen one time with my yellow split peas. No matter cooking time they stayed 'gritty' like you said. I came to the conclusion (after reading up) that the batch had been stored far too long and/ or heat damaged during storage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.020255
| 2018-05-30T13:29:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90070",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84841
|
How can one clarify orange juice to clear orange flavoured gelatine?
In UK we have a small cake called a jaffa cake which has a sponge base with an orange flavoured gelatin disc covered two thirds of base (think flying saucer/UFO shape) and covered with chocolate.
I can temper chocolate and I can cook sponge. I was wondering how they made the clear orange gelatine part. Specifically how can one take orange juice which is opaque and arrive at an orange flavoured clear gelatin?
EDIT:
A different way of asking is how come marmalade is clear? I mean I know that one can make a consomme from tomato juice or beef by using egg whites which uses the albumen to filter out pulp but there must be a different technique for orange juice.
LINKS:
Bartender advice on clarifying fruit juice - suggests coffee filter (also mulls agar)
Agar clarification - agar is vegan gelatine - article suggests simmering, cheesecloth and coffee filter
Clarification Agar vs Gelatin
Have you done an internet search? There is a great deal of information on both commercially produced and homemade Jaffa cakes. What I found is that they use jelly (gelatin - like Jello brand), marmalade, jam, or a combination of them. What I didn't find was any reference to using orange juice to make a gelatin.
You might try simple agar clarification. Dave Arnold has written extensively on the technique. Basically, you use agar to create an orange juice gel. Once set, you use a whisk to turn the gel in to curds. Pour into a cloth, hang, and allow to drain. Done correctly, the orange juice will be clear. You can google the technique. It's fairly easy and doesn't take too long. You can then manipulate that liquid in many ways. This is not how marmalade is made, but it will allow you to clarify almost any fruit or vegetable based juice/puree without a centrifuge.
yeah I've stumbled onto this
Orange juice by itself may not have enough orange flavor, clarified or not. It might take some orange extract too to give it enough flavor, particularly if it is a thin gelatin layer. Extract can be easily made at home with a zester, some alcohol, and a little time to let it settle (I use 5% weight/ volume orange zest and 95% ethanol to extract). The extract is clear and very strong in flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.020396
| 2017-10-05T19:10:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84841",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"RudyB",
"S Meaden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47298"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84308
|
What does bad Brie smell/taste like?
I've been buying the same kind of Brie every week for the past six months, but this time was different. I got it from a grocery store I've never been to before, and I live in Kenya, where it's common for power outages to knock out refrigeration for from time to time.
The cheese hasn't hit its expiration date yet, but it's more gooey than ever, with stained packaging from leaks, brown spots areas, and the smell of peanut butter. Usually, it's pretty tame and cream-colored. It's funkiness is more like bleu cheese than nuts.
I've read that Brie is rather robust when it comes to resisting harmful bacteria, and, of course, cheese is supposed to be funky! But contamination can happen. What methods can I use or sure signs can I observe to figure out whether this Brie has gone bad?
Use your nose. Bad cheese will smell of ammonia.
Use your finger: Brie should be firm to the touch; if it is too soft, it is too mature and will spoil soon.
If the cheese was improperly stored, then it will age and mature sooner; bad bacteria will start to grow on the cheese.
Throw it away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.020584
| 2017-09-11T19:36:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84308",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71167
|
How to store fresh peaches?
I bought fresh, ripe peaches, and I don't eat them super fast. I want them to last fresh for as long as possible. How should I store them?
Helpful details would address:
Under what parameters would I use plastic? Should I seal it? Can the peaches touch the plastic?
If I refrigerate, what drawer should they go in?
What other foods should or should they not be near?
Should I store them submerged, moist, dry, or with absorbent material?
For ripe peaches the main thing is avoid handling them. They bruise very easily. I leave them in the box and just slide the box in a shelf in the fridge. You are only going to get a few days out of them.
Never in a drawer as too much handling. Don't stack. Dry. I would never wrap or seal to keep mold down but that part is more opinion than hard evidence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.020698
| 2016-07-02T15:17:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71167",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38144
|
Keeping bananas fresh for longer
Is there any way to keep bananas fresh for longer? We tried putting them in the fridge but their skins turn black very fast.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/5005/67
The skins turn black in the fridge, but the fruit itself is fine. Cooks Illustrated tested if refrigerating bananas keeps them good longer, and they found it does—five days longer. Extract below:
Most people store bananas on the countertop, and we wondered if chilling the fruit could slow ripening. To find out, we left 12 pounds of bananas at room temperature for three days until they were perfectly ripe (signified by a firm but yielding texture). We then moved half of the bananas into the refrigerator, leaving the remainder at room temperature.
For the next few days, the bananas were nearly indistinguishable. After four days, however, the room-temperature fruit became markedly soft and mushy, while the refrigerated fruit remained firm, despite blackened skins. We continued to taste the refrigerated bananas after the room-temperature samples had been discarded and were delighted to discover that they lasted an additional five days (so, almost two weeks after purchase) before the flesh became overripe.
The explanation is simple: As a banana ripens, it emits a gas called ethylene and develops acids that aid in ripening. Cool temperatures slow down the production of ethylene and acids, thereby decelerating ripening. However, refrigeration also causes the cell walls of the peel to break down, releasing enzymes that cause the formation of black-brown pigments.
Store them in a well ventilated place. Cool (15 degrees Celsius) and dark will probably do them good too. And buy green bananas.
Your bananas are alive. Seriously, they continue to live after they have been picked. Breathing, cell metabolism, hormone production, etc. goes on. You cannot stop this process, you can slow it a bit.
In many plants, fridge temperatures trigger their own growth slowing processes, because they are evolved to stop growing in winter months. But in tropical fruit, this doesn't work, because there are no cold months where they grow. Instead, it exposes their sensitive cells to an environment they are not meant for, and they change a lot. Bananas go black, tomatoes change their taste radically, and so on.
Still, keeping them coolish and dark may do them good, because it still gives them less energy to spend on ripening.
One of the mechanisms which controls ripening in fruit, including bananas, is ethylene gas. It is a positive feedback mechanism. Ripe fruit produces ethylene, and unripe fruit ripens faster when exposed to ethylene. People tend to stick green bananas in bags to make them ripe faster. If you can keep them well ventilated, the ripening will slow down.
Still, don't expect any wonders. Bananas will ripe after being plucked, no matter if on the tree or not. And they will overripen in few days, even when held far from ethylene. Starting with green bananas gives you more headroom, but you still have a few days only.
Ethylene gas is heavier than air, so having no sides and an elevated position is best. Also no direct sunlight.
Covering the stem part of the cluster with shrink plastic also help in keeping the peel healthy (evaporation leak from the stem end). Your useful note on tropical climate is concurred by Leonard Cohen in his Banana Song.
Jolenealaska makes a good point - bananas should not be kept with other fruit, which is why fruit cages often have a long extension with a hook above - this keeps the bananas suspended away from the other fruits. Even better is a banana hook with no fruit cage beneath. The amount of ethylene is critical, so keeping them away from other fruits which are also producing ethylene helps to slow down the ripening process.
By that logic, one should also keep the bananas away from each other....
@SAJ14SAJ Dear oh dear, for heaven's sake - it's the ethylene from other fruits in the bowl one's trying to avoid, not to mention the two way street of its affecting other fruits too. Keeping each banana in splendid isolation might well delay ripening, but really, life's too short, surely.
Are bananas themselves not one of the largest ethylene emitters?
Yup. And your point is?
Since they are the worst offenders, it seems isolation would be indicated, not just from the other fruits.
@SAJ14SAJ Each banana emits ethylene as by product of it's own ripening process, which is already very fast. It needs large amounts to ripen, and the small amount from other bananas will not significantly effect it, but it will effect other fruit
@TFD I can only say bologna, as this is a family board.
@SAJ14SAJ What you saying? The amount of ethylene used to ripen shipped bananas would ruin the same volume of apples, how does that not make sense?
Bananas that are refrigerated turn black, but that's only the peel. The fruit inside keeps way longer if you leave them on the counter. Easily a week to 10 days depending on how ripe when you put them in the fridge. No loss of flavour or texture.
I always buy two bunches of bananas. One Bunch that is perfectly ripe and ready to eat within a few days. The second bunch is as green as I can find. I then keep these two bunches separated in my kitchen. This allows me to have bananas for a period of about 7 to 9 days without problems. Additionally when I get them home, the first thing I do is submerge the stems in a bowl of water with soap to eliminate any fruit fly eggs. This works very well!
To keep them pleasant for just eating by themselves keep them at room temperature. Refrigerating or freezing them quickly turns them black. They'll develop bruising as they ripen if they're resting against anything (including each other), so keeping them suspended by their stems helps keep them a nice even yellow banana hooks. Once they ripen (darken and soften) beyond the point that they're pleasant for "out of hand" eating they're still a very useful ingredient. Overripe bananas have much more flavor and aroma than yellow ones. For baked goods ripened all the way to black is perfect. Let them ripen to nearly mushy at room temperature, then freeze. Once you have several bananas stored that way you're halfway to a very nice banana bread. I peel them and freeze in a Ziploc bag, but many people swear by leaving them unpeeled for freezing, and that certainly works too.
The OP is storing them at room temperature, quite aware that refrigerating them doesn't work, and asking how to keep them fresh longer. I'm not sure I see how this addresses that?
Bananas are perceived as "fresh" when they're yellow without brown spots. The banana hooks directly address that. The freezing tip extends useful life of the bananas, very intertwined with the word "fresh".
Ah, I read the part about hooks as simply preventing bruising, not actually extending the shelf life. I will not delete this then, but it could be vastly improved. The first sentence tells the OP to do what they're already doing. The second repeats back what they already said in the question. And although it's not explicitly stated, it's almost certain that the OP wants to just eat the bananas, not bake with them, so the advice about freezing is certainly correct but not necessarily helpful.
With respect to hooks, recommended because of the claim that fresh = yellow... overripe bananas are obviously overripe (and may have little brown spots), whether or not they have bruises. Preventing bruises is still good though, of course.
You can't keep bananas very long. So just buy what you can eat in about 3 days, period. This is 80 years of dealing with bananas.
There's a very small 'optimimum' period, in my opinion, but you should be able to stretch them out to at least a 5 day window. And if you buy bunches that are at different stages (I generally try to get the most green + the most yellow bunch), you can have bananas over an even longer period.
Ethylene gas absorbers should prolong banana life, but I've never tried them, and do not know if their absorbing capacity is high enough to merit the cost.
Looks like ethylene absorbers are used commercially so there's at least some chance that the consumer level products will work.
They're used commercially because they pack things in crates & shipping containers ... they don't have the freedom to just let there be lots of air exchange.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.020821
| 2013-11-04T14:51:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38144",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Billzpotznpanz",
"Cascabel",
"Debbie",
"Dee Dee Maul",
"Dee Frazier",
"Dennis Billings",
"GdD",
"George",
"Joe",
"John Morgan",
"Johnny",
"Jolenealaska",
"MandoMando",
"Margaret Lu-Fong",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"Vicky",
"arakiyeci",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90142",
"pfeds",
"willp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73236
|
Cooking a whole 30lb sturgeon on a spit
I have a custom made charcoal spit and I've done a whole pig on a spit at least 10 times, so I have some experience doing this thing, however, this will be my first year cooking a sturgeon, or any fish for that matter, on a spit. I need help with and how long to cook it for.
The spit automatically rotates 3.5 rotations/minute. I plan on wrapping the whole fish in wire... will that be enough or will it be too tender/start falling apart? I'm also worried about overcooking it and making it too tough. Any other advice?
Welcome! I've removed the part of your question about seasoning because it's a little too subjective. Everyone has their own flavor preferences. The rest of your question looks fine, though. :)
There are numerous historical references to spit-roasting sturgeon. Contemporary cuisine has rediscovered sturgeon more recently, particularly on the West Coast. Several years ago, sturgeon farmer Michael Passmore of Passmore Ranch (Sloughhouse, California) and chef Kelly McCown (The Kitchen, Sacramento, California) spit-roasted a 100-pound specimen for an event. Roasted whole, you want the temperature of the inside cavity to reach 145 F. On a grill, this can take about 25 minutes, depending on size of the fish. Since spit-roasting tends to be at a lower heat, it will take longer, and I would use an instant-read thermometer to check for doneness.
Awesome! Thanks for the info. I contacted the ranch to see if they can get me some tips.
Based on my experience as a chef I wouldn't recommend spit-roasting your sturgeon. It's a rather large fish for that technique although smaller fish may work. Your idea to wrap it in wire albeit a good idea, give a moment to consider what would the wire do to your fish as it cooks. Proteins shrink when they cook and although you may wrap the fish in wire while it is still uncooked the wire will not shrink to accommodate the shrinkage of the fish.A 30 lb. sturgeon would probably be roasted and there will be less complications when it comes serving it whole (given you have a big oven!)
Thank you for your answer, but given that I will be in the middle of the wilderness, where an oven is not an option, can you help with best practices for best possible outcome on a spit?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.021475
| 2016-08-18T16:50:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73236",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Serj Sagan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49863"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59500
|
What is this "Egyptian Coffee"?
I came across this video on Facebook, which allegedly demonstrates some sort of "Egyptian Coffee" making technique. What exactly is the video showing? Where can I read more about this coffee making technique, and the associated equipment, etc?
This is actually the Turkish method for making coffee, or a variant of it. Coffee grounds, cold water and sugar are brought just to a boil several times before being poured into small cups. For this method one typically uses the finest possible grind of coffee.
The sand is used to control heat. The pots (called cezve) on top of the sand keep warm, and when you want them to boil you push them down through the sand to make direct contact with the hot plate underneath.
They make it the same way in Greece, where the pot is called a briki. Stoves in Greece usually come with a small burner that's just the right size for a briki. This gives much less control than a bed of sand but is, of course, much more practical for home use. (Watch. It. Like. A. Hawk. If it boils over, it's one heck of a mess to clean up, especially on an electric stove.)
Same in Russia, it's second most popular method after instant coffee, using stove instead of sand.
I always get edgy when the verb "to boil" is used in combination with "coffee", while at the same time not clearly indicating that coffee should not boil, ever, but I assume you used just to indicate that, so +1. It's the same method as Turkish coffee, and still widely in use in any country that was a part of the Ottoman empire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.021771
| 2015-08-01T06:13:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59500",
"authors": [
"Alex Cheskey",
"Darlene Hill",
"David Richerby",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Petra koza taylor",
"Terrance Sheard",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"user142166",
"ydrive"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55566
|
What's the most effective way to mix a jar of natural peanut butter?
When you buy a jar of natural peanut butter, it typically has a layer of oil on top, which has separated:
Mixing it can be messy and time consuming.
Aside from slowly and patiently mixing it with a knife, are there any tips and tricks to make this job faster, and without spilling?
I've done this with almond butter, and I imagine it would work for peanut butter as well. The secret is to buy it a month or so before you need it, and then store it upside down for a week, so the oil traverses all the way through the jar and its contents, then turn it right way up for another week, and repeat again in each direction. Each trip through the jar mixes the oil with the solids a little more, and it's fairly homogeneous after four turns.
I was going to post something like this, except it's not always necessary to even turn more than once. I just leave them upside down and don't have to think about it. You'll end up with extra oil on the bottom, which is only a problem if the consistency is too thick without the extra oil getting integrated.
True, it works with less turning around, but doing it a few times really makes sure the oil is evenly distributed. Four may be overkill/ritual - there may be some brand dependency.
This is the sort of genius answer I was hoping for. :)
Yes, this was always a problem for me. Stirring doesn't work because the oil spills out and its very hard to stir the bottom. The trick is to cut the peanut butter instead of stirring it. I can adequately mix a jar of peanut butter in less than 30 seconds without much effort and no mess this way.
Using a butter knife, cut # shapes in the peanut butter over and over again. The idea is that gravity will naturally take the oil down if you just give it a little room. As you cut and stab at the solid chunks of peanut butter, the oil naturally mixes. At the very end you can do a couple quick stirring motions, but by now the oil and peanut butter should be mostly mixed.
This is how I always mix peanut butter. I stab a butter knife straight down to the bottom, and rock it back and forth against the flat of the blade. Three or four (or five) stabs in, most of the oil is off the surface and in the cuts, leaving only a sheen on top. Then, I can scrape up peanut butter from the surface, or mix just the top layer, and use that - whether because I'm in a hurry and don't need the whole jar-full at once, or else because there isn't room to really mix it in the jar until some of it's gone (oil will slosh against the sides fairly sloppily).
This was the only thing that worked for me when I opened a new jar on a camping trip without many of the tools suggested in other answers, and with a knife too flimsy to stir it
This is the way I do it, too, but... 30 seconds? I just opened a new can myself. Stuck in a butter knife and cut full-depth slices. In 30 seconds, I was only able to cut 4 slices through the very hard peanut butter. After about 2 minutes, I had lots of chunks of peanut butter sitting in oil - it then took another 3 minutes of stirring to actually combine everything. 30 seconds might be enough if you have freshly made peanut butter that has only just started to separate, but otherwise this is a slow process.
My husband came up with the best solution ever for this. He drilled a hole in the lid of an empty jar them put 1 mixer blade from the hand mixer through the hole and voila great mixed peanut or almond butter. We now keep an extra lid with the other jars of peanut butter for next time.
Plus 1 for crediting your husband. Most of us try hard.
I found my own solution. Grab a single spiral dough hook from a hand mixer and chuck it into a power drill (corded or cordless).
Open the jar and, holding it securely, turn it slowly at first so that the spiral pushes the contents downward. Once the oil is incorporating, speed up the drill and work down into the center and all around the edges (take it easy if it's a glass jar so you don't break it) to get an even mix.
Once you're done, slow down again and slowly raise the dough hook out, leaving only a thin layer on it to scrape (or lick) off.
+1 for creativity and use of power tool in the kitchen, though my dough hook is larger than most peanut butter jars.
Good idea. Someone should manufacture a drill bit specifically for stirring food. It could look like one of those paint bucket stirring bits at the hardware store.
@Paulb : I've seen drill bits for planting bulbs that might work. They're more spiral, and might not mix as well, but they're only spiral at the bottom few inches, so might not bring as much up with them. (Assuming they fit in the jar). And that you can clean them well between uses.
Peanut butter mixers do a good job. The downside is that they are specific to the jar size. Witmer's makes a range of mixers based around the jar size/opening. You take off the lid, screw on the mixer and crank away until the peanut butter is smooth.
Alternatively, you can use a rubber spatula to empty out the peanut butter into a bowl and user hand mixer (or stand mixer) to incorporate the oil back in.
I would think a food processor (using the blade attachment) would work as well since you can actually make nut butters from scratch that way.
As annoying as it is to empty the jar (dirtying a bowl and spatula in the process, instead of just a butter knife which I was going to spread the peanut butter anyway), this is the only fast way I've ever found. I love the idea of a peanut butter mixer, though.
I've used the Witmer peanut butter mixers that djmadscribbler mentions. In my experience, they work OK up to a point but since the agitator is a rigid piece of metal that turns, it can't reach all the peanut butter in the jar and ultimately won't do as thorough a job mixing the peanut butter as you can manually with a butter knife. You'll end up with some peanut butter that is well-mixed and some that isn't mixed at all (around the sides and bottom corners of the jar). I don't use mine anymore.
You may also want to try finding a natural foods store or Whole Foods, they usually have grinders on site so you can grind your own fresh peanut butter. If you store that in the fridge (or if you use it quickly), oil separation isn't a problem.
I would assume that you could use the middle of the jar first, and then you'll have sufficient space to stir with a knife without slopping it all over the place.
Microwave jar (without metal lid!) on level 3 or 4 a minute or so, repeat if needed throughout the mixing.
Stir with a narrow bread knife - reaches easily to bottom of jar, is thin and flexible, and the bladed side is great for breaking up large lumps at the bottom.
I would only recommend this for a glass jar, though!
If you use one brand, take an empty jar and make a small hole in the lid. This will allow the lid to slide down a wooden spoon or similar object then screw the lid/spoon back onto the jar and mix.
I pour off most of the oil into a container to be incorporated in later, and possibly not add all back in; it sometimes gets too runny with it all. (I use the extra oil to cook with later.) Now with the oil poured off, I have room to stir with a fork, and add the oil little at a time. I poke the fork to the bottom of the jar, and push the fork top around the edge of the jar in a circle. Add a bit more oil. I adjust the fork to another position when it seems to be mixed in that spot. This seems to be the best way for me. Faster than most other things I have tried. In the past I have taken 2 jars, poured off the oil, emptied the peanut butter into a bowl and used a pastry blender to cut them & add oil back til it seemed enough. The reason I do 2 is because I hate to dirty bowl, pastry blender, spatula, etc. for just one. Peanut butter keeps very well. I will do my almond butter or other types I may have in the same bowl after I finish the peanut butter.
An interesting approach.
Am no expert, but this worked for me. Truth be told, I'm kind of proud of myself, as kitchen duty is not my strength. It was easy and easy clean-up as well. You will need three things: 1) a stainless ice cream scooper (the old-fashioned spring-loaded release kind) 2) a stainless saucepan or stainless or glass bowl, and 3) a stainless steel hand blender (the kind used to mix soups while still in the pot (cuisinart). I used the ice cream scooper to empty the contents of the cashew nut butter into the stainless saucepan. Then, I mixed it, using the hand soup blender (as if I were blending a soup). Next, I again used the ice cream scooper to return the (now mixed) cashew butter to the jar. I mention stainless and glass, as they are so easy to clean. But, am guessing plastic bowls will do as well. GOOD LUCK!
If you're using a saucepan, you can maybe make cleaning up even easier by making hot chocolate or something afterwards, where the peanut or other nut butter left over will be a benefit. Most of the residue can be lifted off the saucepan, or carefully washed off the blender and scooper, and used in the hot chocolate. Mmm, peanut butter hot chocolate.
depending on your stick blender, you can just blend it in the jar! mine fits all but the teeny tiny jars, and there's usually enough free space at the top of the jar that nothing overflows.
Buy one or two jars ahead depending on how much you eat. As stated earlier leave stored upside down. Once a week shake the jar(s) vigorously still upside down. Even if you forget the harder blob will be at the lid and overall easier to deal with.
Someone mentioned microwaving it or running it under hot water. Living in the Phoenix area, I have discovered a really easy way (but it only works well in places where it's hot.) Just buy it one day, leave it in your car all day (and all night if hot enough.) When you go to take it out, it will be easy peasy to stir it.
Mixers are very effective, however when you add up the time end effort it takes to clean a mixer bowl and attachment it's usually is the same as if you just mixed it up with a knife. I haven't found a better way personally.
I store the nut butter upside down. When all the oil is on the upturned bottom, shaking to make it rise, I use ONE beater attached to my hand mixer. I then store it in the fridge. This has worked well for me. I may try the pastry brush attachment for my mixer for the larger sized jars.
I've been using a BBQ fork with twisting/turning motion instead of a mixer. And it's an easy cleanup to boot. I just tried pre-heating the jar in the microwave and that idea is a slam-dunk! It made the mixing job SO much easier. Just beware - if you have a jar that's sealed with some sort of foil you have to get every bit of it off the rim of the jar or it will catch fire in the microwave! Adam's PB is great and does not have the foil seal.
IMO all the recommendations that talk about emptying the jar into a bowl end up with too big of a cleanup job.
My low tech natural peanut butter storage solution:
Store new jars of natural peanut butter upside down (so when the oil
separates and floats to the top it’s really floating to the bottom
of the jar) in the pantry
When you’re ready to use the natural peanut butter open
the jar and mix the oil (which is on the bottom of the jar) in with
a long metal spoon
After you’re done put the lid back on and and store
the natural peanut butter jar in the fridge right side up
While you don’t have to store natural peanut butter in the fridge it will last even longer in the fridge. However the main reason for storing it in the fridge is that it prevents the oil from separating again. Since the oil doesn’t separate you can store the jar upright which keeps oily peanut butter from working its way into the lid's threads (and onto the outside of the jar when you take the lid off). Yes, the natural peanut butter is cool when you go to use it, but IMHO this is a small price to pay for non-oily easy to use natural peanut butter.
Note according to
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/refridgerate-natural-peanut-butter-refrigerate_n_57fe2687e4b0e9c70229eac9 "a jar will easily keep in the fridge for six months."
Slide it into a bowl and mix it with a hand mixer. Spoon it back in the jar and refrigerate. I’ve tried wrestling with the jar itself—way more time consuming. And I toss the bowl and the beaters into the dishwasher.
Empty the peanut butter jar into a 4 cup measuring cup or bowl. Mix with whatever is appropriate - spoon works well - until oil is combined, then spoon back into the original container, use a rubber scrapper to get the last bit (clean with fingers and take a taste now and then). Then put it in the fridge to keep it together.
We have a lovely hand-held mixer with adjustable speed that came with a pair of spiral blades, it fits perfectly in a 16oz Crazy Richards jar. We first place the blades all the way in, then using the lowest speed we rotate the jar until done, then lift the mixer up slowly until the hook ends start to appear. Turn the mixer off before going any farther!
I use one beater and a hand mixer. Taller jar leaves a bit un mixed on the bottome, perfect for midnight snack & no drips.
remove lid, use egg beater. Takes 2 or 3 minutes. That is all.
Go to the hardware store and buy a new paint stirring rod for your variable speed electric drill. Most are 1/4" drive, and have 4 blades. At a slow speed work the paint stirring bit into the solid peanut butter. Increase the speed, and whip it to your heart's content.
Wash and store your "peanut beater" with your other whisks.
Use a fork. Start by stabbing up and down.
Turn the jar upside down (at room temperature) for about a day. Let gravity do the rest. The oil will try to start rising to the "top" again. Turn back over when it has self mixed and refrigerate to keep it in its newly reconstituted state.
This is a duplicate answer.
a strong variable-speed powerdrill equipped with a drywall mud-mixer
done in seconds
Does that fit in a normal-sized jar of peanut butter?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.022013
| 2015-03-09T18:35:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55566",
"authors": [
"Betty Mokoena",
"Chris H",
"Dario Gerald",
"Dennis Sydnor",
"Diana Uchtdorf",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Erica",
"Eugene Lai",
"Flimzy",
"Geoffrey So",
"J C",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Kashif Nadia",
"Katelyn Schwennen",
"Megha",
"Ori Gasparini",
"Paulb",
"Riaz Rizvi",
"Thomas Brant",
"anita gouly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj",
"nitika wadhwa"
],
"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
}
|
15787
|
What is this teapot and where can I buy it?
I recently watched this video and instantly fell in love with the shown teapot. As you can see, the strainer is movable and integrated in the handle very cleverly.
I tried searching for it with the little info that I have, but nothing came out. It looks like Bodum, but it's not. All search variations for "teapot with integrated strainer" return very interesting results, but none is the one I search for.
So if someone has any idea what brand it is I will be very grateful.
I accidentally bought a caseful of teapots lke this at a surplus auction about 5 years ago - the top layer was light fittings, I didn't look at the lower layers! They sold quite well on eBay, but I could not source any more. All I can tell is that they came from China.
Do you have a better picture? I've never seen teapot in this shape.
Some quick googling found this image on 1 blog, and some discussion of the video. But no info on the teapot. Have you tried emailing Michael Wolff? I get the distinct impression from the video that he owns one.
I think that I found the patent for the teapot, but was unable to find anything else about it. Here is what I have found so far:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6655261.html
Thanks a lot! Using the assignee name - Emsa Werke Wulf GmbH & Co. KG - I was able to find the teapot. Here is the URL
Great! I am glad I could help! I hope you like your teapot!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.023169
| 2011-06-26T19:47:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15787",
"authors": [
"AtlasRN",
"Scivitri",
"Stoinov",
"bryan.blackbee",
"bug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6600",
"klypos",
"lamwaiman1988",
"nabeelr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15871
|
What is the English name for Chitra Rajmah?
What is this variety of kidney beans called in English? We call them "Chitra Rajmah" in Hindi.
http://www.helloorganic.com/Rajma_chitra.html
Pinto beans. Throw in a few more foods in Hindi, and I'll translate them too, while I'm here; I've got good reference books handy with names in both English and Hindi.
I didn't know how to add that image there. :)
When posting or editing, click the little icon (image or picture) that looks like a painting. It's right next to the {} symbols.
I know about the IMG tags, but I didn't know how to get the photo from another website in these IMG tags. Perhaps we simply include the url :eek:
and why did you label this as Indian cusine? :) Don't Americans cook this lentil?
Stack Overflow has a relationship with the Imgur image hosting service. It uses them and brings up a mini upload page if you click the icon. Or, you can upload there and use the URL if you prefer.
I labelled it as "indian cuisine" because it needs tags besides "beans" and I couldn't think of a better tag to use. I'm trying to decide on one now.
@AnishaKaul let us continue this discussion in chat
It is taking a long amount of time to load that login page of chat link, besides food_names is nice tag, at least better than the previous one. Thanks again for your help.
So will this be called "Pinto beans" or "Pinto kidney beans"?
Just pinto beans.
we have reached three varieties of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) commonly used in India while researching for website.
kidney beans - rajma.
pinto beans - chitri wala rajma, printed rajma.
