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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
64621
|
Vacuum sealing jars of Simple Syrup
So I'm looking to make some simple syrups (lavender, basil, etc...). In looking around I see that making 1:1 syrups via the "hot" process it should safely last two weeks and up to a month.
If I were to get a vacuum sealer, would that preserve it longer? This would be a resealable system, not a one time seal process. If the vacuum sealer would be effective what product specifically would do so?
Preliminary I was looking at this one: http://www.amazon.com/FoodSaver-T03-0023-01-Wide-Mouth-Jar-Sealer/dp/B00005TN7H
Perhaps there is something better or perhaps this is not meant for liquids.
Could you please add a link or description to the vacuum sealer you have in mind? Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
sure. See above.
If you can the syrup it should be fine for a very long time, particularly if you pressure can it (which you might need to to do simply to be sure, lacking a specific recipe.) That would be "until the jar is opened" and then the clock starts ticking. Without heat, I don't know that vacuum helps in any way, and it might even hurt.
okay, I was hoping there was a way to open and reseal it.
sealing a jar just to reseal it is not practical and would not help preserve the longevity of these syrups and shrubs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.046957
| 2015-12-21T03:08:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64621",
"authors": [
"Alan Leach",
"Ecnerwal",
"Heather Larabee",
"Jaime Guzman",
"Poppy4321",
"Stephie",
"derek Alexander",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41797",
"tjcinnamon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14045
|
Mutton shoulder versus mutton leg - any difference in length of cooking?
I cooked mutton shoulder like advised in the answer for this question. It was under the foil and was cooked in the oven for like 3 hours.
Now I have mutton leg instead of shoulder. The size is similar. Should the cooking time be different?
Leg is usually leaner than shoulder and so doesn't benefit from a long slow cook. A quicker, hotter roast is generally best, something on the order of 2-2.5 hours @ 220C for a good-size leg. Let it rest for a good half hour afterwards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.047097
| 2011-04-14T18:07:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14045",
"authors": [
"Craig",
"Joe",
"Nathan Bedford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29482",
"mikewaters"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15713
|
Ingredients: Icelandic local specials
The question is similar to this one. I'm going to Iceland and I'd like to bring home some ingredients which are specific for Icelandic cuisine but are hardly purchasable in Central Europe.
Anything simple like snack would work fine.
It should survive the flight as well.
Any recommendations?
Being a treeless island with a harsh climate, there are few natural ingredients that are specific to Iceland that are not available on mainland Europe. Some exceptions include puffin and whale meat, however, it is likely illegal to import those into your home country. Iceland does have some amazing quality lamb and dairy goods (e.g., skyr), however, it might also be difficult to take those home. With that said, there are a number of prepared foods that are unique to Iceland and are difficult to find elsewhere:
Hákarl: dried putrified shark;
Harðfiskur: dried fish;
Brennivín: liquor, similar to akvavit; and
Tópas and Opal: licorice/menthol liquors.
The makers of Opal also make a candy of the same name that tastes just like the liquor. It's great for getting the children hooked on the flavor from a young age ;-)
While you are in Reykjavík, make sure to get some hot dogs at Bæjarins Beztu Pylsur; they are perhaps the best I have had anywhere in the world. I am not sure if they sell their raw sausages, but if they do, that would definitely be something I would want to take home if I were there again.
I'm going to go out and book my ticket to Iceland to buy some of that putrefied shark! From the link: "Hákarl is an acquired taste... similar to very strong cheese slathered in ammonia."
From my limited experience with it, it smells terrible, but it is actually quite pleasant and mild when eaten (as long as one avoids inhaling the ammonia vapors).
Someone told me those hot dogs were made with horse meat - they eat the ponies in Iceland, it is traditional. WTH you get salami like that in Corsica, and donkey salami as well.
@James Barrie: horse meat is eaten in many parts of Italy and it's supertasty, you should definitely try it. Donkey salami is also found in Northern Italy, but also in Sardinia, Southern France and possibly somewhere in the South of Italy (not sure).
@James: I believe they are mostly lamb (maybe a mixture of lamb and beef), but horse meat tastes very similar to beef, so the sausages may actually include horse. As @nico mentioned, horse meat is supertasty and widely eaten throughout the world (I recently had it raw in Japan, for example).
I'm not averse to eating horse, and I had some in Turin once - I was just pointing out that the Icelanders do it. And the donkey salami is found as far out as Hungary! WTH if you got to Finland you can get reindeer sausages with beaver in the market on Helsinki harbour - very strong flavours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.047184
| 2011-06-23T11:17:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15713",
"authors": [
"Ashok N",
"ESultanik",
"James Barrie",
"Joe Smith",
"Nathan Reed",
"Sobachatina",
"Vera Maria Mcdowell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"ʇolɐǝz ǝɥʇ qoq"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68597
|
Raw fish pieces have stuck to each other in freezer. How to take out few pieces of fish without disturbing other pieces?
Raw fish pieces have stuck to each other in freezer. How to take out few pieces of fish without disturbing other pieces?
Thawing whole bunch may not make sense since I do not intend to eat them all today. What are my options?
My question is about "how" to do it. Should I hammer out the pieces without thawing them? If yes, then what would be the approach to do it?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/40690/6168
Quick and sloppy:
Pry the frozen fillets apart using a case knife or use a wedge of some sort to separate them physically without thawing.
Why is this method called sloppy? What is wrong with it?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39963/can-i-defrost-chicken-to-separate-then-refreeze. The same principles apply here.
@Jolenealaska I have edited the question. I want to know how to proceed with separating the piece.
BTW, The close vote isn't mine. My best answer to your issue is the answer to the question I linked, but others may have better advice.
Here's another question that might be of help: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40152/how-do-i-separate-two-fish-fillets-that-have-been-frozen-together?rq=1
The only best option is complete thaw to get them in good shape and in one piece, but that is not an option for you.
Next one up is the quick and sloppy method. But it will distroy the shape of the fish, hence the name.
My tip: Wrap the pieces of fish in a cling film/kitchen foil individually next time before freezing. That will most certainly allow you to take a few pieces out without thawing or using knife/wedge etc.
Do NOT pry frozen foods, in particular of odd shapes like fish or chicken apart with a knife. That is a recipe for deep laceration wounds. (I’ve treated many, including through nerves and tendons.)
Instead, put all the fish in a plastic bag, or two, full a deep container with cold water, and soak only the section which protrudes, and is about the size you can use. Cut the semi-thawed section off as soon as able, and return remainder to freezer asap.
There is always the percussion method. In a thick plastic bag, repeatedly bang the pieces of fish etc. on a hard worktop along the seam where the pieces join. The smaller pieces of ice holding the pieces together should fracture, allowing the bigger pieces to separate. I have used this method with square sausages, hamburgers etc.
As Hannah has stated, trying to pry frozen food apart is a recipe for a visit to hospital.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.047434
| 2016-04-27T08:32:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68597",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"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
}
|
65978
|
When making fried rice, how does the amount of heat affect the taste of the food?
This answer talks about the amount of heat required for cooking fried rice which tastes similar to restaurants.
I want to understand the science behind it. Please explain.
I've edited to make this specifically about fried rice, which is what that answer was talking about. Amount of heat certainly affects other things too, but it's a pretty broad question without at least having a specific example to start from. (I've also changed "fire" back to "heat" since that answer never mentioned fire - though it may be relevant as well, as Escoce points out.)
It's an issue of thermodynamics.
When you're cooking food, the food cools itself off through evaporative cooling and the energy being used to cause chemical changes in the food (eg, caramelizing sugars).
If you have too much food in the pan, the balance is overwhelmed by evaporative cooling, and thus you can only get to the boiling point of water.
To change the equation, you need to do one of the following:
Use a more powerful heat source.
Cook less food at a time
Reduce the amount of moisture in the food before cooking it.
You'll often see advice for #3 -- such as patting dry steak or chicken before grilling it, as without it, you won't get good browning.
You can't do that when you're dealing with sauces. You can try cooking less, but with sauces you cause more problems -- if the pan size is the same, the area for evaporation is the same, so you don't really improve the balance.
With a sufficiently sized burner, you can actually heat sauces above the boiling point, as you're putting in energy faster than evaporation can cool it. This which will change the chemical reactions that occur, thus the resulting chemical compounds and the resulting flavor of the food.
Basically there's a specific chinese style of cooking that requires extremely large amounts of heat to get a specific mix of textures and flavours. By keeping the amount of heat high and constant, food is cooked quickly, and with a certain sort of flavour - referred to somewhat poetically as "wok hei"
Its fairly specific to chinese cooking, and something more likely to be found eating out, unless you have the right kind of high heat stove with roaring flames coming out like a rocket motor.
It's not just the amount of heat. The heat component IS really important, but that funny taste that you only get from chinese takeout fried rice, really has to do with the fire.
The smoke from the fire, even completely combusted fire envelopes the wok and the food within it, the food in that wok is absorbing the smoke and that's what imparts that Chinese takeout wok flavor. It's most noticeable in fried rice because fried rice is delicately flavored which allows you to taste it almost directly as a prominent feature/flavor of the dish. This is what is called Wok Hei and it only happens when you use fire.
Surely there's far more smoke from the food and oil smoking inside the wok than from the gas burner itself. Gas burns really cleanly, so even if there is a really subtle aroma from it (I've never noticed it, but could be!) it'd surely be covered up by the much stronger aroma from the smoke in the wok. Am I missing something?
Doesn't matter, and that's why I specifically said even completely combusted fire, there is still some incombustible residue left, including carbon dioxide which contrary to intuition has a flavor.
Just to iterate this. It only happens when using open flame. If heat were the issue, then why can't it be duplicated with non-flame heat sources?
I don't actually know how well you can do without a flame - that's an assertion that wasn't made in the answer the OP linked. But assuming you can't do well without it... non-flame heat sources don't heat the side of a wok, only the bottom. So they'll be transferring large amounts of heat into less of the food, and causing less caramelizing and burning and smoking inside the wok.
Yes it is. To quote: "To impart wok hei the traditional way, the food is cooked in a seasoned wok over a high flame while being stirred and tossed quickly." And no, as you mention at the top of your comment, you cannot do this without flame.
It would be good if you could provide sources for your claims in your answer.
I did, I quoted the link in the other persons answer.
Okay, so you need a flame. Awesome. And regardless, high flames improve the flavor, agreed. But as I've pointed out, there's a great explanation for why that doesn't involve natural gas combustion flavor. I'm not disagreeing that there may be such a flavor, but I'd like to see some support for the claim that a subtle burned natural gas flavor coming in from outside the wok makes a meaningful contribution when there's a much, much stronger (and much more abundant) flavor from burned rice and oil inside the pan right there with the food.
@Escoce The part you quoted makes no mention of natural gas burning creating flavor. In fact, the rest of the passage supports the idea that the flavor is not actually from natural gas burning: "it additionally allows for the splattering of fine oil particles to catch the flame into the wok" (there's cooking oil burning) "It should also be noted that cooking with coated woks (e.g. non-stick) will not give the distinct taste of wok hei." (the stuff burning in the pan matters) and...
..."the flavour imparted by chemical compounds results from caramelization, Maillard reactions, and the partial combustion of oil that come from charring and searing of the food at very high heat in excess of 200 °C" (no mention of flavor from gas burning)
Wow, the fried rice I get from takeout isn't burned. Not even a little bit. Fine call what i am saying original works. Yep that's right, I am the guy who figured it out. Lol. On a serious note, I know this site is all about giving the best answer, but sometimes the best answer isn't quoted or paraphrased from elsewhere. I like being here to ask questions and give the best answers I have, but this isn't a paid gig, sometimes the reader needs to take it on themselves to do a little research on their own. Maybe once in a while and original work makes its way here too.
@Escoce Indeed, the rice itself isn't burning, but very small amounts of stuff in the pan is, and that imparts flavor. I'm sorry if I made it sound like I meant the bulk of the food you consume was actually burned.
This isn't simple mailliard reaction, it's a taste that is unique to wok cooking over flame. Go ahead and make some rice bread and tell me the crust tastes the same as that funky wok fried rice taste. Explain that one to me?
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Honestly it really isn't that important to me. I have reached that point where I am shutting down and not interested in being right.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.047667
| 2016-01-28T13:35:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65978",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bernard Casey",
"Carol B",
"Cascabel",
"Escoce",
"John Lares",
"Louise Tinelli",
"Patrick Moothart",
"Robert Huff",
"Tracy Vargas",
"Vanessa Irvine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"lynn greenhalgh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62350
|
"Overly sour yogurt is a sign of inconsistent inoculation" - What is inoculation?
From here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/13533/6168
Overly sour yogurt is a sign of inconsistent inoculation
From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inoculation
The act or an instance of inoculating, especially the introduction of an antigenic substance or vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
What is that quote talking about? How can "inconsistent inoculation" be prevented?
The definition from free dictionary is good. It's the same when introducing a culture to a growth medium. In this case, three strains of bacteria and the yogurt. This culture is an inoculation because it controls which strains grow in the yogurt. Without inoculation, you have no control over the process and the results which could be anywhere from perfect yogurt to deadly results.
In this case, inoculation refers to the introduction of yoghurt bacteria (lactic acid bacteria) that transform the milk into yoghurt.
If anything goes wrong - from unclean conditions that let other bacteria grow to unfavourable temperatures that inhibit the proper growth of your desired lactobacillae - you speak of improper inoculation.
The effects on taste and possibly food-safety have been discussed in your linked posts.
So work in a clean environment, use a good strain of bacteria and maintain the recommended temperature range to prevent this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.048219
| 2015-10-07T07:18:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62350",
"authors": [
"Brent Holland",
"Escoce",
"Kim Kr",
"Lori McSherry-Swartz",
"Michael Logan",
"Roy D",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37258
|
How do you crack eggs on a tawa without running away?
My iron tawa looks like the following. It is a bit shallow in the center.
I pour some oil on the tawa and it gets collected in its center. Then I wait for it to get heated. After that I crack the egg with a blunt spoon and break it on the tawa with my both hands, and after that I run for my life.
The problem is that when the egg touches the tawa, the hot oil spills here and there, and due to that I have often burnt my wrists.
I have observed that the oil spilling problem occurs only when the oil is hot. If the oil is not hot it doesn't spill and also causes the egg to stick to the tawa.
What's the way out?
It sounds like you simply need to use less oil.
@SAJ14SAJ how do you calculate amount of oil required for an egg? Besides the tawa is "shallow" at center. It is not flat.
The tawa should be well seasoned, so even a wipe with an oil soaked rag should be enough.
@SAJ14SAJ It never stroke me! My tawa is NOT seasoned at all. It has some rust on it. I just wash it with soap and brush before every use.
I don't have time to search now before going to work, but there are many questions here and many web sites that will tell you how to clean, remove the rust, and season cast iron cookware, although most will be for frying pans. The methods are the same.
@SAJ14SAJ I wasn't expecting you to do the searching for this. I just expressed my surprise that I didn't know that using a pool of oil might be the problem.
Certainly no more than a 1/2 teaspoon right where you drop the egg, and does it have to be super hot? With a skillet on a stove eggs are cooked at a very moderate heat. One more thing, instead of cracking the egg over the tawa, can you crack it into a small bowl then pour into the tawa?
Not seasoned? There is tons of good advice here. Seasoning your tawa is definitely your first step to success using it to cook eggs. Search for cast iron.
@Jolenealaska What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapati ? I make them on the same tawa. Will the seasoning effect them in some negative way?
@user462608 the seasoning will have no negative effects (in the worst case if you don't use a pan for a long time it can get stale and you will have to reapply it - but it is certainly better than having rusty pans) - I make my chapati/roti in my big (seasoned) cast iron pan and they always come out perfect =)
@MartinTurjak Thanks for replying. I'll definitelty try this now. In recent times, I had totally stopped cooking eggs this way due to fear of burns. :doh: Could someone put this as an answer?
@user462608
Answer the question in the answer and I'll edit it with more information.
@SAJ14SAJ Thanks, now I am no longer frightened while frying eggs. I used to use 5 tablespoons of oil before. Eggs fried in less oil taste much better.
I am glad the site was able to help :-)
Cast iron cookware should always be seasoned. There are many answers here on Seasoned Advice as to the best way to go about it. In order to find the best fit for you, how do you heat the tawa? Well seasoned, you should be able to use very little oil to cook an egg in cast iron. Consider too your heat level, eggs generally do better at a moderate temperature. In addition, consider breaking your eggs into a small bowl and pouring them into the tawa instead of cracking them right onto the hot surface.
This link should get you started: What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.048377
| 2013-10-01T09:31:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37258",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Jolenealaska",
"Margaret Sleigh",
"Martin Turjak",
"Pro.coinbase.com",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"asdru",
"deepthought",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87655",
"hussain",
"other_dave"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120671
|
Flat griddle pan for Weber Spirit II E-320 BBQ
I'm trying to buy a flat griddle pan for a Weber Spirit II E-320 Gas BBQ and not sure what will fit/what is compatible.
Currently I have these cooking grates installed:
So I'm not sure if:
a. There's a flat griddle pan that will replace one or more of those grates.
b. You're supposed to have the flat pan sit on top of those grates.
c. I need to buy separate grates that are compatible with a flat griddle.
I'd also preferably get a “knock-off” version of the pan for cheaper as the Weber ones are very expensive.
Hi everybody, I would like to remind you that we don't accept answers in comments. If you want to say that one of the points a), b) or c) is true, please do so in an answer, not in a comment. Also, shopping advice that suggests specific makes and models of things to buy is out of scope, so such a post would not be just a partial answer (which in itself would be fully acceptable, and no reason to use a comment) but probably the most complete answer you can give anyway.
What’s the diameter of the circular cutout? Because you might be able to use accessories for the STOK Quattro grill: https://www.stokgrills.com/products/inserts
b. Make it easy and less expensive by putting a cast iron pan on top of the grates. Thats what I do. I have a Genesis and just put a regular round cast iron pan on top of the grates. I know there are flat griddle style cast iron pans that you could do the same with. It does get hot enought to smoke off the "seasoning". I learned to do this at a restuarant I was grill cook at in order to make blackened steaks.
For (a), the replacement part is just called Griddle.
Since the question links to the Great Britain locale, here is the GB version. I noticed that when browsing the GB site, I did not find this griddle in the Griddle section which may be part of the problem leading to this question. This link was generated by just changing US to GB from the US url.
The description notes (emphasis added):
Fits WEBER CRAFTED cooking grates and frame kit for SMOKEFIRE EX4/EX6/EPX6 wood pellet grills and GENESIS 2022, GENESIS 2016+ and SPIRIT 2016+ gas grills
So if you have a recent Spirit, it should fit. The handles fit into the horizontal cutouts of the grates instead of the vertical cutouts the circular grate fits into.
I have the E-210 with similar grates (2 rectangular with semi-circular cutout and a 3rd circular, likely just narrower rectangular grates) that came in bundle with the Griddle. I have not used it so I can not comment on functionality versus other alternatives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.048692
| 2022-05-24T16:51:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120671",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110607
|
Lid popping when I checked for seal the next day
I made peach chutney yesterday, hot ingredients into hot sterilized jars. Wiped the rims. After submerged in boiling water 20 minutes, and sitting placidly on counter all the jars popped but one. Today when checking the seals, depressing the center of lid, the one that had not popped on its own, popped. Now I am not sure if the seal of that jar is good.
Is it OK to store it, or should it be used and refrigerated immediately?
You should either store that jar in the refrigerator or reprocess it with a new lid.
The vacuum formed is not going to be as strong as your other jars and may be temperature sensitive. It may stay sealed on the shelf, but it may not. I wouldn’t risk having to discard the whole jar.
As long as the lid doesn't pop up again, you're OK, I'd say.
IMO the reason that this one didn't pop on it's own could well be because that jar was more full. More full means less air. It's the contraction of the air as it cools which creates the vacuum that makes the lid pop. If there's not enough air, its likely that insufficient vacuum will be generated to cause the pop.
The fact that it did pop when you pressed it re-enforces this. If the seal was bad, it would have let enough air in that it wouldn't stay down when pressed.
Note that I've never made jam/chutney, but am fairly well versed in Physics!
jams have enough sugar in them generally speaking to preserve them even sitting out in the open. If you water bathed them correctly time wise, the air left inside is purified by temperature , the contents was heated to 220 to 221 degrees to Jam set , then, I would not even worry about it. I have had that same thing happen, and have never had a jar of jam go bad. if its jam, and NO OTHER product, shelf it. That would NOT be true for any meat product or a tomato based product , only high sugar high acid products with a PH level of 3.5 or less.your stomach has a PH level of 3.5 or less...you have 2 preservatives working in Jam ,High Sugar and High Acid....and the air inside was purified by a 220 degree temperature
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.049026
| 2020-09-09T15:50:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110607",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120026
|
Is there a maximum cooking temperature for chicken stock (when making it)?
I've heard that you should not let chicken stock get over 170 oF because it will “allow bitter flavors into the stock” or something like that. But later when I went looking for any reason for this, I couldn't find one.
When making stock, what temp should I shoot for and is there a temp I should never go over? I usually shoot for 160 oF.
This is different than the “how hot” question because:
it's about a maximum value
whether such a value exists
if going over that value impacts the flavor of the stock
How hot does the water need to be when cooking stock? is about the target value, not the upper bound. Please don't vote to close in favor of that question again, as I've edited this twice to address the same concern both times.
Do you have a source for the "don't let your stock get too hot" advice? It's quite common to make stock in pressure cookers, which get to much higher temperature than 170F.
Does this answer your question? How hot does the water need to be when cooking stock?
The only way I make chicken stock is with a pressure cooker. That's about 250F...I've never noticed bitterness.
oh nice that's probably really fast, how long do you keep it in? I'm assuming 15PSI.
@AMtwo not really because it doesn't talk about changes to flavor as a function of temperature
@AMtwo re "Do you have a source": no, this is just some bit of "wisdom" I picked up along the way and can't find again.
@jcollum I use maximum pressure (15psi) in a khun rikon...depending on how much time I have, as little as 25 minutes, but up to an hour+
Not all pressure cookers make good stock. See this article from Cooking Issues: https://cookingissues.com/2009/11/22/pressure-cooked-stocks-we-got-schooled/
quick version of that article: if your PC doesn't have a spring valve regulator (Kuhn Rikon) then it will make worse stock. The why is not explained.
@jcollum I've heard Dave Arnold discuss this on occasion. His rationale is that venting pressure cookers allow volatile aromatics to escape. Non-venting pressure cookers (like the Khun Rikon) will keep those volatiles within.
that seems sensible enough
I don’t know if a specific temperature to aim for, but there are some legitimate reasons for not letting your stock get too hot:
Every compound has different rates of extraction based on time and temperature. So you’ll get different compounds (and resulting flavors) based on the temperature of the solution.
Compounds may denature (cook) into other compounds if heated to a certain temperature. The most common example is sugar, where you cook it to a caramel to improve flavors, but if you cook it too far, it can burn and get bitter. But this can also happen with some gels, and cause them to break down and stop gelling, changing viscosity and mouthfeel.
If you heat the stock too much, you will generate bubbles, which will agitate the stock. This can both cause some items to break down faster and make the stock murky, but bubbles will also cause some compounds to come out of the solution (which smells great, but means less is in the stock; similar to the issue mentioned with some pressure cookers in the comments)
It’s also important to consider that the temperature isn’t going to be the same through the whole batch. It’s going to be hotter at the bottom (near the heat) and cooler near the top ... so the recommendation for 170°F might actually be to keep it from hitting some other hotter temperature at the bottom of the pot... so you’re avoiding scorching the bones or similar (which does make the stock nasty and bitter)
Good answer thanks; I'll mark it as accepted if no one else answers
@jcollum you don’t have to. Leave it open as someone might not have a better answer til months or a year from now
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.049230
| 2022-03-04T18:46:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120026",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jcollum",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104629
|
How can I have a dough attachment when I have a Dretec Handmixer?
I have a Dretec Hand Mixer and as far as I can see it doesn't have additional attachments for sale online. Can I attach some other mixer's dough attachment onto it?
AFAIK it's really difficult to knead dough with a hand mixer even if it comes equipped with dough hooks.
I was in your shoes a while ago too and after some research, found that it's basically useless for kneading dough. Unless you're Popeye, you're not going to be able to hold the mixer and the bowl steady enough for the dough to get kneaded. I ended up buying a KitchenAid.
Either spend the money on a stand mixer or just knead your doughs by hand.
If the hand mixer didn’t come with hooks, it probably wasn’t designed for the kind of mechanic stress / force required to knead dough.
See also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11445/my-hand-mixer-came-with-dough-hooks-can-i-knead-dough-with-it
It is second kneading that is the hard one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.049541
| 2020-01-08T23:11:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104629",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80467",
"the real deal",
"user2617804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43623
|
Why does fat make chapati/parathas/pooris remain soft?
I want chapati and parathas (same dough is used for both) to remain very soft for a long time. I originally asked in the comments here: Why doesn't my whole wheat dough pass the Poke Test?
and SAJ14SAJ said:
Gluten development (or lack of it) is not going to help with that. That is a factor of staling, and flat breads are going to stale quickly, especially if they are lean and not enriched (not loaded with fat, sugar, and so on).
So, why does fat help keep the chapatis soft? And how do you calculate the amount of fat to be included in the dough to achieve soft chappatis?
The "moistness" of the bread - the soft texture - is actually from oils and fats as well as water - grain has some of these naturally, especially whole grain. Adding in extra fat, such as butter, shortening or cooking oil, makes the baked good seem extra moist and soft - here is a good overview of baking, and the role of various ingredients in dough. Fats are a tenderizer when added to a dough - it makes the baked good softer, which we associate with "moist."
Fats and oils also evaporate much more slowly than water, and prevents water from re-absorbing into the bread, keeping the bread from becoming brittle and hard and off-tasting (stale) for longer.
Without extra fat, the bread relies on the oils and protein found in grain, and the water content of the bread. This water will eventually evaporate, leaving the bread brittle - and worse, it will slowly re-absorb some moisture from the air, and this can lead to a dry, mealy, chewy texture and unpleasant flavor - staleness, in other words. (This is why croutons should be baked for best flavor rather than just left to go stale.) The natural oils and proteins will likewise firm up and stiffen as the bread cools.
For leavened flatbreads, preferment is a common technique to extend shelf life (and improve flavor) - this method of leavening does a good job of locking water-moisture into the bread without requiring extra fat or other preservatives. Here is a method of prefermenting naan.
For unleavened bread, Mexican cuisine is where you should look for techniques involving storage of whole-grain flour flat breads - in some regions, flour tortillas are eaten with every meal, but generally only prepared once a day.
Air-tight storage is key. A zip-close plastic bag with a cloth to absorb excess moisture is ideal.
Re-heat the bread in a microwave. It will soften the proteins and oils, without drying out the water content the way an oven or toaster will.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.049659
| 2014-04-21T05:41:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43623",
"authors": [
"BG Coatings",
"Carmeister",
"Dodius Reyes",
"Nicolas F.",
"Remix Distribution",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Talolo Boots",
"charlychicken",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137704"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85487
|
How to counter bitterness in dal recipe
I just made the recipe below for slow cooker dal and there is quite a bitter flavor. I'm wondering:
- what ingredient would cause this bitterness and why?
- is there something I can add to counter the bitterness?
2 teaspoons whole cumin seeds
2 teaspoons whole mustard seeds
1 teaspoon whole fennel seeds
2 cups split red lentils, rinsed
5 cups water
1 (15-ounce) can diced tomatoes
1 medium onion, diced
1-inch piece fresh ginger, peeled and finely grated
1 tablespoon ground turmeric
1 bay leaf
1 teaspoon kosher salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
Fresh cilantro leaves, for serving (optional)
Jasmine rice, for serving
Add the cumin, mustard, and fennel seeds to a small sauté pan, and place on the stove over low heat. Toast the seeds, using a wooden spoon to stir frequently, until fragrant, 3 to 4 minutes.
Add the toasted spices, lentils, water, tomatoes, onion, ginger, turmeric, salt, and pepper in the bowl of a 6-quart slow cooker. Stir together. Cover the slow cooker with the lid, then set to low and cook for 4 to 6 hours, or high and cook for 2 to 3 hours, until most of the liquid has been absorbed and the lentils are soft. Stir before serving.
This suggests that mustard seeds might have that effect. Personally I don't know for sure. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/73941/34242
Nothing in there jumps out at me, it's possible you over-toasted the seeds.
In dal recipes I have made, the lentils and tempering are cooked separately, then combined later. They generally begin by toasting spices (careful, mustard pops, but that is what you want), then caramelizing thinly sliced onion in the spices. This brings out the sweetness of the onion, which can offset the bitterness of some of the spices. Once the lentils are cooked, the tempering (onion and spices) is added and the seasoning is adjusted.
So I think my first question was answered through comments, thank you: it's probably the mustard seeds (I probably browned them too much) that caused the bitterness. But I'd still like an answer to my second question: are there any culinary suggestions for hiding/eliminating the bitterness?
@Arlo my response is "a culinary suggestion for hiding/eliminating bitterness." Often ingredients that are naturally sweet, or have their sweetness heightened (as in caramelizing onions), do just that.
I'm sorry for the confusion - I think I wasn't clear. I'm looking for a culinary suggestion for the batch I made yesterday, i.e., what can I add to make it edible. I do appreciate your suggestions for future dal that I make. I think my mistake was to think I could just dump everything in a slow cooker and it would work!
Mustard seeds are seldom used toasted+powdered in indian style recipes - more commonly they are usually quickly fried in high-eat oil or ghee (popping is supposed to happen - just don't keep a high heat going after that has happened...), either as a very first step when a sauce is built, and/or added in the hot oil to a boiled dish (like your dal) only a few minutes before it is finished.
In both cases, other spices that benefit from sauteeing (eg curry leaves, garlic, fennel seeds, hing, cumin, dried peppers (capsaicin vapors, be careful) ) can be added in the same oil, usually at a lower heat after the mustard has popped.
Also, a bitter/stodgy/watery taste in indian recipes sometimes just means you need to add some salt, sugar or acid (lime juice is always a good idea if acid is needed - do not overheat it!) - some of the spices can give confusing impressions that suggest the dish is salty when it is not.
Also, fresh cilantro can taste rather bitter to some people - a little staler cilantro even more.
thank you so much. You helped me rescue an inedible Dahl made with tinned lentils (all I could get due to supply chain issues). It went from gag worthy to amazing by following your steps. ❤️
I have just had the same problem with a lentil dahl - and it's not the first time. Now I know that I have been over-cooking the spices. This is the fix I am about to try:
Step 1
Taste the curry sauce and determine the level of bitterness as well as the underlying flavors. Highly bitter curries need more of the bitterness-minimizing elements.
Step 2
Add salt and sugar to the curry sauce in equal portions, a generous pinch or dash at a time, until the flavor is more balanced. Salt brings out the natural sweetness of curry spice and the sugar will help balance the saltiness and bitterness. Do this two or three times and then go on to the next fix if it's still bitter. Use palm sugar, cane sugar or other sweeteners appropriate for the curry, if you prefer. Table salt, kosher salt or salty fish sauces can work as the salt elements.
Step 3
Blend in coconut milk, coconut cream, yogurt or sour cream, 1/4 cup at a time, tasting after each addition. If after three additions, the curry is still bitter, the curry needs more items added.
Step 4
Add 1/4 teaspoon of ground coriander seed or root to the curry sauce and the juice of one lime. Blend this together well and taste it. If the curry is still too bitter, it is likely that the curry blend is too overcooked to be salvaged.
I have just gone through the above process with my seemingly horribly bitter dahl soup. HOWEVER, I followed the steps above right through to the coconut milk and each time I added an ingredient I could taste an improvement - to the point, in the end, that my soup is now actually DELICIOUS! Whoop whoop. A great learning experience too
Tumeric and mustard seeds both have a dry bitterness to them. This is probably where the taste you describe comes from. If you dislike it reduce or omit these two spices.
The fennel and cumin could also probably be cut in half. If you temper the spices it concentrates the flavours. If you like heavy seasoned foods then go for it but that is probably a stronger spice profile than most people in the west are comfortable with.
Ps. Always add salt to your legumes at the very end when everything is cooked thouroughly. Otherwise you get cooked and hard legumes. Which is unpleasant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.049936
| 2017-11-07T01:34:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85487",
"authors": [
"Arlo",
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Helen",
"MegLeigh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97767",
"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
}
|
67027
|
Does chlorine evaporate from water when cooking?
Most municipal water supplies in the U.S. include noticeable levels of chlorine or chloramine added to kill microbes, and often adds an objectionable chemical smell.
Does chlorine evaporate when cooking? If so, does it require boiling temperatures? Does it become more concentrated if the water is boiled down? Does it matter when water is added as an ingredient, such as in bread dough?
This doesn't seem to be cooking related to me, so OT. Could you edit this to be more relevant?
I don't follow your line of thought. Please elaborate.
You are asking about Chlorine's properties in water, that's a chemistry question. If you want to know how cooks get rid of chlorine taste and smell then that's the question I'd ask.
I personally think this is fine as is.
The question might be fine as it is, but it's got nothing to do with food safety.
@GdD It's the smell that's the cooking-related part. I've never lived anywhere with enough chlorine in the water to notice it, but I guess if your tap water smells like a swimming pool it'd be an issue.
Houston and Chicago water absolutely smell like swimming pools if unfiltered.
I've lived in Houston - either you got some weird water or you're used to under-chlorinated swimming pools, because the water there is nowhere close to as strong a smell as a pool, and while it does have chlorine, the distinctive taste is much more local mineral content than chlorine.
@ChrisH You think concentrated chlorine in food has nothing to do with food safety? Because the question partly asks that.
@Matthew. No it doesn't. It talks about the low levels present in drinking water when used for cooking.
Chlorine readily evaporates at room temperatures, though higher temperatures of course make this faster. If your specific concern is just with the smell, why not just give it a try? Make a double-blind test, and see the results. I don't think there's a lot of people here with experience with drinking water that has a noticeable amount of "chlorine smell".
As a bit of extra evidence: my wife grew up on unchlorinated well water, and when she visited Houston, she didn't notice chlorine or a swimming pool smell, just the different mineral taste. So... while it's certainly possible that the chlorine is the issue for you here and the answers will help, it's also possible that you're noticing things besides chlorine that you're not used to and the answers won't help as much (but filtering will, as you've already noticed).
Water treatment often uses chlorine or chloramine to kill germs or algae. If you are smelling it it's more likely to be Chloramine than Chlorine. Chlorine will dissipate from water over time naturally, but boiling for 20 minute will drive it out. Chloramine will also dissipate naturally, but in a much longer time frame, and would take over a day to boil out.
So boiling water will get rid of chlorine but not chloramine (at least not in a useful time frame), and boiling will concentrate other minerals in the water which is usually undesirable. It will also de-oxygenate the water, making it flat. Flat water isn't great for cooking - compare the flavor of a cup of tea or coffee brewed with flat water as opposed to fresh and you'll see what I mean.
Your best option for water treatment chemical removal at home is an activated charcoal filter unless you want to invest in a UV treatment system, which would seem to be a bit OTT. You could also use a reducing agent from a brewery supply company, but if all you want is some fresh tasting and smelling water then the filter is your best option.
Homebrewing SE has a thread on this which is worth reading.
If you look at the solubility curves for chlorine (or other gases) in water, you'll see that just bringing the water to the boil drives off the gas. You don't need to hold it at boiling point.
... A link: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
Have you actually tried the coffee/tea thing? Heating water to close to its boiling point essentially drives off all dissolved gases so regardless of whether water is "flat" before you made tea or coffee with it, it's flat by the time you're brewing.
@ChrisH: It's not an instant thing. Keep in mind that water has a very significant surface tension. All the chlorine that no longer is dissolved forms bubbles which initially aren't even microscopic. IOW, that chlorine isn't dissolved, but still physically located within the fluid. As the water boild, steam bubbles form and fluid currents become significant, causing chlorine bubbles to merge and be carried off.
If your are dealing with chloramine, a trick I've used in homebrewing is to add powdered ascorbic acid (vitamin c) while heating the water up to around 170 for 15 minutes or so. This will pull the chloramine out of solution and you'll end up with some particulate solid residue on the bottom of the pot from the reaction, so you'd probably want to decant the water off of it to use for cooking. I have been told that it also works for chlorine, but my tap water uses chloramine so I've never tried it for that.
170F I assume, not 170C (which would be pressurized). Makes sense, though. Ascorbic acid is a well-known anti-oxidant which actually means it's preferentially oxidized, and chlorine is a strong oxidizer.
You can use as ascorbic acid to remove chlorine and chloramine. The cheapest and most useful form is called Ball brand fruit fresh powder found in all canning supply aisles. It is a fantastic product to use as a substitute for citrus juice to prevent browning and is completely tasteless. Benefit is you get a megadose of vitamin C!
What happens to the chlorine/chloramine? It must still be there in some form... and since you say the ascorbic acid is tasteless, presumably you aren't convering up the taste.
@Cascabel Years later, but, according to https://sites.google.com/site/brunwater/water-knowledge , the chlorine compounds will be reduced to chloride ions and possibly some other debris (H+ or NH4+) and the ascorbic acid becomes the dehydrate; the only one of these products with any flavor or smell is the ammonium, and not at drinking-water-disinfectant concentrations.
"megadoses" of vitamins are not a benefit. That you need only small amounts is a defining characteristic of vitamins. Huge amounts are at best useless and in some cases dangerous. Ascorbic acid is safe compared to some other vitamins but it can have unpleasant side effects if you consume enough of it: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-c/faq-20058030
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.050702
| 2016-03-02T15:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67027",
"authors": [
"Ben Smith",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Den Uram",
"GdD",
"Ian Pinkerton",
"Jana Whitby",
"Jay",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Justin Pettingill",
"Luaan",
"MSalters",
"Marie Green",
"Matthew Read",
"Nicole Pelky",
"Peter Turvey",
"Rose Chen",
"Sandra Cone-Beckworth",
"Susan Elvin",
"Warren Patterson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"smithkm",
"zwol"
],
"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
}
|
100365
|
Low-salt Cooking on a Barbecue
TL;DR: Looking for evidenced based methods for low-sodium food prep. to be cooked on a barbecue.
My wife has recently confessed that she doesn't like BBQ food as it is too salty! Normally, I use the BBQ during the week as a quick easy meal as you can have a decent meal (burgers or dogs or even grilled veggies) in like 15 minutes. On weekends, I do roasts or steaks or chicken (basically anything more time consuming).
However, since this revelation I am determined to find a middle ground because:
she is right, we need to consume less salt and less meat
I like BBQ.
Here is what I have tried thus far:
I have made my own burger patties (instead of using Costco's) this went over well but flavour was lacking (I confess, historically I have been too lazy and will be tweaking my recipe).
I have tried store bought low-sodium dogs and smokies but it was still too salty.
This has been going on for about 2 weeks now, of different trial and error. So what I am wondering is what are tried and true methods of fast, easy cooking on a BBQ that are both tasty and low in sodium (or effective means of replacing sodium, but not sacrificing taste).
While, I realize that this question could end up being flagged for being opinion based so please provide either experience or evidence to help me. I am looking for methods or tricks to employ that will allow me to maintain the quick/convenient cooking that comes with BBQ food but is healthier and hopefully low enough in sodium.
A note that this question is not about "health" but specifically about reducing sodium in grilled food. No one needs to get triggered by the word "healthy" and vote to close this question. :/
@Sobachatina changed the title just in case ;-)
This is about grilling, not BBQ.
@ChrisCudmore terminology varies. One person's "grill" is another's "BBQ", while my "grill" would be a "broiler" to some. I think it's clear what the OP is aiming for and how they're cooking it
@Fabby, wasn't on for a few days lol let's check it out.
For the record! I tried suggestions from each of the below answers and the one I marked correct was the answer that I found met the needs of my family and the question. Thank you all for your insights - and help. I learned from each of you!
I've been cooking saltless for more than two decades by now and the secret is:
Use thrice as many herbs without salt as you would when cooking with salt.¹
Salt is just the cheapest of all flavours out there, so industrial cooking will use salt as a primary giver of taste as it's cheap!
Additional evidence-based methods:
Smell:
use fresh herbs as they contain water-soluble aromas
use aromatic oils (Olive oil, walnut oil, hemp seed oil (if legal in your area), pumpkin seed oil, ...)
use aromatic alcohol: WARNING: Use a shot glass, not an entire bottle or you'll burn down the house / neighbourhood / county / entire state!²
A nice splash of Jack Daniels some Tennessee Rye on a steak and in the coals (fill shot glass 10 yards away from BBQ, store the bottle same distance, walk to BBQ, throw on meat and coals 2 feet away, pull back hand immediately) just gives that extra jazz and taste...
Fat:
Although you have to have the gentic predisposition to taste fat, kobe beef is so tasty because of its fat content: the more fat, the more taste!
See aromatic oils above
Fat fish! (Added after inspecting your avatar): Salmon, Halibut, Herring, ...
All the other tastes the human tongue is capable of:
Sweet. Use complex sweeteners like:
Honey
Molasses
Maple Syrup
Bitter:
Wrap that lamb shank in freshly mown grass from your garden: It'll not only provide moisture but a hint of bitterness as well³
Belgian Endives
Peppermint (a total must with lamb in Australia!)
Sorrel
Sour
Balsamic vinegar
French mustard (contains much more vinegar than English mustard)
Umami
Soy sauce
Broccoli extract (when cooking broccoli: evaporate 90% of the water and store the leftover in a jar to pour over your veggies before and during BBQ)
Mono-Sodium Glutamate
Spicy:
Chillies, Jajapeños, Hungarian paprika, ... contain Capsicum which doesn't really have a "taste" all by itself, but Capsicum "excites" your tongue and opens up all the other taste receptors so the intensity of the sweetness, sourness, bitterness, ... gets exacerbated.
Mix of all of the above:
French mustard and molasses mixed together until you cannot taste neither the molasses nor the mustard (perfect equilibrium) smeared over a nice piece of juicy bacon, add some pepper and nutmeg and throw on the BBQ: No one will believe you when you tell them this just tastes of mustard and brown sugar
honey, pepper, nutmeg and jalapeño blend: just throw all of them in a blender and add more honey, more pepper, more nutmet until it's just right for your wife!
Ask your wife which is her favourite taste and her second favourite taste and throw a bunch of those in the blender and leave a comment as to what rocks her soul!
Note 1: People will just go Really? This is saltless? unless they're methheads saltheads...
Note 2: If living in the Republic of California
Note 3: Skip this if you use pesticides, anti-moss, chemical fertilisers, ... on your lawn. Absolutely go for it and wrap it in tin foil if your lawn is totally organic!
"...Chillies, Jajapeños, Hungarian paprika, ... don't really have a "taste" all by themselves...." -- They certainly do!
@GregNickoloff Sorry, for overgeneralising: edited
If you make your own burgers you don't need to include any salt at all. You could make them unseasoned but you may find you enjoy them more if they've got herbs/spices in them. This also holds for sausages if you can be bothered to make them. Marinades don't need any salt either, though of course you may choose to add a little. Spring (salad) onion and garlic are very useful if you're reducing the salt.
Grilled veg is often best simply brushed with oil. I like to use chilli oil or pizza oil (chilli and herb). Along with steaks, chicken etc. you can also brush with a little oil and rub in spices or herbs.
Many sauces you might add after cooking also contain a fair bit of salt. Making your own or choosing ones that taste less salty will also help. Ketchup, for example, varies a lot in salt content.
You're probably used to fairly salty food, but your tastes can adjust fairly quickly.
Yes. Fresh food has minimal salt. Grill her food with no salt. Pork roast with smoking chips, with meat treated with brown sugar, black pepper and garlic powder turns out fine for me. People can salt or sauce their own portions according to taste. Plus she will like that you did the no salt grilling because of her observation and when momma is happy everyone is happy.
First, stay away from buying pre-seasoned/marinated foods. While lots of people like them, many others find them too salty. For most foods, you probably just need to adjust the seasonings to you and your family's liking. You can experiment on your own or find recipes that can be tweaked to your liking. (We don't share recipes on the site.)
As far as buying low sodium foods, be aware that just because they are low sodium, it doesn't mean they won't taste salty. Many products use other ingredients such as potassium chloride to create a salty flavor without actually using sodium chloride (or using less). (Potassium chloride is sold as a salt substitute.)
Specifically for hot dogs and the like, try cooking them over a lower heat or for less time. The longer they cook, the more moisture they lose, thus making them taste saltier. I would suggest trying different brands (as they do vary in taste quite a bit) and perhaps you will hit on one you like.
In regard to roasts, chicken, chops, etc., you can use less salt if you season them and let them set for a bit before cooking. You can lightly season early in the day and place in the refrigerator for cooking later in the day. Or, what I usually do is season and let the food rest on the counter for 20 or 30 minutes before cooking. Just remember to not leave your food on the counter for too long for reasons of food safety.
Seasoning tip - As you start to experiment with seasoning your own foods, especially ground meat dishes) use your nose. Over time you will know by smell if you have them seasoned properly. Whenever I make burgers, meatloaf, meatballs, etc., I eyeball the seasonings. After mixing everything together I can tell by how it smells if it's on point or if I need to adjust anything.
And lastly, remember to start with smaller amounts of seasonings. You can always add more, but you can't take it out if there's too much.
Very good answer.
Plant an herb garden: Basil, Rosemary, Oregano, Parsley and Tarragon.
In my garden, Greek Oregano grows like stink and I actually have to harvest a couple of times a week to keep it from taking over.
My basic technique is to harvest a good cup of herbs, throw it in the blender with a clove of garlic, oil and lemon juice and puree it. It can be added directly to hamburger mixes, or used as a marinade overnight, or even as a rub before grilling if you haven't planned ahead.
Also, chopped tarragon on naan brushed with olive oil is spectacular.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.051260
| 2019-07-25T16:44:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100365",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chris H",
"Fabby",
"J Crosby",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Willk",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124783
|
Is it the ash from Mount Vesuvius that gives Italian tomatoes their great taste?
I have heard it mentioned that it is the ash in the soil from the volcano that gives Italian tomatoes their great flavour. Is this true or just an old wives tale?
There's a certain variety of ginger grown in malaysia called Bentong Ginger that has a similar story, and is better. There might be something to the soil
You're most likely thinking about San Marzano tomatoes specifically, which are traditionally grown in the area around Mt. Vesuvius and are, in fact, under a denominazione di origine protetta (DOP), a geographical indication label. The volcanic soil is very fertile and the combination with sunny weather and cooler nights by the sea is said to make for a great growing climate.
San Marzano tomatoes are somewhat fragile and not that suitable for shipping, but they offer superior flavor and don't lose much of it when canned. This has helped them become a premium product (little supply, high quality) that's available year round.
I don't think the Volcanic ash is present in any considerable amounts in other regions in Italy, hence why I think what you heard was specifically referring to San Marzano tomatoes. There are certainly other great tasting tomatoes in Italy though :)
Volcanic ash supplies tomatoes with a bunch of minerals they need and thrive on, which makes sense if you consider that tomatoes originated in Central America. I add fertilizers which incorporate ash to my tomato beds at home.
@FuzzyChef Do your fertilisers include specifically volcanic ash? Some do, but wood ash is also used. It's interesting that volcanic ash is quite salty (as in NaCl); presumably you wouldn't want to add too much. But there's also lots of K, Ca, & Mg, and S in the form of -SO₄, and they're useful. Other sources of ash have far less S, lots of carbonates instead, and less Na.
Offer superior flavor [citation needed]
They do, actually, I special-ordered some stuff. But yeah, it's in very small amounts.
Volcanic soil certainly contributes to the incredible flavor of Italian tomatoes, but it's not the whole story. The nutrient-rich ash provides important minerals for growth and flavor development - no doubt about that. But that Mediterranean climate is crucial too! All that sunny warmth with cool nights really lets those tomatoes mature slowly and develop complex sweetness.
But the real secret is the generations of Italian farmers who've perfected growing tasty tomatoes in that environment. They know how to select the right varieties, when to plant, how to prune the vines just right. And they handle those tomatoes ever so gently after picking so they retain all that beautiful flavor.
At the end of the day, it comes down to passion and tradition. Italian nonnas who lovingly grew tomatoes in their gardens passed down what works to their figli e nipoti. That's how real food culture develops. The volcanic soil gives them a boost, but it's the Italians who've elevated tomatoes into an art form!
So yes, the ash contributes - but it's just one ingredient in the recipe, not the whole dang meal.
Do you have a source for any of this? Looks kinda AI-generated.
@miken32 - Everything that this user posts is AI-generated or edited, and frequently incorrect because of that.
Like here. Besides the answer not challenging the basic equation of San Marzano tomatoes with tomatoes from all of Italy, it also attributes the tomatoes' flavor to both hot days and cool nights (any proposed mechanism for this?) and to the gentle handling and knowledge of Italian farmers (farmers in California or Xinjiang are not gentle or knowledgeable?). Also, Xinjiang seems to have hotter days than Naples and maybe even colder nights than Naples in some places, so....