Navy bean - white rajma, white beans, safed rajma.
You can found more about Indian ingredients in English to Hindi here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.023591
| 2011-07-01T04:57:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15871",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Dave",
"Lorens Estevez",
"Steven J. Owens",
"ViniciusPires",
"haleema",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70104"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30152
|
What kind of bakery items do not get horribly affected by electricity going off when the item is still in oven?
I have a nice oven but I have stopped making cakes for the reason being that if electricity goes off in between I'll have to throw the cake.
Now, if I prepare brown/multigrain breads which need whole wheat should I still be worried about power going off in between?
If yes, then what bakery items can be prepared in oven which do not get horribly affected by power going off in between?
Yeast-leavened breads (no matter whether they're white, whole wheat, or multigrain) are going to be your best bet. They have longer baking times, so a power outage will represent a smaller fraction of it, and the yeast keeps on working over time. So if the power goes out when the outside structure is set but it's not baked through yet, the inside won't just collapse. You'll still be a lot better off with a 15 minute power outage than an hour, but I think you could probably manage through longer ones too. The tricky thing will be telling when it's done - you obviously won't be able to trust a time from a recipe anymore, so you'll have to rely on testing. Depending on the specifics, you may also end up having to cover the top with foil or even reduce the temperature a bit to finish baking, to avoid over-browning it.
Quick breads - things like muffins and pound-cakes, soda-leavened with a dense crumb - will also fare okay. For example, I've had the power go out halfway through a 30-40 minute baking time on muffins, and just let them sit in the still-hot oven for the rest of the time plus an extra 5-10 minutes, and they came out okay. Not perfect, but I certainly wouldn't complain. If on the other hand you have a long power outage, especially early on in baking, you might be out of luck. If the leavening is spent before it cooks enough to set up some structure, it'll collapse on you.
If the outages are really short, on the order of 5 minutes, I wouldn't worry about much of anything at all as long as the baking time is longer. The oven already cycles power on and off to maintain temperature; with an outage that short it won't have time to drop before it gets a change to recover.
It also helps if your oven is good - better ovens hold their temperature better, releasing less heat to the surroundings, so it'll take longer when the power goes out for them to drop to a too-low temperature.
Finally, I would encourage you to experiment a bit. If you don't mind if 1 in 4 times something comes out a bit messed up but still quite edible, just go for it. And having things come out less than perfect will help give you an idea how much you can get away with, so you don't spend all your time avoiding things that you actually could have made!
Thanks. I was waiting for "your" answer. You had answered the previous one too. :)
You said: if on the other hand you have a long power outage, especially early on in baking, you might be out of luck. Does this apply to yeast-leavened breads too?
@AnishaKaul The relevant bit there was "I think you could probably manage through longer ones." You can even get away with half-baking bread, freezing it, then thawing and finishing baking it, so a power outage should be manageable too. It'll just throw your baking times off, like I said, so you'll have to get the hang of testing your breads for doneness. And the final product might not have exactly the same texture it was supposed to, but such is life!
I did get that but you mentioned the above quote in muffin's paragraph (and not in bread part) so I thought it is better to ask rather than assume. Pardon - I do find sometimes statements difficult to understand and correlate.
@AnishaKaul Yes, the bit you quoted (being out of luck with a long outage) was in the paragraph about quick breads, and the bit I quoted (probably managing with longer outages) was in the one about yeast-leavened breads.
It also helps if your oven is good Is my oven good enough? http://www.cromaretail.com/Bajaj-28-Litres-2800TMC-Oven-Toaster-Grill-%28White%29-pc-469-468.aspx
@AnishaKaul That's a toaster oven, not a conventional full-size oven. It won't hold heat as well as a full-size one - in addition to just being smaller, the walls are probably thinner and not as well insulated.
:( So, do I have some chances with this oven?
Toaster ovens have far less thermal mass to ride out power outages than full sized ovens, in addition to being less insulated as Jefromi said. They are going to be more sensitive to power outages. I think that skews you towards trying short duration items like cookies or mini-muffins, rather than larger items if the risk is high. You have to ask yourself what is the pattern, duration, frequency and likelinhood of the outages and assess the risk before you start baking something.
On a different tack to those above you can stabilize your oven temperature by using heat absorbing materials such as brick and stone, which will absorb heat when the oven is on, then release it when the power goes out. It does mean for longer pre-heating times as it takes lots of energy to get the stone or brick up to temperature, however it could save your cakes. Just make sure to use fireplace brick and not regular, as regular can crack. Better yet, get a piece of scrap granite or marble, that way you can use it as a bread stone as well.
Nice adea, especially when combined with the other approaches.
This advise is excellent as I said before, but it is appropriate for a full sized oven; difficult to do in a toaster oven.
Going the opposite direction from that recommended by Jefromi in his answer should also be very effective: bake items with shorter bake times, like cookies (or, as the British say, biscuits) or mini-muffins.
These items, with their short bake times, are less likely to be interrupted by a power outage, and if an outage does occur, the assuming the oven was properly pre-heated, the carry-over heat should allow the individual tray to finish baking, even if it takes a minute or two longer. As mentioned, Jefromi ovens cycle on and off anyway during normal operation.
Most of these items should be fairly tolerant of holding the dough for the next tray or batch until power comes back, within reason. They actually tend to benefit from longer hold times due to the additional hydration of the flour, and the mellowing of some flavors (especially cocoa based items).
Note: you have implied though never specifically said in previous questions that you have no refrigeration. Cake and cookie doughs often contain eggs, which are a fairly perishable item. You need to be cognizant of how long you are holding raw dough or batter containing uncooked eggs. An hour or two at moderate temperature is probably fine, assuming they then get cooked properly to an internal temperature above 160 F - 180 F (which should be the case in all cookies and baked goods).
Ironically, meringues, which are essentially nothing but egg whites and sugar may also fair very well for you, as they are very tolerant (and actually benefit from) a long, slow drying. Even if the power goes out, leaving them in the cooling oven should work. However, you don't want to hold uncooked meringue for too long.
Anything that will fit into a steamer on your gas burner, wrapped if necessary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.023789
| 2013-01-17T05:10:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30152",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"JDHorn",
"Joe Friend",
"Mestrale",
"Mys_721tx",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Surendhar",
"UpNComer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70433",
"user70371"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29003
|
How to add water/milk to the sunny side up eggs?
From here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/24325/6168
By mixing in a small quantity of extra water before you cook the eggs, you are slowing down the cooking process by making more water available that has be evaporated. This keeps the cooking temperature to less than 100°C (212°F) for longer, therefore increasing the the time for the egg proteins to foam and expand before setting
What is the way to add water/milk to the sunny side up eggs (eggs which are NOT supposed to be mixed before putting on the frying pan)?
UPDATE:
If I cook the egg in this cream instead of butter/oil, will it make sense? http://www.amul.com/products/amul-freshcream-info.php
This really applies to beaten egg and refers to a method for making lighter omelettes.
@ElendilTheTall Why? The sunny up egg will not be nicer with milk added?
@AnishaKaul: in a word, no. It will not be nicer, because it'll be a sorta-cooked egg in a puddle of half-burnt milk. I'm puzzled how you could think this would be even remotely a good idea.
@Marti I haven't ever tried any egg with milk nor has my family. So, I thought of getting the advise here. Thanks for your comment though.
The problem lies in the fact that the milk and egg won't mix unless you beat the egg and thus mix the two together. Spiceyyokooko's suggestion of poaching is a good one, though water is the usual poaching medium.
The quote in your question is clearly aimed at eggs that are mixed (ie omelettes, scrambled eggs etc) before cooking, not for whole eggs sunny side up. The benefits of adding more water is to slow down the cooking of those mixed eggs.
If you add a liquid, water or milk, you'll be poaching the eggs rather than frying them in fat or oil as most sunny side up eggs are cooked.
If poaching is what you want to do, there's plenty of instructions on how to do this out on the web. Poached eggs are equally as good if not nicer than fried 'sunny side up' ones in my opinion.
While I've never tried adding water to the skillet, as Josh Caswell suggests, I would stay away from adding milk or cream. I've never heard of anyone adding water or milk to eggs that aren't beaten, and it makes sense; the point of adding the extra liquid is to change the consistency of the beaten eggs and make them fluffier.
Regardless, if you do try this, do it with water and not milk. When I was a kid and first trying to learn how to make eggs, I sometimes added far too much milk to them. Even with beating the milk into the eggs before cooking, if there was too much milk it woulds start to pool on the bottom of the skillet, and I'd wind up with burnt milk froth along with my eggs. I suspect the sugars in the milk burn much more quickly than the eggs cook, but whatever the explanation, the result is unappetizing. Adding milk to unbeaten eggs would almost surely result in something similar - or you'd wind up with a puddle of warm milk and an un- or under-cooked egg.
Oh, yes, I meant to include in my answer that cream or milk sounded like a bad idea, for exactly the reasons you've given!
I'm not quite clear on the reason you want to do this, but you can certainly add a small amount of water (or veg stock) to the skillet -- enough to just cover the bottom -- right before you put the egg in. (I have in fact done this many times.)
The result is that the edges and bottom of the whites will not be fried, but will have a soft, almost coddled, consistency by the time the yolk sets up. You should still heat the skillet as if you are going to cook it in fat, but don't add the fat (except perhaps butter, which is, of course, partially water). You may find it more difficult to get the egg out of the pan once it's done (cast iron has always worked best for me), and when I've done this, I've finished it with a ring mold or pastry cutter for presentation.
It's also best to use the freshest eggs you possibly can, because as far as I can see, the water's lower temp (compared to oil) will allow them to spread more before setting if they're old.
You don't - for sunny-side up eggs. Mixing in water, milk or cream only alters the eggs when it can be fully incorporated into the eggs as part of a mixture - so, for scrambled eggs, where it's all mixed into a homogeneous mixture.
With any kind of fried egg, where the egg is intact, there's no way you can get the liquid to mix with the eggs while leaving it physically distinct as yolk and whites, so, really, trying to wouldn't add anything to the eggs. Nor would you want to, for sunny-side up or any of the other varieties of intact fried eggs (over-easy is my favorite), in my opinion.
I would shy away from adding milk/cream to the pan when cooking the eggs but I do often use a bit of water and a lid to promote steam in the pan to help set the top of the egg when cooking sunny side up. I think you could run the risk of scorching and creating a mess with dairy but I believe the idea of the directions you encountered was to promote steam so that you don't have a really fried/hard bottom of the egg and a top that is too runny and undercooked.
One maybe-possibility is this: I once saw a recipe where the egg whites were beaten into peaks, scooped onto a hot frying pan and a shallow well made in the center, and the reserved yolk slid into the well to cook with the whites to make something that was essentially a fried egg (no extra ingredients), but with a vastly different texture to the whites.
So, if you really wanted, you might be able to separate your eggs, whip the egg whites, adding a (very) little milk or cream as you prefer, and re-assembling your egg when frying. The texture of the whites would be very fluffy and soft, and the yolk would tend to be less done for being added halfway through the cooking (and possibly having extra volume between it and the heat).
The thing is, the milk or cream won't mix well with egg whites unless you really mix it hard enough to change the texture, so you probably would have to mix it frothy and thin to get the milk to mix, then whip it thickly enough to hold together and not run all over the pan. You would likely only be able to use a spoonful or so of liquid in an egg if you don't want to over-thin your whipped egg whites, or make the structure loose enough to deflate. And it would be a lot of effort, for every fried egg you make. On the other hand, no one but you can say whether or not it's worth the effort.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.024454
| 2012-12-07T06:23:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29003",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Coolkau",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Marti",
"Mimi",
"Miriam",
"Sarah Abdul Rauf",
"SuzyQ",
"Willie Walker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67197",
"jscs",
"user67163"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74266
|
Baking bread/cake yields different results than expected
I am trying to bake bread/cake without flour (gluten free). The friend who gave me the recipe gets a fluffy, light weight loaf, while mine tastes the same, but it is more condensed and hard even when I follow the recipe to the letter. What do I do?
This is the recipe:
(using measuring spoons)
6 tbs Tahini paste
2 tbs honey,
4 eggs,
1/2 tsp baking powder.
Lightly beat the eggs and mix well with other ingredients, pour into a lightly greased English-Cake form (long and narrow), and bake for 20 min. in a pre-heated oven at 160-180 °C. 320-356 °F.
Can you show us the recipe? That makes it a lot easier to look for things you might've unknowingly done differently than your friend.
The recipe is as follows: 6 Spoon Tahini paste, 2 Spoons honey, 4 eggs, 1/2 tea spoon baking powder. Mix ingredients well, pour into a lightly greased English-Cake form, and bake for 20 min. in a pre-heated oven at 160-180 deg C. 320-356 deg F.
What is a "spoon"? Please [edit] your question to add info.
by spoon I mean the kind you use for soups
Are you using an actual tablespoon measure or are you using a soup spoon? Soup spoons are not standardized, so they can be a wide variety of sizes. You need to be using purpose-made measures if you are not.
We are both using a soup spoon, not a measured one, Yet we get different results.
There are no dry ingredients in this recipe at all, and the entire volume of the 'loaf' would be tiny. Something must be missing.
... my strong suspicion is that what is missing from the recipe is "gluten free flour".
Assuming this is actually a recipe that worked for your friend (it does seem pretty weird - see rumtscho's answer)...
We are both using a soup spoon, not a measured one, Yet we get different results.
That's exactly why you got different results. Your soup spoons aren't necessarily the same size.
You need to use some kind of reliable, standard measurement when baking, especially for leavening (like the baking powder), whether it's real measuring spoons, or a scale to measure by weight. If your friend can't provide you with a recipe using reliable measurements, then you won't be able to reliably reproduce it.
From your description ("condensed and hard" not "fluffy, light"), it could be that you've used less baking powder than they did, or more tahini than they did. So even if they can't give you a good recipe, you may be able to experiment on your own to find one. But if you do that, do yourself a favor, and get accurate measuring spoons or a scale.
Also, particularly with reference to the baking powder, distinguish between a 'level tablespoon' and a 'heaped tablespoon'. That could be a difference of a factor of 2 or more in how much powder goes in. My tablespoons contain about 3 times as much as my soup spoons, so that's a possible factor of 6 out.
This seems to be a poorly designed recipe, or maybe something is omitted. You have absolutely no flour in it, so the baking powder doesn't get a chance to do much. It would make sense if it were a sweet souffle, but the instructions are wrong for it.
You seem to misunderstand imperial measurements, maybe you are from a part of the world which doesn't use them. You either need a measurement of the "tablespoon" size, or need to use a converter to know how much of each ingredient to actually use. For example, two tablespoons of honey are 42 grams or 29.5 ml, you have to measure that, preferably by weight. (I used http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/cooking/, but there are other converters too).
Once you've got your measurements correct, it's better to handle it like a soufflé. Beat the whites to a soft peak, beat the rest of the ingredients together, fold gently, use something rough on the walls of the pan to let it climb. Simply mixing will end up with a dense mass as you are experiencing, and it lacks either gluten or gums to be inflated by the baking powder. I have never seen baking powder work in a purely egg based mix.
Thank you all very much for your help. I will try again and post a pic of the results.
Ok. I decided to have another go, taking into account all of your helpful remarks.
What I did was:
Use measuring spoons for the task.
I beat the eggs rather than just mix them in with the tahini and honey
I used a level 1/2 tsp of baking powder
what I got is:
Then:
Slightly better result than the first time...
It smells nice, hopefully tastes nice too.
Thanks again for helping me think.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.025014
| 2016-09-26T16:55:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74266",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"abligh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50835",
"winnend"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74675
|
How to know when food grade plastic has melted?
I just received a super hot delivery of soup in a polypropylene container (the plastic symbol on the bottom is a 5). I noticed the lid was very pliable in comparison to the rest of the container to the point I could easily bend it and cause the surface to warp by poking it with my finger. After lifting my finger it would bounce back somewhat, but retain some of that warping. As it cools it's returning to it's original shape and becoming harder to manipulate.
I'm wondering if this implies melting/leeching has occurred and if I should just return the soup to be safe.
Plastic is an amorphous solid. This means that it doesn't have a sharp melting point like water, but it goes through a state where it is softer and softer, until it turns liquid.
So yes, the plastic was in this state when you touched it. If you want to call this transitional state "melted", then it was melted. Unless you prefer to call it "softened". Everyday language is blurry enough to permit both.
If you are worried about melted plastic actually mixing throughout the soup, like vinegar would mix if you were to add it, that's not what happened.
As to "leeching", this is not well defined and not usually covered by food safety rules. Plastics do tend to have overheating restrictions over which they char, but as for "leeching", the only regulated one I know of would be melamine, and I'm pretty sure that's not what your box was made of. So throwing it out or not depends on your personal feelings about leeching.
Melt is not necessarily leech. It could melt and have two insoluble liquids and not have any leeching. And then again might get some leeching from liquid plastic that would not happen from solid. If it came back to form then it likely did not melt. The melting point of polypropylene is greater than the boiling point of water. WIKI
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.025364
| 2016-10-11T18:51:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74675",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79549
|
What's the best way for inexperienced cook to finely cut cabbage?
I really like home-made pickled/fermented cabbage (russian style; which is bigger slice size than typical Sauerkraut; I would say 1mm thick). But I'm not a great cutter - I am very slow and find it quite difficult to do good even fine cut of a whole head of cabbage.
What is the best (two criteria for "best": fastest and/or lowest-learning-curve) way to finely cut cabbage in those amounts (1-2 medium sized heads) for someone without devoting 10,000 hours of training to get the professional chef techniques?
I'm OK with using tools (mandoline? grater?) as long as a reasonable quality tool that's recommended can be had for $20-$30 range - e.g. "Buy $200 cuisinart with special blade" isn't quite in scope here.
Mandolines can work, but there's a problem -- cabbages are round, so the leaves aren't flat. This makes it more difficult to cut everything in only one plane, such as would happen with a mandoline or shreading disk on a food processor.
Although people have said 'use a long sharp knife' and similar, they haven't mentioned the technique:
Remove any outer, discolored leaves
Cut the cabbage in half, through the axis of the stem/core. (likely the most difficult step; a really long knife helps)
Cut each half into quarters, again through the axis.
Cut the core out of the quarter, by taking a diagonal slice. You want to get the core out, but don't cut so far that you're removing the firmly backed bit around the core.
Place the diagonal slice against your cutting board.
Slice to the desired thickness.
I start cutting the top / thinner parts of the leaves first, angling slightly so I'm not getting sheets at the top, and work until I'm into where the core was. I might continue the whole way down from that end, or reverse it at some point (as it's easier to get really thin slices from the bottom while there's still something to grab onto; you want thinner slices where the leaves are thicker)
For really huge heads, I might work on eights, not quarters ... or start with quarters 'til I'm to the core, then split it again to finish the slicing.
Ironically, doing a single halving cut is the least of the challenges for me. It's the repeated parallel cuts that I ain't good at.
@DVK : It was more in the context of 'trying to cut through the thing without tearing it up or injuring yourself in the process'
You can try using a good long sharp knife and a large wooden cutting board like Michael mentioned but it can be slow if you're inexperienced. Other cutting boards will dull your knife quickly which is why I mentioned a wooden one.
The only other way I know is to use a mandoline. You'd have to first cut the cabbage small enough to use but I know for myself, it would be a lot faster than using a knife. (And I'm an experienced cook too!)
If you do much food preparation and cooking, a mandoline is very useful to have. I'm not sure if you'd consider $50 (rough estimate as I don't know where you live) expensive. The best, in my opinion, for a home cook is a Börner mandoline. It's German made and does a great job! I'm not advertising their product - only stating that I think it's one of the best. You can check this video that compares a number of different reasonably priced mandolines.
https://youtu.be/I15-htHJF_I
i use a 14" mezzaluna knife to cut cabbage to the size you're describing. The one i have was $10 on Amazon. It's not currently available, but i'm including a link so you can see what it looks like: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PV3WJHI/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
There are videos on YouTube showing how to use them. It's pretty easy, but it takes a couple minutes to get used to the unusual shape. This type of knife is also known as a hachoir. Here are some YouTube videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+use+a+mezzaluna+knife
Amazon product link is dead. :-(
You might be best off buying a mandolin, however usually they aren't wide enough to fit a head of cabbage.
To make it easier, try slicing the whole head of cabbage in half, so that you have a flat surface to slice the cabbage.
P.s. it's good practice!!
Mandolins are the way to go! You can get a good one on Amazon for about $25 bucks, I guarantee it will be money well spent.
Before thinking of other tools because you assume you cannot do it with a knife - check that the knives you have are up to scratch (sharp, and not having a geometry that will make the task hard). If yours cannot cut off a slice with either one backward or forward stroke, or at most one forward-backward cycle... or if the balance means it is hard for you to control it... it is the knife that is ill suited to the task and not you.
Ask someone experienced to observe how you handle a knife and to point out some corrections. Basic knife skills can be learned in half an hour or less - the rest is practice. There are many inefficient habits to using a knife, and it's very, very useful to get rid of them. A cook once showed me how to slice stuff safely and efficiently, and now I do most things with a knife for which I previously would have used some special tool (garlic press, mandolina, herb grater).
Common mistakes include using a dull blade, a too small surface to cut on, and pushing the blade towards the surface (slow chipping) rather than using a forward/backward motion (sawing). Use the knuckles of your left hand (if you're a righty) to guide the blade, by holding your fingers in a crimp. By only slightly adjusting the angle of these supporting fingers, you can cut very fine slices. Always having your finger pointing downwards and your thumb locked prevents injury. For a large object like a cabbage, or a small layered and slippery object (onions), you need to cut it in half or quarters and place the plane surface face-down.
However, this is all really awkward to explain in writing and not so easy to pick up in reading it. As I said in the beginning: have someone show you how to efficiently handle a knife. It is more simple than you think and will make your life so much easier!
Problem is, I actually theoretically know every single detail you pointed out, it's more of a problem between not having enough time/opportunity to practice enough; and not being very talented as far as hand/eye coordination in the first place. Still, it's a good advice so +1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.025555
| 2017-03-31T23:26:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79549",
"authors": [
"DVK",
"Joe",
"arp",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"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
}
|
33171
|
What are the breads with big holes and small holes called?
What keywords should I search in Google or look for in recipe books when I need to bake a bread with big holes like this:
For smaller holed breads is the name "sandwich bread" sufficient for searching Google?
How to know by reading the recipe whether the resultant bread will be big holed or small holed?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/27855/1672
A rough approach you might take: try some Google image searches, find pictures you like, go back to the web pages they came from, and if you're lucky they're recipes, and if not they might still have the name of the bread, which you could use to go search for recipes to try.
I don't think there is a general answer to this question. There are hundreds or perhaps thousands of styles of bread around the world, with a a great variety of textures and distributions of the holes.
There is no particular word that covers this aspect of bread... for example, both challah and brioche are finely textured enriched breads with small holes, but there would not likely be found under "sandwich bread" and I cannot think of a single keyword that would include them both.
Similarly, the Italian bread ciabatta and the now-famous "no knead bread" are both large holed breads, but I am not sure what search would encompass them both. (The link is to Kenji Alt's recipe, if you want to try it.)
The closest you may come is the notion—which may be particular to the US, I am not sure— that "artisan bread" has large holes, since it seem to be a code word for a particular type of loaf made with a long fermentation and high level of hydration which therefore causes large holes, and a very chewy and crusty texture. (Personally, I find that label silly, as if the notion that brioche, a highly enriched finely textured, small-holed bread doesn't require just as much artisanship to create.)
If you really want to explore this topic, I suggest learning more about bread in general through one of the many excellent books available on the topic. They will give you both a survey of some of the world's breads, and an introduction to the techniques used to create them.
Three choices that may get you started include:
The Bread Baker's Apprentice. Very highly regarded by many.
Beard on Bread. A classic.
The Bread Bible More current, and from an author you have previously indicated you liked. She also has very well laid out and easy to follow recipes.
Personally, I own all three of the above.
Edit:
In advance of trying a recipe, there is no single way to know whether the outcome will be large holes or small holes. There is no sufficiently standard terminology that you can apply all of the time. Some terms that come to mind to look for include:
For large holes: Open crumb, open texture, airy.
While not strictly directly addressing the size of the holes, loaves labeled "artisan" or "rustic" likely fit this category.
For small holes: Closed crumb, fine texture, dense.
Again, while not absolute, enriched breads (lots of eggs, dairy, or sugar, or all three) tend to fall in this category.
Still, the only way to know the intent of the author for sure is to read the description they provide carefully, and look at any pictures they may have shared (assuming they show the cut loaf, and not just the crust).
I have added this in the question: "How to know by reading the recipe whether the resultant bread will be big holed or small holed?" Secondly, what you do when you wish to find a new type of big holed bread? Does your recipe book mention that the resultant bread is big or small holed? Not all recipe books have photographs.
@AnishaKaul I am sorry, I am still not sure how to answer that in the general case. You would have to read the detailed descriptions, look at the pictures, or apply knowledge of the recipes and formulas and their likely outcomes. The information simply is not sufficiently structured to have cleanly defined keywords to look for.
@AnishaKaul You can certainly look for the terms mentioned here (open crumb, open texture, or even large hole structure) but there's no guarantee that recipes will mention them. It's kind of like asking "how do I find yellow food?" - you can tell what color it is from the recipe, but they might not have ever used the word "yellow".
@Jefromi that should be an "answer".
@AnishaKaul I think for it to fully answer the question it'd have to include all the kinds of things that are in the existing answers too. It's just another way of saying what they've said.
I generally hear 'tight crumb' and 'loose crumb' used to desribe the size of the holes (vs. closed/open). I don't know if that's a regional thing, though. Also, 'enriched' is often used to describe those with oils, eggs or sugar, which tend to have a finer crumb.
Although there is an exception to every rule, high hydration breads often have larger holes (increased water allows for increased gluten development which allows for large air bubbles (=holes)) and low hydration breads often have smaller holes.
Breads with a high proportion of fat also may have smaller holes since the fat coats the gluten molecules (I believe) and prevents further gluten development and thus large holes.
Agree.. this is part of the "knowledge of the recipes and formulas and their likely outcomes" that I was alluding to. It requires analysis, not just reading descriptions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.026080
| 2013-04-01T07:19:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33171",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Chozabu",
"Elenna123",
"Erika Misha ",
"Jim",
"Joe",
"Kaye",
"Rich",
"Rohit",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76829",
"lidia soares",
"ms michaele "
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
31900
|
Why do I need over ripe bananas for banana muffins?
Okay, I won't use prefer to use raw bananas for sure.
But, I wish to understand why are over ripe bananas required for the muffins. Why won't ripe (yellow) bananas do?
From: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/24652/6168
You want to wait until they're so ripe you wouldn't want to eat them - blackening skin, very very soft.
The rest of the answer you quoted from pretty clearly says it's so that you can mash them into a smooth mush, with no little pieces left.
@Jefromi I read that but I don't think just for mashing up you need to blacken the banana. What's the use of blender then?
The point on that question was that you don't need a blender if they're ripe enough; the OP was using one to get them blended smooth because they weren't ripe. The answers here are good too - the more ripe the more flavorful, for sure - but I just wanted to make sure we were clear what you were citing.
They are easier to mash (so that they incorporate more smoothly into the batter), sweeter (more starch has converted to sugar), and more aromatic when overripe.
Still, you can get quite a good muffin or banana bread from fully ripe, but not overripe, bananas.
But not after cooking! Ripe bananas lose their aroma when cooked
At the risk of heresy, I say when over-ripe is called for it is by the mistaken impression that the flavor is improved when it is only that it is sweeter, less starchy. Muffins will brown faster.
I believe this myth grew out of the fact that recipes were created to use up what would otherwise go to waste: it then was inferred that over-ripe is ideal.
My personal opinion (highly heretical) is that slightly under-ripe bananas yield muffins with more banana-y flavor (not burnt sugar flavor). I began experimenting after finding that banana chips are made from half-green bananas. A bit of acid in the muffin batter (sm squeeze of lemon perhaps) further brings out the banana flavor.
Starchier under-ripe bananas bake up fluffier relative to the brown ones -I don't even need eggs or egg sub!
In the end, it's all about personal preference but for recognizable banana flavor, bake up a batch each and invite friends to a taste test which has 'more bananas' in the recipe. I'm betting greenies.
Most people want that distinct banana flavour. Which you get with over-ripe bananas. If you use bananas that are still suitable for eating, it won't be banana-y enough.
I have used yellow bananas that were absent of any spots - it was still very young and the bread I baked didn't taste like banana at all not to mention it took very long to brown and the consistency of the bread was not at all suitable. I couldn't bring myself to even share it with anyone else because of how bad it turned out. All I could taste was the cinnamon and nutmeg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.026553
| 2013-02-14T08:03:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31900",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Cogitabundus",
"Frank Rizzo",
"Jay Schwartz",
"Marquee",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73401",
"voice",
"waymond guthery",
"wlwl2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33098
|
Why and what kind of breads should be scored?
Inspired by this question How can I score wet bread dough more easily?, I am quite keen to know why and what kind of breads should be scored?
What will happen if we don't score the breads?
A properly formed loaf, before it is baked, has a network of gluten strands stretched tightly around its perimeter. This network is in tension, helping maintain the shape of the loaf.