Oh, by the way, Mexican farmers have been growing tomatoes since before the Triple Alliance and account for 91% of tomato imports to the USA. Are they just not imparting enough "passion and tradition" to their "hijos y nietos" for most USA tomatoes to be tasty?
while passion helps, structural factors in modern agribusiness likely play a bigger role than any deficit in farming tradition or care. Prioritizing flavor again requires addressing systemic issues in cultivation, breeding and distribution - not just cultural passion. But rediscovering great taste is certainly possible with the will to do so!
As for San Marzano tomatoes, they are just one variety from one region of Italy. Implying they represent all Italian tomatoes is an overreach. Italy grows many excellent tomatoes with distinct qualities based on microclimates
Do your realize that even your AI-written comments seem off? Your first comment pre-supposes a fact not in evidence, that someone—I suppose Mexican farmers—has lost the capacity to grow flavorful tomatoes. Is that what you think, or what the model spat out? It is probably untrue anyway. Your last comment outright contradicts your answer. Having an LLM write your answers for you, at this point in time, will not lead to correctness or coherence. Perhaps you should feed the following prompt to the LLM: "Is using ChatGPT to write answers better than doing it myself?" The answer may surprise you!
@SergZ - No, that's definitely an AI comment, but it probably reflects some of your actual thinking. Being able to write a prompt generator in C# and send API calls to ChatGPT is not the same as wit.
@SergZ. please note that we have a Code of conduct, which requires you to be courteous to other users. Independently of the likely AI-generated postings, snark is definitely not welcome.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.052092
| 2023-07-20T09:06:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124783",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Obie 2.0",
"Toivo Säwén",
"Uk rain troll",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"miken32",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82491
|
What kind of cheese did I buy in Bulgaria...and how am I supposed to eat it?
Today I was doing some shopping at the Tsentralni Hali in Sofia and bought some cheese, cause it looked so damn gooood.
Well, it is good indeed...but it has the consistency of a brick and you don't cut it, you chop it! And you don't eat it, you chew it!
So, maybe I'm missing something. I took a photo of the top of the jar:
What the heck did I buy? Can someone tell me how am I supposed to eat it?
The answer from user rumtscho ♦ put me on the right track so, as now I had a way to contact the producer company, I wrote them an email asking the same question I posted here: what's the idea behind it, and how should it be eaten?
They replied me back (quite quickly, too), and this is their answer:
The kind of cheese that you bought is called Shelal -it is Arabic
cheese and it is very specific.
It is hard at the beginning and salty -the saltiness will decrease if
you separate it into strings and soak it in water. This way it gets
softer. When softer it starts dividing into strings more easily.
Then you may season it with olive oil and some dry spices. You may
also put it inside Arabic bread or two slices of bread with some olive
oil and toast it. Enjoy!
Needless to say it went straight from its bag into a bowl full of water after, like, 30 seconds :-D
It has now soaked for nearly 24 hours and yes, it has changed quite a bit. There are parts of it which are still hard, but the saltiness is balancing well and it is becoming way softer. Note that I prefer to err on the side of safety, so I'm soaking it into the fridge; maybe outside of the fridge it would soften faster, dunno.
As of now, it is already quite good. It's like...it has the consistence of a braided mozzarella but tastes like a yellow cheese, quite interesting.
But...I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle. Ok, as I said it's interesting and good, so from that point of view it's worth it. But on the other hand after having put it into the water I automatically renamed it "Ikea cheese", as you buy it disassembled and you have to reassemble it back yourself :-D
It could make a lot of sense, actually, the fact that it can be bought in jars (or maybe it must be bought in jars, and I've been able instead to buy only a couple of pieces thanks to my mastering of Bulgarian language; that is, I know nothing of it so shop owners usually sell me whatever I ask :-D)
Once bought the entire jar, it will always be at hand reach; moreover it should be easy to transport, restoring it requires just a bowl and some water, so I can see it a perfect fit for people traveling with a motorhome.
Finally -and I'll update the post as soon as I try to do it- being mostly dry it should be perfect for topping home made pizza, as it will not soak the dough.
This is not a traditional Bulgarian product (*). It was created by one specific dairy company ("Jossy") and it is not even listed on their normal web page (http://www.josi.bg). There is one reference to it on their Facebook page (https://bg-bg.facebook.com/JOSIltd/photos/a.153616871328971.29781.150703611620297/926675350689782/) where they ask users to recognize the product, and only one person made this identification, everybody else thinking it is some kind of unripened cheese or mozzarella style cheese.
The name can simply be translated as "braided cheese". Note that traditionally, Bulgaria only differentiated between Feta cheese (sirene) and a specific yellow semi-soft cheese (Kashkaval). Since opening of the markets in the 1990s, other cheeses get imported and their names get imported along, for example roquefort. Sometimes the names of yellow soft cheeses get applied to the correct cheese (gouda, edamer) but there is also the tendency to use "kashkaval" as an umbrella term for any semisoft yellow cheese. This is made even more complicated by having the term "sirene" mean both "cheese" and "Feta cheese", so yellow cheeses and other cheeses are not always recognized as a subtype of cheese.
Linguistic details aside, it seems they created a new type of cheese, with unknown technology, and reused the generic meaning of "kashkaval" to give it a name. Having never tried it, I cannot give it advice how to eat it. Although, "you don't eat it - you chew it" strikes me as strange, since I chew all cheeses I eat, except maybe quark and other spoonable ones. So I would assume that "chew it" is a good place to start :)
(*) please read MotoDrizzt's answer, he found out that it was a traditional Syrian style cheese which this company introduced into the Bulgarian market
First of all, tha...no, wait...first of all, it doesn't matter how do you call them, Bulgaria produce a lot of amazing cheese!!! I moved to Sofia because of the food, I don't need to say more! Second, thank you ;-D About the chewing: obviously you chew everything before ingesting it, but usually (at least, the way I'm used to the term) you use chew explicitly instead of "eat" to point to the fact that the food is hard, or sticky, or gummy. Used that way is using it to give it a negative meaning.
Finally...you seems to know Bulgarian. Would you send me to hell if I 'd ask you to write on their fb page to about this cheese, to ask them the way they think it's best eaten?
I speak Bulgarian, but I don't have a Facebook account, sorry. And yes, I agree that Bulgaria has tons of amazing cheese. The only way to forget it is to try the cured meats :)
"sadly", I'm vegetarian :-D But Bulgaria has so much good food that I can't complain at all :-)
Hi @motoDrizzt, this addition you found out was great. In fact, I would say it is so good, it deserves to be its own answer (and probably even the accepted one). It is much better that you answer your own question in this case, now that you got the info - as a side effect, you will certainly get upvotes, too. And I don't mind removing the checkmark from here and placing it on your own answer, since it is more precise.
Pleten means knitted/braided, and indeed it is not unusual to see such a cheese made of relatively thin strings braided into a braid; often smoked:
source
Broadly speaking from my limited experience - I've no experience with Bulgarian cheese and can't even sort out which item in your picture is applicable, since "cheese in a jar" that's not already grated (and often terrible) is not something I have experienced:
Most cheeses that are so hard they are difficult to cut are grated or powdered and then put on other food as a seasoning, or cooked into a sauce.
Sounds similar to caciotta, which is braided, often smoked and chewy. But caciotta doesn't require any soaking. Also caciocavallo is similar. It seems to me that, if indeed it wasn't already a typical bukgarian cheese, that company got inspired by these two Italian cheese. Obviously it could be syrian as well, as at least some of the cheese must be very old and prepared in large areas since millenia. As curiosity, Caciocavallo (kashkaval in Bulgary ) has etimology that makes sense in italian, but perhaps also in Bulgary kash means cheese and kaval horse. (from the stocking of the cheese as it is riding).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.052568
| 2017-06-19T20:29:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82491",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"motoDrizzt",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66448
|
Dutch vegetable cordon-bleu
I am looking for the name of a dish that I used to eat a few years ago in The Hague, Netherlands. It looked like a cordon-bleu stuffed with chopped vegetables (carrots, onions, fennel, and maybe millet) for what I remember. The outer part was kind of a fried breaded crust.
It was served as the main course at the vegetarian desk of the cafeteria, and now I blame myself for not paying attention to its name.
Does someone have a clue of the name of that dish ?
EDIT : As requested, here are some precisions about the shape. It was half-oval shaped : one side was straight and the other side was rounded (like on this picture)
I'm hoping someone will write a general answer about the various options, but if not, it might help if you could clarify what you mean by "looked like a cordon-bleu" - in particular, how exactly was it shaped? People seem to have some pretty variable ideas of exactly what shape that means.
@Jefromi I have edited my post with some precisions on the shape
The Dutch make a few dishes similar to what you describe. (note: I'm assuming that your 'like a cordon-bleu' doesn't mean it's breaded stuffed chicken, as you mentioned it was vegetarian)
If they're smaller (one or two bites), they'd be bitterballen. They're normally meat-filled, but they can be filled with vegetables, too.
If they were larger, they'd be kroketten
update: to clarify, I am not Dutch, and moved from the Netherlands 30 years ago. As a non-native Dutch speaker, I had (possibly incorrectly) assumed that 'kroketten' was a class of food / style of preparation. From Marc Luxen's answer and Cerberus's comments, I'm going to assume that the term is similar to American 'burger'. If someone ordered a 'burger' and you gave them a veggie burger, it'd not be what they expected. (and similarly, we have 'cheeseburger', 'veggieburger' and other compound words that are more specific)
(and there hadn't been complaints about people answering in comments, I wouldn't have made this an answer ... as I had to make an assumption about what made it 'cordon bleu'-like. I assumed something stuffed, then breaded & fried, possibly with cheese or other dairy).
... and I'm making this community wiki so that any native Dutch person can correct it, as I don't know how to undo it being marked as correct.
The "like a cordon-bleu" referred to the shape and outer texture, your assumption is obviously good.
I looked at kroketten, and found this picture from Wikipedia, which match pretty much, except that the Béchamel given in the description was not in what I tasted.
@dounyy : it's made thick enough that it's almost a dough. It's possible that there was some German influence, and they used potato instead.
No, bitterballen kroketten are made of beef stew. They never look like cordon blues, because they are small balls or cylinders. Wrong answer.
@MarcLuxen I don't think "like a cordon-bleu" is really specific enough to tell for sure whether small balls or bigger flat cylinders are the right shape, so both your answer and Joe's seem useful.
@jefromi. I am Dutch. I made countless kroketten and bitterballen. I have seen even more. I also know very well what a cordon blue looks like. I seriously doubt if you have seen or eaten bitterballen and kroketten. It is a nasi schijf. Beef stew does not have "millet-like" things in it. That was rice. Rice is nasi in indonesian, hence nasi-schijf.
@MarcLuxen So it sounds like your objection is really just about the contents, which is totally reasonable. It sounded like you were basing it just as much on the appearance, and while you may have a very specific idea of what all these things look like, the OP might not, so it's good to keep a slightly more open mind before leaping to conclusions based on things like that.
@MarcLuxen Also worth noting: the page about kroketten that Joe linked appears to have been written by someone Dutch, and says "Not only can the main ingredient be different (meat, fish, shrimp, vegetables)...", suggesting that this answer might well be correct, despite it not being the original or most common type of kroketten.
@Jef If the main ingredient is different, but it is still cylindrical and deep-fried with a (crumb-like) crust, it is not normally called a kroket, but rather a groentekroket, a viskroket, etc. It is like salmon carpaccio: you would never expect that if the menu said merely "carpaccio". So you could say a groentekroket is a kind of kroket, but you would not call the dish simply a kroket. At any rate, a cordon-bleu is normally not shaped like a cylinder, let a lone like a (smallish) ball, so it is very unlikely that that the OP's dish would be called a kroket or a bitterbal in Dutch.
@jefromi : It could have been a cordon-blue-shaped-millet-kroket, but unfortunately Dutch has no word for these, because they are extremely rare. I have never seen one. But you never know. It is good to keep an open mind of course, and an outsiders view helps with that.
@Cerberus Honestly, if you took that comment plus a couple of the other related things you mentioned in chat (about exactly what shape things are, to sidestep the "what shape is cordon bleu" issue) and stuck them in the answer, it'd probably be the best one here.
@Cerberus : see my update.
@MarcLuxen : see my update
Ok, let me clarify a few things. I have originally accepted this answer because, even though the kroketten or bitterball were not exactly what I was looking for, they still are close enough to what I expected. Regarding the millet, I have to tell you that I said millet with a big doubt. Indeed, I remember the presence of something rather neutral that made me think about millet, but it was likely not millet. And regarding the shape : is it this important ? The chef used to make them half-circular, but I guess he could have made them spherical or cylindrical as well...
@Joe BTW I removed the green tick as you seemed to request. But without a better answer, I consider that yours is the best answer I got so far
You had a nasischijf. It is the Indonesian nasi goreng dish (rice with veggies and spices) in a crust, deep fried. You usually get it in snackbars or from a snackbar-wall. You eat it with sambal, Indonesian chilli-paste. Here are the Google image search results for "nasischijf".
FYI, I removed the back and forth because some of it had been flagged and because my edit made it obsolete. It's fine that you rolled back my edit - you can write the answers you want to write - but I do find this form less helpful. You're telling the OP that they definitely had a nasischijf, which requires rice, and it doesn't sound like the OP had something with rice.
It really looks like what you are showing, except that I definitely did not eat rice. Thanks for the contribution though ;)
It that case it is not something regular, but an inspired cook who used something else than rice. This is as close as we can get! We would in any case definitely not call it a kroket. A kroket is based on ragout. Next time, try them all ;-)
This is a possibility indeed. My initial guess regarding the millet was due to the fact that I often met it in vegan dishes (for some reason... proteins maybe?); and the chef may have replaced the rice with millet for that reason.
Yes maybe. Millet is not that commonly used in NL though...quinoa is very trendy at the moment, maybe that?
No, it was not quinoa. Quinoa is very easy to identify, and it was not what I ate. It was small brown grains, such as semolina but slightly bigger and not as steady. Maybe crushed spelt?
AH! Yes, my guess it was couscous (semolina). Couscous is popular in NL. So you had a couscousschijf, as it were...or, to say it different, a crusted tabouleh ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.053140
| 2016-02-12T16:08:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66448",
"authors": [
"Annabelle Ong - Gonzales",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Elena Gabor",
"Janet Nicholson",
"Joe",
"Marc Luxen",
"Mary Moore",
"Nicola Humphreys",
"Patricia Gardiner",
"PeterMJ16",
"Prasad Belokar",
"William Peet",
"dounyy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"john Smith",
"susan hewitt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79740
|
Sushi/nori/yaki paper - out of date?
I make a lot of sushi. But, as I buy the paper/wrapper in 100's, sometimes I do not use it in what might be considered good time. I have searched and searched the packet for a sell or eat by date but there is none. Is this OK to use even though I bought it about 8 months ago, and opened it about 6 months ago. I have made sushi today from it, it seems OK, rolled great and cut brilliantly, but should I be concerned? The paper is not too dry on the edges and is still a great greeny/blackish color.
I just checked with my Chinese wife. She confirms that it doesn’t go bad but just is less tasty.
My instinct is that it's very dry, so it will last for years without going rancid or becoming inetable, if kept in a climate that's not super humid (or kept in the fridge which is very dry air).
Dry doesn't stop rancidity, unfortunately. I've definitely had rancid nori before. But it's the oil that goes rancid, so that's more an issue with the roasted snack kind than the plain nori you use for sushi.
According to Still Tasty (a site that looks at USDA, CDC and FDA data), nori lasts 2-4 months in the pantry and 4-6 months in the fridge. Also it says:
Store in airtight glass or plastic container or in sealed plastic bag. Refrigerate to extend shelf life.
Still, nori is completely dried. I imagine that the concern beyond that time frame is staleness, not safety.
I have nori that's years old. I would check to be sure that it is somewhat brittle, not leather-like before I used it, but for quality, not safety.
I second this, but would add that the colour can deteriorate somewhat as the nori oxidises - it loses some of the rich dark green sheen and turns darker, browner and less attractive. Still tastes fine
Once opened, unless tightly sealed in a not-too-big airtight container, it goes stale and leathery quite quickly. So although I would use it out of date (and probably have) it's likely to be past its best having been open so long.
It's not going to do you any harm if it's just lost some texture though - so try it and see.
It is in a zip-lock bag (which it comes in), normally we make a lot of sushi (what with living in the middle of the Atlantic ocean - lots of fresh fish!). It was just a question that surfaced yesterday when I said 'sushi tomorrow', and realized that a particular package was a bit old. However, used it today, and no one is dead ........yet!
The brand that the local store carries comes with those 'do not eat' packets (silica gel, which absorbs moisture). I put the opened package (with original wrapper and anti-moisture packet) into a gallon freezer bag, squeeze out the air, and put it back into my pantry. I've not yet had a problem, and I wouldn't be surprised if I had one that sat open for a year before I finished it.
@Joe that sounds like the packs we get, but we've been less successful with a similar approach to resealing.
@ChrisH : I wonder if it might be something while the partial package is being used -- differences in humidity in the room it was opened, how long it was out in the open, etc.
@Joe quite possibly. Maybe you get on with it shut the packet quickly, while I'm still fiddling about making a mess of the filling.
I like my nori chewy, personally. You could store it in an airtight container with a packet of silica gel (electronics equipment usually comes with one or more inside the box- and they can be regenerated in the oven), and that would probably keep it from going off but it would dry out faster.
We'd much prefer you suggest an edit if you see something that can be improved, especially something as straightforward as this.
i bought my sushi wraps, nori a few years ago, the packages were never opened, and it would be like a double packed plastic on them, as they sheets are plastic wrapped and then the outside package. They have been in my cupboard and not moved.
I opened them today and they are gooey. The inside of the package feels like sticky glue, and the edges of the nori sheets are very very sticky. The sheets are moist and bouncing if you press on them, but the stickiness to them worries me. Feels like someone poured glue on them.
I think it's safe to say that Nori does have a shelf life and will go bad eventually. These don't smell, they do look green when you hold it up to the light, I am going to chuck all four packages out. I'd be happy to send u a pic if you'd like to see it.
I should add that some of the sheets are just really oily, if you touch them your fingers feel like they are oily as if you touched cooking oil. I think mine have gone bad, I've never seen nori that wasn't dry, and I think it's just deteriorating and breaking down. I also wouldn't trust that bacteria would form once the oil and stickiness started forming.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.053742
| 2017-04-08T13:48:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79740",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"canardgras",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"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
}
|
78060
|
How to make 'proper' Caribbean Roti
Having been around the Caribbean a few times I got used to eating Roti from street vendors. Normally young guys and girls who would make them at home, put them into an insulated box and sell them on the street for a few dollars (ec). The wrapper that these delicious and filling snacks is what makes them so fantastic. Light, and almost translucent, they somehow manage to contain the spicy/curried contents even whilst the eater devours it. Now, we can argue about what is truly a Roti, flat beads etc... but I am not interested in that, I want to know how (and what type of flour to use) to make the covering for what is considered to be a Caribbean Roti. PS: The best ones always seem to come from Grenada.
Wikipedia has this, but somehow it is not quite right for what I want. I have tried looking into rice wraps, not quite the same as they are more Asian. Please help...
Hi Stephie, great, but not quite the same thing, the Roti wrapper I am looking for is like tracing paper, but soft, yet somehow holds everything inside. When you buy them you normally get one (very) small paper serviette, which is more than enough as the contents don't spill out. Yes, sounds a bit fantastical, but they are. An aside to this is I quite often make samosas out of left over curry, but use filo pastry and fry them. These wrappers seem to be more steamed.
If ever you get the chance to eat a proper Roti, go for it, they may be simple, but somehow, they are just great. It's great to be back, thanks!
I've moved some comments to chat - they were about more meta things. Feel free to keep discussing the question itself here.
@Stephie Hm, I just realized you linked to wrap roti but the question links to plain roti (which has a section on the Caribbean but no pictures, definitely none of the wrap) so I'm not 100% sure your comment was obsolete, or what the difference is. The wrap roti looks relatively light and translucent to me.
I doubt very much this is it, but "rice paper" (mostly tapioca, actually) wrappers are both translucent and flexible (once dipped in warm water for a few seconds, anyway.)
Ah, now there's a possibility, so much to go and have a look at - when I get the recipe right I'll post a pic. Thanks for the comment.
Your question intrigued me and I'm curious to know what these rotis are like. I make rotis often and have for a number of decades but I learned how originally from a Punjabi family. I don't really make them the same way as I've developed my own method over time. I use a mix of white flour, whole wheat and soy flour with a handful of wheat germ added. I don't butter mine when finished cooking either. My rotis are soft and hold up well as I also use them as a wrap instead of tortillas or pita bread. So I'm thinking a certain difference in flours can affect how they hold up for wraps.
I did some searching online and found a recipe for Caribbean wraps and filling that's supposed to come from Trinidad. Looking over different Caribbean roti recipes, one thing I noticed is they all have baking powder in them. I've never used it myself for rotis so perhaps that also affects how they turn out. The recipe link I'll give also adds a pinch of yeast that might help. All I can suggest is to try a small batch and see how they turn out.
Here's the recipe link. The part for rotis is at the bottom of the recipe.Trini Roti recipe
Hi Jude. I will certainly take a look. I've just spoken to someone who says that they are made from chickpea/flour - so will look into that as well.
Hi again Jude. The Trini Roti looks great, but the wrap isn't quite what I'm looking for - however I have book marked the site as I'd never seen it before so many thanks for that... off to look at rice paper now, will keep you posted.
A caution about chick-pea flour I learned about first-hand and read later on. As you'll no doubt already know, legumes can make a person gassy. Chick-pea flour has an especially bad reputation for that. Soy flour can too but not nearly like chick-pea flour. I wonder if adding soy flour helped make my rotis softer and hold together well. --- Reading through some older posts here that the addition of a small amount of baking powder to dough imparts a degree of resiliency and softness - though not nearly in the amount called for in the recipe I linked you to!
Thanks Jude, will keep it in mind about the 'gassyness'. When making 'ordinary' roti's I sometimes add baking powder, but have never got the results that I am after for this particular wrap. I am doing a bit more research to see if I can track down how these things are made... watch this space.
I can't comment in the other group of comments above as I don't have enough 'reputation' to. But something about rice paper wraps - I do a lot of Asian cooking and the rice paper I buy for making cold summer rolls are rice with a bit of tapioca flour only. I doubt they'd suit you as they're quite fragile and can tear easily if not handled carefully. I can't imagine trying to put hot curries in them.
Just been looking at chickpea flour pancakes, will have a go a bit later on - as I have been banned from cooking in the early hours of the morning - don't know why!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.054261
| 2017-02-03T06:28:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78060",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jude",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78221
|
Scurvy grass - preparation and kitchen utensils
So, as many of you may know, I live on a boat, traveling the world by sea. Though today in most places it is possible to obtain at least some decent nutrition no matter where (Azores sometimes impossible), I am interested. Scurvy Grass, what is the best preparation for it and do I need any special utensils?
I have found this and that.
This is a recipe request d00g.
For the "what can I cook with it" part (which as GdD hints is off-topic) part, maybe you'd be willing to instead ask whether it's good cooked (or just raw) and what kinds of existing recipes you could add/substitute it into? For the "where can I find it"... it does look very much like this is something that's not at all commercially grown, so you'd have to forage? I suspect finding/identifying plants in nature is a bit outside our wheelhouse as well.
Cooking is oft implicated in destroying (at least some) vitamin C, so you might not want to...?
@Ecnerwal. Good Point. Perhaps, in order to retain the vit c I should have said 'eat - serve' with it etc... Let's just say that the vit c is not important, and I just like the taste of scurvy grass - after all it's a free world... isn't it?
Often an expensive one, in my experience, which I'd think you'd know since you have a hole in the water and those are commonly associated with throwing money in them (or standing fully clothed under a cold shower ripping up $100 bills, as a simulation...) ;-) I like wood sorrel, myself.
In our case a warm shower, as the sun is shining. Shower? Once a month all crew will have a wash 'whether they need it or not'! And I can't remember the last time I saw a $100 bill! As for your liking for wood sorrel - I applaud you and your choice of vit c edibles, I think that the next time I am in a general part of Europe of Asia I will look out for it - or maybe just go to any St Patrick's day event.
@GdD. Sorry, will in a moment (after scouring the countryside for some edibles) look at changing the wording.
@dougal2.0.0, very good - you might want to pop into [chat] before, this question is currently discussed there.
Perhaps some slight rephrasing like "are there preparation methods to avoid"? Wanting to know what's "best" when there are several acceptable methods of preparation (e.g. uncooked vs steamed) isn't helpful but knowing that there might be a method that is utterly not recommended because it leads to an inedible (or nearly so) product might be more useful?
Also, I've spent several weeks in the Azores as my mom lived there for a couple of years and I thought their food was quite excellent. That white fresh cheese they make is beautiful and their seafood options are wonderful.