There are several reasons to score the loaf:
The tension in the outer network of gluten strands limits the ability of the loaf to expand, especially in the "oven spring" or final excited burst of activity that the yeast go through as the temperature of the dough rises at the beginning of baking. The score creates a slit in the network, allowing the loaf to expand, permitting more oven spring to take place.
The scores provide a weak point (due to the cut in that gluten net), controlling where expansion takes place oven spring proceeds. This may prevent cracks that would otherwise be unattractive.
Furthermore, the score allows aesthetically pleasing shapes or patterns to created on the loaf, as the the dough exposed during oven spring will have a slightly different texture (it isn't surrounded by the in-tension gluten network, and will have been baked slightly less as it comes to the surface of the loaf during the oven spring). This means it will tend to have a different (often lighter) color than the main crust where the in-tension network was in place. For example:
(credit on photo)
Another example, taken farther for a more artistic statement:
You can see the attractive pattern on the loaf from the scores (which are also functional in the first sense)—the look like a leaf. (Credit on photo).
Scoring is more important and effective in free form loaves which will have good oven spring.
let us continue this discussion in chat
SAJ14SAJ's answer is great. I will add one observation to answer the question: "What will happen if we don't score the breads?" In most cases, you just don't get as much expansion in the loaf. But if you shaped your loaves tightly and have strong yeast, something like this can happen. Basically, the yeast growth and air expansion inside your loaf can literally blow a giant hole (or two) in your crust. Normally when this happens, you just get some ugly cracking in the crust, but sometimes it's more dramatic as in the linked photos.
One other quick note: don't necessarily follow the advice on the linked page that says "always slash a half-inch deep with a serrated bread knife." While a sharp serrated knife can be used, a razor blade or very sharp straight blade knife will produce a cleaner cut without jagged edges. (If you don't have a sharp straight knife, though, you'll probably have better luck with a serrated knife.) Also, a half-inch deep cut is probably the maximum that will be effective, and often you only need to make a shallow slit through the tight skin layer (maybe 1/4" or even less). Making deeper cuts will sometimes deflate your loaves and/or cause them to spread sideways (rather than rising up). The best guidance is not to put any pressure into the cut, and let the blade do the work. Think of it like slitting an envelope: fast with a light touch is all that is necessary -- if the interior of the loaf has the strength to expand in the oven, it will pull that small slit further apart.
If you score the loaves with the blade at an angle (nearly parallel with the surface of the bread), that can help to produce "ears" on the loaf, where the sides of the slashed crust actually rise up away from the surface slightly. Aside from producing a visual effect that some artisan bakers find attractive, the "ears" also tend to help oven spring slightly more than a vertical cut.
If I understand right, you are supposed to make a half-inch cut, it's just that it should be at an angle, not straight down. Also, you definitely can use a sharp serrated knife; it just has to be one that's sharp in its own right, not the kind that only cuts because it's serrated. (I've had success doing this, and I just checked it's what Reinhart says in Artisan Bread Every Day, which I had handy.)
@Jefromi - To quote Jeff Hamelman (who improved my bread significantly after I spent years reading and following Reinhart): "only a slight piercing of the surface skin is necessary. It may seem that a straight and shallow cut will not be sufficient to open the loaf. Once in the oven, though, the loaf will expand and the cut will open beautifully. It may also seem that if a shallow cut gives a good opening, a deep cut will result in a more prominent opening. More is not better, though, and a deep cut will simply collapse from its own weight."
@Jefromi - Regardless of what the experts say, I tried deep slashes at first. Then I tried shallow ones. The shallow ones didn't collapse as much, seemed to rise better, and looked nicer, often with even wider expansion of the cuts than when I slashed deeply. It sounds crazy at first, but even Reinhart in The Breadbaker's Apprentice emphasizes never to put pressure cutting into the loaf: if you're sawing into the loaf to get 1/2", the slashes are probably too deep. As for serrated knives--yeah, they work, but the cuts don't look as attractive. Better than a dull straight blade, though.
Sorry, one last note: it really depends on the type of the dough, how heavy it is, how tight the shaping was, and how far proofed it is. In most cases, I'd guess I slash about 1/4", but the cuts often rapidly pull apart since I shape tightly and tend toward maximum proofing. If you underproof slightly and/or don't have such a taut skin, I'd bet that a 1/2" cut could be better. I'll alter my answer to reflect that.
When you subject the dough to the heat of the oven the air in it starts to expand, causing the bread to rise. If your dough is not scored then it will crack in the most unexpected places (because the air is trying to get out). Also, scoring ensures that you won't get large pockets of air in your bread.
Scoring is quite optional IMHO
It's not always optional. If it's a small loaf the additional expansion the scoring allows makes it less dense; without it the bread wouldn't be the same. Cracked crust isn't great either.
So many opinions. My experience, even after doing an excellent bread-making course, is.. as long as you understand the principles then whatever works for you is fine... and make sure you have fun! I have scored over-proofed loaves that simply collapse as a result and have decided that if I let it proof a little too long it's better not to score as it won't rise much more anyway. And a sharp, straight blade definitely works better for me... but others have different experiences. I'm mainly a sour-dough man and I love those big air holes that show me that the flavour has developed nicely too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.026923
| 2013-03-29T06:30:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33098",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Ben Isham-Smith",
"Beth Budwig",
"Cascabel",
"Jessica",
"Len Raphael",
"Raj",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tammi MacClellan Heupel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77367",
"liukn",
"manuelBetancurt"
],
"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
}
|
30260
|
What are the benefits, if any, of using a pizza stone in a toaster oven?
My Oven Toaster Grill.
From here: What kind of bakery items do not get horribly affected by electricity going off when the item is still in oven?
Toaster ovens have far less thermal mass to ride out power outages than full sized ovens, in addition to being less insulated as Jefromi said. They are going to be more sensitive to power outages. I think that skews you towards trying short duration items like cookies or mini-muffins, rather than larger items if the risk is high. You have to ask yourself what is the pattern, duration, frequency and likelihood of the outages and assess the risk before you start baking something.
Since this is not a conventional full-sized oven, should I invest in pizza stone for --ANY-- reason which can benefit my toaster oven assuming my aim is to bake breads and cookies?
I am not aware of a pizza stone manufactured to fit a small oven like this, but have read, in many places, that an unglazed ceramic tile is a good substitute for a pizza stone. I am not certain it would achieve your goal, but I can't believe that it would hurt.
I cannot speak to availability in India, but at Amazon (US) carries at least one pizza stone sized for toaster ovens, and googling finds other results. I have no personal experience with this in toaster ovens, of course, but the reviews of the item on Amazon are quite mixed: evidently a lot of people receive it broken during shipping, but if it arrives intact, they tend to like it. See http://www.amazon.com/Kitchen-Supply-Toaster-7-inch-10-inch/dp/B000QJBNHY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358771624&sr=8-1&keywords=toaster+oven+pizza+stone
@AnishaKaul, I can't say specifically, but suspect that the open ended question in the title is what drew the 'downvote'. Such questions tend to be hard for others to evaluate objectively, but I thought your question (with a specific goal) was a good.
@CosCallis I have not edited the question in the "text" to make it generic. :) You said: open ended question in the title is what drew the 'downvote'. Lately I have witnessed a lot unexplained downvotes on many of my questions - Perhaps someone is stalking me! :)
@AnishaKaul Unexplained downvotes happen to all of us, I think. You learn to just ignore them. Some people just like doing that.
@AnishaKaul, I don't know that the title was what drew the downvote, but saw that as a possible reason and thought I could improve it. Because the question included a specific goal, I believe (IMHO) that it is a 'good question'.
@CosCallis Nice, but why is the title reverted now?
@AnishaKaul I edited the title based on your comments. You can see editing history by clicking the date/time of the edit.
Your probably better off with a piece of 1/4" steel than anything ceramic but it's probably not worth the cost considering it's a toaster oven we're talking about.
In a small toaster oven, using a pizza stone is likely to be a tradeoff:
Toasting -- counter-productive, because it will shield the bottom of the bread (or other item) from the direct radiative heat from the bottom elements; you would want to remove the stone for this use.
Broiling (or as it is called in the British parlance if I understand correctly, grilling) -- Probably not a good idea. In a full sized oven, the stone would be left far enough from the heating elements that it would not be subject to intense radiative heat. In a toaster oven, it might be too close to the elements when the oven is used this way, so might be subject to cracking due to a higher temperature gradient and uneven thermal expansion.
General baking -- will require a longer a pre-heating period for the oven/stone to come up to temperature, but once at temperature, will provide a buffering effect for more even heating.
Convenience -- in full sized ovens, people often leave the stone in all of the time, and cook on a different rack if they don't want direct contact with the stone. This may or may not be possible or convenient in a toaster oven, so you may be constantly removing or putting back the stone based on your current use
Note that all of the above is just reasoning based on known facts; I haven't tried a pizza stone in a toaster oven, and wouldn't do so, as they have a generally low thermal mass. I tend to think of them as tools for toasting and reheating, not for primary cooking, baking, or roasting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.027496
| 2013-01-21T04:52:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30260",
"authors": [
"Airport Chariot Car and Limo",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Brendan",
"Cos Callis",
"DianneF",
"Eilidh",
"Eliza",
"Jay",
"K. Borden",
"RadekC",
"Richard",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29625
|
How to know whether the default coating on the iron cookware has totally come off?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/29609/6168
But you can't season a pan "on top" of the wax coating. The real seasoning would stick to the wax, and when the wax melts, the seasoning will come off. Therefore, you have to remove the wax coating before making a normal seasoning from polymerized oil.
So, yesterday I scrubbed hard the cookware with the steel wool and now instead of looking black it looks somewhat dark grey. When I run fingers on the dried vessel now, I see little dark grey powder sticking to my fingers.
How should I know whether the coating has actually come off? Do I need to scrub even more?
I don't know with enough certainty to post an answer, but I would imagine that if you heat your cookware up to a temperature where the wax will melt (~200ºF/~100ºC ought to be more than enough) you will see any remaining wax as glossy patches. If the colour is completely matte, I think you have removed the coating. The dark grey powder is metal particles removed by the steel wool.
@ChrisSteinbach Which colour is considered matte? Example please. Besides, you said: "The dark grey powder is metal particles removed by the steel wool". Is that a good thing or bad?
Matte is not a colour itself, it is just the opposite of being glossy. So any colour can be matte. I wouldn't worry too much about the dark residue. Just remove as much as you can with a damp cloth. Be sure though that the cookware is completely dry before seasoning.
If all the seasoning is completely removed, it will look shiny like brushed or polished metal. This takes a lot of time, and often power tools. I would first ask whether this is what you want to do: does the pan feel waxy, and have a surface that turns glossy when heated? Then there is wax which can be easily removed with a scrub-brush while water is boiling in the pan. Finish with a little soap and hot water, and you're ready to season.
If it is, in fact, the seasoning you want to remove (if, for example, it is coming off in places, or parts are rusting, typically on cookware which has been left outside), the easiest procedure is to heat the pan very hot, either in the coals of a campfire, or in an oven on 'clean' to burn off the previous coating (don't do this with a pan coated in wax, the wax will burn and smoke), then brush with steel wool until the metal pan starts to show through. You will need to season with several coats of an oil like crisco or coconut, and this will take a lot of time. It's rarely necessary to strip a pan unless it is in awful condition.
At the point you're at, I'd assume that any wax or residue is gone from your work with the steel wool, and that you don't need to go as far as to strip the whole thing. To salvage it, put aside the steel wool, scrub with a plastic brush and hot water until the black residue is gone. Clean a little more using a rag and oil (which will pick up oil-soluble debris) until that is clear. Then season as you normally would, using a light oil like crisco in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.027869
| 2013-01-01T06:49:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29625",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Chris Steinbach",
"JANET MARIN",
"Martin Hoffman",
"Stella",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69197",
"ktzr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79015
|
What are "Honey Bubbles" and how are they made?
I recently had the thrilling privilige of eating a Kaiseki meal at Kichisen in Kyoto. One of the meal's many highlights was a desert course consisting of a large citrus fruit filled with jelly and topped with what the apprentice chef serving us called "honey bubbles" (see the attached picture). The bubbles tasted sweet and did not pop of their own accord but turned to air when consumed.
Does anyone know how this foam is made and what it is made of? It was delicious, and if I could even come close to replicating it at home I would love to give it a go.
Sounds nice! Out of curiosity, what flavour was the jelly?
You can do this with an air pump, egg white powder and xanthan gum :)
http://www.molecularrecipes.com/culinary-foams-class/bubbles-air-pump/
The “bubbles with air pump” technique consists of injecting air using a fish tank air pump into a liquid with some viscosity. It works great with light syrups and juices by just adding a little egg white powder and Xanthan gum.
Otherwise check out airs: http://www.molecularrecipes.com/category/emulsification/airs-emulsification/
Airs are usually made by adding soy lecithin powder to a liquid and incorporating air using an immersion blender on the surface of the liquid.
Airs will make smaller bubbles, but you can do it with an immersion blender (stick blender) so you don’t need to find an air pump.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.028138
| 2017-03-10T01:03:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79015",
"authors": [
"Mike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52817"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90475
|
Scratched coating in old ice-cream maker: is it safe?
I got an old ice-cream maker at a thrift store (Vitantonio's Gelato Modo II). The bowl has a Teflon coating. There is a chip in the bottom about half the size of a dime, below which there appears to be plastic, not metal.
What I've looked up about Teflon safety seems to say that the major risks are high heat (fumes) and exposure to the aluminum under the surface of many coated pans if the coating is damaged. Since this is an ice-cream maker and the basin appears to be plastic, those wouldn't apply. Is this thing safe to use, or are there additional risks I haven't found?
Teflon, or something weird? From pic, it looks like a coating on top of some sort of open lattice. Can you loosen more stuff with, say a toothpick? If so, some will probably end up in your ice cream. How much water can you pour into the hole? More than seems reasonable? Your ice cream mix will end up down there as well, and will be hard to clean up. A closeup shot of the hole would be nice.
I looked the thing up and found an old newspaper article saying it's Teflon, so I'll assume it's just coating a slightly rough surface and that's the cause of the texture difference. I'll try to get a better picture, but the basin is narrower than my phone so the angle gets awkward.
I can get a drop of water into the hole, at most. It doesn't seem to flow anywhere but I can't tell whether that means it's sealed or just surface tension.
If it's just straight teflon, with no weird potus understructure, I'd rub around the hole to make sure there's no loose stuff, then use it anyway. PTFE is idigestable, so if you get a little it should pass right through. You probably won't get any anyway. I wonder if that hole is from someone getting the mixing paddle on crooked? It's awfully well defined.
It's Teflon over something that seems like a rough speckly plastic, over what seems to be smooth white plastic.
I would not use it given the fact that you will be using it to make a mixture for ice cream, pieces might end up in the mix. You can try it out a couple of times and if no parts fall out then should be good to go. Would not recommend to use it at a business but for personal use only.
There is no threat to health from eating Teflon since it is an inert substance.
You can probably seal the hole with polyurethane to prevent further chipping or flaking. Use polyurethane from the can, not the spray.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.028272
| 2018-06-20T19:45:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90475",
"authors": [
"Vivian",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83013
|
What is the best way to cook chicken if I plan on microwaving it a few days later?
I'm going to start meal-prep sunday soon (in about a month). Basically I'm going to be making all of my meals on sunday and eating them throughout the week. I'm loving the idea but I'm a little worried about my chicken. I love chicken but whenever I broil it (I don't own a grill) and then microwave it a few days later, it's extremely dry. Marinating isn't an option (I'm going to be cooking with a lot of people who have a whole bunch of different allergies), so I'm stuck to salt/pepper.
I'll probably buy chicken breast most of the time but an answer about any kind of meat (other than ground) would be extremely helpful.
How should I cook so that it's not dry when I microwave it?
Are you talking about breast meat only or any type of chicken meat?
I'll probably buy breast most of the time but I suppose any kind of meat (though probably not ground). I'll add that to the post.
Thigh meat is best for this kind of thing. The fat keeps it moist. Breast will always be kind of dry.
Under such tight restrictions, one step that might help is brining. This would apply to chicken breasts, pork loin, or pretty much any other lean meat; darker cuts such as chicken thighs will benefit less, but there's no reason you can't brine those if you want to.
You can find a quick primer about how and why this works here; in short, brining denatures some of the proteins that "squeeze" moisture out of the meat as it cooks, which reduces moisture loss in the finished product. You don't really need anything other than salt, water, and time, though many recipes will call for additional flavoring agents.
Make sure that you don't overcook to begin with. If you can, get a thermometer and measure the meat's internal temperature. Here is a decent guide to the recommended temperatures for various types of meat; remember that you want to cook to slightly below these temperatures to allow for carryover.
From personal experience I would advise you to vary your technique and try to cook different variations on the same basic food; this guards against boredom, and makes it easier to stick to a regimen of weekly meal prep. Instead of broiling, cook your chicken on the stove, then make a basic pan sauce to serve over it, which will add moisture and flavor. If chicken thighs are on sale, get some and braise them instead (you don't need to bother with brining if you do this). This takes some time to cook, but it's very easy, and they'll reheat well for days.
My favorite way to cook chicken for meal prepping is either marinating and then roasting in the oven with veggies, or more often than not, using my slow cooker. You can still make basic sauces or marinades for the crock pot that are allergen friendly and use a lot moister (aka chicken thighs) cuts of meat that will break down really well in the slow cooker. Using citrus juices or flavors will help to tenderize the meat and still give great flavor! If you have a good idea about what their allergies are I’d be happy to make other spice or marinade suggestions too. Hope this helps!
I've been meal prepping with chicken for nearly a year. If you want it to be moist after re-warming it in the microwave, you have to cook it near perfect or even just a little under, so it will finish just right in the microwave. If your goal is to do this long term, forget about using a brine, thermometers or any other extra steps that take time. Meal prepping is about saving time.
If you use whole breasts, you'll want to cut them before cooking. I like to use tenderloins because it allows you to skip that step.
Roast the chicken with salt and pepper at 400F for some time. Make small adjustments until you get the time correct - everyone's oven is different. I've found 11 minutes to be the right time for tenderloins in my oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.028498
| 2017-07-15T20:11:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83013",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Doug",
"Jon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51921"
],
"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
}
|
75789
|
Shortcrust tart stopped working
I have a tart recipe that has a shortcrust base that I have done several times. On the first attempts, everything was okay with the base - the "dough" was crumbly but could be rolled and kept its shape relatively well.
Now I tried making it and the "dough" turns out very crumbly, more like dry flour than dough. Rolling is impossible, and only after a lot of compaction with my hands was I able to make something workable.
The ingredients are:
300 g flour
100 g sugar
200 g butter, cut into small cubes
1 beaten egg
The instructions are:
Mix flour, sugar and butter
Add beaten egg and stir until combined
Flatten the dough, wrap in cling-film and place in refrigerator for 2 hours
The instruction imply to use a food processor, but I have been using my KitchenAid stand mixer with the flat beater. I also tried mixing by hand (with a fork as well as literally by hand), with minimal improvements.
What am I doing wrong now, and why did it work before but not anymore?
If you're in the northern hemisphere, and winter is coming on, the humidity in your kitchen is probably much lower. You may need to add a few mL of water to the dough (at the same time as you add the egg). Also, are you sure the eggs are same size now as before?
Yes, I am in the northern hemisphere, and yes, the house has a much lower humidity than a few months ago. I typically buy large eggs, so probably yes.
Then I'd suggest the water. The very dry, crumbly, barely-even "dough" was the clue.
Could you turn that to an answer then, please?
@JohnFeltz I have heard the story of "air humidity matters when you work with flour" a lot, but I have never seen any proof of it. Sure, flour is not 100% dry, but pretty close. Even if its water content is halved in winter, the difference in total liquid in the recipe will be much less than the precision of an average cook's scale or measuring cup, and practically unnoticeable next to a recipe's margin of error. So, even if water might help here, blaming air humidity for changes in dough is like blaming a groundhog for a longer winter.
@rumtscho maybe it's just confirmation bias, but I find when making pie crusts in the winter I use more water. I suspect it has more to do with the wet dough evaporating faster than the actual water content of the 'dry' ingredients.
@rumtscho - maybe with regular dough it really doesn't matter, but with such dry dough as shortcrust it might.
@rumtscho while that may be true, central heating can also have a major effect in winter. I've had cupboards that were too warm to store bread or chocolate (because of heating pipes) and others that were very cold on outside walls. If the flour is kept in the former it could be much drier than with the heating off.
@EliIser No, that's still a different magnitude. Imagining that Naomi Campbell is measuring her waist on two different occasions and notices a 3 cm difference. Then somebody says "one of the days must have been more humid, so her underwear had more fuzz and that caused the difference". Now, Naomi Campbell does have a smaller waist than most people out there, but even with her, the thickness of her underwear's fuzz is far below the precision of a tailor's tape.
@ChrisH and that's exactly what I am saying, "much drier" does not really matter when compared to the recipe's tolerance. Else the recipe would fail every time you used an egg that's 49.5 grams instead of 50 grams.
@rumtscho here's a reference that supports humidity affecting dough consistency (stickiness of cookie dough): http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/cc/backissues/1982/Documents/chem59_507.pdf flour moisture content is quoted as 11.5--14.5%. applying this 3% range to 300g of flour gives a difference of 9g of water. That's almost 20% of your 50g egg, or 2 teaspoons. This is more than the amount John Feltz suggests, but the flour moisture range in the article is probably more than in a kitchen.
@ChrisH Hah, I went searching on my own and found this reference and came back to apologize - and your comment was 12 seconds old when I did :) Nice simultaneous find. OK, then please disregard my comments above - it turns out that, while the difference in total water is insignificant, the moisture content of the dough has an effect independent of it.
@ChrisH and rumtscho: Sounds like y'all came to a conclusion, but I asked a separate question to provide a nicer place for this kind of information: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75801/can-ambient-humidity-significantly-affect-the-texture-of-pastry-doughs
@Jefromi Oh! I had the same idea, and wrote a self-answered question. Do we close mine as a duplicate of yours, or yours as a duplicate of mine?
@rumtscho it was quite interesting and without our debate I'd never have found it
If your dough is very dry and crumbly, it needs more water.
Add a few mL to the dough when adding the beaten egg.
Great, now I need to make another cake to test this ;)
Made the cake again. Adding 10 grams of water and then another 10 grams (for a total of 20 grams) made the dough perfect.
The recipe is a prototypical German style Mürbeteig, and whatever went wrong, it is not with the ratio, so it must be something about the process.
If you have problems, I'd say the first thing to do is to ditch the food processor. This type of dough is not designed for it, and when troubleshooting, it is best to try to get the standard process working before trying shortcuts.
One of the things you should do is to use confectioner's sugar - I don't see it mentioned in your recipe, might have been missed, or maybe the food processor is supposed to powder the sugar enough while working the dough. But if made by hand, you will end with sugar crystals embedded in your crust if you are using caster sugar.
Also pay attention to the flour. Pastry flour will work better than all purpose, but if all you have is all purpose, take a look at the protein content and if it is above 10%, change the brand.
When mixing, mix the flour, sugar and butter first, rubbing them by hand. You will end up with a bowl of greasy powder, that's fully normal. Now add the egg. The place where the egg hit will clump - knead the lump, pressing it into the powder, until it has gathered all the powder. The egg is more than 40 g of liquid, that's enough to have all of it come together. Let it rest - a fridge will give you a better texture later, but is more difficult to roll out.
For rolling out, you usually cannot place it on a mat and roll. You need to work between two sheets of plastic foil, repositioning them now and then and flipping the dough. The edges will be slightly crumbly, but the middle should keep in a single smooth piece. When it is ready, remove one side of the foil, lift with the other, and place it in the pie tin naked side down. Only then remove the other foil and shape the walls.
Thank you for the description - it makes perfect sense after reading some more on the chemistry behind a shortcrust base. However, @JohnFeltz explains better the reason it worked before and doesn't work now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.028890
| 2016-11-23T18:37:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75789",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Eli Iser",
"John Feltz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52221",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129750
|
Challah dough bread machine recipe issues
I just got a 2lb kitchen in the box bread machine.
I want to be able to make small batches of challah and found this recipe online that seemed a good size fit for my machine.
1 1/3 cups water
1 tsp salt
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 + 2tsp oil
2 eggs
5 cups flour
1 tbsp instant yeast
So I put it in the machine and did the dough function which is 1:30.
The dough rose to the top of the machine and was uber sticky. I used a fair bit of flour just to get it into strips which were still hard to work with. I made three braids and roll, which I tasted after baking.
The roll was extremely airy and very bland. Not sweet, not salty, no flavor.
I assumed the issue was too much water. I also did not see why it needed so much oil or egg, as proportionally this seemed like a lot.
So I remade it as follows:
1 cup water
1.5 tsp salt
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 cup oil
1.5 eggs
5 cups flour
1 tbsp instant yeast
This time it barely rose at all! It also seemed pretty dry. The opposite to work with from the first batch. I gave it more rising time on the counter and it barely budged. It's baking now and is rising a little but clearly this recipe needs tweaking.
Any suggestions, so I don't need to just trial and error it 100 times to get delicious loaves?
did the recipe that you found specifically say it was for a bread machine? There are a lot of blogs that focus on bread machines, and it might be better to try one of those if your recipe wasn't specifically for a bread machine. (I don't know what changed are needed for bread machines, I just know that these sort of issues occasionally come up)
Yes definitely was a thread on bread machine recipes
I can't comment on recipes for bread machines, but when I make challah by hand, I use the same amount of oil and eggs, but less flour (4 cups) and less water (7/8 cup). So, to me, the proportion of oil and eggs seems too low!
There are several factors in The difference between too much hydration and too little is subtle, you have swung too far in the other direction and made it far too dry by reducing water by 25% and your egg by 25% as well, as eggs are mostly water as well. It's also possible that you are using plain all-purpose flour and the recipe is for bread flour, which is a bit more absorbent.
When it comes to bread baking exact measurements are important, when it comes to bread baking or mixing in a bread maker it's absolutely key, what seems like small variations for instance the cups of flour being slightly heaped or below the line add up. I moved to using a scale and translating everything into grams when baking bread in order to get consistency. That includes weighing the water as well as it's far more precise than the lines on a cup. If you don't want to go down that route you have to be very consistent in how you measure, like scraping the cups of flour flat to ensure precision.
If it were me I would either just try a completely different recipe, or if you want to experiment do it by hand until you get it right. Split the difference in the water and add 2 full eggs to start, then add exactly measured teaspoons of flour or water until it's the right consistency, which is just slightly sticky and smooth (it will get less sticky after the first rise). Take notes on how much you need to add, then adjust your recipe accordingly.
As for the sweetness, that's personal taste, if you want to add more sugar go ahead, maybe a tablespoon or two more to start as it's easy to go overboard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.029643
| 2024-12-12T03:36:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129750",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Juhasz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"user2430018"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75849
|
How to make hamburger buns as fluffy as in McDonald's?
I make buns and they comes out soft, but not as fluffy and light as the ones they have in McDonald's. Is there any specific ingredient or technique I should use to achieve the desired fluffiness?
Here's the recipe I use:
3/4 cup water
2 large eggs
1 tbsp olive oil
2 1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1 tbsp active dry yeast
2 tbsp sugar
2 tsp salt
Knead for 10 minutes on medium speed, put in large bowl and let it rise for couple of hours; shape buns and let them rest for another hour; bake in oven for 12-15 minutes at 425°F.
Hi qwaz and welcome! If you could give us your recipe and techniques we may be able to help. Otherwise it's just a guessing game and your question may be closed as too broad.
The light commercial white bread structure is very different from homemade doughs. I'm learning how to achieve it, so here are some pointers:
The main objective is to make your gluten work really hard: it has to hold up twice as much air as your regular homemade bread.
Autolyse your flour first, just mix it with the water and let sit for 20 minutes.
Don't add any fats before hydrating the flour and kneading it to activate the gluten. The fats are very helpul afterward, they coat the gluten strands and keep the finished bread soft for a longer time. If you add the fat first, it keeps the gluten from activating properly.
As has been stated before, knead the dough intensely and for a long time, i.e. 20 minutes in a stand mixer. The commercial kneading process is very intense and you will see the difference in the dough's texture and ability to hold a higher water content.
Adding more wheat gluten is also a good idea.
Do tangzhong a.k.a. water roux. Take a bit of flour (recipes vary from 3 tablespoons to 1/3 of all your flour), mix it with water and heat it in a water bath pot to a temperature of 60-65 Celsius while constantly whisking to keep it from clumping. It's going to achieve a gel consistency. At this temperature, amylase enzymes activate and change some of the the starches in your flour to sugars. For best results you should hold the mixture in this range for some time, at least 10 minutes. The same process happens in your oven while heating the loaf at the start of baking. Baking at a lower temperature prolongs this stage, but once the dough reaches temperature of 68 C, amylases are deactivated for good. Some commercial bakers also just add amylase or diastatic flour for this purpose.
The commercial-type bread therefore has less starch, more sugar and more protein (gluten).