@Catija. Depends where in the Azores and at what time of year.
I would suggest that you look to Rene Redzepi's new Nordic cuisine, which sources the very type of ingredient(s) in which you're interested. Common scurvy-grass grows along French, northern Spanish, Danish and Norwegian coasts and on mountain peaks in Western Europe. Weigh anchor and sail to the Basque Country coast, and search the Barbadun, Plentzia and Urdaibai estuaries.
again you come to my rescue, I'm thinking of keeping you on board as a just in case!!
Lucette? No, wrong ocean. But you are welcome as crew anytime.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.054689
| 2017-02-08T14:45:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78221",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95214
|
Reheat only a few pieces of meat pie
My meat pie has already been cut and there are only a few pieces left.
How can I reheat these pieces so the sides don’t dry out?
Easy-peasy:
Wet your hand
Rub moisture all over the pieces
Wrap them all cosily together in:
Aluminium foil if a normal oven
Microwave-safe kitchen foil if a microwave oven
Bake as per original instructions
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.054976
| 2018-12-29T19:39:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95214",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92218
|
Are all dark chocolates with the same amount of cocoa equal?
I've noticed 3 ingredients in all dark chocolates:
cocoa mass
cocoa butter
cocoa powder.
This made me wonder if someone could have different ratios of these ingredients (like more cocoa powder than cocoa mass) and still have "dark" chocolate with X% of cocoa while being inferior to some other chocolate.
Another thing I've noticed is that many chocolates have approximately the same mass and amount of cocoa while having very different amounts of sugar (from 15g to 45g), if they have approximate amount of cocoa and mass, how did they stuff additional sugar in it?
Thanks for the acceptance! Favour returned, question upvoted! ;-)
There's just a ton of different types of dark chocolates out there that cater to all kinds of needs:
Chocolatiers
Bakers
Gourmets
...
To answer your questions:
Yes, it's rather easy to have a "more fluid" dark chocolate that still contains a high % of pure cocoa and cocoa mass by adding more cocoa butter.
Cocoa mass is a raw ingredient that comes straight out of the beans and cocoa powder and cocoa butter are the separated products from cocoa mass, so to add more sugar, Chocolate producers use the same amount of cocoa mass and powder but a bit less cocoa butter.
One additional factor to consider is the chocolate bean roast and quality. Like coffee, the roasting process can affect the taste.
How does the ratio of cocoa mass and powder affect the chocolate and it's nutritional value?
@JoeDough I'm a chemist by education and a chocolatier by hobby, not a nutritionist. What you're asking me now is a totally different question... ;-)
I always groan when I'm reminded of twice being in a chocolate shop and hear someone say, "Here. Eat this. It's good for you cause chocolate has X for nutrition!". Almost every food has nutrition in some form. Using nutrition as an excuse to eat a sweet treat is no excuse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.055039
| 2018-09-12T12:16:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92218",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"JoeDough",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69099"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92203
|
My Candy Apple is too brittle, how to prevent?
I am cooking the candy mixture to 302°F and dipping right away, but the candy seems to be brittle and not holding to the apple when you either cut into it or try and bite into it.
How can I prevent this?
I am using the following ingredients:
3 cups sugar
1 cup water
1/2 cup light corn syrup
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
White food coloring
2 additional colors of food coloring (I made marble apples)
I'm not a candy maker, but have you calibrated your thermometer recently? It might be reading a few degrees low. Also, depending on where you get your apples from, they might be waxed, so make sure to clean (and dry) them well. (see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/65274/67 )
I have washed all off the bee's wax off of the apples as well as calibrated the thermometers(I use two just in case one is wrong). I am going to make another batch today and test them out. I know the humidity can affect the candy so I am going to try bagging immediately after cooling. Not sure if this will help.
@Luciano Please review my edits as there is a difference between a Candy apple and Apple candy ;-) 0:-)
what altitude do you live at?
Maybe you want soft-crack instead of hard-crack... Try around 290F
As already suggested, maybe you should try for Soft Crack instead of hard crack.
If you are unable to rely on the thermometer just try a cold water test. Drop some hot candy in to iced water. Stop cooking after the hard ball stage. As soon as it will form pliable threads.
See
https://www.instructables.com/id/Candy-Making-without-a-Thermometer-Cold-Water-Tes/
https://www.thespruceeats.com/making-candy-without-a-candy-thermometer-520309
These tests show what happens as the candy cools, and so predict what the final candy will be like. Even if your mix needs a different temperature from the 302 F you are aiming for it should work.
Make a note of what the indicated temperature is on your thermometer, and if the candy apples are ok then on future batches just use that thermometer and that temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.055220
| 2018-09-11T12:28:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92203",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"Kam G",
"LightBender",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69192",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91487
|
What preservative can I use to can my hot sauce
I've made hot sauce for my family using the following ingredients:
peppers
onions
garlic
tomatoes
salt
And I would like to try canning it. What can I use instead of vinegar to preserve it. I really don’t like vinegar in my hot sauce at all.
We'll need an example recipe to answer this.
I use peppers, onions, garlic, tomatoes, and salt.
Without vinegar (or lime juice, or citric acid, etc.) your hot sauce may have a pH too high for normal canning. You could pressure can it, or find an acid you like better.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. ;-) Please don't answer requests for clarifications in the comment section, but [edit] your question to include important information so that the problem solvers here don't have to read through a slew of comments but your question is self-sufficient. 0:-) Also, please [edit] your question to add which kind of canning methodology you'd like to try; if you have anything against using chemicals and then leave a comment @Fabby
With just those four ingredients (plus maybe some seasonings), your hot sauce will be a "low-acid food" which means that to be shelf-stable, it needs to be canned at 240F/115C. This means that you will need to use pressure canning to seal it (pictoral guide). If properly pressure canned, it should be shelf-stable for months to years.
This has two drawbacks for you: first, it requires getting a pressure canner (or using a pressure cooker and really small batches). Second, it does mean that you're going to be cooking the hot sauce at 240F, which may lead to it being more "cooked" than you necessarily want it to be. If you have a pressure cooker around, I suggest trying that with one jar and seeing how it tastes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.055430
| 2018-08-06T21:46:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91487",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"FuzzyChef",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Stephanie ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68542",
"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
}
|
78192
|
What is the best water to use for yeast being used in bread making?
I'm just starting back on the road to bread making, and I have been wondering about the water that I am using, and how it will affect the yeast. Do I just use (1) the stuff that flows from my pressure water system, (2) the water from my drinking water filtered system or (3) go out and buy bottled water? For #1 I just open the tap - the water that comes out of it is de-salinated using RO. #2 is the same water but put through two filters, I use this for drinking. #3 the bottled stuff, but if I go down this route, what type - filtered or purified (is there a difference- see below)? How will my yeast react? So, had a mooch around google and found all sorts of articles (below), but am still wondering. What is the best water to use for yeast being used in bread making?
This is a fascinating article
A bit more info here
These guys seem to know a thing or two
Are you making sourdough starter, as in the third link, or just making bread?
Though the third link initially talks about sourdough starter - it is a fascinating discussion about different water types, thus the inclusion in my references (hence the 'these guys seem to know a thing or two'). I am 'just' making bread.
There's no single right or wrong answer to the question as it depends on the mineral content (ie hardness), acidity, and chlorine content of your water. Yeast and gluten development is affected by these factors, see this good summary from the King Arthur Flour site:
The degree of hardness is an indication of the amount of calcium and
magnesium ions in water, expressed in parts per million (ppm). Soft
water has less than 50 ppm, while hard water has over 200 ppm.
Generally, water of medium hardness, with about 100 to 150 ppm of
minerals, is best suited to bread baking. The minerals in water
provide food for the yeast, and therefore can benefit fermentation.
However, if the water is excessively hard, there will be a tightening
effect on the gluten, as well as a decrease in the fermentation rate
(the minerals make water absorption more difficult for the proteins in
the flour). On the other hand, if water is excessively soft, the lack
of minerals will result in a dough that is sticky and slack.
Acidity has an effect as well, too acid or too basic will impact your yeast, neutral or very slightly acidic is best.
Water with a high chlorine content is not ideal as it may impact the flavor of the bread, and can impact the development of cultured starters like sourdoughs. Chlorine is not an issue though as simply leaving water in an open container for a day or two will let it naturally disperse.
So, your bread will be best if there's some minerals in the water to feed the yeast and aid gluten development, it will also be best if the water is very slightly acidic. In many places water that comes out of the tap is perfect, and in most places it will work fine. Purified water is not good because it doesn't have enough minerals in it. Filtered water from a RO system may be fine, whether you want to go further really depends on how much residual mineral content there is in it. I live in a hard water area, about 250ppm, and I use a brita filter for my bread making and cooking and as long as the filter is not used up it seems to work, although I don't know what the actual mineral content after filtering is. If I really wanted to know I would get a testing kit, they do not cost much and are simple to use. I would suggest you get test kits for hardness and acidity, you probably don't need one unless you know you are adding it in your RO system.
Another good article I've seen on the subject is here.
EDIT: chloramines
Chloramines are sometimes added to water instead of chlorine because it does not evaporate easily and therefore much less can be used. The EPA's guidelines is a maximum of 4ppm, however beer brewers state that yeast eating chloramines can produce off flavors in the end product even in small concentrations. I don't know how that translates into bread baking though. Chloramine can be boiled off, but that takes a lot of energy, or you can use Campden tablets to remove it. A charcoal filter like a brita can also remove some, how much I do not know. All I can say is that I've never detected any off flavors in bread when I've used filtered water.
Just off shopping, so will think about everything above, many thanks for it all. I hadn't really appreciated all of this before, but now it really does start to make sense. Thanks for the link as well.
Back from the shops - proper work stuff all completed, so have time to concentrate on things here.
Chloramines however will have to be boiled off, those don't disperse by standing like chlorine does.
See my edit @thrig
I use tap water (chlorinated) without incident, but if convenient (I won't boil vegetables/potatoes/pasta just to make bread) I will reuse (cooled to 95F/35C or so) cooking water if it's handy (should have some extra "stuff" in it by then - potato water in particular is a classic) or use cooled water that has been in the kettle (so chlorine should be boiled off.)
But I have no problem with using the tap-water directly. I also use milk, eggs, yogurt, nut or bean milks, beer, etc. Hmmm; I don't know that I've tried bread using coffee as the liquid - a project for the weekend, perhaps.
All work, some with more obvious effects on the results than others.
The coffee idea has me thinking - yes perhaps a project for the weekend, first have to hone my baking skills though.
Simply use what you have at hand. All other being equal, I would resort to the same water I drink.
Bread has been baked for centuries before we started purifying our water. If you make your own sourdough (like historical bakers), the main thing is to be consistent. Always use the same water, and then you will get a stable culture. If you change the mineral content, you may change the species equilibrium in the sourdough. But it does not matter which potable water you use, as long as it is the same. OK, if you happen to have a culture whose taste you dislike, starting a new one with different water may be a good thing to try, but that is rare and not very predictable.
If you are baking with commercial yeast, it won't have a noticeable difference. Commercial yeasts are hardy little beasts, designed to thrive in countless scenarios, misused by amateurs, thrown into choking-heavy doughs, etc. Sure some conditions are better for them than others, but if there is any noticeable difference, it will probably be that the yeast with the suboptimal water takes a few more minutes to rise. And these fluctuations in rising time are small when compared to fluctuations caused by other factors, so you have to rise your dough until ready anyway.
Only if you have an unusually impure water, and/or notice weird smells in your bread (and know they are not caused by some of the more common reasons like thiosulfates or ammonia from wrong rising speeds) is it worth changing your water. Maybe also if you are a high-volume artisan baker and have all other variables of the process perfectly controlled and are now finetuning the last details. But for the normal home baker, tweaking the water is unlikely to give you any returns on the invested time.
I think rumtscho, above, said it well, as to your question on water. However, it is recommended that if you have tap chlorinated water to let it set out on the counter for overnight, to let the chlorine evaporate.
When I thought I had 'killed' my starter, I looked back to see what things I had changed from one day to the next, and realized one item that I did differently was, in a moment of haste, I used my well water. I had also used a metal spoon, and I think I had reduced it before it was strong enough to survive that.
I have not yet totally gone off of bottled water, but am now adding 1/2 well water, after letting it set on the counter to warm up to room temperature, as our well water is very, very cold. I guess I'm doing as rumptscho suggested: bakers only recently have had 'purified' water, and I am introducing my well water a bit slowly, as it is quite hard water.
Um, now that is interesting - I don't have any well water, but the more I learn, the better things will be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.055603
| 2017-02-07T05:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78192",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78136
|
What can I substitute for hot Korean chili oil in this pork noodle recipe?
Our local supermarket sells fantastic pork, normally also on offer. Yesterday I bought a kilo of cubed pork (magro). Yesterday we had kebabs, today perhaps Asian.
So, I've thought about making this Korean noodle dish. I have never been that good at replicating authentic Asian food, but I'm always willing to have a go. It's Sunday and the shops aren't open around here. The recipe calls for - 'Hot Korean Chili Oil', is there something 'different' about it or can I substitute it for what I have in the cupboard?
Conversation about the original question and edits has been archived to chat.
What comparable ingredients do you have in the cupboard? Another kind of chili oil? Chili flakes and neutral oil?
Hi, loads chili, flakes, powder etc... thought of making my own chili oil, but is Korean different?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14335/1672
Hi Dorothy, rescuing me again! Thanks for that, what I did in the end was: cut it up a bit more, fried off with garlic, ginger, squeeze lime, wrap in cabbage leaves and then steamed them. Rice and a hot lime chutney to dip - worked out well.
You can always just make your own Korean chili oil. For example, here's The Woks of Life formula for chili oil:
1½ cups oil (ideally a vegetable, peanut, or grapeseed oil…light olive oil is fine, but it has a tendency to set in the fridge)
5 star anise
1 cinnamon stick, preferably cassia cinnamon
2 bay leaves
3 tablespoons Sichuan peppercorns
¾ cup Asian crushed red pepper flakes (Sichuan chili flakes are the best)
1 – 1½ teaspoons salt (to taste)
Heat the oil, star anise, cinnamon stick, bay leaves, and Sichuan peppercorns in a small saucepan over medium high heat. When the oil starts to bubble slightly, turn the heat down to medium.
Thanks! I tweaked it slightly, since the idea is to use recipes (and links/quotes in general) as examples, or to round out answers.
I would use any asian Chili oil. My experience is that they are pretty much the same. I have access to an asian supermarket and all the chili oils are in the same place in the market as well as the hot sauces. Chili oil is very spicy. If not available us Siracha near the end of the saute process instead.
sriracha (chili and vinegar paste) is rather different from an infused chili oil
There are just a couple of things that separate Korean hot chili oil from other types of chili oil. Usually, it's made with hot oil, with dried hot pepper flakes added. The oil gets infused with the chili oils and flavors, and then is strained so you just have the flavored oil.
Korean hot chili oil is different in a few ways.
The pepper used, specifically, is the Korean gochu pepper. I think,
while preferred for completely authentic product, this is probably
the least critical aspect, as many types of dried peppers are called
into service across cuisines as substitutes for one another.
The pepper used is ground, instead of whole or crushed/flakes.
The oil is additionally flavored with garlic and ginger.
I think you have a couple options here:
Make a batch of your own, and store it in a jar. Method/recipe is here:
Jihye Change: How To Make Chili Oil (Korean Style)
Or use a standard Chinese chili oil, but heat it up and then add some fresh grated ginger and crushed garlic when it is hot, and give it a couple of swirls before tossing any food into it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.056582
| 2017-02-05T05:30:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78136",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78238
|
How to tell if eggs are rotten
Over the past couple of weeks our local supermarket has been selling eggs very cheaply. (large eggs for half the price of medium eggs). So we've been eating a lot of eggs, not a problem, but I still have a few dozen left and need the counter space. I am well aware of the drop them in water and see if they float technique - here and here. But I have been finding that a few have slipped through the net. My question is: Are there any other fool proof methods to telling if an egg has gone off or not?
Please note that the first link is a site that I own, it's just that I wrote an egg page a long time ago.
Besides the water bowl test I found these other tests from this site:
The cracked egg and plate test
Crack the egg in a flat plate or flat surface and check for the below signs:
The yolk of a very fresh egg will have a round and compact appearance
and it will sit positioned quite high up in the middle of the egg. The
white that surrounds it (albumen) will be thick and stays close to the
yolk.
A cloudy colouring to the egg white is a sign of extra freshness, as
this "cloudiness" is in fact carbon dioxide, which is present when the
egg is laid. Over time, the egg white will become more transparent, as
the carbon dioxide dissipates.
A less fresh egg will contain a flatter yolk that may break easily and
a thinner white that spreads quite far over the plate.
In the last instance, a bad egg will have a very flat yolk and the egg
white, or albumen, will be runny like water almost. If your egg is
like this, it needs to be discarded and should not be consumed.
This characteristics can be noted if you don't rely on the smell.
The sound test
This method is not as widely used as the previous two, but it can work
just as well, although you will have to rely on your hearing rather
than your sight.
First, ensure there are no background noises which may affect this
test, for example, if you have the washing machine or a dishwasher
running in the kitchen then go to a different room.
Pick up the egg that you want to test and place it close to your ear.
Gently shake the egg from side to side. If you cannot hear any sound
whatsoever, the egg is perfectly fine to eat and there is nothing
wrong with it.
If, on the other hand, you hear a sloshing sound, do not consume the
egg as it is bad.
If you are unsure after carrying out this test, you could try one of
the first two tests just to make sure.
You can do the sound test first and try to guess if it's good or bad, then use the water and bowl test and then crack it on a plate.
This way you will train your ear to identify a bad egg by sound after checking the result of the other two tests.
There are only two methods I found fool proof:
If in doubt, assume it gone bad.
Break the shell, open it, and see & smell. Pour content into a glass, not directly on the pan or whatever. That way, if it's good you can still add it, and if it's bad, your dish is not ruined.
I prefer method 1. if I can afford it. On the trail, or in a camp in woods, or when I was short on money, I used 2.
Thanks, to be honest that is more or less what I am doing at the moment, but I just wondered if any whizz kids out there had a sooper dooper idea.
@dougal2.0.0 all the super duper ideas out there are not fool proof, sadly. Well, not unless you are willing to install quite expensive lab equipment and test the air around the egg for traces of particles you can't smell yet. Or train a dog to sniff them for you. But then, these are only fool proof to some extend. dog can be distracted, detector broken...
Unless you have a nasal impairment, the sniff test is very effective.
@Ecnerwal seems that either good nose is something that runs in your family, or me, my friends, and OP all have impairment. Sometimes I can't feel egg gone bad without breaking its shell. Actually it needs to be pretty bad for me to tell the difference when it's still whole and only off by a day or two. That said, eggs in USA are usually washed in a way that opens pores in shell. In Poland and most of the Europe, eggs are sold unwashed, with pores closed. Maybe this plays a role?
I meant your method 2. I basically never use your method 1, and I pretty much always break into a cup, mostly because it's easier to get out bits of shell from a cup (than a bowl/pan with other eggs in it) if the shell breaks badly, but also for the rare case of actually having a bad egg.
@Ecnerwal and here I was, envying you your sense of smell...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.056876
| 2017-02-09T04:44:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78238",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Mołot",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16050
|
How to make the perfect root beer
I have already noted this question about making root beer, but I wanted to explore further, so I hope you'll indulge me.
I want to make a home made root beer that is similar in taste to the A&W brand. Obviously, I want to make something different, or I could just buy A&W... but that's my starting point. If I can approximate that, then I can experiment from there.
There are some points that I am stuck on:
Most online recipes suggest either using "root beer extract", or "sasparilla", or "sassafrass extract". I understand sasparilla and sassafras are different roots, but is "root beer extract" another way description for either of the roots, or is it a catch all term for pre-mixed root beer flavouring?
Is there a noticeable flavour difference between sassafras and sasparilla? Should I really try and hunt down sassafras without the carcinogenic ingredient, or is it not worth the effort?
Where can I find a reliable supplier of the key ingredients that ships internationally? A lot of suppliers have either unclear web sites or their stock seems to come and go. Recommendations would be really welcome!
What I like about A&W over, say, Barq's, is that it seems thicker. The foam holds longer and the mouth feel is creamier. What would be the ingredient or method that would steer a root beer brew towards being thicker?
Thanks for any tips!
Supposedly, the flavor of sassafras can be approximated by a mixture of citrus fruits, spearmint, and wintergreen. Another website suggests wintergreen, anise, cloves, lemon oil, and orange oil.
I have long kept a copy of an old usenet posting on my web server that addressed the flavorings issue. There are alternatives to sassafras, and sarsaparilla plus dried burdock may get you most of the way there, and I always like the drink called sarsaparilla a little more than most mass market root beers. Birch beer has its charms, too. I think you can experiment with a few different barks and roots. Wintergreen and some of the other ingredients are used for other reasons; I'm pretty sure they were present in earlier forms of root beer as well.
See http://www.jagaimo.com/bistro/rootbeerfaq.html for the old discussion I kept a copy of (circa 1995). The same posting covered some suppliers but they may or may not be relevant 16 years after I collected that posting.
I've been blending herbal teas for years for a coffee shop in my area. I've also made my own root-beer from scratch several times. The recipe I've used for making root-beer naturally included sassafras root bark and sarsaparilla root. Yes, they are very different!
Sassafras has a naturally sort of "warming" flavor. It is hard to duplicate the flavor, but wintergreen, birch bark, spearmint leaf, orange peel and cinnamon will get you close.
Sarsaparilla has a bit of an earthier flavor, with a "powedery" hint of "cardboard". Definitely adds something. What I find most interesting is that no one mentions Birch bark--which can be difficult to locate sometimes. (My herb supplier was out for almost 2 yrs!)
To the boil, I also add a little vanilla bean to provide that warm note that's missing (when you leave out sassafras) and ginger root to kick up the burn. A hint of sweet marjoram, basil or thyme... and roasted chicory root can also be useful. Definitely add a hint of star anise!!! (Similarly, it makes Earl Grey tea taste more like Earl Grey when used judiciously.)
So, #1: Avoid the extracts. It's just plain cheating! #2: Sassafras is the one that's supposedly carcinogenic, not sarsaparilla. #3: I would imagine that finding a company to ship int'l would be difficult, due to trade restrictions on some plants. The only caveat I can think of here would be US/Canada, who have pretty strong relations. Finally, #4: the mouthfeel is key to some brands. This is where sweetener comes into play and will also effect flavor. If you're doing a yeast-fermentation, you'll need to discuss this with a local brewer or mead-maker. Personally, I use both white and demerrara sugar, along with either maple syrup or molasses.
All that said, I haven't brewed in well over 10 yrs... so I'd be a bit rusty on the specifics. But a great way to get the process going is simply to treat it like you're brewing tea. Experiment with ratios of herbs and spices and keep meticulous notes of each batch. Don't move onto the fermentation/carbonation until you're happy with the tea.
GOOD LUCK!
Maltodextrin can be bought pretty cheap at a brewer's store. It doesn't really add a taste, at least you're not supposed to notice it, but it gives it a thicker creamier feel. I know Sprecher uses it.
Is this meant to address point no. 4 of the original question? If it is, saying so directly will make it more clear what you are responding to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.057267
| 2011-07-09T15:26:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16050",
"authors": [
"Doh09",
"ESultanik",
"Els",
"Jigmet Dorjey",
"Mark Gregory",
"Morgan",
"Philip",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77200",
"user34161"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53833
|
Is there any diminishing return on grinding spices for a "tea"?
I'm actually making root beer, but I've found the best way is to boil herbs and spices the same way one would make a tea, and then I add sweetener, leave it to chill, and use a carbonation device to add bubbles.
So far I've been using ready made root beer ingredients that come either in extracts or in bags of herbs, like a loose leaf tea. Now I want to go the next step and make my own blend.
I've got a recipe I want to try and have bought all the ingredients I need in whole form. I'm wondering if there is any advantage in grinding them up. This answer on this site leads me to believe that it's workable to leave spices whole, but I feel like that wouldn't be the case with a whole nutmeg nut. Surely the flavour would not be accessed by boiling water in such a hard and thick nut?
I also learned that in the case of tea, it's actually inadvisable to boil or steep them for too long, as it releases bitter tannins. So I wonder if grinding down spices to "release" more flavour might also have adverse affects.
So, bottom line, maybe you can boil spices whole, but maybe it's better to chop or grind them a little? And if so, how far should one take it?
Are the tannins released in any herbal blend, or just teas from tea leaves (Camellia sinensis)?
If you're boiling them it isn't necessary to break them down at all unless time is a factor for you.
Nutmeg also works well boiled whole as you can see in many traditional hot beverage recipes. However, if you want to be able to add all of the spices at once, grinding some of them is advisable. Otherwise you'll have to add the spices to your mixture at different times to avoid flavor imbalances.