There are also other dough enhancers that make mass produced bread soft, fluffy and long lasting. Vitamin C (used in minimal amounts) makes the proofing faster and helps keep the product soft for longer. Emulsifiers like lecithin or xanthan gum can be used to hold up the gluten structure and also keep the bread fresh.
I have found that using russet (starchy) potatoes is always a winner. Boil a potato or two until very soft. Drain off some of the water and let it cool. Use the potato water as your yeast water. Then, completely mash/puree the potato. If this sounds odd to you, start by adding 1/4 cup of the mashed potato to your recipe and see if you like the results. Next time, increase it by 1/4 cup and see what the results are. Based on the amount of flour you are using - you shouldn't need more than 1/2 - 3/4 cup. Dried potato flakes/instant potatoes don't give you the same results. Side note/question: I don't see that you are using bread flour vs. all purpose. I prefer a certain brand's bread flour over all others.
What does this have to do with hamburger buns?
@Catija I think he is advising adding potato to the bun dough
Yes. I have found using the potato water and adding mashed potato changes the bread - in a great way. I transformed my Grandmother's Paska bread recipe this way. People love it.
You guys have really never heard of potato rolls before?
If the buns soft but are too dense, you need a greater rise. A few suggestions:
Bread flour. A higher-gluten flour will generally allow more rise, by giving more support. You may need to add slightly more liquid and/or a little more fat to get the same dough moistness and softness.
Stretch and fold during bulk fermentation. This may not be necessary, but adding in from 1 to 3 "stretch and fold" maneuvers spread out over the bulk rise can strengthen gluten much more than extra kneading time at the beginning.
Tighter shaping. I don't know how you shape your buns, but if you want them to rise high in their final fermentation before baking, you may need to shape more forcefully. For the strongest rise, I'd generally be sure to stretch the "skin" of each dough lump until it is taut. For even better shaping, do a "pre-shaping" step after dividing the buns where you stretch a bit, then do a "bench rest" for 15-20 minutes (with the dough covered), then shape again (pulling tight). Roll each bun around in a circle after any previous shaping to pull the skin even more.
Be sure to wait for rise before baking, perhaps more than "double". I find that by pushing soft rolls/buns slightly toward what might be considered "overproofed" for other bread, I maximize rise and lightness. Obviously you can go too far and have the buns actually collapse during baking, but that generally takes a lot more extra proofing than you might think (assuming you've shaped well and are using a strong flour like bread flour).
Assuming some of these things work, you may also need to decrease the amount of dough in each bun, since they will be less dense and thus will become larger than previously.
To get a really fluffy commercial-style burger bun, you need a very soft dough, and actually I don't think you need to use a particularly high-gluten flour, but you will want to machine-knead it for a longer time and then let it slowly rise to triple instead of double after shaping, and cook it at a low temperature (~350F).
The dough might be soft enough that it may not support itself well. You can use a pan designed for making burger buns (it looks like a shallow muffin pan) or you could use a large muffin pan if that gives you large enough rolls, or you can use a sheet pan and allow the rolls to spread and flatten out, or you can use a cake pan and let them rise together and become a little bit squared off as they merge together.
Wow, sounds interesting. Yes, "commercial-style" that is exactly the word to describe what I'm trying to achieve. So it seems like technique is the key, not some special ingredient. Thank you, I will do as you instructed.
your recipe is great.However ,here is a tip .
when shaping the buns don't press on top of the bun ,just make them as balls and don't press on the top leave them for a while on the sheet without pressing the top .
I hope that will work .
Thank you for the advice, but I think the trick must be with incredient, because the buns come out soft enough as intended, but they don't have this lightness and fluffiness, I don't this the way of shaping dough will make a huge difference, but I will try though. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.029965
| 2016-11-24T23:16:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75849",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Ryan B.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52294",
"qwaz",
"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
}
|
29737
|
Practical home stone grinding
Possible Duplicate:
How can I grind coffee without a coffee grinder?
I like my coffee super-fine.
I've had some luck with using regular coffee grinders and running it for a long time, but I'd like to explore (possibly manual) alternatives. There are 2 reasons I want to try the manual alternative:
1) Electric coffee grinders are extremely noisy. This makes it kind of impractical to grind coffee at odd hours (which I love to do)
2) My electric coffee grinder seems to be wearing pretty fast.
I tried the Kyocera "Hario Skerton" grinder which was eah. It's a bit fragile, and when trying to get a fine grind you get a lot of crunching of the ceremic plates, which again will pretty much destroy it really fast.
What is the actual question here?
Asking about better manual grinders or if there's a way to practically home stone grind short of dropping beans in the backyard and rolling stones around
You might want to edit the main question to make that clear, in case folks don't come down to the comments.
What kind of coffee do you make and use to make it? What kind of electric grinder are you currently using?
Your best bet is probably mortar and pestle:
I've never used one for coffee until just now and it didn't take long to grind up a scoop of beens into a very fine powder. When searching for a picture, I found lots of references to mortar and pestle being used for Turkish coffee, so super-fine seems to be no problem.
Turkish coffee is made from super fine grounds, boiled together with the water in a small kettle (ibrik). The grinders are typically hand cranked, c.f.
Turkish Coffee Grinder (Amazon)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.030838
| 2013-01-04T23:40:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29737",
"authors": [
"Abdulmonaem Albaqlawi",
"Caryn Dinetz",
"Exximious",
"Kioku",
"Norene",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"bobobobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69640",
"maintensity",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33092
|
How to clean a toaster from inside?
This is the toaster that I have. I wish to clean it from inside. It has got a kind of wire mesh inside it. What's the way out?
Where does it actually need cleaning? Is there something nasty stuck in there? Most of the time all you have to do is empty the crumb tray, and maybe let some things that've gotten caught elsewhere burn off.
@Jefromi It has dust inside it. It doesn't have a lid, so the dust has now "stuck" inside it.
After unplugging it, I guess you could see if you can manage to get a vacuum attachment down it, to vacuum out the dust. Other than that, you'll probably have to disassemble it. (Why is dust a problem? Doesn't it fall to the crumb tray, which you can normally remove and clean?)
Just found this page when I was trying to find a solution to removing crumbs that lodged on the areas above the tray and wouldn't move when I shook the toaster upside down. I have now discovered that using a paintbrush (art not decorating) is successful.
Toothbrush works as well.
For a start I'd hold the toaster upside down and attempt using a vacuum cleaner with a narrow nozzle attachment in combination with gentle shaking to try and dislodge the dust. Failing that compressed air is available in cans and is often used for removing dust from electronic devices and computer systems. The following is one example from Amazon although you should be able to find alternatives at a local computer or electronics retailer:
http://www.amazon.com/Compressed-Gas-Duster-10oz-Pack/dp/B004E2MF5S
Although it may be tempting to use a brush or similar to remove the dust I'd recommend against it because the heating element may have become quite brittle through constant heating and cooling cycles. Also if some of the bristles become detached during cleaning you may either leave behind toxic plastic or metal fibers that may cause a short-circuit.
It goes without saying to do it with the power cord removed for safety. A toaster will be electrically safe as soon as power has been removed, the same assumption should not be made with other appliances such as microwave ovens and TVs.
The best way i have found to clean a toaster from the inside is to use a compressed air duster. That will make it very easy to blow out all the crumbs from the the bottom of the toaster. You can view it here
it's already mentioned in an answer 3 years older than yours...
Plastic straw. Prod with it. Blow through it.
Just be sure to not lose a shred of plastic on the element.
Whole sentences. Improves readability.
Martin, welcome to Seasoned Advice! Pardon my little pun above, but please really keep your readers in mind. You know the SE system and know that we strive to create questions and answers that are building a knowledge-base and readable post are the first step to a valuable answer. If we take the time to answer, we might as well write well.
i used a damp paper towel and a butter knife i just pushed the paper towel down inside the toaster and moved it back and forth and then turned it upside down and shook it and everything came out
For items that are going to heat up, it might be a better idea to use a dishcloth, washcloth, or other fabric item vs. a paper item that might tear and then you have to try to extract bit of it out of the toaster so they don't burn and set the whole thing on fire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.031026
| 2013-03-29T05:03:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33092",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Matt",
"Ryan Power",
"StackUp TJ",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"brian smoot",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76682",
"m4ick",
"user2846495"
],
"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
}
|
34323
|
How does the glue of bamboo cutting boards get in the food and how to prevent this?
http://food.thefuntimesguide.com/2010/07/bamboo_cutting_board.php
Some bamboo cutting boards are glued together with adhesives that have formaldehyde in them — which could eventually leak into and contaminate food. When buying a bamboo cutting board, make sure that it has a non-toxic label on it in order to avoid this.
Safety of glues in wooden chopping boards
Bamboo and other wood boards from China are probably glued using cheap phenol formaldehyde resin, which is highly toxic until cured. Once cured, you would have to ingest are large amount of it to get sick, or breath the smoke from burning it. Incidentally, it DOES cause immediate pain, and may also cause long term cancer. The amount you would ingest from a cutting board would be insignificant, if at all, and the toxins do not bio-accumulate
The bamboo cutting board I have seems to have 3 layers of wood. The thickness is around 1.2 cms.
What is about "curing"? How does that help in reducing the impact of the glue?
I wanted to understand that how does the glue get in the food in this case and what can be done to prevent or minimize this from happening?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27570/safety-of-glues-in-wooden-chopping-boards
Curing is a chemical process, it's a one way street for the chemical reaction. A large amount of energy would be required to undo it, and this would destroy the board
@TFD can curing be done at home?
?Ehh, done in factory in China! e.g. machine lays out strips of wood , coats them in adhesive sourced from sealed barrel, squishes it all together and heats is to required temperature. What are you expecting to do at home?
@TFD This link talks about using Vinegar for curing. I thought that would do the trick. http://www.ehow.com/how_5595902_cure-bamboo-cutting-board.html
that nothing to do with the glue, just bad advice of how to look after wood, from a bad site
@TFD Thanks, BTW, did you mean in your earlier comment that that glue is always cured in factories before they get in the market? Or I got it wrong?
I suspect that there is no truth to the assertion that formaldehyde from bamboo cutting boards is a danger. I have made this a question over on skeptics: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16478/is-there-any-credible-evidence-of-practical-danger-from-formaldehyde-in-the-glue
While it is impossible to prove a negative, I am unable to locate any credible evidence that there is actual danger from glue in bamboo cutting boards.
Consider that even if (and this seems unlikely) there were formaldehyde in the glue in a cutting board that in order to pose a danger it would have to:
Not be bound permanently or chemically modified as the glue cures,
somehow diffuse through the bamboo to the surface,
transfer into the food in the brief time the food is in contact with the board, and
do so in sufficient quantities as to cause harm.
I would not worry about this in the slightest.
Does sound logical indeed but since so many websites were claiming about the dangers of the glue, I was quite frightened.
transfer into the food in the brief time the food is in contact with the board While the pressure is applied on the board with knife will the glue still not come up?
If the glue is made from toxic ingredients (as are table salt and teflon coatings) that reacted to give the final (harmless) product, nothing short of chemically or thermally destroying it is likely to get you the original ingredients back.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.031358
| 2013-05-25T14:28:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34323",
"authors": [
"6flagsjunkie",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"Tony Dioguardi",
"Trish",
"Veki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80391",
"rackandboneman",
"sarah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20123
|
After how much time do ground/powdered spices start losing their flavor?
Possible Duplicate:
Shelf life of spices
Suppose I grind the mustard + cumin + pepper seeds and keep them covered in a bowl, after how much time should I expect them to lose their flavor?
Authoritative answers with references to some credible sources will be appreciated.
EDIT 1:
The packed powdered/ground spices we get in shops don't taste the same as freshly ground. Hence my question.
EDIT 2:
Info required for spices namely: Cumin, Mustard, pepper.
and Garlic/Ginger too.
Seems like a duplicate of Shelf life of spices Yes/no?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.031670
| 2012-01-02T09:59:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20123",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AlinaWithAFace",
"Haskerali",
"Marian Clem",
"Neuron",
"Paul",
"Robert Levy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67113"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82697
|
Pretzel burger buns: how to make soft crust?
According to pretzel bread recipe, raw dough buns must be dipped for 30 seconds into a water with baking soda before going into the over in order for them to develop that pretzel brown crust, but it also seems to make the crust quite hard. Is there anything I should add or do to make the pretzel bun's crust soft like this:
All the recipes I tried to follow on the internet came out with a very hard pretzel crust.
It would be helpful if you would post the recipe and method you have used, or at least one of them. Are you using a recipe/method for a pretzel bun or modifying a regular pretzel recipe?
I'm aware of the need to post recipes in some cases, yet here I thought somebody knows an ultimate trick, a certain ingredient that is needed to make the crust soft irrespective of any particular recipe. The majority of recipes on the internet that come up at the top of YouTube/Google search result make the hard crust, as baking soda that is required for that pretzel brown crust gets hard after baking.
Since what you're making is a pretzel that you want to act like a soft loaf, I would try treating it like a bread.
To keep the crust on homemade bread soft, people brush the top with a fat of some kind (usually butter). So you could try liberally brushing the tops of your buns with butter when they're fresh from the oven and still hot. That should keep the "crust" of your mini-loaf nice and soft.
Brushing with milk is another way of softening bread crust. Even adding water (or trapping the loaf's steam) may help soften the crust, though I'd expect fats to give a better and longer-lasting result.
Dipping pretzels in an alkaline solution is what makes the outside brown and hard. If you want them to be less brown and hard, just dip them for a shorter period of time - they would be soft and white if you didn't dip them (or if you dipped them in plain water).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.031773
| 2017-06-28T11:50:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82697",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52278",
"qwaz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78012
|
Why does salt enhance the flavor of food?
I eat a lot of salt. It makes almost everything taste better, including:
Meat
Cookies
Vegetables
Sauces
Chocolate
much more
It seems to me like salt makes almost anything better, but it doesn't just make it better because now I taste salt. It enhances the flavor of whatever I eat.
Why? What about salt makes it bring out the flavor in other foods? Also, are there compounds similar to salt (referring to NaCl) that act as flavor enhancers? Does salt add "umami", or something else?
Our brains are wired to consider food more palatable if the dedicated taste receptors (one of the six basic tastes) for salt are triggered. And in a non-urban world, salt/sodium is a valuable nutrient; the fact we might have it too readily available in the developed world doesn't change that we would DIE on a zero-sodium diet (mind that animal products like meat aren't zero-sodium, and that herbivores tend to love licking salt where they find it!). So our brains have a good evolutionary reason to like salt.
Also, salt actively interferes (negatively) with another basic taste receptor - the receptor for bitterness (which can mean poison both in nature and in the developed world, or at least something we have no use for, eg an alkali). Most aromatic food (think green vegetables or spices) is bitter, and salt both attenuates that perception and balances it making the combined food still desirable for our brain. You end up with an even more palatable food since you can use an aromatic (desirable) and shut out the bitterness (not always desirable) response.
Umami is a different basic taste, probably related to the presence of protein (glutamate, inosinate, guanylate... trigger it - these are amino acids or salts thereof, and an indicator of easily-digestible protein presence).
Good answer. Just wanted to add that, as asked by the OP, there are other things available. One example would be Potassium Chloride which is often sold as a salt substitute.
Also re: other "flavor enhancers", Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) was the rock-star flavour enhancer before it got a (now disputed) bad rep ... and "Umami" became "a thing".
Yup, you got the MSG before me.
I described umami to make clear it is very different, not to suggest that umami enhancers (eg amino acid salts* of whatever alkali metal was on sale this week) were similar to salt - they are as similar as to salt as vinegar. ------- * these are CHEMICALLY salts, not GASTRONOMICALLY!
the monosodium part of MSG makes it quite close to salt
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.032058
| 2017-02-02T09:55:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78012",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Cindy",
"Gord Thompson",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65969
|
How to maintain the calories in rice (which were present in it in its raw form) after cooking it?
I searched Google with the following keywords:
calories in 1 tbsp brown rice
The result was:
As you can see the calories, after cooking have severely reduced.
What can I do to maintain the default level of calories in cooked rice?
I am not talking about increasing calories by adding extra materials like oil. I wish to know some cooking method which does not destroy the calories so much.
Note: I do NOT throw any water during the process of cooking rice.
I'm afraid you interpret the tables wrong. You aren't destroying calories, you are adding water (=0 cal) to the dry rice. As the rice absorbs the water, you are in fact measuring rice + water for cooked rice.
This is true for calorie tables that measure by volume (like here) and by weight.
If you are cooking your rice by boiling and straining, you are effectively losing a few calories due to the starch that gets drained with the water, but that's not what you asked here.
The difference is water. 1 TBS uncooked rice has 3 times the volume after it's cooked. No calories are lost.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.032291
| 2016-01-28T09:21:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65969",
"authors": [
"Audrey Hartley",
"Debra MacCallister",
"Jay Pavlik",
"Louise Houghton",
"Mary Hall",
"Michelle Jiminez",
"balu baluvnb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157820"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4738
|
Are Asian Pears Bitter? Mine Was
I bought an Asian pear the other day and let it ripen for about a week since it was still very firm when I bought it. When I ate it, I found it to be very bitter and almost inedible because of its rotten taste. However, it looked fine, came from a good grocery store and was stored properly. I've never had one before, so I don't know if they are usually so bitter. Did I have a rare experience or are they usually so bitter?
I was so surprised because the sign at the store for the Asian pears said they were sweat, juicy and the most flavorful of pear varieties.
I looked online and found no mention of Asian pears being bitter, so I suspect it was just this one pear, but maybe I just didn't do enough research.
I think you got a bunk pear.
I've never had a bitter asian pear. The grocery store sign is correct; they are sweeter and juicier than other pears.
Unlike other pears, asian pears are typically picked when ripe. They also are supposed to be quite firm and crisp when ripe. You should be able to smell the sweetness of a ripe asian pear. Maybe your week "ripening" it spoiled it? Not sure what the conditions were, but it is strange because they have an excellent shelf life.
I think I'll buy another one or two and try again. The pear looked fine and when I cut it, all the flesh looked fine as well.
Was it possibly more astringent than bitter? I find that the skin can be a bit astringent. But the flesh should be crispy, juicy and sweet with no more bitterness than, say, an apple.
Actually, most farmers sell them at their peak of ripeness. It's best to eat them within a day. The sweetness is on the mild level, like water crest fruits such as watermelon. Chilled taste better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.032440
| 2010-08-10T05:09:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4738",
"authors": [
"Andrea Goodhue",
"Chad",
"E Holland",
"Igor Soloydenko",
"Matthew Green",
"Nerdtron",
"Thomas Grover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9209",
"maniek",
"nana .e",
"nfirvine",
"rt3norio",
"yuji"
],
"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
}
|
22185
|
Which kinds of vessels insulate well?
From here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/13170/6168
The first approach which comes to mind would be to use a pan which insulates well.
I use these glass vessels: http://www.borosil.com/products/consumer/storage/
Do they insulate well?
Are there any other kind of vessels which insulate better than this?
Will Aluminum vessels work better instead of glass?
Pyrex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex) is suggested in the question you linked to.
After some thought on this, an isolating form for baking seems to be counterintuitive. It is about heating the dough, isn't it.
From an insulating standpoint, your best bet is probably a silicone baking form. Aluminum conducts heat about 300x better than glass, and silicone insulates about 4x better than glass. Also, the thicker the material, the better the thermal insulation generally.
Here are a few values of thermal conductivity in W/(mK) for typical kitchen materials
400 Copper
235 Aluminum
50-ish Steel
15-ish Stainless Steel
2-ish Stone
0.8 Glass
0.2 Silicone
As rumtscho points out, pyrex may be a bad choice, because it is transmitting infrared light so well. Also, it is unclear as to how well silicone transmits infrared. Silicone materials can vary wildly in physical and optical characteristics.
Pure silicone forms only work for some geometries, too. Soft form sides don't work well with rectangular geometries, for instance. Round forms work fine, though.
On further thought, with forms that do not transmit heat along the perimeter, the forms should be turned in the oven more often, because no oven heat is truly homogenous.
A compromise would be a silicone coated metal form. Cant say anything about these.
Personally, I hate baking in thin-walled glass containers, being scared of breaking them when any amount of prying is needed.
I love my soft silicone muffin forms.
But for cake, I go metal.
Important information, but this isn't everything needed to know. Silicone isolates better gram-for-gram. But a silicone form weighs a fraction of the weight of a glass. Which makes glass probably the better choice for the conduction part of heating. However, glass is transparent in the visible range and probably also in the near-visible infrared range, which means that for radiation heat, glass is a terrible isolator. It lets the IR rays through, instead of being slowly warmed by them and conducting their heat into the batter the way metal does.
Yes, interesting aspect. IR, visible, and UV transparency are not necessarily the same, but pyrex transmits IR pretty well. http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/images/pyrexcurve.GIF
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.032628
| 2012-03-11T15:05:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22185",
"authors": [
"Nate Anderson",
"Posipiet",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"deeezbeaulls",
"futurebird",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8613",
"rumtscho",
"user913304",
"xpr217"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
567
|
How can I chop onions without crying?
Onions are an excellent addition to many dishes, but cutting them can be frustrating when they make you "cry" all the time.
Does anyone know any tips or tricks to help minimise the tears when chopping onions?
My secret: wear contacts ;)
contacts don't help me in the slightest
My secret: Let someone else cut it for me. Works every time!
I'm protecting this question because it already has several excellent answers (including an accepted answer) and we're starting to see a lot of duplicated and/or silly responses. If you have more than 10 reputation and are considering adding your answer, please make sure that it's (a) a real answer and (b) hasn't been submitted already.
The tears come only after you BLINK. If you get used to keeping your eyes open while cutting onions, it helps a great deal. Other trick is not to expose the the cut side of the onion by putting on the cutting board and holding the onion together.
Think about an onion that has wronged you and imagine these onions are its friends. You won't feel so bad about chopping them up.
Here's the reason you cry for onions...
Stop anthropomorphizing them
Related question on bio: https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/59688/8218
Can't add an answer as a new user, but what I came up with is to decrease the concentration of the gas in my eyes, which could happen if you already have a lot of tears or... water. I simply rinse my eyes with a lot of water before cutting the onions and leave as much water in as possible. It helps a lot!
Cut with the skin on. Simple and effective.
The tearing of the eyes is a result of enzymes that form a sulpherous gas when the onion is cut (concentrated inside the inner core or bulb of the onion) being released into the surrounding air.
You have a few options to avoid this - one would be to not cut through the center of the onion but to extract the "core". This is kind of a pain and means you are discarding a decent chunk of onion, so I don't like it too much.
Another option is to use a fan to blow the gases away from you. A small fan next to you blowing horizontally should do the trick.
You could also wear goggles, although you'd have to leave them on for a while until the gas dissipates from the area.
Another technique is to cut a lemon in half and rub the fresh lemon against both sides of the blade. You'll have to keep "refreshing" the juice coat and your onions will have some lemon juice on them, so this is somewhat limited by that factor.
I knew that those safety goggles they made me buy for grade 9 science class would come in handy someday!
just to be clear..this is caused by a gas and we tear because we inhale this or this gas goes into our eyes?
@CodeToGlory: It goes into our eyes. When it combines with the moisture in our eyes it forms a weak solution of sulfuric acid. This stuff burns. :)
There isn't a 'gas in the onion that is released'. There is a compound in the onion which undergoes chemical reactions when cells are burst. This compound is volatile, and irritates the eyes. There is no sulfuric acid. See loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/onion.html
@Adam Shiemke: Yes, it does undergo a reaction when the cells burst, and true, there's no sulfuric acid, But 'volatile' means that it vaporizes (becomes a gas) easily, so it is indeed released in gas form. It does also contain sulfur. So saying 'a sulfurous gas is released' is pretty much completely accurate.
@AdamShiemke Ther is sulfuric acid. When the Propanethial-S-oxide reaches the eye, it stimulates the the tear glands, which causes the tears. However, when it contacts the cornea, some of it reacts to form sulfuric acid, which causes the itch and irritation. See this answer for more information.
Can't comment directly due to rep limit, but I'm not sure Ryan Elkins above is correct. I'm fairly certain both allinase and LFS are found throughout the layers, though the "core" might contain a higher concentration. Certainly there's no gas contained in the central bulb.
There's a couple of basic strategies for avoiding eye irritation:
Avoid breaking cell walls: use a sharp knife
The enzymes and amino acids involved in producing the Onion Lachrymatory Factor (seriously!) are normally contained in the cells, and only become a problem when released in volume. Using a sharper knife will avoid mangling cell walls, creating more clean separations between layers, and reducing the amount of enzymes released.
Slow down the reaction: refrigerate/freeze the onion
I would guess the activity of both enzymes involved here peaks somewhere around room temperature, or maybe a little higher. You want to get out of this optimum range: either freeze the onion, or heat it beyond denaturation. The former is probably way more practical, since heating to denaturation will leave a soggy mess instead of an onion. You may also be able to deactivate the allinase by substantially altering the pH, for example by coating your knife in lye (not recommended) or lemon juice.
Avoid the reaction products: cut underwater or ventilate
The OLF and the reaction intermediaries look to be fairly water soluble, so cutting under running water should take care of them with sufficient flow rate.
I'm not sure what the mechanism behind the common candle suggestion is, OLF is a thial oxide and not very flammable. My best guess is that the rising air draws some of the irritant up and away from the area, but in that case a fan should work much better.
Why does a sharp knife avoid mangling cell walls? I'd expect it to cut right through them!
@configurator - I think that's the point, if you make a cleaner cut it will minimize the damage to cells next to where the cut is made.
"coating your knife in lye (not recommended)" I LOLed so hard
I can attest to the 'Freeze it' method. I have been using it for years now. For me, putting the onion(s) for 10 minutes inside the freezer does magic.
I've heard "have the water running nearby". Any truths to that? Didn't help me, but maybe I did it wrong...
@Slav similar idea to the candle, limited efficacy.
Amen, a sharp knife makes the biggest difference
The best thing to do is very simple: use a very sharp knife and cut them quickly. This causes a minimal amount of the gases in the onions to be released.
As for "tricks", I find that placing a candle by the cutting board to burn off some of the gases released helps for me.
A sharp knife does wonders -- you don't burst as many cells, and you can get done with the chopping faster. I hate chopping onions at my friend's places, as they don't keep their knives sharp enough.
The sharp knife part is key. In fact - I know when my favorite knife is getting a little dull when I catch more of the onion gas then I used to.
Definitely a sharp knife just make sure its a normal blade not serrated as that can make things really bad.
The candle probably doesn't 'burn' any of the gas off, but creates a small air current that draws air in and quickly up away from your face. Even an open window with an imperceptible breeze can make a huge difference.
That explains why a food processor is much worse for this than cutting them with a knife: it's blunter.
To define sharp in this context : If it can't cut your dish sponge (not the scrubbing side!!), it isn't sharp at all.
Stick it in the freezer for half an hour first. I just discovered this by accident (I went to get bacon out of the freezer and absent-mindedly put the onion I was holding in the freezer at the same time!) Alternatively, you can put it in the refrigerator, but that's slower, and if you leave it there too long the flavor mellows. Either way, you're making the problematic compound less volatile, so less will end up in the air to irritate your eyes.
I remember seeing this tested on a show before and they did see a difference between room temperature and a cooled onion.
Will this affect taste?
@BlueRaja: It didn't make any difference to the taste as far as I could tell.
This works, but wrap the onion in plastic foil, or your freezer will smell.
The regular fridge seems to help a lot with reducing the tears also. I'll have to try the freezer
I've always kept my onions in the fridge, they seem to last longer and it reduces the effects substantially.
As per Alton Brown:
cut near an open flame (e.g. from a gas stove)
use a very sharp knife
See Good Eats Moment - Cutting an Onion
As per my father (addendum):
make sure the onions are cold
hang a piece of bread from your mouth. I've never tried it, but according to him it works. YMMV of course...
Dicing onions is the act that takes the most time and cutting and so it likely to cause the most tearing. Here is my technique, and I can dice literally 15 onions before my eyes start to tear up.
Cut the onion in half, laying the cut sides down. This will keep the gases from escaping while you gut the first half.
Slice long longitudinal cuts, leaving the slices attached near he root.
Finish your dice with lateral cuts.
Put the diced onions in a bowl about 2 feet away.
The trick here is to leave the second half cut side down while you work with the first half. It makes all the difference.
At a recent ICE Knife Skills 1 class in NYC this is what the instructor (Brendan McDermott) recommended. Apparently the lateral cuts in general are what lead to the highest release of the gases.
This is the standard technique for chopping an onion. I suppose it Works for dicing as well, simply putting more distance between each cut. It's a good way to cut it, but not enough to stop the crying game, for me anyway...
I chop them in half, then run them under the tap, then finish them off. (You can also rinse or soak it after just peeling, but it works better with the cut surface.)
This seems to get rid of most of the crying-chemical for long enough for me to finish anyway.
If you want it to work better, you can also try to keep the knife and your hands wet.
The crying chemical is a gas; you're likely dispersing the gas by walking to the sink to rinse them off ;)
@mattbasta, the sink is right beside me. I think the water actually washes away the acid that forms the gas, before it can turn into gas.. Wikipedia backs me up on the water idea, anyway.
America's test kitchen did a segment on this where they tested out a number of different methods including the various folk remedies that people claim works. The only method that they found to reliably work was wearing goggles (you can even buy special goggles specifically made for cutting onions). I don't know if they tested the open flame method or not.
Any method that does not physically prevent the gasses released from the onion from entering your eye simply will not work. The crying is the result of irritation from a chemical reaction when the gasses released by a cut onion interact with your tears (I believe the reaction creates small amounts of sulfuric acid, but don't quote me on that). So you either need a physical barrier around your eyes that keeps the gasses out, or some sort of chemical barrier that will react with the gasses before they reach your eye and therefore prevent them from reacting with your tears.
Of the various answers presented here, the only ones that would seem to have any chance of actually being successful are goggles, a fan (that moves the gasses away from you before they get to your eyes), or possibly an open flame. Of those three, the goggles are the only sure-fire way, as the movement of air is difficult to predict and control.
A simple hack is to stick plastic wrap over your eyes. It helps if you have glasses. The poor man's version of goggles.
Cutting them underwater is a little difficult but is the best technique I have tried
What swimming pool lets you cut onions there?
No need for a swimming pool, only the onions need to be underwater :-P
Who's gonna argue with someone carrying a knife AND AN ONION in a swimming pool?
I really wouldn't like to try this with my 8" chef's knife in my 12" washing-up bowl. Knife total length is 12.5"… and, no, I'm not doing it in the bath ;)
Here is an article that lists quite a few interesting ways to avoid it. One I think is worth mentioning is to cut the onions under water. I've also read that putting the onions in water for 30 minutes before cutting also helps. Both of these methods would help reduce the compounds that are released when chopping and stop them from going after your eyes :)
Does putting them in water affect the flavour at all?
IMO after soaking for 30 mins. they still taste plenty like onions to me :) Your taste might be different so you might want to try it out first. I imagine if you cut them under water as opposed to soaking any impact on the taste would be greatly reduced!
The only way to lessen the taste of an onion is to put it in a bowl with water and ice. That way the taste will fade a little bit - but that's another question.
Washing cut onion improves the flavor a bit. The same stuff that stings eyes tastes bad, so rinsing it off improves taste. If you prep onions ahead of time, you should rinse them for this reason.
I use this technique as well. works
My mother happens to be trained in the culinary arts. What we do is after peeling the skin of the onion, we cut them in half, then immerse them in water for about 10 minutes before cutting them.
As implied in some other answers, you want to cut the onion with as few cuts as possible so you are releasing as little of these gases as possible. You want clean cuts.
Your blade should be sharp. Dull knifes will tear open more of the onion and release more gases
Use a straight blade. Serrated blades tear and grate and release far more of these gases
Less motion is better. If you use a hand-held knife or a mechanical chopper that goes straight down, this is much better than using a rotating saw like some restaurants and delis use.
Learn to cut onions faster. Seriously. Unless you're working in a restaurant kitchen and will have to chop more than a dozen (or hundred) of onions, you should be able to chop it fast enough and store them or cook them right away. Then take a few steps back until the gas dissipates from the cutting area.
If I have several to do, I peel them all and cut them in half. Then I do all the chopping at once. You don't need to be a knife master. Just good enough and have a good knife.
I know most folks here are probably pretty comfortable with a knife but it may be irresponsible to recommend cutting faster. Sloppy chopping can lead to a lot of accidents. I imagine most people already cut at a pace they feel comfortable.
For me, wearing contact lenses works perfectly. I can cut onions as much as I like in them, and never cry. It works with all soft contact lenses
Same lenses same effect. No crying during the chopping. I only realize how hard dicing those onions is while I relax my eyes from the lenses and wear glasses.
Keep your face away from the onion. Seriously! If you just move your head so it isn't directly above the onion when you cut it, the gasses that would normally go into your eyes won't and you won't cry. One way to do this is simply to sit down.
Use a gadget that chops it for you.
They can cut it fast and/or keep the gas away from you eg: Tupperware Choppper Gadget
I was taught a method 40 years ago, which boils down to "minimise cuts to the root". It also tries to minimise total time required to cut a whole onion.
Peel your onion before you cut it at all - this is slightly harder than if you top it & slice in half first, but it does minimise total exposure time to cut onion.
Top it, then place it cut face down on your board, so the root is to the top.
From the 'widest' side [no onion is ever perfectly symmetrical] cut from just to the side of the root to the opposite centre - so you've chopped it vertically root to tip but not quite straight, you didn't touch the root.
Lay each side on its flat face. Hold it so the root end is towards your hand.
Make vertical cuts across the curved face, pointing from root to tip. As your knife will be slightly curved, this will still not quite cut into the root. At this stage the onion half is still a single manageable unit, as you don't cut right to the end.
Then make similar cuts at 90° to the first, from top to bottom. Stop when you reach the root & either trim out the last bits, or just discard.
Repeat with the other half.
Of course one half has almost no root at all, the other has almost all of it.
You now have a board-full of chopped onion & the root goes in the compost.
Done. It's quick & easy, even in the hands of a clumsy amateur like me ;)
The world's poorest illustration…
When I worked at subway we had to cut all kinds of onions. This is what worked for us:
Wet a paper towel, fold it (hot dog style), and place it under your eyes and over your nose. You have to make sure you don't lean down too much or the towel obviously falls off. Also, it helps to have a large nose.
Then, if we either neglected to do that, or we simply had to cut too many of them, stepping inside the walk in freezer for just 30 seconds kind of re-sets your tears and buys you another 5 minutes or so of tear free cutting.
Obviously most people don't have a walk in freezer, but i imagine sticking your face in a normal one will work equally as well.
My mother suffers terribly when chopping onions. Her solution is to chop them outdoors. It happens that there's a waist-height coal scuttle a couple of paces from the kitchen door, so she does it on that.
Just one or two is not difficult.
When cutting several I do them one at a time and have a covered bowl at least 3 feet away. Clean up the scraps periodically. Every onion or two I rinse the cutting board.
I've had success with cutting onions near running water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.032956
| 2010-07-11T00:09:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/567",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Agnes 21",
"Ashutosh Jindal",
"Benjamin Anderson",
"Blorgbeard",
"BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft",
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"Charles",
"Chi Nok Choi",
"CodeToGlory",
"Connor Albright",
"Derek Adair",
"Elzo Valugi",
"F W",
"Filip Skakun",
"George Silva",
"Glasgow Van Man",
"Jamie Banks",
"Janusz",
"Jason C",
"Jay",
"Jean Giles",
"Jeroen",
"Joe",
"JohnFx",
"Judith Bowen",
"Kryptic",
"MandoMando",
"ManiacZX",
"Marcus Downing",
"Mark Davidson",
"Matthew",
"Maurizio Pozzobon",
"Myste",
"Nick",
"Nick T",
"Orbling",
"Piskvor left the building",
"RedsnapperUK",
"Rose Thean",
"Ross Johnston",
"Ryan Rivest",
"Sam Cogan",
"Slav",
"Stefano Borini",
"Tara Porrey",
"Teresa McCoy",
"Teresa Pegues",
"Tetsujin",
"That1Guy",
"The Dag",
"Tom Gullen",
"Tony Eichelberger",
"Vicky",
"alexpotato",
"buttlord",
"bwDraco",
"configurator",
"eyelidlessness",
"hannah",
"heads5150",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"limido",
"lomaxx",
"mattbasta",
"parkan",
"rackandboneman",
"thorncp",
"user17765",
"verbose"
],
"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
}
|
77606
|
How long should pearl barley be boiled for?
Different recipes that involve boiling pearl barley recommend boiling pearl barley for different periods of time. How long should pearl barley be boiled for, and why do different packets of pearl barley recommend different cooking times?
It's hard to give a universal answer to questions like this. But, two reputable sources, The Kitchn and Serious Eats each have the same recommendation of 30 minutes.
The article from The Kitchn discussed Hulled Barley (has the bran left on) taking longer to cook than Pearl Barley, which may be why the packages you are seeing have different times.
I see two other possibilities for differing cooking times:
Target market of that brand. For example, a more upscale brand targeting a more "refined" palette may recommend lower cooking times, as these folks will be more accepting of the tender chewiness of properly cooked barley. On the other hand, cheaper brands are likely targeting lay-folk, and let's face it, people without culinary experience might prefer a more done barley.
There could just be some slight variations in types of barley, where it's grown, etc that impact cooking time. This one is difficult to rule out, and leads me to recommending experimentation! Cook a few different batches to different levels of doneness, and see which you prefer.
I'd add to this that it depends also on how you are eating it. Pearl barley hardens and toughens as it cools so if you are planning on having it cold you would want to cook it for longer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.034598
| 2017-01-19T19:06:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77606",
"authors": [
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21724
|
Is it a myth or a fact that mixing cake/muffin batter too finely can lead to a hard finally baked cake/muffin?
Possible Duplicate:
Over-stirring muffin mixtures
From here: http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/bakingdesserts/r/plainmuffins.htm
The key to making great muffins is not overmixing the batter. Once the liquid ingredients are added to the dry, mix the batter by hand just until the flour is moistened, for no more than about ten seconds. Too much mixing can cause the muffins to be dry, tough or misshapen.
and
The batter should be visibly lumpy, and you may see pockets of dry flour. That's OK! It's extremely important not to overmix the batter, or the resulting muffins will be too hard.
Is there some scientific reasoning behind this claim?
I think this is kind of already answered in Over-stirring muffin mixtures isn't it?
@Aaronut Right, and thanks. This looks like a duplicate of that question. I couldn't see that one while creating this (in similar threads). But, fortunately, this one has got better answers. :) I'll flag this and you should merge its beautiful answers in the other thread.
We rarely delete duplicates, so nobody's losing anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.034751
| 2012-02-25T17:48:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21724",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Albert T. Wong",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Hydrothermal",
"Mirrana",
"NooNa MarJa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13488
|
How to protect hand skin when preparing food
My hand skin is extremely dry due to exposure to water. But when cooking, it is inevitable to submerge my hands in water, for example, to wash food.
So I was wondering
generally how to protect my skin
during and/or after preparing food?
I saw there are gloves sold in the
supermarkets, but they look like for cleaning things such as dishes
and counters. For example, I have
this pair
it is made of "Premium gloves
specially blended with natural
rubber latex and durable synthetic
Neoprene".
I was wondering if such gloves are
safe for food handling? What kinds of
material for gloves are safe?
Thanks and regards!
@Tim- In my culinary class, if you were to cut your finger or something, you would apply a band-aid and then put on a normal latex-free glove (like what doctors wear). Should work for rinsing food and what not.
@duchessofstokesay: Thanks! Dould you find some links to show what kinds of latex-free glove is like? Will latex glove safe when washing and handling food?
@duchessofstokesay: Is latex-free glove reusable or expendable?
They are expendable, they usually come in a box of 100 and can range in price from $5-10 US. As for links, you can just check them out on amazon.com or a site like it. And I am pretty positive they are safe when dealing with food.
Also, I said latex-free that way if you are allergic to latex they won't bother you and some (pretty sure latex ones) come with a powder on the inside of them so that might have the possibility of getting on the food. Not sure if it is harmless or not. To stay on the safe side, go with latex-free.
I wouldn't wear the medical type gloves recommended in the other answers. They are disposable, and once you get them off, you can't put them back on because they cling to themselves on the inside. So if you were only to wear them when you are working with water, you'd go through 4-5 pairs while preparing a dish. This is not only wasteful, but they also contain a layer of talcum on the inside, and coating your sensitive skin with drying talcum 4-5 times in the time needed for cooking is probably a bad idea.
You are probably thinking that this is nonsense and you were planing to wear them throughout the cooking, not taking them off. The problem is that they are sealed from air circulation, so they get hot on the inside. Your hands sweat and sweat and sweat. The talcum helps a little, but it is used up quickly. After 5 to 10 minutes, your hands are immersed in a permanent sweat bath. Which means that they are actulally much moister than if you are submerging them in water for a quick unprotected wash and then drying them. So this is practically worse than no gloves. The transparent gloves used for petrol or hair coloring don't cling to the skin and don't have talcum, but still make you sweat just as bad as the medical ones.
The cleaning gloves you linked are a better solution. They are non-toxic, so they are safe for handling food. Practically any material used for washing gloves is food safe. You just need to wash them on the outside with soap as often as you'd wash your hands. They won't make your hands sweat as bad, because they don't cling to your hands. There is air between them and your skin. The good ones have a very thin layer of some kind of fuzz on the inside, which absorbs sweat, but is not as drying as talcum. Also, they are reusable and keep for a lot of wears. You can put them on for washing, then remove them, and only put them on again for the next washing.
They also have their disadvantages. First, you must take care that no water comes on the inside, because then you'll have a permanently wet glove. Second, they are not especially thin, so tactile input and dexterity are impaired. Third, when they are wet, they get slippery on the outside. Most producers reduce this by covering them with a thin raised pattern, like an inverted tire profile. This worsens the problem with the missing feel and also makes them somewhat worse from a food safety point of view, as the structured surface gives pollutants more oportunity to cling to (but is probably still safer than your fingers with the ridges of your fingerprints). Fourth, they are very easily punctured - a touch with a knife which you probably wouldn't have felt with your skin can puncture them - and useless once they are punctured. But still, if you want to wear gloves, this is probably the way to go.
If you want to go gloveless, you need to find a moisturizing agent which does not impair your food even if a significant amount is transferred to it. Some organic hand creams, a homemade hand cream, or pure oil should all do the trick. Then you have to keep a thick fluffy towel nearby (a normal muselin kitchen towel is probably not good enough). Apply the moisturizer before starting the cooking. Then apply it again, thick, before washing the food, wash the food, dry immediately with the towel, and apply moisturizer again.
An interesting thing to try out would be to use the medical gloves together with oil or a deep conditioner for skin, or something like a facial mask. Sometimes people condition their hands by keeping them immersed in a warm bath of either. You could try applying a very generous dose to your skin, much more than it could absorb, and then put the gloves on, eventually adding some more oil/conditioner (you'll probably with a syringe without a needle for that, as there won't be enough space for pouring). The sweat will still develop, but it will disperse in the big amount of oil or conditioner, so your skin will be kept in a fatty conditioning environment instead of a moist drying out one, which means that you can keep them on for the duration of the cooking. You will still experience the disadvantages I listed for the washing gloves, some of them even stronger (e. g. slipperiness). You may wish to use an edible conditioner or oil, because a puncture could result in everything leaking over your food.
latex free gloves are the thin gloves worn by medics or garage mechanics, the latex-free (nitrile) version is normally purple/blue to mark it as latex free. Cheapest place to buy latex-free gloves is a garage supply.
You might if you are careful and buy a larger size reuse it a couple of times, they tear less easily than latex.
Another cheap alternative is the type of transparent polythene gloves at gas stations by the diesel pump. They don't fit as tightly and you can take them on and off, they are made of pretty much the same material as plastic bags.
You don't have to buy sterile/medical versions of either of these, the regualr ones are at least as clean as plastic bags and you use those with food.
Thanks! Nice to know. I will look for them in local stores. By the way, do you know if the glove in the picture and link is safe for food? It is made of "Premium gloves specially blended with natural rubber latex and durable synthetic Neoprene".
Assuming you didn't just use the same gloves to clean the toilet! Only problem is they are going to be a bit clumsy to hold and chop things
I have a box of disposable latex gloves in my kitchen for handling raw meat, poultry and fish. If I have a cut on my hand and I'm slicing onions, I wear them then too. Don't see why they can't work to protect skin.
Thanks! So will using latex touching food introduce some potentially dangerous chemicals to food? Is the gloves in the picture and linked to its page safe to handle meat and vegetable?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.034908
| 2011-03-27T14:58:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13488",
"authors": [
"Martin Beckett",
"Tim",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47522
|
Rice with worm and possibly their eggs
I bought a bag of brown rice from a store. After having opened and used for a while, I found there were moths flying in the house. At the same time, I found worms in the rice. I suspect that the moths are from the worms(rice-size, white body, dark head). I guess but am not sure if they are called rice moths. There were also many little sand-like things in the rice bag, are they the eggs of the rice moths?
Will eating this infested rice pose a health risk?
Why risk your health for a few dollars? I think the risk is negligible; you could assume that the bugs just entered the bag but the rice was still dry and therefore not affected by the bugs, so no further microbial contamination of the rice is likely to have occurred, but why take the risk?
Humans have been consuming insects for at least 10s of thousands of years. Pick out the bugs you can find and know that the odds are extremely low that you will be harmed. Moths aren't generally known as disease vectors.
@JoeM I'm confident that humans died rarely, if ever, from moth-born diseases. And many insects most certainly are recognized as safe to eat. Take a wilderness survival course and they'll give you a nice menu.
@CareyGregory Many parasites are transmitted via eating insects. Tapeworms, for example, are most commonly transmitted via eating flies, as they mature in the fly's digestive system.
@JoeM No, tapeworms are transmitted by ingesting tapeworm eggs shed in the host's feces. In any case, these aren't flies. Huge difference between moths and flies.
No, tapeworms (at least the most common kind, the flea tapeworm) must go through a stage where they are incubated inside a flea. The most common dog tapeworm is the flea tapeworm. This is not readily transmitted to humans, as swallowing an infected flea is required to become infected. However, when it does occur, infection is more common in children. - http://www.petshed.com/petcyclopedia/human-risk-from-worms-in-dogs.html for example. In any event, my point is that insects can transmit disease - lyme disease, malaria, whatnot - and some of them can be transmitted by eating.
@JoeM I understand your point, but I assure you that people eat insects such as these daily and are harmed so rarely that it's a nonexistent threat. All insects are not created equally when it comes to disease transmission, and moths rank somewhere near the very bottom of problem insects.
We're not all rich, why throw away rice when we can easily save it as answered by @arcay?
I haven't had that happen since the 1980's. Sound like the Flour Moth.
Freezing Rice or Flour for 3-4 days will kill the eggs.
I usually freeze local flour/rice for a few days so that I don't have to deal with any potential problem.
If you have pantry moths, or other moths that have hatched, you may need to take extra measures to get rid of them. Once they start flying, they can get into any opened grain-food.
Everyone in Asia knows, you cannot store rice for long (over 1-2 months) at room temperature. The rice, ALL RICE has larvae in it. It's a symbiotic relationship. Unlike wheat (bread, pasta) which also cannot be stored at room temperature for long either, 1-2 months is max.
At room Temperature the larvae are in the rice, and will hatch, and become maggots, then they will escape the bag somehow and crawl around as maggots outside and become a cocoon and hatch into mini-moths and die.
The rice is still edible. When you wash it, it's real easy, ALL THE BUGS WILL FLOAT UP, just rinse like 3 times.
Once you cook the rice, it will kill all insects and what ever, will become protein.
You do not need to waste or throw away good rice because of those. You just cannot help it. It will always happen to rice. If you open a bag with no maggots or bugs that means the bag is fresh and a new crop. Otherwise a bag with maggots will mean it's been on the shelf over 1-2 month.
It cannot be helped, all rice has that. All Rice.
Dunno, I've never had larva in my rice and never seen this and it takes me several months to go through a bag. I've got a bag right now that's been sitting for almost two years. I think claiming 'all rice' has larvae in it is a bit of a broad over-generalization.
But pantry moths and their ilk will also choose flour, nuts, cocoa, muesli.... as breeding ground once you have them in the pantry. While the animals per se aren't poisonous (but gross), I feel having their poop in my food is truly an issue. So sorry, I must disagree with your post.
I would absolutely not risk any health issues over it. I'd recommend tossing it out entirely and shopping at a new store. Your current rice supplier obviously has some issues of their own if there are bugs, rodents, etc. getting into their foods.
While these moths are indeed mostly harmless, contaminated and infested food should be thrown out. Period. The FDA agrees.
It's probably quite overreaching to blame the supplier for this. Nearly all grains have eggs from these types of pests in them at the time of harvest. They're so tiny they can't really be filtered out; freezing is probably the best option to prevent them from growing, but that's not generally done by the processors.
And they can spread between things in your pantry, so it's very easy for them to have come from somewhere else, with this just being the first place the OP noticed them.
This is probably the most misguided advice based on fear and paranoia. You claim that FDA agrees with you but you haven't provided any references. I haven't found any evidence that months can transmit or cause any diseases and they cannot survive in the human body. Boiling kills everything. Freezing for a week also destroys them. Never make decisions based on feat and paranoia.
Boiling water temperature will kill moths, larva and eggs. More food! :)
And experts say it's not dangerous if consumed
http://www.saferbrand.com/articles/pantry-moths
On the same topic:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24629.0
Maybe the worms and eggs will die when you cook the rice because they are not heat resistant? So you can just ignore it or just rinse your rice and check for little worms.
This would let you kill the larvae and eggs, but doesn't address whether it's safe to eat them afterwards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.035555
| 2014-09-28T23:13:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47522",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Count Iblis",
"Daniel Billsdon",
"Denise Bordlemay",
"Erica",
"Evelyn lynch",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe M",
"Laura Ayers",
"Lídia Balogh",
"M MM",
"M. C.",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Rodney Snyder",
"Stephie",
"That One Actor",
"Travis Raddatz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"user6123723"
],
"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
}
|
20852
|
What common household drink will remove burning from mouth?
Possible Duplicate:
Cure for burns from hot peppers / capsicum oil?
Ya, just ate something spicy and my mouth is on fire. I tried drinking water and that didn't help. I also tried orange juice, and that didn't help.
Any ideas?
I'm marking this as a duplicate because even though the linked question was originally about hands, it already answers the follow-up questions about mouth burning, including a link to the popular Mythbusters episode where they confirmed the best answer to be whole milk (or something with even more fat, like cream).
ime, drinks don't work as well as a spoonful of sour cream or a square of (mild) cheese like cheddar
You need something with fat or alcohol. The burning is caused by capsaicin, a molecule found in peppers, which is not water-soluble. If you go for the alcohol, you'll need something with higher percentage, not a beer, and it might result in more burning. It is easier to drink whole milk, especially because you might need lots of the drink if it is too strong.
You option beside a drink is eating bread. You want a soft, fluffy bread like a baguette. If you chew it for a longer time, it will absorb some of the capsaicin covering the inside of your mouth, like a sponge cleaning a pot. For best results, you can combine: bread first, milk afterwards.
It's an abundant protein in milk, casein, that makes it effective in removing capsaicin: http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/features/capsaicin.shtml
one of the best things is not a drink but to eat a spoon of sugar. This worked a treat with the kids when they tried to drink from the tabasco sauce.
Slices of tomato and cucumber with yoghurt are the traditional solutions.
I suggest spending the day testing the various solutions, and report back. i'll vote for that answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.036122
| 2012-01-28T01:09:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20852",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Danny",
"Jawad Ahmed",
"MathMajor",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"jesephuser",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69116
|
Should I throw away sesames with moths?
I found pantry moths in my sesames, and their webs between the sesames on the top part. Should I throw them out? Are they still edible or useful in other ways? Thanks.
You should throw it out, and inspect everything else in your pantry to see if there is any sign of moths, including the cocoons and webbing, and throw that out too.
As an alternative to throwing things away, you can remove whatever it takes to make you feel okay eating the food, then freeze it for a week to kill everything that you missed.
As far as I know, they're not toxic or anything (confirmed for example by this article), so you could eat things they've gotten into, especially if cooked, but you really just don't want to keep it around.
That container looks like it might be pretty airtight, but moths can be really annoying. If you leave it open and one gets out, you can end up with moths in everything they find remotely in your pantry, and have to throw it all out. They can sneak through tiny holes like box corners and loose-fitting lids, and chew through bags. They will get everywhere.
Also, a container like that should immediately be placed into something really airtight and sturdy, or taken far away from any kitchen/pantry, or discarded away from any kitchen/pantry. And don't open it inside either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.036294
| 2016-05-19T23:34:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69116",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64583
|
What temperature does "keep refrigerated" mean?
The packages of my cheese and hotdogs say "Keep Refrigerated" (see photos below). Does that mean I should put them in the freezer, or the other room of the refrigerator?
Many food products' packages say "Keep Refrigerated", for example, eggs are labeled as such and with temperature at least or at most 45 Fahrenheit. If not explicitly saying some temperature, how can I know if I should put a product in the freezer or the other room of the refrigerator?
Cheese:
Hotdogs:
I think there's a bit of linguistic confusion here. Although combination fridge-freezers (i.e. two compartments, one above freezing and one below) are common and we often call the entire appliance a refrigerator, that's more just a simplification. We'd never refer to the freezer compartment (or a standalone freezer) as refrigerating things; it freezes them.
So if someone says "put it in the fridge" or "refrigerate that" or "keep refrigerated", they mean the fridge, not the freezer.
It's rare for things to have more specific refrigeration temperature requirements than that. You can't really adjust your fridge much; it needs to be 40F/4C or lower to be safe. In practice that means you aim for more like 35F/2C so that if some parts of the fridge are a bit warmer it's still safe. That means that even if you wanted to keep something slightly warmer, the warmest you could really keep it is 40F/4C. If you really want to store a food at a higher temperature, you need a different solution; this is why people store potatoes in cellars, for example.
As for what things can be frozen if desired... it's hard to generalize a ton. The main issue with freezing is that it can mess with the texture of food. Fresh fruit and vegetables will generally lose their structure when frozen, so if they're subsequently thawed they'll end up mushy and leaking juice, making them only good for cooking. Things with less structure like meat, dairy/cheese, and a lot of cooked food tend to freeze well.
So your cheese and hot dogs will be fine frozen, but if you have a lot of other things you're interested in freezing and you don't have an intuition for what will and won't work, you're probably best off googling each one.
When a product is labeled "Keep Refrigerated", it does not mean you should put in the freezer. Some foods (including cheese) do not freeze well, and will suffer a degradation in texture or other problems.
Other foods (such as hot dogs) may be frozen to extend the shelf life, though they're normally just kept in the refrigerator.
If you purchase an extra quantity of something like meat (or hot dogs) that requires refrigeration, refer to the expiration or "best by" date on the product. If you don't expect to cook the product before then, you might consider freezing it.
Hopefully you'll use your cheese before March 18th, but note your hot dogs already passed their "best by" date a couple of months ago.
"Keep refrigerated" means store in the refrigerator at a temperature between 32F and 40F, ideally at about 35F. The main compartment of your refrigerator should be in this temperature range.
You can, if you wish, store either of these products in the freezer. Kept frozen they'll be safe to eat indefinitely, however they may suffer in other ways. In my experience hot dogs keep well in the freezer and after being defrosted come out just like they went in. Cheese is a different story, and freezing can change its texture. If you freeze your string cheese you may find that it loses some of its stringiness.
thanks. what would the package say if keep in freezer?
@Tim Usually "Keep frozen" or something along those lines.
(1) I haven't had cheese before. Should I cook the cheese? (2) If I open the packages of the cheese and hotdogs, how long can I keep them in refrigerator?
@Tim The particular cheese you bought is meant to be eaten as a snack as it is. I wouldn't recommend trying to cook it. More generally cheese is normally only cooked when it's used as ingredient in something else, in pizza for example. After opening the package of cheese you should find each "snack" piece is individually wrapped. Wrapped that way should last in the refrigerator until the expiry date given on the package. I would want to keep an open package of hot dogs in the fridge for more than a week or so.
@Tim I should also add, if you never had cheese before, I'm guessing you might come from an area in the world where milk products are not normally consumed. If this is case then you may be lactose intolerant. While there is less lactose in cheese than the milk its made from, you still find that it causes stomach discomfort and other symptoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
Thanks. I am not sure if I am lactose intolerance, and if yes, to what degree. I can eat yogurt, and used to drink boiled milk very long ago than i can remember. I didn't know what lactose intolerance was, and didn't know if i had the symptons and if I did, if they were caused by lactose or something else.
"Keep refrigerated" means it should be kept in the refrigerator (fridge); "keep frozen" means it should be kept in the freezer. Any working fridge or freezer should be automatically at the correct temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.036447
| 2015-12-20T00:02:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64583",
"authors": [
"Business Rates Relief Limited",
"Claire Cosenza",
"Diane Spohn",
"Elizabeth McIntyre",
"Gary Caporn",
"Helen ashby",
"Hilary Lee",
"Kayla Lee",
"Krizz Sportsdunia",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"jacqueline buzzard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64579
|
What is this food "cr of leek and pot 21814"?
I was given some food, one of which is named "cr of leek and pot 21814"
I am not sure what it is. Can anyone tell me how to cook it? Is it vegetable, staple, or ...?
should I store it in freezer or the warmer part of a refrigerator?
Well... as a note, the 21814 is probably a use by date, so... that means it's nearly two years past date (assuming Feb 18, 2014) or a year and a half past date (assuming Aug. 21st, 2014). I don't know that I'd want to eat it...
@Catija It's actually the product code. If it's been kept frozen then it'll be safe to eat indefinitely.
@RossRidge If it's the product code, that's good... but even frozen stuff can go bad if you have a frost-free freezer.
It says on the package "condensed frozen soup" "keep frozen until ready to use" and "this product may be tempered up to 5 days in a 40F refrigerator prior to cooking." There are also specific directions for how to cook it. So I understand asking what exactly it is ("leek & pot" isn't obvious if you're not from a part of the world where leek and potato is common, though you can find out from Google very easily) but the rest of the question does seem to show some lack of research effort, as it were.