The finer that you grind the spices the quicker the volatile organic compounds will be released. In this way you can control the strength of flavor in the final product if all of the spices are added at once.
I've not been able to find any reference to boiling a spice for an extended period changing the character of the flavor(just the potency) which makes sense for a spice since we usually eat the whole thing in ground form anyway.
The same does not apply to herbs.
It might be worth considering that longer boiling times could break down flavor compounds or allow volatile flavor oils to evaporate, or increase extraction of undesirable plant components like tannins
@ssdecontrol, I can't find any scientific sources to back that up and indeed experience doesn't support that viewpoint either. If you have any sources please feel free to list them.
That's why I posted it as a comment and not an answer. In general, longer boiling times can reduce the flavor of any food for those reasons, and that idea is often brought up on this site and elsewhere without any citation. I do know that, for black pepper, boiling or even simmering more than about 8 minutes does nothing to increase flavor extraction but does increase bitter tannin extraction. I read that in the Modernist Cuisine at Home although I don't have the book in front of me so I can't give you a page number.
@ssdecontrol, you need to throw that cookbook away...it's filled with old-wives' tales and myth posing as fact. Do you really think that you would taste the tannins in something after boiling, but not when it's eaten whole? Tannins are naturally occurring in many plants and they do not change in anyway at boiling temperatures. Black pepper doesn't even contain tannins...bummer.
This book? http://modernistcuisine.com/books/modernist-cuisine-at-home/
@ssdecontrol, yes. That book exactly. As you can see by my previous comment, there is a lot of incorrect information in that book. It was written by an amateur cook and a now disgraced chef... go figure that one.
I can't find anything online about the author being "disgraced," and the link about black pepper doesn't cite any sources. If anything I'd sooner ask you for evidence that boiling time doesn't affect flavor.
@ssdecontrol, exactly the last resort of someone who lost a debate.
This is a debate? What? I cited a source and you claimed my source was invalid. That itself is a claim in need of a source, and the one you provided wasn't reliable.
@ssdecontrol, I don't know if it's a debate or not, but no one can prove a negative, so when people say "I can't prove me right, so you should prove me wrong," that is in itself indication that their premise can not be valid.
@Questioner The claim "the modernist cuisine author is full of myths" is what needs proof...
@ssdecontrol, no, a book is just a collection of claims, and to prove any of them wrong is proving a negative, which can not logically be done. The burden of proof is always on the positive. If you want to claim a book is true, then it's up to you to show why it should be believed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.057655
| 2015-01-21T04:10:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53833",
"authors": [
"Donna Houg",
"Erica",
"Jennifer Young",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Questioner",
"Trevor Simpkin",
"darrell schmidt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6715",
"shadowtalker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91789
|
Why do French macarons need two types of sugar?
In most instructions for French macarons, you mix dry ingredients in one bowl and wet ingredients in another. Then you fold them together.
Dry
Almond flour
Powdered sugar
Wet
Egg whites
granulated sugar
My questions are:
Why it needs two types of sugar?
Are both types critical to the overall texture/taste of the macaron shell?
can I forgo one of them, say the granulated sugar when beating the egg whites, to make the recipe simpler?
could you include the recipe you are following (or a link to said recipe)?
As this answer was originally downvoted for not being helpful answering all 3 questions in that one single question separately:
a. Powdered sugar contains additives to ensure it doesn't re-crystallize into a big hard rock of sugar under normal atmospheric conditions and only using that one would give the macarons a powdery taste.
b. Using granulated sugar only would change the texture of the macaron as all of the sugar cannot be dissolved in the egg withes.
a. Yes: the undissolved powdered sugar gives the macaron its stickly sweet taste while munching
b. the dissolved granulated sugar gives it it's first hit of taste while biting down.
Making macarons is as much Black Magic as it's a science: even when carefully measuring everything and doing things perfectly, they sometimes don't turn out perfectly, so:
No! Please! Don't change anything!
I see many drive-by downvotes, but no alternate answer... ¯\(ツ)/¯
Downvote retracted. I'm not very enamoured with the 3rd item, but people should have a bit of artistic freedom ;)
@WillemvanRumpt :-) ;-) :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.058069
| 2018-08-19T20:20:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91789",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Fabby",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80838
|
Mexican Achiote (annatto) Chicken - alternative to achiote
This is not a spice that I would normally use.
ACHIOTE
However I was given some and then looked for how to use it. Food52 has this to say about it:
Achiote paste is a beautiful blend of spices which give the chicken a
wonderful complex flavor.
(Great recipe here) I became a bit suspicious of the spice's freshness, so threw it out - however would like to make the Mexican chicken - but need an alternative to achiote. The question being: What spice can I use instead of achiote to achieve a similar flavor?
It may be more commonly known as 'Annatto' - see answer below.
Could you please clarify whether you're asking for a substitute for the blend of spices, or just the annatto that's in it? It sounds like the latter, but you do have that quote in there saying (a bit misleadingly, honestly) that it's a blend.
According to your profile, you live in Spain. I would expect that you could get more achiote about as easily as you could find a substitute. I know it's used in Ecuadorian cuisine as well as Mexican, so possibly also in most of the countries in between, and there are plenty of shops in Spain which cater for Ecuadorian and Colombian expats.
Canary Islands (and a very small one of those), not Spain, though Spanish waters.
Achiote, commonly known as annatto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annatto), is seed from the achiote fruit.
The seed is used for coloring more than for flavouring, often to mimic the colour of saffron. The flavour is very subtle - slightly peppery and lemony.
Saffron would, therefore, be a suitable subsitute for the colour. It would introduce a new flavour to the dish, but generally not one that would be out of place. Alternatively some yellow/orange food coloring or leaving the achiote out altogether would be easy replacements.
Subsitutions for the flavour could be pepper, pink peppercorns or nutmeg, in very small amounts
The spice paste known as 'Achiote paste' is different, but includes achiote seed as a main ingredient. Here (http://www.bonappetit.com/recipe/achiote-paste) is a recipe for it. The annatto in the recipe can be replaced as described above
Thanks for all of that - a rummage through the cupboards should suffice to get the show on the road.
This also means that freshness (the OP mentioned throwing out something old) is not as big a concern as usual; the flavor may fade a bit but the color should still be pretty good.
@Jefromi - where did I say old?
"I became a bit suspicious of the spice's freshness..." I used "old" to mean "(maybe) not fresh." However you'd like to phrase it, my point is the freshness is less of an issue because it affects color less than flavor.
Oh, turmeric might also be a decent idea here. It's not the right flavor either, but I don't think it's worse than saffron, and it's often a lot cheaper. Also has the benefit of already being a bulk powder, so while with saffron you'd have to figure out how to bulk up the paste to match the original quantities, with turmeric you could just use a good amount.
@Jefromi, I think saffron has the benefit of being the original spice that achiote had been traditionally used to replace, suggesting it would be a flavour that goes well in recipes that use achiote. Nevertheless, turmeric is significantly cheaper as you say, and adds a similar texture, so worth considering
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.058239
| 2017-04-12T06:18:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80838",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Peter Taylor",
"canardgras",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96010
|
Can potassium sorbate (E202) be tasted and smelled by everyone or just a few people?
Potassium sorbate (in Europe: E202, or 'Kaliumsorbat' in German) spoils a lot of the packaged food for me – I clearly smell and taste it. I can also clearly smell it e.g. in a medicinal cream I bought at the pharmacy. The smell/taste is very specific, a kind of organic 'sweetish-sour', remotely reminding me of wax when it is stronger, and I don't really like it. The taste also doesn't disappear after cooking as I just experienced with a pack of fresh potato dumpling dough from the supermarket (Germany) – after kneading the dough I could still smell the additive in my hand palms for a few hours.
All the online info sources suggest that potassium sorbate wouldn't impart its own taste to the food, but the opposite is the case in my experience. Now I wonder if it's possible that not everyone can smell/taste it, e.g., for genetic reasons? Otherwise the Internet should be full of comments to this effect.
What is your feeling to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbus_domestica perhaps you can identify if it is really sorbic ac. / sorbate that you dislike so much. However it is also possible that one likes the fruits but not the molecule itself. I wonder how much sorbate is in the item you mention. I think it might be something that is smelled and tasted by many but perhaps goes under a generic "already made" or "industrial" food term. Frozen pizza for instance gave me a "waxy-sweet-sour" feeling that I convey saying they are ok as a snack or in emergency, not too bad but taste artificial.
Would you also describe the odor as "fruity" or "acetone-like?"
Exercise.com and Moonsharvest.com say potassium sorbate can have a sweet odor.
According to Wikipedia, some yeasts can change potassium sorbate into pentadiene, which has a typical odor of kerosene or petroleum.
I also can smell and taste this additive, which I would describe as smelling and tasting ‘sour’. It’s not a thing you want your bread goods to taste like, so for me as well it ruins a lot of packaged goods like flatbreads and pittas and crumpets. Today I smelled it in a tub of hummmus, and sure enough, it was labelled on the ingredients. Hence me finding this thread today.
As this thread is so quiet, and I’ve never met anyone who also reels back in disgust when they open a packet, I can only assume we are quite rare in having this sensitivity to it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.058522
| 2019-01-28T22:21:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96010",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Jan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125429
|
Is there a possible substitute for sugar in creamed butter?
I'm always taken aback by how much sugar is necessary to make a cake. And also, I don't like super sweet things.
I gather sugar is not just flavoring, but also necessary so that the crystal matrix provides a structure for the butter to latch on to and not collapse the air gaps when butter is creamed.
Could it be (partially) substituted by something else, like another crystal? Or something flavorless?
Check out low sugar cake recipes for inspiration. https://scrummylane.com/25-low-sugar-cakes-that-still-taste-great/
Substituting any meaningful amount of sugar with salt will result in something disgustingly, inedibly salty.
Please don't get hung up on any particular crystal. The question is not: "is extremely salty cake tasty"? It is not helpful to answer this question, since any person that has ever tasted knows the answer already.
What you'll want to look at are cake recipes from Japan or Taiwan, since they have adapted traditional French techniques for the usually less-sweet East Asian palette.
One of the substitions that ends up happening a lot is to replace the crystalline matrix of sugar with a protein matrix from whipped egg whites, in e.g chiffon cake or fluffy pancakes. The end result is light in every respect - lightly sweet, light texture, and just physically light due to all the air.
Cake recipes are often quite finely balanced between flour, liquids, fat and sugar ratios, and if you change the recipe too much, you risk failure. I'm a keen home baker, but I have had my share of disasters when getting the ingredient ratios wrong. So, be warned - there is always a risk when experimenting!
However, I have found it is possible to reduce the sugar in a cake that uses the creamed butter-sugar method, but if you go too far it will adversely affect the texture of the cake. Perhaps start with a 10% reduction in sugar, maybe up to a 25% reduction, and see how it goes. Any less than that you will probably find the texture becomes denser, less moist, and more rubbery/chewy, and it might affect the rise. You could even get sinking in the middle.
Another thing to be aware of (I have found) is that cakes with too much vanilla often taste super sweet. For me, vanilla seems to intensify the sweet flavour, and can easily overpower a cake. So you might want to hold back on the vanilla.
Cake with salt as a replacement for sugar doesn't appeal to me.
This question is about creamed butter, not cake. If the guy was asking about less sweet cake, he should just make bread instead.
@nickcarraway: The title does focus on creamed butter, but the question body not so much, especially given the first paragraph. It appears to me that OP is trying to reduce overall sweetness of a cake and has latched onto the sugar in creamed butter as one way of doing so. I consider this answer sufficiently on topic, even if it contains a subtle frame challenge.
Also, cake is not just sugared bread. It has a very different consistency because of the gluten bonding, which sugar also prohibits. Hence the question: can any molecule take over the function of sugar, while not necessarily retaining the sweet taste.
-1 Every point in the answer is true, but OP does not ask whether one needs sugar, but what to replace it with... the answer doesn't seem to point out any alternative, not does it make a convincing case that there is no alternative whatsoever...
@AnoE I completely disagree. Do you understand bakers percentages? By removing some of the sugar, one increases the ratio (or percentage) of the other ingredients to the sugar, effectively adding more of the other ingredients in comparison to the sugar. The other ingredients are essentially the substitute for some of the sugar. I'm not ruling out any other alternatives, nor do I suggest there are no other alternatives, I'm merely pointing out one possible method.
@nickcarraway - The body text of the question goes into more detail. The questioner is quite clearly talking about "how much sugar is necessary to make a cake". Creaming together butter and sugar is a method used for creating many kinds of cake, particularly sponge cakes.
@AnoE Substitutions in any recipe can a delicate thing, especially in baking. Often times, substituting or reducing an ingredient in a recipe doesn't result in a slightly different recipe, it results in an entirely different end product. As such, questions that ask "What are substitutes for X in recipe Y" might not have an answer that fully satisfies the question if you cannot substitute X and still end up with Y.
I am very familiar with the "content" of the question and the answer, I am simply pointing out that the answer seems to answer a different question. This is purely for being on this Q&A site, not to say anything bad about the answer, otherwise. In another comment you write The questioner is quite clearly talking about "how much sugar is necessary to make a cake"; maybe it's a language issue, but I see not a single word in that direction. I see "Is there are possible substitute for sugar..." and "Could it be (partially) substituted by something else..." and so on.
Question asker here, completely agree with @AnoE and have downvoted the answer because it misses the point to my mind. You seem to have construed my intent in asking questions differently to how I intended it. (I could have spent more words to clarify.)
A valid answer would be "no, the chemical structure of sugar is unique because x and y, there is no known method to make the same fluffy cake structure without a lot of sugar molecules"
They are a bit of a pain to find, at least in my area, but sugars other than sucrose that are not as sweet would be one approach that could work. The most common sources I'm aware of tend to be home-brewing (beer) suppliers. Bakery suppliers might be another option. I don't think I've ever seen them in crystalline form at the grocery store.
Dextrose, lactose, and maltose are examples of "less-sweet" (compared to sucrose) sugars.
However, looking at "quick-bread" recipes would be a simpler route to a less-sweet result with a cake-like texture than needing to track down alternate sugars.
Substituting sucrose for another sugar can have unforeseen outcomes. For one, different sugars can crystalize entirely differently which can adversely affect the structure of the cake - for instance, dextrose (i.e. corn syrup) is commonly used as a crystallization inhibitor in candy making - so if you're making a specific kind of cake, simply using a different "-ose" sugar likely wouldn't work. For another, both dextrose and maltose have a glycemic index that is much higher than sucrose, making them poor choices for people who have sugar sensitivities for reasons other than taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.058745
| 2023-10-02T09:06:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125429",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"AnoE",
"Billy Kerr",
"Flater",
"Maarten",
"Matthew Read",
"MonkeyZeus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99712",
"nick carraway"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53891
|
Can sarsaparilla and sassafras be substituted with licorice root?
I am trying to make root beer using natural ingredients, but sarsaparilla and sassafras root are difficult to get in my area.
I found root beer recipes that used licorice root as an ingredient, and I was able to order some online. However, right from opening the package, it did not smell in any way like licorice or anything remotely evocative of root beer. I tried to boil it as instructed in the recipe, but the aroma did not improve. It actually smells kind of earthy and, in my opinion, kind of gross.
The resulting drink was weak and largely flavourless. So I'm wondering, did I get possibly the wrong type of licorice root, or perhaps a bad batch? Or is licorice root a different thing than the kind of high intensity licorice one might get in a candy?
I did see this other question about making licorice extract, which leads me to believe that licorice root might be inappropriate for making root beer, but then I have to wonder why any online recipes might use it as a main ingredient for root beer.
Is licorice root suitable for making a root beer like drink? If so, are there any special processing or source considerations?
IIRC real sarsaparilla and sassafras are considered poisonious
@TFD Only sassafras is considered toxic. Wikipedia says that safrole is a possible (but not thoroughly proven) carcinogen. Elsewhere I read that it is liver damaging. What is for sure is that it is banned by the FDA (while sarsaparilla is not as far as I'm aware). Filé powder, which is made from dried sassafras leaves, is neither toxic nor FDA prohibited. It is usually used as a thicken in gumbo though, so I doubt it could be used to make root beer however it tastes.
Sarsaparilla root can be order from amazon (I just checked). Natural sassafras flavoring is also available there, but can hardly be recommended if the FDA have seen fit to ban it. If you don't restrict yourself to natural ingredients, then there are some artificial sassafras flavorings there too.
@ChrisSteinbach, I live in Asia, and Amazon does not deliver certain food products to my area. Sarsaparilla root is one of the things that they will not send here.
liquorice root is suitable for making a root beer drink. It is important to note that most liquorice candy is actually flavoured with aniseed, which is the source of the intense flavour. however in answer to your question the following link will provide you with a natural, healthy recipe that uses liquorice root to create a root beer. http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/licorice-root-beer-recipe-zmaz04djzsel.aspx#axzz3QBIpu06t
Hello pandora, and welcome to the site. We are a strictly cooking site, and we don't discuss nutrition or "healthy" food. So I had to remove this part of your answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.059364
| 2015-01-22T17:23:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53891",
"authors": [
"AeroCare Specialists",
"Alan Meech",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Daniel Manley",
"Lone Torsbjerg Møller",
"Questioner",
"TFD",
"Trauma Outpatient Center",
"emily hosek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6715",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16168
|
Can I safely serve raw beef roasts that were left out to thaw for several hours?
Possible Duplicate:
Is it safe to cook a steak that was left out (raw) for 7 hours?
I left out 2 separate packages of unopened raw beef roasts overnight. They were frozen solid when left on the counter but unfortunately I only found them there 16 hours later. Can I now safely cook them for dinner?
No, you can not safely eat it. See answers to "Can I safely cook a steak that was left out raw for 7 hours".
Thawing at room temperature in air allows the surface to reach and maintain an unsafe temperature for some time, even as the interior remains quite frozen.
The appropriate ways to thaw the roasts are to do it in the fridge, or fully immersed in a bowl of COLD water with a trickle of cold water running over it. Thawing in water is the faster approach, and often takes under 30 minutes. It is safe to use this method for thawing requiring for up to 2 hours, but if considerable preparation is required, an hour is a better rule of thumb.
These are the approaches endorsed by cooking schools and health boards.
but if they are not left out, how do they thaw?
I've edited in an explanation.
There's an article by McGee that says meat can also be thawed in warm water. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/dining/a-hot-water-bath-for-thawing-meats-the-curious-cook.html (Bob's answer is correct, of course).
+1 for good food safety. Thaw your meat in the fridge, or use fresh cuts instead. Several hours of room temperature meat of any sort could result in severe illness.
BobMcGee I think different states allow for different times of defrosting. I am looking at some documentation that says the water method is feasible for up to a 2hr defrost time. Anyway, if it isn't a portioned piece of meet, for example a roast. Defrost in the refrigerator. It will take longer but why risk it.
I said under an hour because I'm assuming that for a roast there's marination and preparation time following thawing, and I'm assuming that runs about an hour or so. I've edited the post to clarify.
It's almost impossible for the answer here to be "yes", because the penalty for failure is fairly high. The "safe" answer of course is just "no" - since it can never be proved wrong. On the other hand, leaving meat out of the fridge (or freezer) to defrost is, I would suggest, a fairly common behaviour.
As with many things though, some common sense does apply. There are a number of factors to consider - and then at the end of the day, it's up to you.
a) the source of the meat. You may live in a country where all the meat comes in small polystyrene trays wrapped in cling-film. Where it's been immaculately handled from slaughter to supermarket. On the other hand many (dare I say most?) people buy meat that's been slaughtered right there in the market, and left all day under a hot sun, and endless flies. Quite surprisingly, they haven't all died. The former I'm somewhat more casual about than the latter.
b) the cooking method - "solid" beef, ie not ground beef, develops bacteria on the outside, not the inside. So I'd definitely give the outside of the meat a good searing to be sure. Or, if you like, slightly trim the outside of the meat first, then sear it.
c) slightly aside - the meat type. Beef (and lamb) are pretty resistant to spoilage - things like chicken and pork less so. Also chicken and pork can develop nasties "inside" the meat - one reason those meats are never served raw (or rare). Shellfish is also dangerous if it has spoiled.
d) the temperature of the room it was sitting in. If it's 110 in the shade outside, and like 90 in your kitchen, then 16 hours is a long time. In winter though I can leave a joint out overnight in the kitchen and it's still partially frozen in the morning. Clearly the temperature will affect the amount of time I'd leave it out for.
e) any obvious sign of spoilage? With beef (given that it doesn't really show) any unpleasant odor or color is probably not good.
At the end of the day it is your decision.
It is the OP's decision to serve it or not. Serving it safely is another matter. Your points are valid considerations, but they change serving it from "reckless" to "risky", not to "safe".
All good points. I would also add: who's going to eat it? A healthy young person is less of an issue than an elderly person, pregnant woman, young child, or otherwise immuno-compromised individual.
I think you're missing the point. This isn't a matter of an extra hour or two, this is 2/3 of a DAY AT ROOM TEMPERATURE. With that amount of time, I would expect the meat to start smelling if it wasn't extremely fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.059617
| 2011-07-15T04:07:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16168",
"authors": [
"Badger Cat",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cezar D.",
"Doug",
"Joan Venge",
"Libby Henderson",
"Vicky",
"gannawag",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jcaudle",
"jeffwllms",
"rumtscho",
"user1378803"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17738
|
Which Dessert fit a Thai dish?
I plan to cook a thai dish this weekend and I search for a dessert that fits to that. In particular it will be a chicken dish with lemon gras.
I moved the drink part of the question here. Sorry for that.
This is a poll, not a question. Please re-phrase or it will get closed
Changed it. Is it ok like that?
He was referring to the fact that on this site, we only want to have questions with a single correct answer. The problem with your question is that if somebody says "the best Thai dessert is a mango" and another one says "the best Thai dessert is a pineapple", none of the answers is objectively better than the other one. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask for details.
I forked the question, sorry for that! I absolutely understand the problem!
Welcome to the site moonglum. Open ended poll type questions are not a good fit for our site. Questions asked here must have reasonably objective answers.
Fresh fruit (mango, coconut, pineapple) is always a great dessert, and Thai iced tea is a refreshing drink (I actually sometimes drink it instead of having dessert because it's often really sweet.)
what about thai iced tea, and sticky rice with the mango?
This is the standard at my regular Thai restaurant.
Thai tea is a must but don't forget about pickled lemonade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanh_mu%E1%BB%91i
柯柏庭.
Sorry, but I moved that part of the question :(
For dessert, I've made:
1 can Coconut Milk
4 bananas
Cut the bananas up into 1" chunks. Add to a pan with the coconut milk and gently cook. I have a spice called "Sweet Spice" made by Alchemy Spice company that I add to the mixture as well.
Pre-prepare some mugs with vanilla ice cream in the freezer. Pull the mugs out of the freezer and add some of the banana / coconut milk mixture and serve.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.060055
| 2011-09-14T18:43:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17738",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"TFD",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6832",
"moonglum",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46342
|
How many hours can you store raw eggs in warm car?
I many times wonder if I can buy eggs now because not going directly to home.
The temperature in cars is often very high (probably more than 40 C at direct sunlight).
This answer talks about accumulation of heat to the object - maximum 4 hours at 5-60 C.
However, if the temperature is very high all the time during that time, I think the maximum time is shorter.
I do not understand how bacteria can develop in eggs at high temperatures (> 40 C).
In other words, how well does the package protects eggs from much heat?
How many hours can you keep raw eggs in a package in a warm car?
Bacteria don't start dying until at least 50C. Salmonella starts dying at 55C, and the temperature has to be sustained for some time.
Your "in other words" is really confusing. The question of whether the package protects the eggs by keeping them cooler is completely separate from the question of whether bacteria can multiply above 40C.
No, your reasoning is incorrect. Food safety rules are dumbed down because they have to be taken literally without any reasoning.
if the temperature is very high all the time during that time, I think the maximum time is shorter.
The maximum holding time isn't shorter for higher temperatures within the danger zone. It is the time at which food is legally safe, and it is defined to be the same for all temperatures in the 4 to 60 Celsius range, for all foods. This is different from the time the bacteria load actually increases to different levels - the real time cannot be really predicted, so the food safety rule assumes the worst case plus a safety margin.
Package isolation, actual temperature difference, actual initial bacterial load and so on are variables which you cannot measure at home, and whose effect you cannot calculate without using a model sophisticated enough to do a weather prediction (and we all know how good these are). So, they are not considered when calculating the legally safe time.
The range of 4 to 60 Celsius was chosen because it is the range at which foodborne pathogens multiply. Below 4 Celsius, Salmonela stops multiplying (but doesn't die, neither do other bacteria). Above 60, a few bacteria will survive, but practically none will multiply. The 40 Celsius limit is very low, even humans can survive it. It is a very comfortable temperature for most foodborne bacteria, whose optimal life condition is the gut of a human suffering from a fever.
If you want to base your decisions on a calculation of bacterial growth, as opposed to regulations, that's impossible. Such a calculation cannot be done even as a rough estimate. You are left with either following the regulations, or taking shots in the darkest dark.
Sewage treatment plants aim for about 35 to 38°C (95 to 100°F) as an ideal temperature for "digestion" (bacteria breaking things down) ... so it's a temp that you really don't want potentially dangerous food spending a long time at. (of course, you do want fermented foods at that temperature, for the same reasons ... bacteria multiply quickly)
@Joe That is a very interesting comment. Is there any other short temperature ranges which I should consider within [5,60]C?
@Masi : Yes. there's another class of bacteria used for thermophilic digestion that's most active around 49 to 57°C. (120 to 135°F). Sewage treatment plants don't tend to use this temperature range, because it requires lots of energy (and thus, costs more).
@Joe I think the temperature can reach 49-57C in a dark car during summer and sunlight. I did not find any research about some bacteria at thermophilic digestion with eggs.
I agree with most of this answer, however, bacterial growth is logorithmic. So, while the guidelines are simplified for maximum safety, the fact is, the higher the temperature (within the "danger zone"), the more quickly bacteria will grow. Ideal temp for salmonella growth is 35 - 37 C, for example. Eggs in your warm car have a shorter actual shelf life then eggs on the counter in your kitchen. Your assumption that the actual time is "much shorter" is probably correct, but I think there are too many variables to reasonably calculate exactly how much.
@moscafj I agree with all facts about bacteria growth you said. I am a bit confused as to which part of my answer you don't agree with, if you explain more, I can edit my answer. Or you could suggest an edit.
@rumtscho just emphasizing/clarifying the fact that warmer (within danger zone) = shorter holding time. In that regard, holding time for higher temperatures is shorter, no? I suppose you could edit to make that clear...and that the question has too many variables to really answer accurately with the information presented.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.060241
| 2014-08-12T18:24:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46342",
"authors": [
"Ashley Griggs",
"BJ Da Beav Bigbeaver",
"Cascabel",
"Ceylon Cinnamon",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"Nahoj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"moscafj",
"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
}
|
74489
|
How to collect slime pass through rice cooker cover when cover on?
I have often the following situation when boiling rice and meat in rice cooker.
However, I do not like it because the meat cannot then reach the high temperature.
I know that I could boil rice and meat (chicken) separately to minimise the problem.
Fig. 1 Wood stick between cover and the rice cooker
I know that you can prevent the slime formation by washing the rice first but I cannot do it easily because I have only this machine to warm food up; also, I need to filter my water to purify it.
Is there any measure to collect the slime passing through the cover of rice cooker?
I will bump this up to an answer as the only time this should not work for you is if you have a rice cooker that requires a minimum weight to activate the heating element.
You usually should be able to use your rice cooker itself to sear/brown your protein. Cut into small pieces and toss into the cooker. Also, garlic, onions, maybe fresh herbs which would benefit from heat to bloom their flavor. Caramelize any onion or garlic you use and sear/brown meat or poultry just as you would in a pan. It may take a little longer, and you may not get quite a deep of a browning as you would in a pan, but the same general effect. It will also help meld the spicing with the protein.
When satisfied, use a little of your liquid to deglaze the bottom of the cooker, you want all that flavor that stuck on. Then add your rice and the rest of the liquid and cook as normal. I agree that the bulk of you slime, at least the more unappealing part is probable the protein scum from boiling it, and this should greatly reduce that effect and may give you a more satisfying blend of flavor as well.
My rice cooker is one which with multiple settings which allows it to somewhat double as a slow cooker and I have used this technique many times to make soups with very good results. If you do have multiple settings, use the highest heat option for the searing of the protein.
What is this about sear/brown your protein? - - My rice cooker has only one option. - -
It should still work. You should be able to start you rice cooker, but not put the rice in. Put the protein, beef, pork, chicken, etc., in small pieces in with spicing and may small amount of oil to minimize sticking and brown it stirring it. This will help flavor it, give it a bit of caramelized surface as you would get pan searing it. This will use or seal in much of that fluid which gives you protein scum when you boil meats. If the rice cooker had higher settings it is a little easier, but it should still work without other settings.
Basic rice cookers (as the one pictured likely is!) will constantly trip their thermostats if you try to heat anything over a 100 degrees C in them (as you need to for searing/browning); also the pan (which could warp) and its coating could be unsuitable for working at that temperature.
There are a couple of potential issues at play here. One is when startches from the rice intermix with the boiling water and steam, which creates a residue. This could be the "slime" you are referring to.
Another is when meat is cooked, some of the proteins coagulate and form a "scum" that, when making soups or broths, gets skimmed to keep the appearance more clear.
I wouldn't worry too much about either one, other than in terms of messiness. If I'm going to mix chicken in and use my rice cooker to make a combined meal, I'd use cooked chicken (chop it up, cook it in a skillet ahead of time, or use leftovers from a bigger chicken meal). This would reduce the "protein scum" issue from the chicken, I think, vs using raw chicken. The taste is a better than boiling raw chicken, to me, but that's just my opinion.
I have no skillet or pan in my kitchen, just a rice cooker, this is the problem which I cannot fix.
A couple of cooked chicken option for you - 1) Canned chicken (reduce or eliminate any added salt to your normal recipe if you go this route) - this is what I did when I was first in college and used my rice cooker to make one-dish meals. 2) Buy a whole roasted chicken from the store and use the leftovers. This is pretty common in the USA, but may be less so if you aren't over here.
Is your rice cooker one which will allow for reasonably heating without rice and water? If so, put in chopped meat, onion, garlic, and meat seasoning first and allow the cooker to sear/brown the meat at least partially cooking it. This will also caramelize any onion or garlic you use and will allow your protein to meld with the spicing better much like pan pre-cooking it. Add a small amount of your water or other cooking liquid to deglaze and then your rice and remainder of the rice and the protein scum should be gone or at least greatly reduced.
@dlb - LIke that, a lot. S/b an answer, don't you think?
@AndrewMattson I started with just the question, but then gave whole reason for asking. lol I have seen some rice cookers that will not heat unless there is enough weight, but most would now allow you to use them that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.060616
| 2016-10-04T14:29:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74489",
"authors": [
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"PoloHoleSet",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77946
|
Red v White wine in cooking with a stomach issue
As with many people, my husband has an issue with red wine, it gives him an acid stomach. So, he drinks white. However, not wanting to irritate the issue, but wanting to continue to cook with wine on occasion, is there a difference (apart from taste and color) to cooking with red opposed to white wine?
Just a quick note here, but since giving up the red wine, the snoring has stopped!!!
The way red wine is produced vs the way white wine is produced might give you some insight.
Red wine is produced from red grapes where the "mosto" (grape juice) macerates together with the skin of the grapes. This releases the typical red pigments and tannins.
White wine is produced from red or white grapes where the mosto does not usually macerate. If it's from white grapes, it can macerate with the skin.
This means the wine has less tannins (and pigments).
Basically, the only difference between the wines is the amount of tannins.
For some info about marinating meat in red wine, this post is interesting. Hint: it doesn't do much.
Yup, brain just clicked into gear, tannins.... thank you so much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.061014
| 2017-01-31T15:05:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77946",
"authors": [
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77031
|
How to keep insects away
I live in a warm country, cockroaches are endemic here, and I do my utmost to keep them out. However, occasionally one will sneak past my defenses. Is my kitchen clean? You bet ya! Have I done enough to stop these invaders, I thought so... But obviously not. What is the best way to keep these critters from even thinking about coming over for a nibble?
Just one way: Emigrate. You'll never stop the occasional wandering cockroach. Or any bug, for that matter. They feed on pretty much anything out there. And I really do mean anything.
They have a need for water every day. If using a residual insecticide, block their access to water (plants, window condensation, sinks, floor drains, etc.). Don't poison the water, food or working surfaces. As an experiment, dust their entrance trails with "Cream of Tarter", it's non-poisonous and they may not want to cross it. "Boric acid" may also have the same effect.
One aspect I would emphasize is keeping them out of your actual food, by keeping your actual food in well-sealed bug (and mouse, hopefully) proof containers. In many cases this may not be the packaging it originally came in.
I've had problems with insects, even when I lived in a relatively cool place. (My apartment was next to the trash chute, and on the day they sprayed for bugs, it would drive them into my place for the better part of a week).
To help prevent long-term visitors, you want to remove sources of food. A big one is areas of moisture, which start creating small bits of mold that the insects feast on. Make sure you don't have water dripping below your sink and if you have a shower, leave the curtain and door or window open to let it vent after every shower.
To keep away the random explorers (or to deal with existing problems), I really like glue boards. They're just a rectangle of cardboard with a really stick substance on one side. You can either just peel off the protective paper and set them in places the insects typically visit (under sinks, behind toilets, basements, etc), but you can also typically fold them into a tent-like triangle or an open-ended box that you can place on countertops or floors. (always place them tight up against the walls, so the open sides are accessible)
Glue traps will catch most insects (even flying, if you can get them to land on them. Some are 'peanut butter scented' as a lure) and mice.
A few bits of warning, though:
Make sure you put them where you're not going to step on them. They will stick to your shoe. If you're not putting them under tables or such, fold them into a tent.
If you have a lot of insects already, it can be pretty disturbing to see how many insects you actually had. (I put them in my basement to deal with camel crickets, and it was basically filled. And the insects were still moving, so it pulsed)
It's not a very humane trap for mice. They get stuck and then keep struggling to get unstuck.
Trapping them before entering may give a false sense of cleanliness. Especially in combination with 1 ("hidden traps"). Keep checking the traps, and keep cleaning.
@WillemvanRumpt : true, but there are cases where presence of bugs are an indicator of the environment (too much bug spray elsewhere) and not the cleanliness of the area they're found in. So you can have an unclean place without bugs, and a clean place (other than the bugs) with bugs.
true, the last part of your sentence was the basis of my comment to the OP: One bug does not an unclean kitchen make.
#Joe..."I've had problems with insects, even when I lived in a relatively cool place. (My apartment was next to the trash chute, and on the day they sprayed for bugs, it would drive them into my place for the better part of a week)." Ah ha, I think I've found a clue! Just recently the local authority saw fit to spray all drains etc... This could be part of the problem that I have, they have come over to me as a safe haven, I will check, re-check and again all cupboards. Keep up my shoot to kill policy and see what happens - thanks to everyone for their thoughts
I've had this issue for years of living on apartments.
After trying just about every off the shelf product nothing worked.
I found this mixture to be amazing:
Equal parts of the following:
Boraic or borax powder
Icing sugar
All purpose flour
Sprinkle this in all your cupboards and around the house (corners).
Within three days I was roach free.
Since then I change the mixture monthly and have never had a problem with roaches.
The borax is taken to their next and kills them. The icing sugar and flour lures them to the mixture.
Sorry auto text. Should read Borax or Boraic powder
Hello Jodes, and welcome! When you notice a mistake, you can edit your own post, there is a small grey link for that on the left right below the text you wrote. Also, our system supports some formatting like bullet lists - you can see the syntax I used when you click "edit", or you can also use the controls over the text box while in edit mode. Nice answer BTW, sometimes an infestation can really be exterminated, and borax is a good suggestion to try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.061251
| 2017-01-02T13:06:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77031",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jodes",
"Joe",
"Optionparty",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79412
|
How to know what light soy sauce had higher quality?
My local asian market features two brands of soy sauce.
Lee Kum Kee (LKK) Premium Light Soy Sauce (李錦記鮮味生抽):
Water, Salt, Soy Bean (11%), Sugar, Wheat Flour, Flavour Enhancers (E631, E627).
Pearl River Bridge (PRB) Superior Light Soy Sauce (珠江生抽):
Water, Soy Bean (29%), Salt, Wheat Flour, Preservative (Potassium Sorbate (E202)).
Is it possible to know what soy sauce has a higher quality by looking at
ingredients list?
Can be a higher percentage of soybean a indicator of high quality?
This question has received a flag for being overly subjective, and I don't completely disagree. Can you somehow eliminate the word "better"? I'll give it a shot later when I have time to think about it, but even better if you do it.
@Jolenealaska done, sorry for the confusion
Is "more likely to yield an expected and great result when used in a chinese origin recipe" a good substitute for "better"? On the other hand, isn't presence of flavor enhancers in a product supposed to be naturally an umami sauce an indicator of mediocre quality? On yet another hand, presence of potassium sorbate also is a quality imperfection, but a more opinion-based one :)
Offhand, I would guess the Pearl River Bridge is a higher quality - it has more soybean, does not have sugar, does not have flavor enhancers. The fact it doesn't have distracting flavors makes it harder to cover up lower quality - so they must be pretty sure of their product.
I would think higher soy percent is better simply because it's more concentrated, you get more flavor per use and more flavor and less water per bottle - you can easily dilute a more concentrated sauce, much harder to concentrate a dilute one.
The Lee Kum Kee looks like it's more dilute, and uses extra salt, sugar and flavor enhancers to bolster the taste - instead of tasting like, well, soy sauce. These sorts of things make the product taste good, but that means they can make a "good enough" product with lower quality ingredients, usually that means they do not have to depend on the quality of their soy sauce to stand alone.
You may actually prefer either, depending on your palate. Some people like the plainer taste by itself and would prefer the less doctored (and higher quality) product, some would like the flavor profile of the more tweaked version and are more indifferent to quality variations. But, that is what I would see when looking at those labels.
Offhand, I agree. ATK taste-tested Soy Sauce, and they liked one of the Lee Kum Kee varieties, but they didn't try that specific one, nor did they try Pearl River Bridge. So, with only the list of ingredients to go by, I concur with your reasoning.
I think a big part of the difference between light and dark soy sauce is the amount of soy? I'm not sure which of those is a more normal light soy sauce, though.
@Jefromi - I admit I also don't know which amount of soy is more expected, but the fact that the Lee Kum Lee has more salt than soybean still gives the impression that it is under-strength, as well as having more sugar than wheat flour - considering soy and wheat are supposed to be the primary flavoring.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.061687
| 2017-03-26T02:39:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79412",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"NeDark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53943",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81171
|
Where can I find black cocoa powder (a.k.a. black onyx cocoa powder) in the UK?
I live in the UK and want to buy some black cocoa powder, also known as black onyx cocoa powder. This is a type of cocoa powder that has been alkalized more than standard cocoa powder. As a result, it is much darker than normal cocoa powder and tastes different. It is what is used to make Oreo cookies.
The only places I can find that sell it are in the USA, and they won't ship internationally.
Is it available in the UK? Surely it must be?
What is so special about this kind (brand?) of cocoa powder?
@Stephie - It looks like its been more alkalized than typical dutch processed cocoa.
@Stephie - It's a type of cocoa powder, not a brand; and it's different from normal cocoa powder. I've edited the question to explain.
I have prevosly purchaced this via a uk retailer on Amazon
But currently out of stock.
I am aware that these guys
http://www.savoryspiceshop.com/spices/cocoa-black-onyx.html
Sell internationally, but you have to phone to order, not place the sale online. I guess so they can get the shipping right. But to stress I've never used them
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.061941
| 2017-04-23T14:43:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81171",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"EmmaV",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54075"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79462
|
If the egg whites are old, is it safe to make Italian meringue?
If the eggs are little bit old, and I used the egg whites to make Italian meringue, is it safe to it ?
Egg whites could contain salmonella, and especially in my country where eggs are sold locally from local farms without being tested. I have the eggs in the refrigerator since 2 weeks, and sometimes I make scrambled or boiled eggs with them, but could I eat meringue with them that is made by adding hot syrup (Italian meringue) ?
The syrup will cook the whites or there still a danger of eating it ?
Are you trying to pasteurize the egg whites, or what are you trying to achieve? And what kind of risk/spoilage are you trying to mitigate that way?
I had old eggs in refrigerator..eating raw egg whites would give you salmonela right ? So the syrup totally cook the whites and make it safe ?
How old are the egg whites? How old were the eggs before you separated them? Have they been stored in the refrigerator the whole time? More info is needed
2 weeks old and not separated ? They are whole. Does the sugar syrup cooks them or not ?
How hot (in celsius) will the mixture be after the syrup is added (mind that a colder container will absorb plenty of heat), and how quickly will the temperature drop?
If you make italian meringue you will know that the syrup is about 118C when added to the whites
The food safety rule is: you cannot turn back. Once your food becomes unsafe, it cannot be made safe again by heating. It doesn't matter if it's egg whites, meat, or anything else. So I'm closing it as a duplicate. The tag wiki for food-safety probably also has an explanation of it, it is a good read for those who are sometimes unsure if something is safe.
Wait on @rumtscho the egg whites are not old and unsafe. I am speaking about if it is possible to eat them as italian meringue without getting salmonela because they are not fresh eggs
Are the eggs still whole they're just older? Are they past their use-by date?
@droidnation your eggwhites are either safe or unsafe. If they are safe as they are, then heating them changes nothing about it. If they are not safe, then heating them again changes nothing. So, your question is still superfluous.
@rumtscho Superfuous-ness doesn't make a question close-worthy. Just because it's obvious to some doesn't mean it's obvious to others. There are lots of questions I think are silly... that doesn't mean that they aren't a real question.
@Catija I agree about it being a real question - I just find that it is a duplicate, since it is a very common misconception, and I am sure we have addressed it multiple times. I picked the most highly upvoted duplicate target which explains the basic principle - even though it mentions meat in the title, it is not restricted to meat, and giving the same answer for hundreds of foods is impractical. I don't know if we might have a better named question which can serve as the duplicate target.
If you disagree that the duplicate answers your question, please feel free to [edit] the question to explain what you're trying to ask more thoroughly, particularly explain why the duplicate does not meet your needs.
@rumtscho it's not a duplicate. Egg whites could contain salmonela, and especially in my country where eggs are sold locally from local farms without being tested. I have the eggs in the refrigarator from 2 weeks ago, and sometimes I make scrambled egg or boiled eggs with them, but could I eat meringue with them that is made by adding hot syrup (Italian meringue) ? If you know how italian meringue is made you will understand why I am asking this question.
@catija thanks for the support. I don't think this question should be closed. Salmonela is harmful especially in egg whites
Wouldn't eggs unsafe for raw consumption be just as unsafe if they were fresh?
Salmonella dies at 705 degree C or higher, plus the answers on the post suggested by the admin don't speak about raw eggs, so it is not duplicated. I will not accept to put this post as duplicated and I will contact the admins @rumtscho
OK, I will reopen because of the "not for raw consumption" angle. Still, it seems to me that you did not understand the point of the other question, so I would suggest that you read it too. From your question, I cannot really tell if your eggs are safely stored or not.
It seems like the actual question here is simply whether it's safe to make Italian meringue with those eggs - as others have said, if they're unsafe due to salmonella when a bit old, they were unsafe when fresh too (the salmonella was already there). You might consider editing to focus more clearly on that.
I assume you mean salmonella dies at 70 or 75 degree C, and not 705 degree C (which is hot enough to melt aluminum).
Salmonella will not look at your egg's use by date and suddenly pop up I think - if they are in the old eggs they were in the new eggs, maybe in a lesser amount and making you less sick , but there and making the egg unsafe in the first place.
Okay and I am in country that they sell eggs without saying if it is free of salmonella or not, how to know if it is safe to make italian meringue. You're right@Jefromi
Yes @PeterShor I mean 70 to 75C
In short, if they are safe to eat cooked still they are likely safe to eat in a meringue.
There is a higher chance of salmonella on the outside of shell than the inside. 2 Weeks for eggs in the fridge is not very long. To find out a bit about the bacteria actions within the egg, submerge the whole egg fully in 2 cup a measuring cup of water. Make sure there is a couple inches of water above the egg when you first put it in. If the egg stands up, it is not super fresh, but also not spoiled, if it floats then it is not very fresh. If it jumps straight to the top of the water and bobs around, I wouldnt make meringue with it.
As the egg ages and bacteria develops inside, gases are released which will make the egg float. Eggs that float are still edible, but not super fresh and should be cooked more thoroughly.
This is a rough guide, but it has always served me well, I learned it from dumpster diving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.062077
| 2017-03-28T12:46:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79462",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Peter Shor ",
"alim1990",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100153
|
Does glucose used is added to sugar quantity in recipes like ice creams?
I was successful making a new ice cream recipe from Pierre Herme:
100g Milk
135g Cream
1 egg yolk
45g sugar
15g glucose
I replaced the glucose by honey. After churning the ice cream, it was smooth and creamy, but it was too sweet. And who doesn't know Pierre Herme, he is one of the best pastry chef in the world. And his desserts are well balanced in terms of sugar quantities.
Is it because I replaced glucose by honey which added the extra sweetness?
I know glucose will help the ice cream to be smooth but does it add sweetness too?
I think honey contains fructose and glucose. Glucose is a glucose, so the extra fructose in honey was the reason I guess?
The overall result:
Smooth ice cream but it melt as fast as it get out of the fridge because of the extra sugar in it.
Here is a quick answer:
Fructose:
Sweetness of Fructose depends on temperature:
at lower temperatures (i.e. ice-cream) is sweeter.
at higher temperatures (i.e. hot coffee or tee) is less sweet
Fructose is always sweeter than glucose
Amount of calories doesn't change: cal of 1g of fructose equals cal of 1g of glucose
Here's a table:
SUGAR | RELATIVE SWEETNESS
-----------------------------------
lactose | 40
maltose | 50
glucose | 70
sucrose | 100
fructose | 120-170
As you can see, sweetness of fructose covers a range of values.
Honey:
Contains roughly as much fructose as glucose:
fructose: 38%
glucose: 31%
other sugars: 10%
water: 17%
Composition varies from honey to honey
Fructose and Ice Cream:
Fructose sweetness is perceved faster than sucrose and it also vanishes faster leaving room for ice cream flavors like fruit, cream etc., whereas sweetness persistance of sucrose can mask them.
Conclusions:
"Is it because I replaced glucose by honey which added the extra sweetness?"
Yes.
You can substitute sugar straight over for glucose but you need to increase the wet ingredients or decrease the dry ingredients as glucose absorbs more liquids than regular sugar. Take a look at this article and this one! But mixing sugar and glucose is done in baking for the texture!
In pretty much every other regard when it comes to cooking/baking, glucose acts exactly like regular sugar BUT it is not a direct substitute for sugar and works best in baked goods when combined with other sugars. But it adds texture.
I remember I did mochi last week, filled with chocolate, green tea and anko paste. To do the anko paste (which i ended up throwing to the bin due to the honey) I needed glucose for the exact same thing: texture. I did not find glucose anywhere so I used regular honey, the same quantity as glucose, and it quite ruined the anko paste. That is because honey is not glucose. Honey also has fructose and depending on the honey, in different quantities. I would use 2/3 or even 1/3 honey if you substitute it.
In the end, I find baking and cooking quite like chemistry. If you do not measure this kind of things well, it is obvious the result is not gonna work!
The reason your ice-cream was sweeter is simply that honey is sweeter than straight up glucose. Ref. BBC Good Food
This is because fructose is sweeter than the same quantity of glucous. Ref. from healthline
BBC has a good guide to swapping sugar for healthier substitutes (I assume this is your aim!) Link but nothing about ice-cream. I would recommend experimenting a little bit, ice cream tends to be fairly forgiving when substituting.
After being a home cook doing advanced recipes each week for a long time, yes, ice cream is very forgiving in term of changing ingredients. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.062561
| 2019-07-12T05:47:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100153",
"authors": [
"alim1990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77017
|
Is it safe to cook or braise with beer in cast iron?
Is it safe to cook with beer in cast iron, for longer cooking such as braising or stews (eg, cook over 30 minutes, probably for 2 hours or more)? I saw on this question, Is it safe to cook wine or vinegar in cast iron?, where they pointed out wine or vinegar should not go into cast iron for long cooking periods, because the acidity would alter the flavor, or worse could leech an unsafe amount of iron into the food.
On further searching, the above question noted wine was around 3.4 pH, and I found on other sites the pH of beer is around 3 -4 pH. So, would beer thus be included in liquids to avoid in cast iron?
This is for regular cast iron, not enameled, and with amateur seasoning (by which I mean, I used some lard once at 500 deg for one hour, and later some coconut oil, and deep frying, so probably not a great protective seasoning.)
It really depends on the level of seasoning of your cast iron. If you see a really nice sheen all throughout your pan, I'd say you are good to go. The acidity of tomatoes, beer, wine, etc is problematic when the acid reacts directly with the iron. However, the seasoning on a well seasoned cast iron pan will act as a layer between the iron and the acid.