Google suggested it's a CReam OF LEEK and POTato soup.
Just follow the instructions on the package to cook this dish. Apparently it is only half-way cooked. Empty the tray into a pot, add as much water as the tray holds to the pot. Heat the soup until it boils, stir frequently. Then, reduce the heat and let it simmer. The package says something with 100°F (?), I can't read it.
If the package is still frozen, you can leave it frozen in the freezer; otherwise you can leave this package up to 5 days at 40°F in the refrigerator prior cooking (as the package says).
Thanks. Am I supposed to have it for one meal, without anything else?
@Tim Of course you can eat the soup only for one meal. I have no idea how large the tray is - you have to estimate how much soup you like to eat. If the soup alone is not enough, you can eat some warm bread with the soup.
@Tim It's a 3/4 pound "foodservice" tub of Campbell's frozen condensed soup. It's designed for restaurants and institutions and is meant to provide many servings of soup. You'll need a large pot to cook it in, twice the volume of the tub. You'll probably won't want to eat it all at one sitting. You can store the remainder in the fridge (up to 5 days) and reheat it when you want to have some more. It's basically just like a can of Campbell's condensed soup except there's a lot more of it and for long term storage it should be stored in the freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.037270
| 2015-12-19T22:40:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64579",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ching Chong",
"Event Videographer Ltd",
"Foot And Heel Pain",
"Honey Badger",
"Lora Stegall",
"Newborn Photographer DC",
"Ross Ridge",
"Shelley Blagaic",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76134
|
Are poppers better than a paper bag for making popcorn in microwave?
I have been making popcorn in the microwave by putting popping corn in an ordinary brown paper bag, folding it closed, and cooking on full heat for 2 minutes or until popping stops, whichever comes sooner. It works pretty well, although sometimes the popcorn gets burnt or a hole is burned through the bag. My microwave does not have a popcorn setting.
I have seen microwave poppers offered for sale, to good reviews. They are typically made of plastic or silicon and are basically containers with lids. Would these give better results than a paper bag, or should I save my money and stick with bags? I prefer not to use oil or butter when popping.
While I could buy an air popper, I prefer to minimize the number of appliances I have, for space and cleaning.
Do you specifically want to use your microwave? Classic hot air poppers are relatively inexpensive and it's nearly impossible to urn if you follow the directions. This is the one we have, for example.
@Catija Good question. I edited my question to answer your question.
If space & cleaning are a concern, a microwave popper would be a problem, too. They work. We had one with our Radarange growing up. It was huge (sized to take up almost the whole microwave) because you need lots of space for the popcorn to expand. It actually took up more space than my air popper does. (and I love my air popper, as I can set it up, go and do something else, and there's no chance of burning it)
@Joe I hadn't realized they were huge. I figured I could store them with other containers, perhaps nesting them.
@espertus : they're typically 10 to 15 cups (5/8ths of a gallon to 15/16ths). In seaching, I did manage to find some 4 cup ones ... and even a one cup (which just seems useless to me, as that's just a tease).
I have used some of the poppers which use "concentration disks" made by several sources, and will say I have had much better results with them than paper bags. Popping time tends to be fairly consistent with much fewer unpopped kernels than a dry paper bag. It only takes a couple batches to know what the popping time is for your microwave. If time starts to increase or yield goes down with more unpopped or under-popped kernels, time for a new disk or your corn has gone stale. It does cost more than paper sandwich bags, but with not burning batches and less loss and trouble, I personally found it worth it and probably a push on price. And you need to make sure you keep a supply of the disks. Usually it seemed 8-10 batches per disk before they would start to tear and need replaced.
I have not tried the ones which do not use the disks so cannot compare them.
We used one when I was a kid and it did a good job but I don't remember if you could use it without oil. I know my dad always used oil. Are you able to address this part of the question?
@Catija Yes, I always have used without oil. If I choose to use butter or something, I add it after. I think original directions said you could use oils and flavorings, but when I tried, just made a mess and disks became one use only.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.037542
| 2016-12-05T00:32:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76134",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ellen Spertus",
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95360
|
How to spread dried blueberries evenly when using bread machine?
This blueberry oatmeal bread recipe says to add 2/3 cup dried blueberries to the bread machine at add-in time. When I just dump them in on top of the dough, they end up clustered at the bottom of the loaf, as shown:
(How) can I get them to be evenly distributed?
Update
As bob1 suggested, I tried adding the dried blueberries at the very start. That worked. The blueberries were evenly distributed and none the worse for the earlier inclusion.
You can add them at the start of the mixing process to help distribute them evenly. You may find that soaking them for a few minutes in warm water to re-hydrate will help the berries mix more evenly if adding at the add-in-time.
According to the U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council, you can spread half the batter, add the berries, and top with the second half of the batter. But, I usually coat the blueberries in flour. It prevents them from sinking and from "bleeding blueberry juice" into your loaf. That's what works for me.
Dies the floor make any difference for dried berries? I know the trick for raw or frozen ones.
Thanks, but this seems more suited to batter than to dough made in a bread machine.
Try the floured berry trick, Ellen. It may help suspend them in the batter - even in a bread machine. (I will confess that I don't own a bread machine, so no way for me to test it by that method.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.037810
| 2019-01-04T19:32:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95360",
"authors": [
"Ellen Spertus",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120957
|
Can I replace matzo meal with flour in a popover recipe?
My favorite popover recipe includes matzo meal, which is easy to find during Passover. I run it through a blender to make it fine before mixing it with the other ingredients.
Can I substitute regular wheat-based flour when matzo meal isn't available? If so, what type of flour would give the most similar taste and texture?
Note that this is not a question about whether popovers made with regular flour would be kosher. This is purely a question about baking.
Edit
In response to comments, the complete ingredients are:
1.5 cup cake matzoh meal
1.5 cup water
.5 cup oil
1 tsp salt
1 tbsp sugar
7 extra-large eggs
The matzoh meal mixed with salt and sugar is stirred into boiling water/oil, after which the eggs are added. The popovers are cooked for 45-50 minutes at 400 degrees.
I have tried other recipes that use ordinary flour but do not like them nearly as much.
It sounds like none of the other options (using Wondra or grinding up matzoh) are easier than stockpiling matzoh meal or ordering it online.
This has to be the first time I have heard of someone converting a Pesadig recipe to chametz instead of visa versa. Good luck! Also, to help the question a little, by blending the matzah meal, you are making what is sold as matzah cake meal. I will post an answer about Wondra.
Yes, the recipe calls for matzo cake meal, but I can't always find that.
(a) why not just use a regular normal-flour popover recipe? there are many. (b) can you give us proportions in your current recipe?
I would think that a closer replacement would be crumbled-up saltine crackers, rather than a "raw" flour of some kind. As with the matzo, you'd probably want to grind them up in a blender or food processor to get a sufficiently fine texture.
One of the local supermarkets still (2+ months after Passover) has 5 lb. boxes for sale really cheap. Depending on where you are, find more post-Passover Matzah -> grind to cake meal. Non-Passover Matzah is available year-round, but the Passover stuff, after Passover is over, is cheaper.
(OP probably knows this but for readers not familiar with matzah): Matzah meal is ground up matzah, and by further blending, the OP is making their own version of “matzah cake meal.” The base of both is matzah, flour and water quickly baked.
Used in baked goods, matzah meal will not form gluten** since it is already baked. This is why a lot of Passover cookies and cakes that are made with matzah meal* are dense and dry. I will assume that the popover recipe uses a lot of eggs to get the airiness.
So to answer the OP question,
Sort of obvious- If you can get matzah in the kosher section if a store, even if it says “not for Passover,” you can grind it up in the blender and get matzah meal. cf This SA QA
No idea if this will work: Try Wondra since it is a precooked and dried and will form less gluten** than AP flour. Be sure not to over mix.
*Some are not made with matzah meal at all but with things like potato flour. If you are interested look up “non-gebrokts recipes” on line.
**Neither statement should be taken as a health claim for those who need to or want to reduce or avoid gluten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.037978
| 2022-07-03T01:16:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120957",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"Ellen Spertus",
"FuzzyChef",
"Michael Seifert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14256
|
How to avoid getting the pizza all watery?
When I cook pizza, it gets all watery. There's literally water formed on top of the dough. I believe it's released by the mozzarella, but I'm not totally sure.
Any ideas how to avoid this?
Some more information: I'm cooking at around 230 oC (according to the oven, who knows!) with an electric oven. No stone, just the metal tray. The pizza has exactly the same shape as the metal tray (which is a rectangle, just as the oven).
According to my last experiments, the source of the water is definitely the cheese. I'm cooking the dough, then adding the tomato sauce, then adding the cheese and the water doesn't appear until the cheese-phase. I tried all the possible mozzarellas that I can get at the supermarket with the same result.
I'm just soaking the water with paper towel if it happens to me. I don't worry about it a lot. In my case, the water was from mushrooms and sauce.
There are a number of factors that can contribute to a watery pizza:
Cheese If you think the cheese is the culprit, you can try using a "low moisture" mozzarella (these are dry to the touch on the outside). If you are using a "fresh" mozzarella (these usually are sold in a brine), e.g., classic mozzarella di bufala or mozzarella fior di latte, I recommend slicing the cheese as opposed to grating the cheese. The idea is that slicing the cheese will produce less surface area, and thereby reduce the amount of water that leeches out. Also, I recommend dabbing the cheese slices with a kitchen towel to remove any surface moisture. If you use this method, it will also help to cut the cheese in very thin slices, since that will release more moisture before it touches the pizza and it will also reduce the amount of cooking time.
Tomato Sauce I recommend making the sauce yourself. As opposed to simmering the tomatoes/sauce on the stove for a long time, I prefer making a light tomato sauce that actually cooks on the pizza itself. I quickly purée the tomatoes (canned are fine) in a food processor and then let them strain in a fine mesh colander for 30 to 45 minutes, stirring occasionally. That gets rid of a lot of water (the tomatoes lose about half of their volume). Throw in some minced garlic, chopped basil, and season and it is ready to go on the pizza.
The Cooking Method Since my home oven doesn't get as hot as a traditional pizza oven, I always "blind" cook my pizza without the cheese. In other words, I throw the dough, add the sauce, and then cook it with just the sauce for 4 or 5 minutes. This allows any extra moisture in the sauce to cook off. I then remove the pizza, add the cheese, and then broil it until the cheese is melted and browned.
The Dough If the dough ends up becoming soggy, you can always compensate by making it a bit thicker.
Also : pre-cooking ingredients; some items like onions and bell peppers may give off too much liquid to evaporate quickly in a home oven; you can saute or roast them first, then use them on the pizza. And my normal method for home cooking is to par-bake the crust a little first, before adding any sauce or other toppings.
I'm a newbie when it comes to the kitchen. As far as I know, I'm using fresh mozzarella and according to my recent experiments, the water is definitely coming out of the mozzarella, which I'm grating, so it seems your advice is spot on there. I'm going to slice next time and report back. Aside of that, my cooking method is the same as yours except that I buy the dough and the tomato sauce.
Straining the sauce... I tried it on Friday -- holy rusted metal, Batman, that makes for some good pizza. (The cheese gets a little slippery, though.)
I dried the mozzarella as explained and got a lot of water out. It took two hours and it was definitely an improvement but still too much water in the pizza and it took a lot of kitchen paper towels. I'll have to improve the method.
Even better for fresh mozzarella: tear it apart with your hands, and leave it in a bowl to release the milk. You can do this before making the dough, and leave the bowl in the fridge in the meantime.
Basically you have to avoid ingredients with too much water. For instance, if you use mushrooms use them fresh, don't cook then and then add to the pizza. When handling products that use a liquid as preservative (salt water/ vinegar/ oil) drain them with a colander or something similar.
However, what's really important is to keep the tomato sauce and fior di latte dry. When it comes to the tomato sauce, mixing the fresh tomato with a tomato paste is helpful. If thickens the tomato sause so you still can use a good amount of those in your pizza, so you don't have to worry about losing any flavor. As a second option you might use less tomato sause, what comes with loss of flavor and moisture, very important for the pizza texture as well.
If you go for a common mozzarella, the yellow one, be aware they'll release lots of oil (usually those products have a high level of fat). Oil plus water in not a good combination on the top of your pizza. There's not much you can do here but use less or find a mozzarella with less/ no fat (again, at flavor loss, as fat is a flavor enhancer).
Fior di latte would be a better choice for a traditional pizza, it's lighter than the mozzarella and has a great flavor. I've seen fior di latte that comes inside buckets with water, what makes them very, very wet, not a good help for you. But there are some hard blocks or shredded fior di latte. Those are a great choice, 'coz they will not make your pizza soggy as they don't release too much water (or any whatsoever).
Cooking from home don't expect much though. As the cook is slow due to the low oven temperature (the ideal temperature starts between 350 and 400 degrees) it slowly dehydrates the toppings, so the water comes out. I work in a wood fire oven and the pizzas are cooked under 6 minutes. At home it takes me 10 to 15 minutes.
Hope it helps.
Cheers!
Rodd
they are cooking at about 460 F so not the cold oven
I buy the 5 lb. packages of mozzarella from Costco and repackage the cheese in one pizza portions in Ziploc bags and freeze. I noticed that when using the cheese fresh, the pizza was fine but when using the frozen cheese maybe 1 to 3 months later the pizza was very watery (It takes us a long time to use 5 lbs. of cheese). I now spread the frozen cheese out on a large cookie sheet lined with paper towels and let it completely thaw. The paper towels are quite wet after this and have had much drier pizzas.
I also preheat my oven with the stone to 475 to 500 deg. F for 30 mins. and use the "convect roast" setting on my oven. It runs the convection fan at high speed to ensure even cooking and most importantly to me it evaporates as much moisture as possible. I also put the pizza on parchment paper and transfer directly to the pre-heated stone in my oven. It makes a great crisp bottom on the pizza. Plus the paper is never too hot and allows you to pull the pizza into and out of the oven. I used to work at a pizza restaurant.
Tip: I bought a few different sized ceramic floor tiles (thicker than the wall tiles) from Home Depot and pieced them together to make my own pizza stone as many are too small for my liking and this is much cheaper.
is it water or fat/lipids? It can indeed be the cheese, but many tomatoes also contain high amounts of water.
Use harder cheese, and source your tomatoes from elsewhere. Nice, firm, fleshy tomatoes rather than the bloated balls of water typically sold under the name in supermarkets.
The approach I take is to use a cast iron pan at medium-high heat and sprinkle with corn meal and flour. Put dough into pan and in about 2-3 mins (starts to bubble slightly) brush with olive oil.
Then I apply sauce - I thicken a good marinara earlier over low heat. I then use fresh mozzarella that I've sliced and pressed between paper towel sheets to extract water. I've also done a cheese cloth technique. I then add one meat and veg of choice - not too much.
All of this takes another 2-3 mins. I then place the pan in a 550 degree F oven for 10 mins. Occasionally I will add the mozzarella 5 mins into cooking. I then slide the pizza out of the pan, may add some fresh basil, and onto a metal grate to cool prior to slicing.
Low moisture mozzarella and sauce keep things in check and the crust is amazing. I dropped using a stone and even a heavy metal slab for pizza with this approach when the oven can't go above 550 F.
I've come up with a better means of "pre-cooking" the dough, as I've found that the sauce can prevent the dough from getting crisp. Use cheese to prevent the dough from rising in the middle, it allows the crust to rise alone. Just a light amount of mozzarella, mind you, not all of it. Then, after the edges rise and the bottom is slightly cooked, put the sauce on, then the remaining cheese.
I've had tremendous results doing it this way.
That doesn't help if the cheese is a source of the moisture?
@talon8 - the moisture released from the first batch of cheese would have more time and exposure to heat to evaporate, without overcooking. The rest of the cheese would release more, yes, but even removing part of the moisture could help. On the other hand, the liquid from this cheese probably means that, like the sauce would, the moisture keeps the dough from getting crisp.
I would slice my ingredients thinly eg tomtoes mushrooms and also mozzarella, half bake the dough first as its less likely to soak up the moisture when a little harder. I found the more you put on the pizza the higher the risk of a soggy bottom!!
So, I’ve tried it all while baking pizza at home. Watery mozzarella used to be a problem, but not anymore!
I’d say my absolute best way to avoid the pizza being too watery is to pre-bake the mozzarella. Slice it, put it in a baking pan, and cook it in the oven until all the water is released. Then, take it out and place the slices on a towel before adding them to the pizza from the start as intended. I bake my pizzas at around 275°C in an ordinary oven, and the pizzas are not watery. If you still have a problem with water after pre-baking your mozzarella, well, at least it’s not the cheese…
I make only simple toppings that go after the pizza is out of the oven and cook with residual heat, like thin salami or prosciutto crude. But I did face the problem of watery mozzarella and my solution is to microwave it for something like 20s at 600w, take it out, make it in pieces without burning my fingers, strain it and put it back in and repeat a few times until it loses about 50% of its weight (figure may vary, this works for the brand i use).
I add it half the way during baking.
Concerning the tomato sauce I use the Polpa that is less watery than passata but mainly because I like its texture and I'm not sure how much it helps against the watery problem.
I make my own tomato paste and I use that directly on the fresh pizza dough. It counteracts any type of moisture and it's tart, sweet flavor adds more dimension to whatever pizza I make. Im sure a store bought paste will work just as well. If using store bought, add a little red chile flake and garlic powder;skip the salt if your cheese and or ingredients are salty. Keeping the the sweetness of the paste is key.
This is a very strange problem so first I would check that your oven's fan isn't blocked and has good air flow.
You could try putting oats or rice in the oven as a desiccant. I have tried it with chips.
I microwave mushrooms as this brings the juice out, and you can drain it off.
Drain, or if necessary sieve, all your wet ingredients like tinned tomatoes.
Cut out the insides of any whole tomatoes.
Add the cheese just before the pizza is finished cooking, cheese doesn't take long and prevent the lower level breathing.
Unsure of the chemistry but microwaving cheddar and butter causes the fat (I think) to come out of cheese and it leaves you with a spongey dry cheese that may be better suited for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.038284
| 2011-04-22T11:37:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14256",
"authors": [
"Clodagh Collins",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Gregory Ballantyne",
"Joe",
"Kurt Tedhams",
"Lily",
"Megha",
"Michael Loretitsch",
"Pablo Fernandez",
"Ska",
"WendyG",
"hsnee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97177",
"nico",
"ouchjars",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
64588
|
Is cereal supposed to be cooked?
I saw many people eat cereal by pouring in milk. I don't have milk.
Is boiling or microwaving cereal in water a good idea? Or should I cool drinking water to melt the cereal without any heating?
Health and nutrition are off-topic here, so I'll remove that part of your question.
Comments are not a way to ask off-topic questions. See http://health.stackexchange.com/ if you'd like to ask a health/nutrition question.
Packaged cereal such as corn flakes, raisin bran, or the Toasty O's in your picture is "ready-to-eat" — you can eat it dry, right out of the box if you wish, although many people enjoy adding some kind of milk (cows milk, soy milk, almond milk, etc.).
I don't think it would taste very good just mushed up with water. If that's all I had, I'd eat the cereal dry and drink the water separately — you can easily try it yourself and see what appeals to you.
Other cereals like oatmeal and wheat farina usually taste better when cooked, though you could eat dry oatmeal if you wanted.
Not only it tastes better dry, but it also looks better. Nobody will want to eat chocolate cereals with brown water. Or honey cereals that have sweet water.
You could eat dry quick oats (I have, in a pinch, and it was pretty OK), but dry steel cut oats would be more of a challenge :)
There are a few main reasons people generally eat cereal with milk:
Without any liquid, cereal would be pretty dry and hard to eat a lot of - you'd end up really wanting something to drink.
Adding liquid also softens the cereal, not enough to make it totally soggy, but enough to lessen the crunch a little bit and make it more pleasant to chew.
Milk has flavor, and people like that combination.
Unless you're using skim milk, the fat in the milk changes the mouthfeel a bit, and people like that too.
People are used to it. In the US at least, most everyone has been eating cereal with milk since they were a kid.
None of that is anything to do with cooking! You use cold milk, and eat it right away before it gets soggy. Depending on the cereal, by the time you finish the bowl, it might already be more soggy than you like. It doesn't need cooking.
So, you certainly could eat cereal with cool/cold water if you wanted to. Most people would probably find it pretty bland, but it might be better than trying to eat a ton of it dry. Alternatively, just eat it dry as a snack; you'll probably eat less of it, and more slowly, but it'll still taste good, and you can drink some water when your mouth gets too dry.
You definitely don't want to use hot water or actually boil it with this kind of cereal, though. You'll end up with an awful mess of disintegrated cereal. Same goes for anything else in a rectangular box from the cereal aisle like the one you have.
If you want a hot, cooked cereal, you need something like oatmeal or cream of wheat that has enough texture and substance to survive that. Anything meant to be cooked will have instructions on the package for cooking it.
A final note: all of that was based on you not having milk, as you said in the question. But if you hadn't said that, by far my first recommendation would've been to just get some milk. Milk and cereal is great.
With cold breakfast cereals the milk isn't meant to "melt" the cereal. Ideally the cereal is consumed before it gets soggy, while the cereal is still crunchy. The milk is just added to provide flavour and nutrition, adding water would do neither. If you don't have any milk I'd recommend just eating these sorts of breakfast cereals plain with anything added. They can make for a nice snack this way, though I wouldn't want to have plain cereal regularly for breakfast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.039294
| 2015-12-20T01:50:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64588",
"authors": [
"Adele Thuynsma",
"Cascabel",
"Derek North",
"Erica",
"Frank Miller",
"Hanan",
"Ismael Miguel",
"Nicola Varghese",
"Nicole Cheyne",
"Pablo Perez",
"Sandra Nealings",
"Senada Pasic",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41781"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65507
|
Should i fridge my expiring meal bars by best used by date?
I got some unopened meal bars, which are best used by today. It's package doesn't say keep in fridge. Is it ok to put it in bedroom with heating? Or keep it in fridge?
The expiration date on dry goods is an indication of quality, rather than safety. Closet or fridge...in this case probably doesn't matter.
Everything that doesn't take damage from being at fridge temperature will last longer in the fridge, because both biological (spoilage or fermentation) and chemical (well described in the so called arrhenius equation) processes are slowed.
Now could a bar like that take damage (assuming you don't put it in a part of a fridge where it might freeze and suffer textural damage)? There are two likely things that could go wrong with a cereal bar of any kind: Sugars/syrups used could crystallize and degrade texture, and if they are packaged airtight, moisture could condense inside the packaging and soak the outer layers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.039718
| 2016-01-16T21:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65507",
"authors": [
"Amanda Stanfield",
"Arty P",
"Athanase Kamali",
"Bunny Rinehart",
"Debbie Vaughn",
"Joan Henderson",
"Karen Debord",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156617"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65506
|
Are my patially green and budded potatoes safe to eat?
I got some potatoes. Some are partially budded, some are partially green. Are they safe to eat?
Hi Tim, the "green" part is covered by a second question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1260. It's a duplicate of both.
One should still leave a TL;DR here: Sprouts, never mind, substantial green parts, TOSS.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.039854
| 2016-01-16T21:05:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65506",
"authors": [
"Bob Hazen",
"DONALD YOUNG",
"Jessica",
"Marian Wierenga",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68443
|
Are the white things on a bread normal?
I have a piece of olive bread which was good by April 16. I have seen some white things on them since I got them on April 17, and have kept it in refrigerator. Are they normal and safe to eat?
Will it make it safer to eat by boiling the bread?
Thanks.
without plastic package:
within plastic package:
Do you have a clearer picture, maybe without the plastic? I think I see spots of mold but it's kind of hard to tell. Or are you're saying it wasn't there when you bought it and now it is? That'd be mold.
Also boiling bread is just going to make... disintegrated mush. Safe or not, it won't really be bread anymore.
Updated with photos without plastic package. I saw the white things when I got them one day after its last good day.
From what I can tell from the picture, most of the white stuff is flour; it was likely like that when you bought it, but only you & your memory know for sure. The non-bread & non-white occasional spots in the picture appear to be the olives.
Overall, unless you spot obvious mold, which is more often green than white, I think you are OK to consume it. But it's nearly a week past its date, so I'd consume it soon.
I think I agree. The white stuff looks like flour here, though there are a few darker spots that are hard to tell about - could be grayish mold, could be shadows.
This sort of bread often has flour on it, and mould only a day after the best before date is unlikely unless it's been kept somewhere very warm and humid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.039932
| 2016-04-21T17:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68443",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71767
|
Can this tool be used to open cans?
Target has a tool called can opener.
Can it be used for opening vegetable cans, tuna cans, ..., which don't have pulls on their tops?
How can it be used?
I asked because I only used a can opener that looks different to the one above, and looks like this one.
@Paparazzi If you want to explain to the OP that they work the same way, that's an answer to the question, so post an answer. Comments are for asking for clarification and suggesting improvements.
Those two versions of a can opener operate on exactly the same principle. The difference is that the simpler one has a cutting "blade" that's basically just a part of the main body that's been bent at right angles and maybe sharpened a little bit, while the nicer one has an actual separate circular blade.1 Both will serve the purpose of opening cans, but the simpler one will probably need more physical effort expended.
1I think - it's actually hard to tell, given that the picture is from the least useful angle imaginable.
There are many ways to open a can. Marti is correct that those two operate on basically the same principle, and yes, of course the can opener opens a can, whether or not it looks like one you know.
You can use a screwdriver or (preferably, it's sharper) chisel. I have actually done this to "can-open" a barrel. Just hammer the chisel around the rim (inside, after initially piercing the top.)
There are the minimalist can openers from army rations, and the ones on folding knives.
Also the ones with a "confusing sharp part on a bottle opener/corkscrew" which operate on a similar principle.
There are the fancy new ones that cut through the seal sideways, leaving "no sharp edge and a lid that can be put back on the can" at least for cans of the right size seal (I've found ones they don't work on - which you can't tell for certain until the lid does not come off.)
There are videos out there of all of them in use (ah, what founts of knowledge the internet is reduced to bringing.)
Even a run-down, reasonably thick petty knife will do for opening a can in a pinch (don't use a good knife, don't attempt if not sure how to avoid injury!).
This looks like a copy of an old, old style of can opener once called a "miracle can opener" (google it). Similar in use to modern ones, might require more accuracy and physical strength to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.040087
| 2016-07-29T22:56:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71767",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10817
|
Questions about cookware set
I am looking for a new set of cookware.
Being a graduate student, I don't
earn much money, so I'd like to know
if there are some suggestions about
what are available on the market
with reasonable quality and price,
according to your experience. Mine
current set is Cullineary Edge 7PC s/s Cookware Set - Bakelite Handle
It cost me around $20~30. However
after three and four years, the
bakelite knobs and handles started
to become shaky, more or less, and I
have to tighten their screws every
now and then, until it became
impossible recently. But still I can
bear its quality, with its
relatively low price. I found some on
the internet, such as
Cook N Home 7 Piece Stainless Steel Cookware Set,
Fntinc 02207 7Pc Cookware Set - Bakelite Handle,
Mainstays 7-Piece Stainless Steel Cookware Set
Cuisine Select Alverton 7 Piece Stainless Steel Cookware Set.
It kind of confuses me, because they
all look similar to my current set
but with different levels of
customer reviews
As I searched on the internet, I
prefer those health-friendly, and
the only thing I know is to choose
stainless steel without non-stick
Teflon and aluminium. For example,
Cook N Home 7 Piece Stainless Steel
Cookware Set
Its features are:
Mirror polished stainless steel body
Aluminium capsuled bottom
Stay cool bakelite handle and knobs
Tempered glass lid
Dishwasher safe
I am concerned about the usage of
aluminium. According to
what it says, is aluminium just used
on the outside of the cookwares and
in no contact with food inside? What
is the purpose of "Aluminium
capsuled bottom"?
Thanks and regards!
I can't seem to find one, but it seems there should already be a question and answers out there about what to look for in pots/pans. If so, this question would be best answered there. If nobody knows of one, I might take a crack at writing one. Seems like a better use of time than trying to evaluate the ones here for you.
Just wanted to note that the pictures above look very, very similar to a cookware set IKEA has offered in the past for a ridiculously low price - like under $20. Yes, for the set. I haven't been to IKEA lately, so I don't know if they still carry it, but we own a couple of sets, and they work pretty well.
You don't need to buy your cookware in a complete set like this. I would start collecting a few pieces at a time, of reasonable quality, though you will pay a bit more per piece. You're really not saving money if you have to replace all your cheap cookware every few years.
You could probably handle 90% of what you want to cook with only a skillet and a 2 or 4 quart sauce pan. Buy whatever pieces fit your cooking style.
Steel, non-stick, and cast-iron all have advantages and disadvantages. This information is probably duplicated elsewhere on this site:
Steel - non-reactive and durable. More difficult to make delicate foods like fish and eggs, due to the food sticking.
non-stick - Well, it's non-stick. Food doesn't stick to it. However, even a high-quality non-stick pan will wear out over several years. Also, it's difficult to sear meats.
cast-iron - Properly cared for, can sear meat AND be non-stick, and will last a lifetime. However, it's heavy, and requires knowledge of how to properly care for it (see questions on this site)
Steel cookware can have a few upgrades:
A "disk" of aluminum or copper, welded to the bottom - greatly improves heat distribution from plain stainless steel. Thermal shock can make the disk fall off, though.
"Clad" steel, where a layer of aluminum is sandwiched between layers of stainless steel - even better heat distribution, more durable, but more expensive
If I could only buy 2 pieces, on a budget, I would buy a cast-iron skillet and a disk-bottomed sauce pot.
I lived for YEARS on a cheap stainless steel sauce pan and a cheap cast iron skillet. Huge +1 for me for your last sentence! Even now, I basically cook 90% of my stuff in either an All-Clad stainless steel pan (though you could go much cheaper, my wife prefers to use my $20 stainless steel pan), or a 12" Lodge cast iron skillet. And of course a stainless steel sauce pan or stock pot when necessary.
In sets like this, the aluminum is, indeed, kept away from the food. The body of the pot/pan is made from stainless steel, then a layer of aluminum is added to the bottom, then another layer of SS encapsulating the aluminum (or something like that--that's the functional result, even if it's not the process). The purpose is even heating--aluminum conducts heat more rapidly than SS, so the heat spreads around better.
I agree that buying a set is NOT a good move. Better to build your collection in a personalized fashion, according to your needs and cooking aspirations. If I could recommend just 3, they would be:
1- 12 inch, non-stick SKILLET. this one should be the very best one you can afford, as it will likely be your "workhorse" pan. Not only will it get a lot of wear, but also some of the work you will need it to do (like cooking meats) requires good heat conductivity. This is where all the various metals become important. A little internet research goes a long way before buying..but as it can get confusing, just keep in mind that heavy is usually good -- especially when it comes to the bottom of the pan. Consider shopping according to name brand for this one; then see if there are any outlets near you. Of course online digging around can always uncover some hidden gems.
2- 2-quart SAUCEPAN. (3 quart if you plan to cook for large groups) This one also should be high quality, especially if you ever make sauces (they can be persnickity).
3- 6-quart STOCK POT. (8 or even 12 quart for larger-scale work. NOTE: Bigger is usually the safer route to go with pans -- but you don't want to get so big you can't store it, lift it, or otherwise get up the motivation to ever wash it.) Of the three, this one can be least expensive because you usually will use it for tasks that don't require intense, technically accurate heat (take, for example, boiling water for pasta or corn on the cob). Just be sure it has a sturdy handle and doesn't feel lightweight. If pans are too breezy, you can be sure they will have hotspots.
Last but not least are two splurges -- perfect for the Christmas Wish List for that rich uncle:
Indoor Grill. They don't actually do much more than your skillet for cooking meats, but they make an amazing hot sandwich in a hurry. And, if you're like me...you'll be a sucker for those awesome grill marks. (oh, and sometimes it's nice to have some of the action happening away from the stove. somehow, when i'm attempting several cooking tasks at once, i get less confused when it's not all facing me at the stovetop). An ideal, reasonable (for that uncle) pick is the Krubs Indoor Grill and Panini Maker, $79.99 online.
Roasting Pan. Well, okay I guess that one's only fun if you plan to host Thanksgiving at your place before you graduate.
Good luck! Have fun! A good pot can be a friend for life.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.040317
| 2011-01-06T22:25:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10817",
"authors": [
"Dan",
"Frank",
"Marti",
"Niko Gunadi",
"Ruthanne",
"bikeboy389",
"docmartn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120230
|
Homemade yeast extract from vegetable stock for nutritional properties
I am a huge fan of drinking marmite, partly because of the vitamins it offers, as I am a vegan.
However, the price of it is quite high and up until recently I was able to buy a supermarket's own brand version, but they have disappeared from the shelf.
I use a lot of vegetables in my everyday cooking, steaming and stewing, so I am always generating potential vegetable stock.
I would like to find a way to add the Vitamin B12 to my vegetable stock before simmering it down into a paste which I know can be done by adding yeast, but I'm not sure of what would be the best process for doing this.
Would I activate the yeast first with some sugar,
or activate it in my stock?
At what point would I heat it up to kill the fermentation?
Any suggestions would be really appreciated.
Also, I know there are blogs about this, but most of them suggest a very slow process for creating marmite that can take up to tn days.
I simply want to create a yeast extract, add it to my vegetable stock and then simmer it down into a paste.
Kind of a quick and dirty method for the nutritional properties rather than taste.
Yeast extract is one of those things that you can do at home, but in practice is not worth the expense, time and effort.
After a re-read of this question I'm still not certain what you're asking. It seems like you're asking how to make your own yeast extract, but then you say you don't want to.
I always thought marmite was a by product of beer brewing.
"Marmite" suggests you're in the UK. Sainsbury's certainly have an own brand version in the small (but not "local") branch near work, because I have a jar of it bought last week. It's also lower in salt than Marmite.
@NeilMeyer that's how it starts, but quite a lot happens in between to get the product in the jar. I've done a bit of brewing and have considered what to do with the leftover yeast, so looked into it a while back
You could also leave the yeast in the beer and make witbier. A cloudy beer is also an option.
You can get a 250g jar of Marmite in UK supermarkets for around £2.50 ($3.40 US approx.). I wonder if the OP finds it expensive they may be an expat? We make a jar of Marmite last quite a while not least because it has 10.8g of salt per 100g.
If I am not mistaken, a 'quick and dirty' food source with nutrients including sufficient b complexes from vegetable/vegan sources appears to be the objective goal.
I can think of several 'yeasty' solutions; including kombucha, mushroom cultivation, Japanese koji-kin multi stage fermentation, soya and wheat fermentation, wild kimchee and even lambic meads... which all have proven dietary benefit and can provide excellent levels of b-complexes, some also have increased levels of other micronutrients.
Kombucha, for example can contain more vitamin C than many common orange juices, and have more vitamin B2 and nearly half as much B12 as typical 2% milk.
The 'without spending too many days' idea seems counterintuitive; as when making fermented products 'fast', with non-technical approaches and safety measures, may have lower compatibility with most human digestive systems. Some people eat stinkier cheese than other, I don't judge.
With home level technology, in most cases the only 'usually safe' techniques that I am aware of are slow or 'very involved' methods. Which, when done well can turn out to be the tastiest 'nutrients.'
Maybe this is not 'The Answer' but I hope this helps.
A frame challenge, but if you concerned about cost and getting B12 then I think the critical question is where the yeast is coming from. If you are just buying the yeast it will be much more expensive than buying marmite, so you have to grow it yourself. One way of doing that is brewing, and this generates lots of yeast as well as the alcoholic beverage of your choice. THe brewing process generally has a stage of removing the yeast from the final product. Of course you could make yeast extract from this removed yeast, but it is very easy to just leave it in, and get all the yeast vitamins you could require form you drink.
I don't see how this answers the question, which TBH isn't very clear in the first place.
I interpret the primary problem the OP is facing is getting enough B12 in their vegan diet without spending loads of money on marmite. This answer is providing a solution to that problem.
It is better to ask for clarifications in a comment. If a question is unclear it is better to wait until it is clear and then answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.040859
| 2022-04-04T09:48:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120230",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Michael Harvey",
"Neil Meyer",
"User65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108841
|
Solutions of making cookies less crumbly and dough not being able to be shaped into balls?
I made cookies from a YouTube recipe but it was too crumble even before baking.
The ingredients are:
900g plain flour
300g sugar
Half teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon baking powder
350 ml oil
Cinnamon
It's baked at 240 C for 15-20 mins.
See the video GHRIBIA COOKIES.
What are possible solutions like what kind of ingredient shall I add without affecting the taste?
Ghribia cookies are meant to be extremely tender and delicate. Making them with just oil is tricky. The dough will be slightly crumbly and difficult to work with. If they're too crumbly to shape at all, then you need slightly more oil until the dough is just workable. Recipes that use some butter or even an egg yolk are easier to handle and stick together easier. So for this particular recipe, add slightly more oil (it won't take much, so be careful). And in general, if you want an easier recipe look for one with butter (or vegetable shortening to avoid the butter taste) or egg.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.041212
| 2020-06-04T06:19:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108841",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100823
|
Is it possible to gain more body mass from a food than the mass of the food itself?
Is there a some sort of food with such energy in it, that eating e.g. 100 grams of it will produce an increment of body mass greater than 100 grams?
Your question body doesn't match the title. I've answered the body, which refers to mass gain vs food mass
If you eat 100 g of salt, you are also going to drink a lot of water...
@Chris, you're right. May I ask you to suggest me a better title?
How about "Is it possible to gain more body mass from a food than the dad if the food itself?"
@Chris, thanks, I just used it for changing the title.
In the short term, yes, if you allow unlimited water.
Carb loading before endurance exercise increases the body's glycogen stores. The glycogen itself is made from the carbohydrates you consume, but storing glycogen stores several times its own mass in water. Ideal foods for carb loading are almost pure starch, hence the massive plates of pasta eaten before marathons.
This is the first energy store the body calls on, so it can't really be kept up for long.
Short answer - no. Due to Conservation of Mass, your body cannot gain more grams of mass than it consumes.
Long answer - maybe. Eating certain foods could cause you to retain more water, more unprocessed waste in your colon, etc. However, if you account for all the mass from all sources, then it must always balance out.
Also in your second category, I guess a very energy-dense food might be more energy-dense than the way the body stores energy (e.g. pure sugar versus fat), so that if the body were to store the energy it gained from the food, the mass required to do so would be greater than the food's mass.
This isn't technically wrong, but it's very misleading (at least in the short term) unless you count all the water you drink as part of the food mass.
@ChrisH - That's exactly what I was getting at with my second point - if you are including water weight, then you need to count the grams of water that you consume. If you count every gram of everything in and out, they will balance out.
The important point is that you can't consume 1 lb of ice cream and gain 2 pounds.
@dbmag9 - No. Your body cannot take 1 gram of x and turn it into 2 grams of y, no matter what x and y are. It can take 1 gram of x and 1 gram of y, and turn it into 2 grams of z, though. But then you need to count both x and y as "in" grams, and z as your "out" grams.
@mbeckish I know – I was agreeing with you! I was just providing another case which would fit in your second category (and which, judging by the accepted answer, appears to be what the OP was thinking of when asking).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.041337
| 2019-08-19T15:14:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100823",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"MarianD",
"Tony",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77095",
"mbeckish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53654
|
What is the purity test for Olive oil?
At home, how should I know whether Olive oil, I purchased, is pure enough?
What is the purity test for Olive oil?
What do you mean by "pure"? Could you please explain... – Stephie
Pure here means that the Olive oil bottle purchased from market contains only the Olive oil extracted from the fresh Olives.
Pure means - not adulterated.
a quick google search says that you need to put some oil ni the fridge; it if solidify, then it is olive oil; if it does not solidify, then it's a mix.
What do you mean by "pure"? Could you please explain...
Pure enough for what? Pasta? Exorcism? Killing lice?
@Max there are plenty of oils that can be blended into olive oil so that the mixture solidifies in the fridge, and it's a poor test anyway... http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24689/my-olive-oil-didnt-solidify-in-the-fridge-is-it-fake , http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=9582
@Stephie edited post. Is that clear enough now?
Any real test for purity in olive oil is going to require a lab (or at least lab equipment and supplies). The cost of that testing is going to far exceed the price of your bottle of oil.
For home use, then:
Buy from someone reputable. Unfortunately, even reputable folks sometimes get conned by their suppliers. (If you have a local farmer you can buy from directly, that risk can be avoided).
Taste it. Unfortunately, you'll probably only be able to notice bad fakes (even experts are fooled). As a side benefit, though, you'll also get to notice poor-quality (but genuine) olive oil.
A few countries have introduced labeling for olive oil that has been tested by an approved laboratory; if yours is one of them, you could look for certified oils.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.041568
| 2015-01-15T17:28:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53654",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Ashleigh Showalter",
"Deanna Lewakowski",
"Didgeridrew",
"Lmensch",
"Manny Rangel",
"Max",
"Stephie",
"byron boyles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42425
|
What do I need to know about coffee machines and grinders to get started making good coffee at home?
How to make a strong mug of instant Coffee?
"Crema" is a light-colored foam layer which builds on top of espresso, and many people like it. Espresso is also stronger than normal coffee. For both, you need an espresso machine and real coffee beans. Different coffee brewing methods produce different types of coffee. Espresso is the hardest to make at home. Instant coffee is easy, but has bad reputation taste-wise, so don't expect to get coffee shop quality with it.
Questions:
At home, does grinding coffee in a coffee grinder and then making coffee in a typical machine produce the same results as you would get in a typical coffee shop with a proper Barista (assuming the beans are freshly ground)?
Are their coffee machines and grinders available which would be suitable for single servings? If not, then what do you do when you need to make coffee only for yourself?
If I could only pick one (between a grinder and a decent coffee maker, which is more important in achieving the best possible coffee at home?
Define "coffee maker" - even manual drip-brew methods generally involve some purchased equipment. But you could get a cheap French press, V60 or Bee House for under $20, and a Moka pot (if you want espresso) for under $25. So the idea of having to choose between a grinder and a coffee maker seems a bit ridiculous; what it really comes down to is how good a grinder you can afford, not to mention the coffee itself. You can make Turkish coffee without any equipment, but you should only do that if you like Turkish coffee, it's pretty pointless as a money-saving gimmick.
You need to know what coffee you want to drink. Your question is like asking "What do need to know before buying meat cooking tools". If you want to eat your meat as BBQ, you need a grill and tongs. If you want to eat it as meatloaf, you need a meat grinder and an oven. Similarly, with coffee, you need to know what coffee you want to drink. Different types of coffee are made with different processes, and each process needs different tools. You need a dripper and filters for drip coffee, an espresso machine for espresso, and so on.
Your decision will be probably based on
taste and caffeine content. Coffee produced with different processes tastes differently. It also delivers different amounts of caffeine per ml of drink (although this can be tweaked within the same process). Espresso, drip coffee, Turkish coffee, mokka pot coffee, French press coffee, Aeropress coffee, instant coffee, Nespresso coffee and cold brewed coffee all produce a basic coffee drink (and this is not an exhaustive selection). If you are into mixed coffee drinks like mocha, latte machiato, cappucino, etc., you will need a combination of a tool which can produce the right coffee for your mixed drink and a tool which can create the drink (e.g. a way to foam milk).
The money you want to invest. Many people love a good espresso, but a professional Italian machine costs several thousands of Euro, guzzles energy and takes up space. Home espresso automates offer a somewhat inferior result for a few hundreds of Euros. Or you can make Turkish coffee with a 2-Euro sieve and whatever small pot you already have in the kitchen. Most people go neither for the expensive espresso machines, nor for the Turkish method (which leaves dregs in the cup - most people in the West want their coffee clear) and choose some method which is affordable but still produces coffee of a type they find agreeable.
The time you want to invest per cup. Nespresso has a devoted following of people for whom coffee making has to be convenient above all. There are methods which produce much better coffee for a fraction of the cost, but you have to 1) invest time in learning how to brew well, and 2) take the time to brew. It is mostly in the range of several minutes per cup, plus overhead for assembling and cleaning utensils.
If you are confused by the wide range of coffee methods and think "I don't know how each of these coffee types tastes like, how do I know which one to choose?" I would recommend to start by the second criterion (money) or third criterion (effort), depending on which one you are more pressed for. As an example, if you are a middle class person to whom it doesn't matter if they will spend 100 or 200 Euros on a tool which will be used as a part of their daily routine, go by effort. Look up what it takes to make coffee with the different methods, and think which you can imagine yourself doing. Then try coffee made with this method (if you need special tools for it, maybe you have a friend who has the tools?). If it is good enough for you, get the tools and start brewing. If not, move on to the next method on the list. Money-first would work similarly, but you rank the tools by price rather than effort per cup.
The first criterion - taste - is probably the one which is most likely to result in personal satisfaction, but you would have to know what you want before settling on a method, and it would be very difficult to find a way to taste all the different types of coffee and to develop a taste for each. Note that, if you are just starting out with coffee, your taste is also likely to develop and shift over time. So, I wouldn't recommend taste-first for people going for their first set of tools.
Assuming you you are on a budget, the theoretically best coffee you can get from a good coffee shop will be better than what you can make at home. That said, many if not most, coffee shops do not produce really great coffee. This is for a number of reasons, inconsistent grinds, over roasted beans, inconsistent temperatures, lack of training, etc... That all said, without too much difficulty, you can make a really, really good reproducible cup of coffee at home on a budget. Yes grind the coffee fresh makes a positive difference. Buying good, freshly roasted beans makes possibly a bigger difference though.
There are many ways to make coffee at home on a budget that are suitable for a single serving. You can do more research about actual techniques, but all of the following can be had for under $50 US/CAD
Aeropress (single serving press style coffee maker, that produces, really, really coffee and my top choice for my daily cup.
French Press (1 to many serving press style coffee maker that produces good coffee. It's a really common choice.)
Pourover (Manual singleserving coffee maker, possibly the simplest choice of all, but the quality can vary based on how much effort you're willing to put into learning how to do it. How quickly it pours through, the temperature, all affect the coffee. More details in your other question).
Moka Pot (Stove top coffee maker that produces a good expresso like coffee. Pretty straight forward)
The first thing I would find is a source of good beans. Something roasted within the last few weeks, somebody preferably locally, and somebody who could answer every other question I had about making coffee. Not sure if this is available where you live. The second thing I would start with is a coffee maker. I would buy a good grinder shortly after though. You can get a good manual grinder for around $40 US/CAD though. Decent electric grinders (burr grinder) start at a little more. I like this one. Baratza Encore, roughly $150 CAD
I would say you can make coffee that exceeds the quality found in many chain coffee shops and restaurants at home. some coffee machines seem very expensive, but a simple stove top pot is a good starting point and provides great fresh coffee (with a crema according to the type of coffee used) and are really quite cheap. with stove top pots, you control temperature and therefore pressure with the heat on the stove. the ideal rate is about a 30 second delivery per cupful. if you don't get an expensive coffee machine with a grinder, then grinders are available in smaller sizes so you can grind the amount required each time. picking your beans, getting them roasted (or doing it yourself) and then grinding (or getting the shop to do it) are things I would suggest to try, once you are sure you are 'that into' coffee! there are many types of ground and sealed readily available coffees that really are quite good in quality.
In short, I would go for a coffee maker first, ensuring it works by making the coffee at a pressure (i.e. not a cafetiere or a paper filter machine).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.041855
| 2014-03-01T05:45:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42425",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Betty Weiss",
"Carmen Salgado",
"Danni and Toni spam",
"Jimmy Chang",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99110",
"user25366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44284
|
What is the best way to store the whole wheat flour for daily usage?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/33892/6168
For longer storage, keep white flours in the refrigerator in an airtight container. All-purpose and bread flour will keep up to two years at 40 F in your refrigerator, according to the Wheat Foods Council. They can be stored indefinitely in the freezer.
What is the best way to store the whole wheat flour for daily usage?
Should it be stored in the fridge and taken out daily for usage and then kept back?
What is the maximum amount of flour are you storing?
@Didgeridrew 5 KG
Hermetically sealed (airtight) containers. If it's not airtight you will eventually end up with flour bugs and they will move into to your non-airtight cornmeal container, and anything else they care to infest that isn't locked up tight. The old metal tins or quaint crockery are not adequate to prevent infestation, and sooner or later you'll buy some bag of something that already has the bugs in it; they'll spread.
I use plastic tupperware type stuff. It's cheap and effective. Beauty comes at a substantial extra cost.
You cannot get flour bugs if you do not already have them in something else?
@TFD They can always fly in the window, but they often come in with bulk products, like flour. If you seal your stuff, they can't get into it, and any that come with the package can't get out to infest other things.
I use Polypropylene food service style containers like those made by cambro, thunder group, storplus, and others. A 12 Qt size would accomodate about 5.5 kilos of whole wheat flour.(http://img5.foodservicewarehouse.com/Prd/1900SQ/Cambro_12SFSPP190.jpg)
Ah man. One more pest to worry about. Weevils in my flour? grumble
At home I use bail closure jars (for flour, and all dry beans, lentils, pasta,...).
They open and close easily, are airtight,
and (most importantly) look sexy in the pantry or on the counter top ;-)
For short term storage, I use either the bag the flour comes in, or I transfer it to an airtight container, which I keep in a cupboard, not the fridge.
Don't store daily use flour in the fridge, especially if you're making breads or pastries. Although it's best if all ingredients are at room temperature when you start in on a baking recipe, many of us will use eggs, milk, etc. right from the fridge. However, if you add flour to that list, you're going to wind up with a batter or dough that is so far off temperature that it won't mesh with the recipe's baking time and oven temp.
We use these OXO Rectangular 2-Quart Storage Containers:
http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Rectangle-2-Quart-Storage-Container/dp/B000VJ08SY
They are lighter and easier to open and close than the glass jars.
Just so you know, link-only answers are often deleted. It's fine to include links in answers, but add some descriptive text if you do, so that the answer still stands if the link gets broken.
I store my large amounts of flour in an old gallon tin. I never have problems with bugs, I believe it is because I always throw in a couple bay leaves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.042450
| 2014-05-21T11:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44284",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Carsten",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Connie",
"Couvreur Toulon 83 spam",
"Didgeridrew",
"Flala7",
"Harry Will",
"Michael46",
"Polina Privis",
"Preston",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"freedayum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110610
|
What causes air pockets in crepes?
I am cooking crêpes using the basic recipe: 1 egg, 250 ml (8.5 oz) full-fat milk, 250 ml (8.5oz) water, 200 g (1.4 cup) regular wheat flour, a pinch of salt. I let it sit for an hour+ in the fridge before I start baking.
The taste is fine, but the texture is not consistent. Sometimes I get “lace” crêpes with small holes (1 mm), which is what I want. Sometimes I get crêpes with large air pockets, maybe 2-3 cm / 1" in diameter, 1 cm / 0.5" thick.
What am I doing wrong?
How consistent are your egg sizes? BTW, I always leave batter at room temp for up to 4 hours, but that's based more on tradition then modern recommendations.
@Tetsujin - big eggs, always the same calibre. I will try to keep it at room temperature next time, I guess I was a bit over-cautious.
looks like you use too much fat.
That seems like very little egg, I learnt the ratio as 1:1:0.5, egg : liquid : flour.
To me it looks like the crepe batter is sticking unevenly to the cooking surface. As the crepe cooks, steam is released from the bottom. In some areas the crepe sticks to the pan and prevents the steam from escaping; it gathers into bubbles. (As the crepe continues to cook, the surface dehydrates and proteins contract, releasing the crepe, so this doesn't necessarily lead to sticking when you attempt to flip the crepe.)
It's hard to tell from your photos, but I guess you're cooking on a cast iron skillet? Before you start cooking crepes, oil it and bring it to smoking temperature, then wipe with a dry paper towel and allow to cool to cooking temperature. Re-oil immediately before you start cooking the crepe. If there's any significant rough carbon deposits, try reseasoning.
Finally, if you like lacy crepes, try whisking the batter just before pouring it. The small bubbles are what cause the laciness, and they'll also act to release the pressure that would otherwise develop into large bubbles.
There are two separate issues here: the big pockets (which you don't want) and the small bubbles (which you want).
The big pockets are indicative of batter on the wet side. Your recipe supports that - you have quite a bit of liquid, and half of it is water. I would suggest to reduce the total amount, and make it all full-fat milk. I wouldn't add fat. My experience contradicts other_dave's answer: this is not gluten-related, since I get these pockets in gluten-free crepes too.
The small bubbles which create a lacey appearance are temperature related. You have to get the pan really, really hot, almost to the point where you are afraid you will start burning the crepes. This creates the "lace".
Other "random" thoughts: Letting the batter sit before using it is a best practice, but I don't think it is related to the bubbles, it is more about the texture. And also, you have a strangely small amount of egg - my preferred recipe uses 8 eggs for 200 g of flour, not one. Again, I don't know if that is bubble-related, but if you are looking for things to tweak, this one would be a natural next choice.
To me, looks like you got some gluten where you didn't want it.
Hard to tell but the recipes I always used called for low fat milk and oil then you blended them or whisked the absolute tar out of it.
Letting it settle is good so you don't have something that is too fluffy (from whisking obviously) but this is a double edged sword. If you don't block gluten formation with enough fat (like oil in the aforementioned recipes which I am used to), gluten will form all on its own just sitting there, despite how aqueous the mixture is.
Hope that helps. Cheers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.042745
| 2020-09-09T17:49:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110610",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"Yulia V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110668
|
What determines the amount of oleo saccharum that you get when combining the lemon zest and the sugar?
Lately I started making the “State fair lemonade” from food wishes and learned about oleo saccharum. The first two times I made the oleo saccharum I peeled 6 lemons and used 250 grams of sugar (which was about 1 1/4 cups). I let them sit for about 12 hours or so (I think even more) and I got quite a bit of yellow liquid. These two times I didn't press the lemon zest, just left it under the sugar.
Now the other two times I did the same, 6 lemons and 250 grams of sugar but in these cases the result was only the sugar getting kinda wet and that was it. Ultimately, for making the lemonade it didn't make much of a difference as I ended up boiling some water and adding the mixture. But if I want to make this for other uses, I want to understand what causes you to get more or less oleo saccharum. Is it in the lemon type? Is it in waiting a couple of days before using the lemons? Does the shape of the container (meaning sugar covering the peels completely vs touching most of the colored side) have any effect of this?
I tried searching answers to this but everything that I was finding didn't mention issues like the one I had.
https://imbibemagazine.com/how-to-make-oleo-saccharum/
@gnicko " try this simple method .. that uses another basic kitchen appliance, the vacuum sealer." - seems I have a different definition of 'basic' from the article author :)
I tend to use oleo saccharum for cocktails, but the process is the same. Given there's only two ingredients at play, I find that the variables you're looking at can be quite limited. Here's what I find helps:
Lemons
Use unwaxed citrus, or scrub the wax from them under water.
The fresher the better. As they age, the oils are exposed to the air for longer, which causes the oils to dry out; though this process is different to water-based solutions.
Sugar
A finer sugar means maximizing contact area with the peel. For availability in my kitchen I tend to use caster sugar, but the finer you go, the more consistent a result you'll get.
Technique
A finer peel means more surface area contact with the sugar. This is a trade off between effort and results for me, I tend to just stick with what comes out of a vegetable peeler.
The longer you leave it, the closer you'll get to maximizing your yield from the lemons. If you're not seeing results at 12 hours, leave it for another 12 and see where that gets you (though I will note that it won't get much more passed this)
As the seasons change and access to fresher ingredients become more limited, you could consider trying to move the needle on some of the other ingredients; but I find that the ceiling is set by the quality and freshness of the lemons you're able to find.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.043052
| 2020-09-13T12:49:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110668",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117381
|
White texture on natto
I'm making a first time natto in natto/black garlic pot. So I go by the recipe.
First soak beans for 24 h then steam to be softer. Put natto starter
inside a small amount of water and mix it with soya. Put soya beans in
machine, add mixed starter and ferment for 24 h in 39 oC.
I tried to keep everything sterilized.
Proportions were:
500 g soya beans
3 g starter mixed with 2 0ml water
So then I just checked soya inside device after 20h and there is kind of white texture on it. Not sure if it's natural, or it's mold. Is it normal to happen, or I did something wrong?
I’ve not made natto but it just looks like it’s fermenting to me, which is what you’re trying to accomplish.
In terms of food safety, white mould is usually not an issue. There's a quote in "Wild Fermentation" about it (excellent book BTW). But I'm not near my library at the moment. Given the beans were sanitised by cooking, and you added a culture, and tried to keep everything clean, and it's only 20 hours later, I'd say that's the Natto culture at work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.043305
| 2021-10-02T10:42:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117381",
"authors": [
"Kingsley",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43927
|
Why are the storage instructions extremely opposite in cases of tea and coffee?
For coffee it is recommended to store it in the freezer.
,and
for tea the freezer or the fridge is an absolute no.
Considering that both are derived from plants, why is freezer recommended for coffee but not for tea?
You've claimed that coffee is "recommended to store it in the freezer" but backed it up with a link that says "it is possible to freeze coffee without completely destroying it" (emphasis mine). That doesn't sound like "recommended" at all to me.
@starsplusplus yes, but if you search google with "storing coffee in freezer", you'll see nearly every link talking about storing coffee in freezer.
The recommended instructions are to keep it at room temperature. It can be frozen, for long-term storage, but that's not the recommended way to keep it. See quote in my answer.
"Both are derived from plants" is leading you astray. Tea is made from leaves, so does not freeze particularly well, like many other aromatic leaves (coriander, basil, other leafy herbs) that aren't recommended for freezing.
Coffee, on the other hand, is made from beans, which are much less subject to damage from freezing. There's really not any reason why there should be any similarity between the two.
Finally, neither are recommended to keep in the fridge (mostly because of humidity) and coffee isn't particularly recommended to keep in the freezer; it would be more accurate to say that it can be done with less detriment than tea.
From the Starbucks website:
To keep coffee fresh, store it in an opaque, airtight container at room temperature. Storing coffee in the refrigerator or freezer for daily use can damage the coffee as warm, moist air condenses to the beans whenever the container is opened.