Another factor is the length of time the acidic food is being cooked in the cast iron. With a well seasoned pan, a 2 hour braise with an acidic liquid such as beer shouldn't be a problem. 4-8 hour cooks I would probably avoid.
One thing to consider is as your braise goes on, the pH of the liquid will rise (become less acidic) as the pH neutral water expelled from the meat mixes with the beer. This is to your advantage and will allow for longer cooks.
If your seasoning is not very good, you will end up with metallic tasting food which is obviously undesirable.
In summary, with a good seasoning you should be fine. It sounds to me like your pan might be seasoned well enough. If there is a sheen, I'd say your good to go.
Sources:
http://www.thekitchn.com/5-myths-of-cast-iron-cookware-206831
http://lifehacker.com/its-okay-to-cook-acidic-dishes-in-cast-iron-and-other-1772555109
Thank you for the response. I think it comes down to I don't have much confidence in my seasoning. I noticed a metallic smell after 15 minutes in the oven which got me nervous. The result -- I'll use the iron for water or stock, and stainless for beer.
You are right when you talk about the seasoning of your pot. However, the worst that is going to happen is a small amount of transference of iron into your meal (trace elements - this will not harm you), and you might get a taste of iron in your food. But it will not ruin your pot, and your food will be fine to eat. Obviously the more you use this pot, the more seasoning it will acquire, thus your issue with using a high ph ingredient will diminish with time. You might like to take a look at this for some other myth busting thoughts on using cast iron... Hope this helps Edit: I notice that Caleb has also cited the same source as me...
Thank you for the response. I was worried it was not safe to eat, but it sounds like it would be such a small amount it would not do any harm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.063151
| 2017-01-02T03:12:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77017",
"authors": [
"d l",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6868"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23616
|
Do Chilis Ripen "off the vine"?
In light of the question Are chillies hotter when they're ripe?, in particular – @ElendilTheTall's answer. I am wondering if chilies continue to ripen after picking? If so, does capsaician continue to build up.
What is the 'peek of freshness/ripeness' for chilies? (assuming it is different for each type of pepper, but are there 'commonalities' to look for?)
Yes, they will ripen off the vine (and gain capsaician in the process) because they are a climacteric fruit. They do this best in a paper bag, like most peppers. However, there is a limit to this because they will eventually wilt.
Thank you, could you expand on what a "climacteric" fruit is?
A climacteric fruit ripens by releasing ethylene gas and is capable of ripening off the plant they come from.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.063415
| 2012-05-06T18:37:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23616",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"DJ. Aduvanchik",
"Expert Learner",
"John Dozier",
"Minh Nhường",
"fbartho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"smcg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22354
|
Adapting graham cracker crust to all-natural graham crackers
Popular recipes for graham cracker pie crust are generally based on Nabisco Honey Maid or similar mass-market, not-really-graham-flour-crackers.
Example recipe (American measurements):
1.5 cups finely ground graham cracker crumbs
1/4 cup granulated sugar
5 tbs melted butter
Combine ingredients. Press into pie pan. Blind bake for 11 to 14 minutes.
Because I live next door to a natural foods market, though, what I can most easily are all-organic, real-graham-flour crackers (Midel). These have less sugar and shortening, and more whole wheat than the Nabisco version. I also appreciate the ingredient quality of the "all-natural" brand.
My question is: how should I adapt the standard pie crust recipe to work with this kind of "healthier" graham cracker?
I tried adding slightly more sugar and butter to the standard recipe, but the resulting pie crust was still too dry, crumbly and whole-wheat tasting.
Note: I'm not making any claim as to the health value of different brands of cracker. "all-natural" and "healhier" are claims on the packaging of the crackers. I also don't care about the sugar/fat content of the resulting pie crust; the filling has enough to make counting nutrients pointless. I'm just trying to recreate the correct texture with the ingredients which are readily available to me.
I'll admit, I'm a bit confused...it seems like you're adding back in all the stuff that is the difference between the two versions.
Yea if you are adding all the "bad" ingredients back, why are you even using the "healthier" graham crackers? Even so, regular graham cracker crusts are pretty crumbly too. Also don't increase the amount of sugar if you just want to have the graham cracker bind better. Just use a little more butter. That's generally the "binder" in graham crackers recipes.
Jay, I don't actually believe that less butter/sugar is "healthier", at least not in a way which is relevant to an already high-saturated-fat pie.
rfusca, apparently I'm not, because the texture didn't come out the same. Besides, in my book there's a difference (in flavor and quality) between butter, and hydrogenated vegetable oil and preservatives.
I have used Midel brand ginger snaps, graham crackers, and lemon snaps in crust recipes and they all happen to perform well in standard recipes. They do in fact have a better taste with respect to the snaps; the graham crackers I didn't notice much return on investment. The wholesome ingredients are not detrimental to their ability to be pressed into a shell.
I would recommend trying the recipe as-is first with the Midel cookies. My guess is that you are concerned that they will be too dry or something to that effect, or would crumble rather than bind together. For a shell like this I would be sure to parbake and grease the pan with shortening rather than any kind of spray. When you remove the crust, if it seems drier than usual, I would brush a minor amount of canola oil over top.
If you want to improve on this with respect to things you can likely buy at a natural food market, I would begin by greasing the pan with coconut oil and brushing with walnut or almond oil oil. This will also add $3 to the cost of your crust.
In general, Midel bakes well as far as my experience has gone.
As a side-note, the recipes I have used for snap crusts have come from Vegan Pie in the Sky by Isa Chandra Moskowitz; to my recollection they do not deviate substantially from standard crust ratios, they just depend on vegan ingredients
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.063540
| 2012-03-17T21:09:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22354",
"authors": [
"Bey Alexander",
"Ethan",
"FuzzyChef",
"Heidi Wickham Johnson",
"Jay",
"Jayraj Srikriti Naidu",
"Sobbuh ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"mfg",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79598
|
White spots of mould in the blue mould on the outside of my blue cheese
There are white spots of mould in the blue mould on the outside of my blue cheese. Is this normal?
My cheese cave runs at 60F with 85 to 90% humidity. I took this pic today, after the cheese has been in the cave for 20 days:
Contacted Mad Millie and received the following reply:
Are you able to provide a photo of when you cut into the cheese?
It’s looking pretty good!!
The white mould growing is fine, as white mould is not bad for you. It is the dark mould that you need to be more concerned about. Just wipe the mould off with a cloth, do not salt the cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.063933
| 2017-04-02T21:58:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79598",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119563
|
Tea temperature for preparation
If I understand correctly, a good temperature to prepare green tea is roughly 70°, 80° for oolong (it might depends of course) and 90° for black tea or pu erh. Hence, it seems that the most oxidized a tea is, the higher the temperature is.
However it seems that a recommanded temperature for white tea is 80°, while this is the less oxidized type of tea. Why is that? More generally, how to choose the best temperature for a tea in general (I guess the answer is "trial and error", but I'm not an expert in tea so I'd appreciate some basic guideline) ?
I think you might be mixing up the temperature to prepare the tea and the temperature to consume the tea – 90°C sounds far too hot (and 90°F too cold) to drink anything safely.
@dbmag9 : sorry, I meant indeed to prepare tea.
There are different traditions in different countries. Here in the UK black tea is brewed with water just off the boil, the strength is adjusted by changing the brew time. In India black tea is often stewed in boiling/simmering water with added spices, milk and sugar. Turks use a double boiler teapot, and stew it for 30+ minutes. Each to their own!
It has long been a common idea here in the UK that the main reason tea is less popular in places like America is that they don't know how to make it properly there (and in particular, with freshly-boiled water). (I don't know how much or how little validity that idea might have, but I've seen nothing to contradict it… :-)
I'm going to start by saying: The directions listed on the box or in a guide are good general-purpose directions, for when you don't really want to pay attention to your tea brewing parameters. They're designed to be accessible - not to produce the best brew, but to produce the most consistent one, and one that's acceptable for the tea and for most people. However, the brewing parameters that come with a tea, or 'match' the type of tea, are very often non-optimal. But if you enjoy them, that's usually good enough.
However (counterintuitively), most tea can be brewed at most temperatures. This is why I'm posting this answer - because the question you've asked touches on some of the complexity and subtlety involved in getting what you'd like out of your tea. If all you're interested in is making one consistent cup, follow the above paragraph. If you're interested in the 'why' of tea and temperature, read on... and disclaimer in advance that there are no universal truths in tea. Also, this is a bit of a long deep-dive.
Compounds in tea extract at different rates. Most of the compounds that affect the flavor of a tea are quite sensitive to the parameters used in both the production of the tea leaf and the process of brewing. Factors include but are not limited to:
The original grade of the tea leaves (are they whole? are they little crumbly bits?)
Structural changes made to the tea leaves during preparation by the tea-maker
What temperature you brew the tea at
The ratio of tea to water you brew at
How long you steep the tea for
The composition of the water used to make tea (and if you doubt that last one, check out the Tea Curious blog - they have a series on developing a specialized mineral water for brewing.)
There's no a priori reason to believe that any temperatures should be 'off limits' for brewing any type of tea. In fact, "oolong" is not even a single type of tea - it's a very generic name for an extremely broad class of preparation styles, which often call for different temperatures, not a generic 80C.
In the generic, all that's known is that many teas become bitter if it's pushed 'too hard': temperature up, time up, amount of leaf up. And the opposite is often true: if you lower temperature, time, or amount of leaf, you can avoid bitterness. In practice, this means that you can, for many teas, compensate for increased temperature using other factors in your brew.
Importantly, though - even if you can compensate for a higher temperature by changing the other brewing parameters, the overall flavor is unlikely to remain constant if you change anything at all. Extraction rates for flavor compounds in tea are highly sensitive and change differently relative to each other when brewing parameters change. Maybe, for example, at a higher temperature you'll get more astringency, but other flavor compounds come out much faster, so you can lower the time and make a fine (but differently-flavored) cup. There are even methods that involve 'flash steeping,' where you pour boiling water on a tea and take it out just about as fast as physically possible, and it comes out delicious!
Some teas may have an upper bound on temperature, where past a certain point the tea will 'scorch' and become too bitter / astringent before enough flavor really extracts properly. But with the exception of Japanese green teas, this isn't really true on a category-by-category basis as much as it is on a tea-by-tea basis. And even Japanese green teas can sometimes be brewed successfully with boiling water! Generalizations are hard to come by.
In order to talk about oxidization and brewing temperature, we first need to talk about where the temperatures on tea containers and websites come from. It's important to know that the instructions listed on a tea packet are written for an audience to give them a place to start - an audience you may not be a part of. For example, a box of sencha teabags I bought on a whim because it was $1 and I was curious says to pour boiling water on the sencha and steep it for 2-3 minutes. To me, that notionally reads like a preposterous set of instructions, but in reality, it means those instructions were not written for me. They were written for someone without a temperature controlled kettle, making an enormous mug of tea - not someone with dedicated teaware making a small amount of tea at cooler temps.
So, oxidization. Oxidization does affect the extraction of flavor from tea leaves, and it has several critical steps in changing the flavor composition of a tea. But it's not nearly as consistent as "always brew 80C." More oxidized oolongs are often able to be brewed at higher temperatures when compared with less oxidized/"greener" oolongs, controlling for all other factors, because at those temperatures they will pick up somewhat less bitterness in the tea. However, you can just as easily steep any oolong at a high temperature for less time by controlling the other parts of a brew - and in fact, this is what I do with most of mine.
So, white tea. I'm not sure exactly where the idea came about that white teas are exceptionally delicate and must be brewed with care at a specific temperature, but in general, white tea is not (generally) particularly delicate. In my opinion it's one of the hardiest teas, because most white teas can be brewed effectively at essentially any temperature, without much worry about astringency coming into the brew.
The thing is, under most circumstances, you can brew a good white tea at a boiling temperature. That's how I do it, most of the time. But if I'm looking for a different kind of flavor palette, maybe I'll turn down the temperature...
tl;dr: Don't let the temperatures on guides and boxes constrain you. They're an OK starting point, but most tea can be made at most temperatures. The numbers you see are just there to provide a broadly consistent brew that most people will probably enjoy - not because they are some theoretical optimum for brewing.
As always, the best cup is the one you enjoy.
The best way to choose temperature for tea is to look on the box/bag/cannister of the tea for what the recommended brewing temperature is. Many higher-quality tea vendors will print the brewing temperature and time on the tea packaging.
Failing that, try searching the internet; brewing times and temperatures for named tea varieties are fairly common knowledge.
Failing that, you can go with the "rule of thumb" above, about green/oolong/black temperature ranges. I even have an electric kettle that has buttons for these.
Note that above I say "and time". That's kind of critical, because some teas need to be steeped longer or shorter than others. One could even argue that brewing time is more important than temperature. So use a time-and-temperature guide.
That also addresses your other question, because that guide, plus others, actually suggest brewing white tea at a lower temperature, either the same as or lower than green tea.
The "best" temperature for preparing tea is the one that makes the tea taste as you like it. That being said, most people don't brew their black tea at a lower temperature of 70° C, while conversely not brewing green tea too hot. From what I found on several websites on the quick (I'm not a white tea drinker), the consensus seems to be to treat white tea about the same as green tea, i.e., to brew it with a lower temperature in the 70° - 80° C range.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.064021
| 2022-01-18T22:54:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119563",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Nicolas Hemelsoet",
"dbmag9",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67374
|
Onion and Garlic, a no-no?
I had an Italian flatmate once who was on the brink of lynching me when he saw I used garlic and onion in one dish. He said that - at least in Italian cuisine - thats an absolute no-no. You can use both, but never together.
Especially with something like Spinach, I think that combination is quite nice though. Is this an Italian kitchen "rule", a general thing, or was he just misinformed?
It's not true in Sicilian cuisine. It might be a regional thing, but it's nowhere near as widespread as the fish and cheese "rule".
I'd say it's a yes-yes!
Definitely not a general thing. There are plenty of Spanish dishes that have both garlic and onion.
Pizza without garlic in the sauce, and onion as a topping? Only if I'm missing one of those ingredients! Ditto for tomato based pasta sauce..
Onions and garlic are some of the oldest friends in culinary history - nearly every region of every continent on the planet boasts a suite of dishes that combine the two.
I regularly use onion, garlic and shallots in a single dish.
Clearly, your flatmate was misinformed. Firstly, Italian cuisine is defined regionally. There are vast differences throughout the country, usually defined by local ingredients and historical influences. However, there are many Italian dishes...from north to south that contain both onion and garlic. It could be true that someone's specific recipe for, spinach, for example may only have onion...or only have garlic, but if you like the combination, there is no reason not to use it. There is no such general "rule" in Italian cuisine.
Moscafj has the answer. I'll also add, the regionalization gets even more complicated when you apply it to Italian communities outside Italy. In the US.. think the difference between Chicago style and New York pizzas.
I agree with moscafj's general answer: there is no pan-Italian "rule" like this in Italian cuisine. It's common to mix the two in many Italian regions, and it's certainly common in other world cuisines.
On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss this story out-of-hand or as some quirk of one crazy roommate.
I grew up near an old Italian neighbor, daughter of Italian immigrants. Her mother-in-law also lived with her, a direct Italian immigrant born around 1900 (immigrated sometime before mid-century). It was an absolute rule in their house that onion and garlic should never be combined in the same dish. And yes, they associated this with "the Old Country."
Alas, I don't know what region they were from, and they both died long ago. And I wouldn't pass on this anecdote here except I did a few quick internet searches and discovered that a few people have asked similar things on various internet forums concerning Italian cuisine. And both Mark Bittman and Gino D'Acampo have apparently passed on tales that Italian cooks have told them the same thing. (I didn't track down links to the original sources, but I have no reason to doubt these forum posts are simply making this stuff up.)
I've eaten food in Italy that clearly contained both. I know Italians who like cooking, and I've never heard them talk about this. On the other hand, I've heard this particular "rule" a couple times, and it seems only associated with Italian cuisine. I'm not really interested in trying to track down more information on it, but it sounds to me like it's at least part of cooking "lore" for some Italians, perhaps from a particular region or something.
EDIT: Just for one Italian source which seems to reference the issue, see here. After a discussion of separate uses for onion and garlic, the question of whether to use them together comes up:
Il dubbio, a questo punto, viene: è possibile utilizzare aglio e
cipolla insieme? La questione divide da sempre gli appassionati di
cucina.
Basically, this passage strongly implies that there are passionate cooks out there who argue about whether it's even possible to combine the two. (The link goes on to argue that it is possible, but nevertheless it references this question as if it were a common dispute.) The opening paragraph also implies there are traditional fixed rules that dictate the specific occasions when they could be properly combined.
A friend of mine is Naples influenced and is only a mild fan of garlic. My Sicilian influenced friends consume garlic by the bunch, with or without onions.
My grandmother always told us to never mix garlic and onion. She was Calabrese.
I use both in some recipes. Granny was not the best cook.
Mum was from San Sebastiano al Vesuvio, just outside Naples. She never mixed onions and garlic in her cooking. Pasta e fagioli for example she just used garlic. For Minestrone just onions. I don't remember mum putting garlic in her sauces either, she always used onions. The flavour is so unique when you use only garlic for the pasta e fagioli. Pizzas had garlic, oil and oregano on but nowadays basil seems more popular. Garlic mum used with oil and lemon juice on boiled and cooled cauliflower, carrots or green beans as a side to meat. She used garlic in braciole. I have always followed her suit, but my son likes to combine onion and garlic. I think I did hear Gino d'Acampo say once that keeping onion and garlic separate was a Southern Italy thing, but nowadays many cooks use both together. I suppose best to try both ways and see what you like best! At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
You may hear this rule from French people, and the reason is quite simple: garlic is predominantly used in the South and onion in the North (a bit like olive oil and butter). Since traditional recipes usually have a defined geographical origin, it is quite rare to find some combining both ingredients.
I lived in Italy for 23 years and indeed, I was also told that you don't use onion and garlic in the same dish. Older civilizations seem to have learned certain things over time and often they are based on common sense. Possible reasons? 1) Although neither of these are costly ingredients, Italy was not an economic power until after the second world war. It retained elements of a frugal nature. 2) Connected to the first, onion and garlic are of the same family, and both pungent. They are competing flavor elements if used together. Why use both when one will do and are thought to cancel each other out? 3) Old world civilizations associated medicinal powers to all the gifts of nature. It may have been thought that the two lent different curative elements, in combination with other ingredients in a soup or other dish. Again, best used separately.
4) Italy has a wonderful, and simple, food culture. A panino - a sandwich - in Italy is often just a few thin slices of a meat, a little salt, pepper, and olive oil, on a roll. Compare that with the extravagant sandwich combinations in the USA. And so again, why use both when one will give its distinctive flavor sufficiently to the dish?
These are just thoughts that have come from living with the people for an extended time. Cheers
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.064698
| 2016-03-13T11:48:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67374",
"authors": [
"Betty Jean Blanton",
"Christine Harris",
"Dorothy Steel",
"J...",
"JBentley",
"Joe",
"Jon Markowski",
"Joseph Evans",
"Kerri Brown",
"PUTRI BATRISYIA BALQIS BINTI M",
"Paulb",
"Thomas Seifert",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Turion",
"helen allsop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user1906"
],
"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
}
|
91396
|
Does adding turmeric to meat marinade negate the bacterial buildup at room temperature?
I've learnt from this site that after applying marinade to meat, it has to be kept in the fridge for marination because meat at room temperature for more than two hours can have bacterial buildup, resulting in food poisoning.
In local meat shops in India, it's common for beef, chicken and fish vendors to leave raw meat at room temperature for most of the working day and yet do terriffic business. I havent had trouble with beef from such vendors but chicken and fish have caused food poisoning multiple times. Yet, no customer complains. These practices are too common.
The question:
An elderly acquaintence (he is a building contractor; not a chef) was explaining how to marinate beef. Grind all the spices, mix salt, turmeric powder, corriander powder, mix well with the beef and leave it at room temperature for at least two hours.
When I interrupted to say I keep it in the fridge for marination, he said I should never do that since the flavours would not seep into the meat. Then I told him of the bacterial buildup and he promptly said: well, that's why we add turmeric powder for marination. Apparently the turmeric kills the bacteria.
It sounded like hogwash to me, but I still wanted to ask here, since even I have felt that marination would work better if the meat is not too cold.
Related, addressing the “but it’s customary here” part: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64171/is-it-true-cooked-food-cannot-be-left-in-room-temperature-for-longer-than-4-hour
Thank you for the acceptance, favour returned: Question upvoted! :-) Question: Is the elderly relative Grandmother, father or uncle / aunt as someone tried editing my post as they thought I got it wrong...
He's a family friend. Not a relative. Doesn't matter really
As long as "granny'" made you smile, I'm happy too! :-)
From the description in your question it looks like you're from India and Indian cuisine uses its native spices optimally and turmeric is proven to be antibacterial, however:
How it works is still something of a mystery. The researchers know that curcumin tends to hang out within the bilayer more than in the vesicle’s central space. They suspect that when the sugar on the vesicle surface sticks to the cell wall of a passing bacterium, curcumin migrates into the cell and kills it from the inside.
Now onto the question what you should do: will the marinade be as tasty if you put it in the fridge? Yes, of course, so both granny and you are correct:
Turmeric is antibacterial (though not a total disinfectant)
Putting the marinade straight into the fridge and leave it to marinade for 2 hours at 5°C will work nearly as well as leaving it out in 20-30°C from a pure taste perspective.
So use the best of both worlds: use granny's herb mix and refrigerate!
P.S. I leave my marinades for 2-24 hours in my fridge and I'm from a much cooler climate than you...
P.P.S. Don't freeze as -21°C will slow down the marination process too much and −273.15°C (absolute zero) will stop it completely! ;-)
....I will mention that for a good steak, a lot of people will leave it to marinate at room temperature (not for two hours though). That way it's easier to cook without burning the outside or leaving the inside underdone. Refrigeration might not impact flavor, but it can impact cooking speed and final texture.
That's true. Even this website says refrigerating can slow the marination: https://food.ndtv.com/opinions/what-you-didnt-know-about-making-marinades-1207731
@kitukwfyer I come from a culture where steak is eaten raw or rare, so I never noticed! ;-)
While studies have shown that turmeric has anti-bacterial properties and does inhibit the growth of several common contaminating bacteria, I could find no study that showed that it made leaving meat at room temperature safe, just less contaminated. Further, while some bacteria infect meat from the surface in, other bacteria are present in the meat itself and would thus not be inhibited by anything on its surface.
So its a question of what risks you want to take; it certainly would not be within health codes in most cities to leave meat out based on just a turmeric rub.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.065288
| 2018-08-02T14:44:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91396",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Julian",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79406
|
Can I defrost fish in the microwave?
Is it OK to defrost fish in a microwave? Any particular precautions?
Generally, what is the best way to defrost fish in 15 or 30 minutes before cooking?
Sometimes it comes in plastic, sometimes not.
If problematic, why? Except some parts becoming very hot
Assume the time from defrost until eating is less than 1 hour.
I am mostly thinking about quality.
As far as safety, it's fine to defrost fish in the microwave. It's a terrible way to defrost as far as quality. What is the fish packed in if not plastic? "Sometimes it comes in plastic, sometimes not" - what do you mean? How fish is stored for freezing is very important. Can you leave the pieces in the fridge for the day? That's the best way. Otherwise, cold water is a fast way to defrost fish. Depending on the size of the pieces, it may only take a minute or two.
How big are the pieces? How do you plan to cook them? Sometimes you can cook fish from frozen.
@Jolenealaska 1) Varies, usually in a pan. 2) So the answer is no? If I can't do it in a short time, I would like to have some idea what the disadvantage is 3) I mean..sometimes it is transparent plastic tightly packed around each piece.
A lot of this is a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9515/how-do-you-properly-defrost-frozen-fish?rq=1 - those are the good ways, assuming it needs to be defrosted in the first place.
@Jefromi : This doesn't cover fast defrost, also its more about safety than taste.
@Olav Safety is the main concern when defrosting, and under cold running water is fast. Maybe the better one (linked from the first one I linked) is http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36999/what-are-the-acceptable-methods-to-thaw-food-items - it also mentions in the microwave, including why it's often not good for taste.
@Jolenealaska It is assumed defrost is needed. Also sometimes I want to do something with the surface.
@Olav would you be interested in ways you can skip defrosting? You can even bread the fish. If so, include that option in the question, or post another one, and I'll tell you all about it.
Defrosting anything in the microwave is dodgy. They're designed for serious heating, and don't heat completely evenly, so they tend to start cooking food before it's fully defrosted, even on low power. It might not be quite as bad as "defrosting" in a pan on the stove, but it's not great either.