Here are some more reasons why it is not recommended to keep it in the freezer.
Coffee is porous. It is exactly this feature that allows us to use oils and syrups to flavour coffee beans for those who enjoy gourmet flavoured coffees. For this same reason, coffee can also absorb flavours and moisture from your freezer. The absorbed moisture will deteriorate the natural goodness of your coffee and your expensive gourmet coffee beans will taste like your freezer.
The coffee roasting process causes the beans to release their oils and essences in order to give the coffee its distinct flavour. This is the reason why your beans are shiny. These oils are more prominent on dark-roasted coffee and espresso beans and the reason why these coffees are so distinct in flavour. The process of freezing will break down these oils and destroy the natural coffee flavour. So unless you don't mind frozen-fish-flavoured coffee, you should avoid using the freezer to store your gourmet coffee beans at all costs.
It's not recommended, but it can be done to less detriment than tea would suffer. The reason it is worse with tea is covered in my first two paragraphs.
for daily use I didn't mention (my fault) but I was talking of long term storage here, not for daily use.
@TheIndependentAquarius Added another source that is talking about longer-term storage.
Interesting explanation, but I also have read numerous times that, if you have to store coffee for long time at all, it is best stored in the freezer, and to never have read it for coffee. It is clear that it is best to drink coffee fresh, but assuming that I need to store it (especially if already ground), are you implying that freezing is worse than storing at air temperature? If yes, why do these sources advise it, is it a myth?
Freezing a large amount of coffee is not at all recommended, as the introduction of moist air will make the coffee go bad quickly. However, dividing it into small quantities in the freezer in sealed containers, letting them warm up before opening, does not cause any appreciable amount of deterioration in my experience. (This applies to whole beans - I am not sure that freezing would help with ground coffee.) So they're both right - storing coffee in the freezer is usually bad, but it doesn't have to be if you do it correctly.
Typically, tea is made by fermenting and drying tea leaves , whereas coffee is made by roasting coffee beans, which are actually seeds
Both tea and whole bean coffee can be safely stored in the cabinet much like spices. However, once the coffee is ground, it starts to lose moisture, and therefore taste.
Alton Brown has a lot of great advice on this in "True Brew" http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/true-brew-recipe.html
The Food network advises:
"Store whole roasted beans in an airtight container in a cool, dry place for up to two weeks. For longer storage, freeze whole beans, freezer-wrapped, up to three months. Since room-temperature ground coffee begins to go stale within a couple of days after it's ground, it should be refrigerated in an airtight container and can be stored up to two weeks."
(http://www.foodterms.com/encyclopedia/coffee/index.html)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.043677
| 2014-05-06T05:03:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43927",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Heather",
"Polygorial",
"Spammer",
"Viorica Chiscari",
"arunsingh tomar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"jeff",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus",
"user103101",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29606
|
Will I never be able to cook anything needing tomatoes in a seasoned cast iron Kadhai?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/5863/6168
If you put any acid in cast-iron, you are harming your seasoning, and leeching iron into your food. This will affect the taste of your sauces, I find pan sauces taste metallic when made in cast iron.
Indian dishes often require tomatoes in most of the dishes. I am not intending to cook any tomato sauces in the Kadhai. Will I never be able to cook any Indian dishes requiring tomatoes in a well seasoned iron Kadhai (assuming I'll re-season again)?
duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11547/would-a-cast-iron-pot-work-well-for-chili-if-so-why the answer there applies to this question as well.
The PH scale ranges from 0 - 14 with the lower numbers being more acidic than the higher number. Canned tomatoes are generally around 3.5-4.5 on the acidic scale, in other words just above the half way point below neutral 7.
As long as your tomato based sauce is not left in your seasoned Kadai (as Kristina rightly points out) for a long timeframe and your kadhai is washed out immediately after use no damage to the seasoned coating should occur.
Just remember to wash out your Kadai (with warm water and a cloth) immediately after use to preserve the seasoned coating.
pH is a logarithmic scale, so pH 3.5 is not "twice" as acidic as pH 7. It's about 5,000 times more acidic.
@baka Useful to point out, but I don't know why you think I said ph 3.5 was twice as acidic as 7, because I haven't.
@baka Nitpicking maybe, but I get the figure to ~3000 times more acidic. Or, since a pH of 7 is neither acidic nor alkaline, the concentration of hydrogen ions is ~3000 times greater.
@spiceyokooko: " in other words just above the half way point below neutral 7"
@ChrisSteinbach: Sorry, I was rounding, and not actually doing the math.
@baka Yes, but that's not saying how much more acidic a ph of 3.5-4.5 is over a ph of 7. It's saying where it lies on the ph scale for the benefit of those who may not know or understand the ph scale, specifically which side is acidic and which side is alkaline.
what about the PH level of fresh tomatoes?
@AnishaKaul Fresh tomatoes generally have a slightly higher ph than canned, depending on ripeness, variety, growing conditions etc. They generally fall in the 4-5 ph range.
I've made tomato-based dishes in my seasoned cast iron pans including spaghetti sauce and chili with no perceivable off-taste or damage to the pans' seasoning as long as I removed the food soon after cooking since prolonged exposure, from my experience, will affect the seasoning of the pan, if not also the flavor of the food.
According to this site,
For pH values below 4.0, ferrous oxide (FeO) is soluble. Thus, the
oxide dissolves as it is formed rather than depositing on the metal
surface to form a film.
Once ferrous oxid (i.e. iron oxid) becomes soluble, your body is able to metabolise it. Your body is able to regulate iron levels to some extent, so while it doesn't seem likely that this, on its own, would lead to iron poisoning, anyone taking iron supplements might want to avoid cooking canned tomatoes in cast-iron. Fresh tomatoes have a pH between 4.3 and 4.9 according to this online source and should be alright.
Note also, from the site in my first link, iron corrosion increases drastically below a pH of around 3.8. If spiceyokooko is correct, and the pH value range for canned tomato is between 3.5 and 4.5, I think you would do well to measure the pH value of your tomatoes before using cast-iron. There are various inexpensive pH test kits and instruments available. It's quite likely that your pharmacy stocks alkacid paper or similar.
I also recommend you read this excellent answer about cooking wine and vinegar in cast-iron.
I did say canned tomatoes were generally that ph, this is partly due to the canning process. Other tomato products will vary in ph but will likely be more alkaline than canned tomatoes.
@spiceyokooko Good point. I'll update.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.044073
| 2012-12-31T13:12:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29606",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cassie Winsor",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Jacques Gauthier",
"John Fredericks",
"Khalil Saadeh",
"Linda",
"Scott Lauler",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68916",
"livibetter",
"sid-kap",
"spiceyokooko",
"thymaro",
"user68897"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56520
|
Does the material of the container affect the flavor of the prepared tea? If yes, what material should be preferred to get the best results?
I use a steel bowl for boiling the combination of tea and milk. Then I pour the prepared tea in a melamine cup.
Does the material of the container affect the flavor of the prepared tea?
From: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/10338/6168
The pot should be white porcelain or glazed earthenware and have a partly serrated edge
Why porcelain or glazed earthenware? What will happen with the steel bowl and melamine cup?
The comments there point out a couple of things: "This standard is not meant to define the proper method for brewing tea, but rather how to document tea brewing procedure so sensory comparisons can be made." and "this ISO standard is for professional tasting, not a way to make better tasting tea" This is still a great question, of course, but just keep in mind that the recommendation you found isn't one for making the best tea but simply for making consistent tea.
It shouldn't have any effect, in the sense of any flavors leaching. If your container does change the taste, you should replace it.
But it would be very unusual to chance upon a taste-changing container. Most cookware is non reactive, and containers meant for preparing and serving tea even less so. For example, untreated aluminium is reactive, but I've never heard of it being used for tea pots or tea mugs. Steel is completely OK in that regard. Melamine also has no effect on taste, but see the footnote for safety considerations.
The most likely condition under which you find a taste change would be if you are using ceramic teapots or mugs which were not mass produced for daily use, but made by a pottery hobbyist or by some exotic traditional technique which does not reach the convenience standards of modern mass production. In that case, you can simply switch the container to a neutral one, if the taste bothers you, or if you are worried about the safety of glaze leaching into your drink.
Why porcelain or glazed earthenware
No special reason. What you cite is an ISO standard. It wasn't made for people making tea at home, they wanted to have perfect reproducibility, and the easiest way is to restrict as many variables as possible. So they took one of the traditional choices and prescribed it in their standard. There is no reason to follow that standard when you make tea for drinking.
The material affects the taste of the tea in other ways: it has an influence on the speed of cooling down. But it is impossible to make a general recommendation here, as 1) there are many other factors influencing the cooling speed, and 2) people have different preferences for the taste of tea. The only relevance here is that, if you have found a process which produces tea you like with one set of utensils, it might produce a different taste if you use a different teapot, and you'll have to experiment until you have calibrated the process to your preferences again. But the differences here are subtle, you have to be a pretty dedicated tea drinker to be bothered by them.
Footnote on melamine safety: Melamine is a resin which contains traces of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. The formaldehyde does not end up in the food at room temperature, but it starts leaching at higher temperatures, this is why it is not microwave safe. As the leaching process is gradual, and depends on pH besides temperature, there is no hard temperature prescription beyond which it is considered unsafe to use. But I couldn't find any source rating melamine for over 100 Celsius, and some of them give a lower temperature such as 60 or 70 Celsius. If you are concerned about the formaldehyde, you are probably better off choosing another mug. Porcelain is the standard choice, but steel and some plastics are also frequently used. For a short consumer info on melamine, see http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm199525.htm.
Steel deadens the flavor of tea, it's one reason why keeping tea in a thermos doesn't taste so great after more than just a few minutes. It'll keep it hot for hours, but it'll taste bleh.
@escoce claim without references is useless.
@TheIndependentAquarius well experience. I drink tea.
Although not directly an answer to the material question, I want to point out that the shape of your cup can have a pretty big influence on the taste as well.
Most commonly known is the fact that wine is served in special glasses that support the way you can taste the wine. In this case, the shape of the glas directs a lot of the smell directly into your nose, so it is more intense.[1]
Since the perceived flavor does not only depend on tasting with the tounge, but also on the olfactory sense of the nose (a lot!), the smell of a liquid can have a direct influence on the perceived flavor.{2} (last paragraph), {3} (already in introduction, see further sources linked in paper)
So, you might find that using a large cup (so your nose is "inside" the cup while drinking and you can smell the vapor) might produce a different perceived flavor than a small cup with a very small opening.
[1] pretty obvious when comparing the smell that you perceive when drinking wine from a big red wine glass (much smell) or directly from a bottle (almost no smell since your lips block the opening of the bottle)
Please add references to your claims.
This seems like an answer to a completely different question...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.044518
| 2015-04-09T14:10:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56520",
"authors": [
"5150 Torres",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Del Smith",
"Donna Kennedy",
"Escoce",
"Heather McGowen",
"Jeff Rivett",
"Katrina kaur Ahuja",
"Michal Jarmolovic",
"Paula Pile",
"Simon Ellis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"sakeenah hamdani"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87791
|
At what pressure is whipped cream stored in a can?
Whipped cream is often sold in pressurized cans. At what pressure is the cream stored in such a can when it is new? Thank you!
Why do you want to know - just curiosity, or something specific you're trying to accomplish?
My guess is 2-3 atm but that is just a guess. Kids (and adults) squirt directly in their mouth and don't blow out an ear so it cannot be very high. They are pretty accurate at just having a little bit of gas left after the whip cream is empty.
"... (50 bar of pressure) per charger."
according to http://creativewhip.com/isi-charging-system/
50 bar is the pressure in the charger - the tiny canister of gas that you use to pressurize the much larger vessel that actually makes the whipped cream. So you'll end up with way less pressure there. Also, not necessarily the same as commercial canned whipped cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.044959
| 2018-02-17T00:57:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87791",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118006
|
Should the “Convection Roast” setting be used for a prime rib roast?
Looking to cook a prime rib roast in my new convection oven. I understand that the “Convection Roast” setting alternates between the convection heating element and the broiler, and is designed for cooking meats. Is this the best setting for a Prime Rib Roast, however? Or should we use “Convection Bake?” My husband has a concern that Prime Rib is gentle and the direct heat from the broiler might be undesirable.
Everything on Google just talks about reducing the temperature by 25 °F, nothing talks about which setting to use... Should the “Convection Roast” or “Convection Bake” setting be used for a prime rib roast?
That is quite doable. In fact it is common in restaurants that have a Hobart Convection Oven to do it this way.
The Hobart user manuals describe the procedure well. Here is one example:
http://kitchen.manualsonline.com/manuals/mfg/hobart_corp/hgc5x.html?p=19
And here is a recipe from an Australian catering company:
https://wursthauskitchen.com.au/recipes-inspiration/2020/9/4/cape-grim-standing-ribeye-roast
EDIT:
If you are concerned about heat from the top broiler, one good method to counteract it is to cover the roast with a tent/hood (if the roast is covered in mustard, then first place a sheet of baking paper over the meat, then form a cover using alfoil. the baking paper is to prevent the foil from touching the mustard/meat). The hood can be removed part way through cooking to allow the broiler element to further brown the roast if required.
You may want to clarify the first sentence - what is doable? Using the “Convection Roast” setting? The “Convection Bake” one? And if the detailed instructions were to be found within the answer (properly attributed, of course!), future readers wouldn’t be disappointed in case the existing links go bad, aka link rot, which is only too common on the Internet. Happy to answer any questions you may have about what should be in an answer and how to reference third party sources.
‘Doable’ is a way of saying ‘possible’. (No idea on ‘convection roast’ vs ‘convection bake’, as I have little experience with convection ovens)
reading further: doable because "it is common in restaurants that have a Hobart Convection Oven to do it this way" :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.045072
| 2021-11-25T22:12:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118006",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mr Shane",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80762
|
Proper storage of Kiwi
I bought some kiwi fruit on Friday (2 days ago) and left them in the plastic bags from the store... the fruit and veggie plastic at the grocery store. I also had them tied so no air was actually able to get to them. I was going to put them in a bowl when I got home bc that's how I usually store them, but I forgot.
It says to store them in plastic with ventilation or in a paper bag or fridge. Will the kiwi I have still taste decent, or not? I didn't know the reasoning or if keeping it in a bag like I did with no oxygen is bad. They look alright, but I wasn't sure if there were other reasons they would be bad. Any help or suggestions?
You're right that a sealed plastic bag wasn't ideal. But if they still look and feel okay, no obvious spoilage, no dark and squishy spots, then you've gotten away with it and they're probably fine.
As with most fruit, storing without ventilation can definitely encourage kiwis to overripen and spoil faster, and they're a relatively sensitive fruit especially once ripe. So I wouldn't have been surprised if yours had fared badly, but on the other hand if they started out underripe and the room wasn't that hot, I'm not surprised if they're still okay.
Sounds like you already know what to do, though: the fruit bowl is good, at least until they're ripe, and once they're ripe the fridge can hold them longer before going bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.045272
| 2017-04-09T14:31:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80762",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92005
|
Eggless choux pastry recipe yields paper-thin top, gooey bottom
I'm trying to make eggless choux pastries for an egg-allergic friend (my eventual targets are croques-en-bouche and saint-honorés).
I have experience with choux pastry, but I've never made an eggless version.
I'm following this recipe at Gretchen's Vegan Bakery.
Here's my sorry result:
Well, that didn't work great. The gooey bottom eventually does dry up after a few hours, so it's not too bad, but that paper-thin top is miserable.
The problem doesn't seem to be specific to the particular recipe I picked: I get the same results, more or less, if I use my regular 2-1-1-2 choux pastry recipe, and use egg replacer.
I tried a many variations on both my usual recipe and the vegan recipe I linked to:
Strengthening the flour by using bread flour and even adding a bit of vital wheat gluten
Adding a bit of xanthan gum and guar gum
Making smaller dough balls
Wetting the tops with sugary milk before cooking
Omitting baking powder
Letting the dough rest before baking it
Using a different brand of egg-replacer (ENER-G)
Using a friend's oven (!)
All of my attempts ended up very similarly: a gooey bottom which eventually dries up (it gets fairly compact and doughy, but the taste is OK), and a paper-thin dome.
What causes this paper-thin dome to form, and how can I fix this recipe? I'd like to achieve something like the following picture (not taken by me), which is close to what I get with my usual (eggy) recipe:
Since choux pastry is somewhat related to Yorkshire pudding batter, I suggest you try the aquafaba (liquid from canned chickpeas) recommended here https://avirtualvegan.com/vegan-yorkshire-puddings/. Like you, the author reports making many attempts before finding something acceptable.
I can't tell you with any authority, but the paper thin top and uncooked interior would lead me to try cooking them at a lower temperature for a little longer, reducing the heat at some point in the cooking and using tinfoil to reduce browning, or maybe piercing the puff once its solidified enough to not collapse. The thin top seems like something you'd get due to the steam bubble preventing the rest of the dough from also rising inside, which could also be preventing it from cooking through. That eggless solution doesn't seem to be creating the pockets that allow normal choux to rise through.
Windbeutel in german, have either a splash of water thrown into bottom of oven before door promptly shut or each individual covered with a tin can.
It looks like more gluten could help with the structure. Adding some vital wheat gluten, or using a stronger flour might work.
The OP listed this as something they’d already tried.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.045429
| 2018-08-31T13:05:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92005",
"authors": [
"BobKayser",
"Mark Wildon",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90396"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13445
|
Cookie Biscuits: What happened?
My wife made some chocolate chip cookies tonight using the same recipe she has for years; it's the one on the back of the Tollhouse Chocolate Chips bag. The only modification she makes to the recipe is that she uses half the butter, which ends up being only a half cup instead of a whole. Usually the cookies turn out round, flat, and about 1 cm high, but tonight we discovered a surprise. These are around an inch high and weren't completely cooked through the center as seen below.
Both of us being engineers, we are curious as to why this happened. We used the following steps and ingredients when making them:
Ingredients
2.25 Cups of Pillsbury all purpose flour
1 tsp Arm & Hammer baking soda
1 tsp Morten salt
1 stick softened Fleichmanns original butter (normally uses Land-O-Lakes) (113g pure butter)
3/4 cup white sugar
3/4 cup brown sugar
1 tsp vanilla
2 large eggs
2 cups Tollhouse Semi-sweet chocolate chips
Preparation steps
Preheated the oven to 375°F (190°C)
Whisked together flour, baking soda, and salt in a small bowl
Beat butter, white sugar, brown sugar, and vanilla with mixer until creamy.
Added eggs 1 at a time, beating well after each addition.
Gradually beat in the flour mixture
Stirred in the chocolate chips
Dropped dough balls in place on a cookie sheet.
Cook for 9-11 minutes
The above steps are exactly what my wife did when we made these cookies. We noticed that the dough looked incredibly dense, sticky, and was very hard to mix after it was all combined. We used a mixer instead of hand mixing the dough like she has in the past, but I find it hard to believe that this would be the culprit (someone may very well prove the cooking n00b wrong though).
FWIW, please don't critique the recipe ;), as we really only want to know why they came out as biscuits when my wife has used this recipe exactly and successfully in the past. She has followed the same routine every time she has made them except for the use of a mixer and different brands of ingredients.
PEBCAF - Problem exists between counter and floor. :)
I figured that, I just wanted to know what we did wrong :D
This looks to me like the symptoms of too much flour - probably way too much.
Measuring baking ingredients by volume instead of weight is always a crapshoot, although it shouldn't be that far off - my guess is that either the flour was heavily compacted, or perhaps the baker's mind wandered off and she accidentally added an extra cup.
Overmixing (i.e. by using an electric mixer) is a common problem with cookies but the symptom of that is a hard and gritty cookie that doesn't rise - not one that rises too much and has unbaked flour in the center. As far as I know, that can only happen with a huge amount of flour. Obviously, too much flour would also result in a much denser dough.
What you ended up with seems to be more like a quickbread - almost a scone - and there is indeed not an awful lot of difference between the two aside from the ratios and the creaming of butter.
Excess flour probably wouldn't result in a stickier dough, but stickiness is more due to temperature than anything else. If you're finding the dough too sticky to mold then make sure it's thoroughly chilled - that will make it easier to work with.
Great information. I think this is exactly it.
Slightly too much baking soda (heaped rather than flat tsp) or the mixture was left in a warm kitchen for longer than usual and the self-raising action kicked in.
Personally thats how my cookies always come out - it's what I aim for
+1 for the warm kitchen bit--she did say she left the dough sitting on the counter during dinner so I bet that played a big part.
It's a possibility, but I wouldn't've expected them noticing a significant change in the density of the dough during the initial mixing if this were the only issue.
I think it's because of the fat content of the Fleischmann's. It is not actually butter, but margarine (at least the Fleishmann's site doesn't show they make butter) and has only 9 grams of fat per tablespoon, where butter has 12 grams of fat. That means you had a bit less fat and a bit more water. 1 stick of butter/margarine has 8 Tbsp, so 72 grams of fat for the Fleishmann's and 96 grams of fat for the butter. I believe that would make a significant difference in the cookies.
Good catch. I was thinking it was from reducing the fat by half, but discounted it as they said they had done it before. I didn't consider that part.
Probably a combination of all of the above
-- imperfect volume measurements resulting in too much flour & soda,
-- temperature of batter, too warm = sticky = that scone top look
-- electric mixer incorporated too much air in batter,
-- additional consideration: weather conditions at the time of cooking
--when our house was moister than normal and our cookies came our flufflyer that normal
...and to let you know yes over mixing the batter and not forming the cookies by hand can result in overly fluffy cookies, did that last year (makes the batter too airy and the cookies form like scones looking like above)!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.045656
| 2011-03-26T02:51:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13445",
"authors": [
"Jduv",
"Joe",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129662
|
Marmalade mess up
I messed up and added the sugar to my fruit for the marmalade I'm making, before soaking, and cooking the fruit. I'm wondering if I can continue or have I ruined it?
The recipe calls for:
14 oz of fruit
2 cups of water
2 cups of sugar
Process:
Bring the fruit & water to a boil
Cover & let soak for 24 hours.
The next day, simmer for 20 mins to an hour to reduce by half.
Add sugar and simmer again for 15 to 20 mins.
(implied or) Until thick.
What's your exact recipe? It really matters here because whether or not you drain after soaking will affect whether or not you have the correct amount of sugar, and soaking isn't a universal step. Also how you measure the sugar with respect to the fruit is crucial - if the recipe calls for weighing the cooked fruit and calculating the sugar based on that, you've used the wrong amount. But that might be fixable if you know exactly what you started with
Thank-you! No draining. The recipe calls for 14 oz of fruit with 2 cups of water & 2 cups of sugar. I wasn't paying attention & added it all together. Rookie mistake.
Then you're probably OK if you cook the fruit gently to start with. But to be sure I'd have to see the full recipe, line by line, not just the ingredients list
I was supposed to bring the fruit & water to a boil, cover & let soak for 24 hours. The next day, simmer for 20 mins to an hour to reduce by half. Add sugar and simmer again for 15 to 20 mins. until thick.
Cook slowly (beware of burning it, so low heat and stir often) to reduce by half and get thick, and it should give an end result pretty much the same as if done as written.
It's likely to take longer to reduce by half without burning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.046069
| 2024-11-27T14:03:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129662",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Corinne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87877
|
How do I find / buy "pastry bars"?
In Moderist cuisine, they repeatedly refer to "pastry bars" for a number of techniques. However, when I try to search / find these things on the internet, my search engine results are hundreds of thousands of snack bars and other Kellog's "boxed products".
I've tried "baking bars", "baking weights" and a number of other variations.
Is there another name for these things that will help me find them?
Here's an image showing "baking bars" on a silicone mat to create a gel:
That looks a lot like the table/tools they use to make hard candy
I bet they cost considerably more if you buy them from a confectionery tools provider, rather than your local metal works.
@Strawberry and presumably have fewer stray metal burrs / shavings in them too... ;)
"Pastry bars metal" seems to work. The results I got were for "caramel ruler bars" or "ganache ruler bars". Other terms are "confectionery rulers" which gave me a forum that recommended getting them cut for you at a metal shop from stainless steel at whatever lengths you want for less than buying purpose made ones.
That said, I'm not sure that's actually what you're looking for. These seem to be bars for rolling out dough or fondant to a specific thickness, not designed to be used for shaping things the way your photo implies.
The term that I found that more closely resembles what you're looking for is "confectionery frames".
You are spot on (and beat me by a minute). The keyword is “rulers” - caramel, ganache, confectionery, depending on the seller - and the thicker ones are indeed also used for pouring. Steel is better than aluminum, due to the weight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.046231
| 2018-02-19T20:53:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87877",
"authors": [
"Journeyman Geek",
"Michael",
"Stephie",
"Strawberry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52130"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121715
|
What baking sheet material(s) are best, and at least safe, in temperatures up to 550 (°F) degrees?
My oven goes up to 550 Fahrenheit degrees and it seems the sheets I've found so far are safe up to 500-450°F. Are there concerns with potential chemical releases that buyers should be familiar with if cooking at 450-550°F?
Is lining the bottom with any specific material enough to protect food from the dangers of using cookware above the suggested safe thresholds?
I'm assuming you mean Fahrenheit rather than Celsius? What sort of baking sheet - aluminium? steel? coated (what sort of coating?)? silicone?
I think that's what he's asking. What materials should he buy.
Most good plain aluminum baking sheet will survive high temperatures like that, that's what restaurant use, they can take a beating, will last forever.
for example : https://www.bonappetit.com/story/just-buy-it-sheet-pan
Don't get a non-stick baking sheet.
If you really need something that will go to very high temperature, but might not be very practical, you could use a steep pizza "stone".
No love for steel? Every oven I ever bought comes with at least one steel roasting / baking sheet
@Luciano steel transfers heat slower. If it is a difference worth caring for, seems to be matter of opinion. It is essential in cooling electronics, I somehow doubt it would make difference in baking. But there is a difference in thermal conductivity.
@Mołot I agree - it might make a difference in lower temps but I doubt OP would be baking cookies at 550F. I thought worth mentioning because it fits the question's needs and it's very common.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.046407
| 2022-09-19T19:20:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121715",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"Mołot",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
}
|
103185
|
How common is it for people to not have the concept of certain ‘breakfast food’?
I recently visited Ukraine with a friend. One night we stayed at a hotel that served meals. In the morning, we came down to breakfast and were surprised to be served a carbonara-type pasta dish–not what we would normally have considered breakfast food. We asked our guide, and he said that Ukrainians don't separate foods into different meals and just eat whatever, whenever.
How common is it for people to not have the concept of certain ‘breakfast food’?
This article goes through common breakfasts from different countries, but most seem to be uniquely breakfast-y (except for Korea).
This one claims that the US is in the minority in having unique breakfast foods and suggests that ‘poorer people everywhere, especially in places like India and China, eat the same kind of food for meal after meal’.
Ukraine doesn't get a mention on the Wikipedia article on ‘Breakfast’, so I can't even verify what the guide said about it–maybe it was just the hotel we were in's approach–to be fair, the hotel was in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone so I can imagine food options might be limited.
I'm not sure this is answerable. I'm in the UK. I eat toast, cereal or bacon for breakfast. I never eat cold meat or cheese… but I only have to go as far as Germany to be served that as a 'standard'. Last time I was in the US my hosts made a special effort to get some English Muffins… which I'd never heard of, or seen in my life before. [I do, incidentally eat last night's take-away, pizza or curry, usually microwaved ;)
It also depends on what you consider "specific breakfast foods". For example, in Nepal it's common to have roti and chana masala for breakfast, but you also might eat those at other times of day. So is that a specific "breakfast food" or not? And ...
... also consider that many things now considered "breakfast foods" in England and the US were not invented that way (waffles, for example), and remain not-breakfast foods in their place of origin.
Old time Yugoslavia, before the breakup, used to serve things such as lasagna for breakfast. Zagreb and Dubrovnik areas. There did not seem to be a lot of differentiation between daybreak and suppertime.
Hi, I'm afraid we don't do big-list questions. What you asked for is a list of countries - I can see how it's a curious thing to know, but it's really not suited to our format.
@rumtscho I originally asked this on Travel.SE, but they said it was too broad so I changed the question from 'how common is it to not' to 'which countries do not'. I'll change the question back now, if that's more appropriate.
Beyond an answer like "some people differentiate between breakfast and other meals, some don't," I'm not sure what a good answer would look like. Really, I think a lot of people even in the US draw some distinction, but not strictly: steak is dinner, but steak and eggs can be breakfast. I'm happy to eat pizza (often cold) for breakfast, but some other Americans think that's odd. Lots of Americans will eat a bowl of "breakfast" cereal for dinner. A lot of it boils down to convenience and habit.
In Japan the word for rice is gohan, breakfast is asa gohan, meaning "morning rice". Dinner is ban gohan. You get the idea - rice is the traditional part of every meal.
Traditional Japanese breakfast food would be rice, fish, miso soup, vegetables, pickles. Which is a lot like a traditional lunch. More recently western breakfasts foods have been taken up some, so the concept of separate breakfast food is more of a thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.046665
| 2019-10-30T18:42:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103185",
"authors": [
"08915bfe02",
"Caleb",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.