That's especially bad for fish, since it cooks and overcooks quickly. You can maybe get away with a quick partial thaw in the microwave if you're careful, but it wouldn't be my first choice - it's pretty risky in terms of quality.
If you're in a hurry, I'd definitely suggest thawing with running water, as described for example in this question/answer. Of the safe methods, it's the fastest one that won't also cook your food. Especially for small/thin things like filets, it's pretty fast, and on top of that you can err on the side of not fully thawing to save time, and let it finish thawing while it cooks.
100 agree. I personally hate thawing any raw protein in the microwave. Alsways turns out dry and tough for me. Fish seems especially problematic, but fish fillets are quick and easy with water. Cold water, they stay in safe temp zone and thaw in very little time. If not wrapped in water tight vac seal, just toss time into sealed bag.
Under water is my goto defrost method also. For anything from fish to joints of beef. Prawns especially, which will thaw in 30 seconds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.065633
| 2017-03-25T18:05:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79406",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"Jolenealaska",
"Olav",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55486"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79348
|
Good Frozen Fish /seafood
Fish seems to be one of the food items that is much better with fresh ingredients than frozen.
Why is this?
If I want to shop frozen food for my freezer, what should I buy?
Looking for
Very delicious end result
and/or Good result for the price
and/or types of fish where the frozen version is OK compared to the fresh one.
I was thinking mostly in terms of species of fish, but I see other threads mentions the quality of the freezing process. Should I perhaps just try some species with a quality producer?
This is in Europe.
I am of course referring to frozen fish and fresh fish as you would buy it in shops.
Consider that virtually all seafood sold raw in the US for immediate consumption (so sushi, poke and ceviche) must, by law, have been frozen in order to ensure against certain parasites. So, it can be done very well.
Is there a food that is better frozen?
The idea is to put frozen food in the freezer.
@Paparazzi Vegetables are often best to buy frozen.
@Paparazzi Ice cream
@Paparazzi Tofu styles that depend on freeze-thaw cycles for texture.... and for certain applications, mushrooms (the frozen ones are easier to cook down into sauce :) )
@Olav Does not mean they are not better fresh
@Paparazzi Garden fresh, as in just picked "at the peak of ripeness", is best if you can get it. If you can't get it that fresh, it is often better to buy it frozen. Peas are like that and seafood is the same way.
I'd like to start with an analogy. Look at what you said in comments that some vegetables are actually better purchased frozen than purchased fresh. Let's take frozen peas vs fresh.
Peas notoriously begin to lose flavor and their great texture as soon as they are picked. Quality manufacturers of frozen peas get those peas frozen at extremely low temperatures almost immediately after they are picked. From the time they are frozen until the time you use them, typically they have stayed frozen.
"Peas go into the freezer at one end at about 15C, and they come out six minutes later at the other end at around -18C."
The peas make it into the freezer to be flash-frozen in the two-and-a-half hour time limit.
-BBC
So, if you can buy fresh peas that were picked no more than 2 1/2 hours ago, they might be a tiny bit superior than peas you can buy frozen. Otherwise, you should buy your peas frozen. Frozen peas are "fresher" plus they haven't been banged around and damaged in transit.
Look at seafood that way
Can you get your hands on it within a few hours of it being caught? If not, purchase it frozen. Leave the freezing to the people who have the equipment to do it well, and will do it fast, sometimes while still on the boat.
In the US, most seafood arrives at the grocery store frozen. Then they thaw it out, put it on ice, and display it more attractively than it looks bagged in the freezer. It makes no sense to buy that. Buy exactly the same fish while it is still frozen, because it starts to lose freshness again as soon as you start to thaw it.
This basic rule is true of every variety of fish I know of plus shrimp, squid, scallops, lobster and octopus:
Buy it nearly off the boat, buy it live, or buy it frozen
"There really is no difference," said Gibbons. "The clock never moves backward when it comes to freshness. If a fish is caught, handled well and frozen immediately, you literally stop the clock. You freeze in the freshness." He adds that nutritionally, nothing is lost when fish is frozen.
These days, technology is such that fish are either frozen right at sea (most common with farmed fish, as freezers are incorporated into the farm sites) or immediately upon landing at port, said David Pilat, global seafood buyer for Whole Foods Market.
And the assumption that fattier varieties such as salmon and tuna fare better, texturally speaking, than leaner fish when frozen doesn't hold true, either. Our experts say it comes down to proper freezing and handling on the front end, and proper thawing—in the fridge, out of the package—on the back end.
"There is no downside to buying frozen fish," Gibbons said.
-Epicurious
If your store displays thawed fish on ice, look at it first and then the frozen package of the same item:
Commercially frozen fish is quickly frozen at its peak freshness. Consumers can now find a wide choice of top-quality and wholesome seafood in the freezer case. When properly thawed, frozen fish is comparable to fish that was never frozen. Both exhibit the qualities of freshness described previously. Frozen fish and shellfish should be packaged in a close-fitting, moisture-proof package. Select packages from below the load line of the freezer case. Look for packages that still have their original shape and the wrapping intact with little or no visible ice. Seafood should be frozen solid with no signs of freezer burn, such as discoloration or drying on the surface, and have no objectionable odor. The same guidelines apply for frozen prepared seafood, such as crab cakes, breaded shrimp, or fish sticks. Do not allow the package to defrost during transportation. When properly thawed, frozen fish can be comparable to fish that was never frozen.
-Seafoodhealthfacts.org
So what am I doing wrong? I have never been able to make frozen salmon as good as fresh.
@Olav It would be my pleasure to answer that question to the best of my ability. So ask it! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.065938
| 2017-03-22T21:06:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79348",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Olav",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55486",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112138
|
Why do my macarons have a proper shape and feet, but are hollow inside?
So i baked my macaron, it has a perfect outer shape from the top, perfect feet but absolutely no base. When you pick up the shell flip it pipe the filling there is no shiny base but just a hollow of the shape of the top sphere. Any idea why?
Check out https://www.indulgewithmimi.com/macaron-troubleshooting-guide/ I dunno how to make macaroons but some research suggests over or under beating the meringue is a common cause of hollow macaroons, as well as some other causes.
We've had this question asked before, but it never got any answers. Basically, there is a hundred ways to get macarons wrong and only one (or a few variations) to get them right, so we tend to get the same advice for macaron quesitons no matter what the symptoms. But since the old question is of no use, I made it a duplicate of this one instead of the other way round, maybe we will get answers this time.
What surface are you cooking them on? Baking sheet, baking parchment? Are you preheating it?
If they are hollow inside, it can also be because they have been cooked too long and/at a temperature that was too high. Most of the recipes say it should be between 140-155° F for 10 to 15 min, but then it depends on your oven, the size of your macarons, and a 1000 little details in the way you made them, so the best is to try little by little to figure out your own ideal temperature!
I agree with Sarah, temperature can be a factor. Many ovens are off slightly so if you believe the oven was set to the correct temperature it might be worth investing in an Oven Thermometer. You can find some for under five dollars (USD). It will help you gauge the internal temperature of your oven so you'll know if it is off. If it is off you'll just want to adjust the temperature you set your bakes for. So for example if you have a recipe that calls for a temperature of 350° F but your oven is running 10° F over, set the temperature for 340° F and that should hopefully solve the problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.066482
| 2020-10-14T17:49:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112138",
"authors": [
"Jason C",
"Mark Wildon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121012
|
What is a salad knife?
These Web pages all depict a salad knife in a formal table setting:
Petrossian.Com
TheSpruce.Com
CzarInAShop.Com
VectorStock.Com
These Web pages offer to sell or rent salad knives:
PEAKEventServices.Com
ImpulseEnterprises.Com
Amazon.Com
I’ve never encountered a salad knife as part of a set of utensils, and the salads I’m familiar with don’t need a knife. The pictures of salad knives are not consistent sizes or shapes, and some look identical to dinner knives. I’m left with the following questions:
Is a salad knife a real thing, or is this a creation of low-quality Web content, mis-translation, or sales tactics?
When is a salad knife necessary? I.e., what kind of salad needs to be cut with a knife?
What properties of a knife make it suitable for salads? I.e., what is a salad knife supposed to look like?
(Searching the Web is difficult, because “salad knife” primarily returns plastic lettuce-cutting knives like this.)
I've been involved in table setting for pretty formal (British) dinners, and what those images are calling salad cutlery I would just call starter cutlery. I don't mean to suggest that the term 'salad knife' is wrong, but I think it's more illuminating to just think of these as the cutlery you'd set for a starter, which are smaller than those you'd set for a main course but typically similar in style.
Moving to focus on using cutlery with salads specifically, I can think of many that could benefit from a cutting implement: anything with pieces of meat or large pieces of fruit, for example, and even larger leaves can be easier to manage when cut. But don't forget that in the non-American style of using cutlery, the diner holds a fork in the left hand and knife in the right, and one of the main functions of the knife is to push food into the fork, which is useful for any type of salad.
As for what it should look like, normally I would expect just a smaller version of the knife used for the main course. The only standard 'specialised' knives in a table setting would be a fish knife, perhaps butter knife and if relevant a steak knife.
Finally, your skepticism is sensible: a lot of those kind of resources do exist to sell products and build on people's class anxiety when they feel like there must be complicated secret rules they aren't privy to. The Petrossian.com link from @moskafj is a prime example, with that 'silverware placement guide' that is ¾ total nonsense but just the kind of thing people get anxious about not knowing.
Marketing is a stubborn thing. If there is an opportunity to make money on something, there will definitely be those who will do it. Even if it is a small deception based on the illiteracy of some people.
I particularly like ThePetrossian saying 'No more than 3 of any implement' and then listing 4 knives & 5 forks ....
Also, the salad knife should be to the right of the table knife.
There are a lot of strange things going on in that diagram compared to my experience (piling plates on top of one another, the courses in the wrong order, putting champagne glasses on the table but no port, the bread where you can't reach it easily, individual salt and pepper for each person, the sizes of the wine glasses, the shape of some of the cutlery, the advice under 'seating arrangements'...) not to mention the confusion about dinner/salad cutlery locations. And of course nowadays someone who really wants to flaunt wealth has their staff put cutlery out for each course anyway.
Thanks for calling out that "silverware placement guide". silverware together and offset to the right is indeed "I'm done", but anything past that is, at best, so hyperlocalized as to be useless.
The biggest red flag on the petrossian link is that they numbered every item in the table setting, but didn't number the labels, although "no more than 3 of any implement are ever placed on the table" while showing a layout with 5 glasses, 5 forks, 4 knives, and 4 plates made me roll my eyes a second time.
DBmag answered the rest of this question, so I'm going to just focus on "when would it be used".
The current modern Western definition of salads generally has all of the contents cut up into bite-sized pieces, so no knife is necessary. However, that was not always the case. In the 19th century, when a lot of these elaborate cutlery place settings were designed, salads then would frequently have whole vegetables, fruits, meats, or fish included in them and the diner would need to cut them up. For example, "asparagus salads" generally used whole asparagus in the Edwardian era.
One particular requirement for the knife were the "jellies" that were common for the salad course in the 19th and early 20th century. These were salads in aspic, with vegetables, fruits, and meat in them. And while these weren't impossible to cut with a fork, it wouldn't be easy to do so neatly -- hence a knife. Most of the salad knives you link to look like they were intended for jellies.
Now, this doesn't actually require a different knife than other courses do -- the extra knife comes from class competition. If there's anything different about that knife, it would be that items in the salad course are generally easy to cut -- like half-peaches or jellies -- as opposed to main course items, like roast beef, that require a steak knife.
Interestingly, salads composed this way have returned to fine dining restaurants in the US, particularly the use of whole vegetables and whole heads of baby lettuce, once again requiring a "salad knife".
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that quarter wedge or iceberg lettuce with bacon (?) and blue cheese that was popular in some places in the 80’s
Hey, I live in Portland, OR. Wedge salads are still popular here.
It is indeed a real thing. When it is necessary, or if it is necessary, is a matter of setting and opinion. Elaborate place settings have a history in formal European dining and etiquette. Here is a table setting guide (similar to your examples) that includes the salad knife, though other examples, with other types of utensils and dinnerware can be also be found. These types of settings are certainly less common today than they once were, but are not non-existent.
Thanks, I added the example. However (1) the pointy tip is not common to all examples, and (2) the page doesn’t explain how the knife is used.
I think a copy of an image or quote of text would be much better than this link, which took me to a page I don’t fully trust which didn’t contain any table setting guide.
In answer to your question - "is a salad knife a real thing". Yes, it's the thing you identified in the last sentence of the question. Like this Usually, I'd expect it to be metal, although this one seems to be plastic.
In answer to the question you meant to ask - "is a salad knife a real thing that I'd put on my dining table". No, it's not. Nobody needs a special knife to eat salads with.
To put it another way, a salad knife is not a knife for eating with. It's a knife to use in the kitchen, when chopping salad vegetables, such as lettuces and tomatoes. Kind of a large utility knife with small serrations; and it could be metal or hard plastic.
The last sentence in the question acknowledges this other kind of salad knife.
That's true, Spencer, but the question also asks "Is a salad knife a real thing" - and the short answer is YES, and it's THIS. My contention is that a salad knife as a "knife that goes on the dining table" is NOT a real thing. If I'm eating a main, and there's salad on a side plate next to the main, I'm not going to put down my dinner knife and fork, and pick up a different knife and fork, when I want a mouthful of salad. So, no, there is no such thing as an EATING utensil called a salad knife.
@DawoodibnKareem So the people who are selling, or advising the use of, metal tableware "salad knives" are....? And why would you be putting down your "dinner knife and fork" if it's the salad course?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.066709
| 2022-07-10T00:20:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121012",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Dragonel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Protect children of Donbas2014",
"Sneftel",
"Spencer Joplin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"dbmag9",
"fectin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99926"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68766
|
Does a pressure cooker really cook food evenly?
My mother uses a 5 liter pressure cooker to cook chicken pieces.
She heats it for 10 minutes, switches off the stove and waits for the steam pressure to go down before opening the lid.
Even though this is done, some chicken pieces, although seemingly cooked; when you chew it, it feels like chewing gum and does not 'disintegrate' well enough to be swallowed. Same way you don't feel like swallowing a chewing gum because it does not 'disintegrate' into tinier pieces, for example, the way cooked rice 'disintegrates' into a mushy semi-solid before we swallow it.
There are other pieces of the chicken which do get fully cooked, and they are not like chewing gum. They 'disintegrate' and can be swallowed comfortably.
I asked her to cook it for longer. She cooks it for 15 min now-a-days, but the result is the same. Some pieces end up like chewing gum.
She believes that since it is cooked in a pressure cooker, the heat and pressure should be even, and therefore all pieces should get cooked evenly. So even though I proved to her that it isn't evenly happening, she still remains stuck with the belief that it should cook evenly, and she's doing nothing to solve the problem.
So:
1. Is the food (especially meat) cooked in a pressure cooker really supposed to get cooked evenly?
2. Is boiling the meat in a pot (instead of pressure cooking it) the only other alternative?
UPDATE: From the answers and comments. Yes, Mom says that first we wait for the steam to come out of the pressure cooker's vent, then we put the weight over the vent and that's when we start counting the time taken for cooking. We can't really depend on the number of whistles, coz it varies among pressure cookers.
Well... chickens aren't homogenous the way rice is... so are you really certain that this is a pressure cooker issue and not simply an issue of chickens having different sorts of meat/sinew/cartilage? Also... why would you think boiling meat in a pot would be the only alternative? There are thousands of ways to cook chicken.
I suspect that the meat in contact with the bottom of the pot may be getting overcooked. Cooling down the pot in cold water might help, as it'll reduce the amount of time that the lowest pieces are in contact with the conductive heat from the pan. You might also try lifting the food off the very bottom with a steamer basket or similar.
Chicken cooked at home yesterday had some properly cooked pieces and some "chewing gum" pieces. I noticed the chewy pieces didn't get heated very well in the microwave, which leads me to believe they don't get cooked properly because of a lack of water content in them. Any corrections to this theory are welcome.
As a couple of commenters already mentioned, the base of the pressure cooker gets hotter than the rest, and chicken is no homogeneous size.
I would like to add that besides the size difference between pieces of chicken, there is also a difference in tenderness. Breast meat is more tender so it will pressure cook faster, while legs and wings will be tougher and take longer.
There is actually a way that you can take advantage of this knowledge to have evenly cooked chicken - by stacking the chicken pieces.
Place the darker, tougher, chicken pieces at the bottom of the pressure cooker (closer to the hottest part) and lay breasts and any other tender meat on top of that. Add just enough liquid to meet the cooker's minimum requirement (usually 1 - 2 cups). The breast will steam on top (and cook more slowly) while the legs & ect. will boil on the bottom (and cook faster).
Stacking chicken for even cooking is a technique that I published five years ago, as part of my pressure cooking lessons series.
Conveyed this to my mom, and she says the only problem she'd have with stacking, is that it's tough for her to figure out which piece is which, because the guys in the shop take a live chicken, de-feather it, clean it, chop it into pieces, dump it into a small plastic cover and hand it over to us. Your advice is useful though. Thanks.
The tougher "dark meat" have larger bones going through them!
Because steam is hotter than water, any pieces of chicken submerged in the cooking liquid will take longer to cook, and pieces surrounded only by steam will cook faster. In either case, cooking proceeds from the outside in, so larger pieces of chicken will take longer to cook than smaller pieces.
You mentioned that your mother heats the pressure cooker for 10-15 minutes and then turns it off. It's important for the timing to begin only after the cooker reaches the desired cooking pressure. The time for that to happen can vary greatly, depending on the temperature and volume of the cooking liquid, and the food being cooked.
So, wait until the pressure cooker begins letting off steam, and then begin timing. At this point, you also want to turn down the heat so it stays at that pressure and only lets off little bits of steam.
Ten minutes at full pressure should be more than enough time to cook chicken pieces, so I suspect your problem is simply not waiting until it reaches cooking pressure before starting to time.
Here's a useful reference of pressure cooking times:
Pressure Cooker Timing Charts
BTW, Liquid TRANSFERS heat more evenly and quickly than steam.
Steam is not hotter than boiling water.
I'm sorry, @Catija, but water boils at 212F/100C, changing phase to become steam. Ice is colder than water, and water is colder than steam. In a pressure cooker at 15psi, the temperature of the steam will be 250F. That's the whole point of using a pressure cooker — to get the steam up to a higher temperature. Even at atmospheric pressure, vegetables cook faster in a steamer than by boiling. This chart shows the temperature of steam as pressure increases - it starts out at 212F and goes up from there http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_steam_imp.htm
...and the "boiling water" IN A PRESSURE COOKER AT 15 PSI will ALSO be at 250F. That's the way pressure works.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.067369
| 2016-05-03T17:12:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68766",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"ElmerCat",
"Joe",
"Julian",
"Laura P.",
"Nav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78408
|
Can you peel a soft boiled egg?
Is there anything other than the temperature of the shell making it difficult to peel? I'm sure the white would be firm enough to withstand a gentle peeling if you're careful?
I was hypothesizing about it as a potential easy alternative to poached (all contained nicely in it's own shell for cooking), but I've never seen it before. Is it impossible, just a stupid idea, too risky (i.e. being squirted with trapped hot water from the white/shell etc.) or just something that hasn't been tried?
The point of poaching (or any soft-cooking) of egg is to keep the yolk cool... were the yolk "napalm temperature", it would be solid, not liquid.
@Catija Good point, although I've never had a boiled egg with a cool yolk before. I guess it's possible to be caught by some trapped water (beneath the shell) instead though. I'll edit the question...
Maybe skip the shell and try the Arzak egg...http://luckypeach.com/recipes/arzak-egg/
@moscafj Interesting method! It would probably be the same amount of effort/convenience as normal poaching though in terms of mess etc. Not a criticism though, I might try that at some point for experimenting :)
...by the way, there is no reason a soft boiled egg can't be peeled. It is frequently done with both traditionally cooked and sous vide eggs.
@moscafj Ah I've never seen it before (hence the question). But I don't get out much, restaurant/food wise really.
I recently bought a pressure cooker. Pressure cooked "boiled" eggs peel much more easily. Peeling traditionally soft boiled eggs is tricky because if they are even minutely undercooked, they fall apart no matter how gentle you are; if they are slightly overcooked , you don't have a soft boiled egg. Pressure cooking in an electric pressure cooker is super precise and since the pressure compresses the egg inside the shell, the shell just falls off.
I agree with @moscafj. Peeling them all the time (well, the weekends mostly), no problem whatsoever, and I like runny eggs. I peel soft boiled quail eggs too , and they are a pain in the a** to peel, even hardboiled. If they can be peeled, chicken eggs should pose no problem. Don't rush it, be gentle, and you'll do just fine.
Curious if you've tried one of those silicone poached egg cups... They float in the water and keep the egg contained. I've not used them myself but we sold a lot of them at the kitchen store I used to work at. Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Silicone-Egg-Poacher-Cups-Microwave/dp/B01GNUJVOQ
(warning: Very Personal Opinion Ahead) The only benefit of poached eggs in my view (see preliminary warning) is presentation. There's a marginal additional benefit if soft boiled eggs are served unpeeled. Taste wise, I've never experienced any difference. Personally, I've categorized poached eggs as an ideal mix for chefs to get big kudos on presentation, while not having to peel the egg, for the same experience in taste. As a completely unrelated side note, I also don't like making them, because I usually need 3, instead of 2 eggs to get good results ;)
@Catija I've not tried those - you can also get poaching bag type things (though I imagine they aren't reusable). Lots of options to explore for poaching!
@WillemvanRumpt All opinions are welcome! :)
I've found egg coddlers to be great for this.
If the egg is really really soft (for example when cooked sous vide below 63ºC) the loose white won't be cooked and you will end up cracking the egg as opposed to peeling it.
this is called a "half boiled egg" in asia.
Yes it is absolutely possible!
Soft-boiled eggs are delicious. I make them all the time, love it especially on ramen:
( source )
The trick is to boil the egg in a rolling boil for 5 or 6 minutes depending on the size of the egg, then dumping them in cold water to stop them from cooking further. This product might help too.
You have to be a little bit more careful than with hard-boiled eggs when peeling, but it really isn't very hard to do!
I then dip the meat from my ramen in the egg yolks, and later break the white in pieces and eat it with the noodles. Yum!
Ooooh pictures! Thanks! Also... I have one of those timer things, was given to me as a Christmas present one year :)
Comment not a criticism. Cooling to peel is going to cool the eggs. It you want it hot (like on toast) then that is the down side. If you are going to cut them in half then you can do it hot as I offered in my answer.
If the white is firm enough to hold shape it should not be different than peeling a hard boiled egg.
I have had it by mistake because I did not boil the eggs long enough.
They have different taste than poached from not being in contact with water.
But why? You would need to cut them to eat them. If you just bit into the whole egg the yoke would squirt out.
What problem are you trying to solve?
What I do is cut the egg open with a table knife with a whack. And then spoon the egg out with a spoon. It is faster and you get a hotter egg as you have to let the egg cool some to peel.
Thanks for the answer! I'm not trying to solve a problem, it's just something I was thinking about earlier (hence in the question "I was hypothesizing about it"). I'm rubbish at poaching eggs and I know there is lots of advice online already so I wondered if you get a similar result from boiling. More of a 'peeled boiled egg on toast' than a 'naked boiled egg with soldiers' if that makes sense.
If you want to question the existence of the question... you should do it in a comment. It's very odd to submit an answer and then complain that the question is useless.
@Catija If you want to characterize my statement as asserting useless then that is on you. I stated the implications and gave an alternate. OP certainly did not take it poorly.
But your "alternate" solution doesn't allow for a pretty presentation that looks like poached eggs.
I would say the main issue here is the original question, which simply requires a yes or no answer.
@Catija I answered the stated question and gave an alternate. I am confident people are aware the presentation is different. Good day.
@moscafj Question is not limited a yes no. It asks about an alternate to poached and that is an alternate. I worked as short order cook and on dinner shift with not poaching pan ready that is exactly what we offered as an alternate.
@Paparazzi I am not criticizing your answer, but if you read the question carefully, you will see that it is not asking for an alternative, but suggesting that soft boiled IS the alternative to poached. The OP is asking if a soft boiled egg can be peeled.
@moscafj And I think clearly answer that question. If the OP only wanted to know about peel there is no purpose to second paragraph at all. OP was hypothesizing about alternative. I feel that offering an alternative does add value. Thanks for your input.
Peace everyone, it's not worth arguing (or even disagreeing) over a question about peeled eggs...
Everyone, it's fine to offer some alternatives to what the OP asked for, or to suggest what they asked for isn't worth it. That said, Paparazzi, while "why bother?" and so on is indeed an answer, if you want to ask for clarification ("what problem are you trying to solve?") a comment on the question really would be better. (And that's "better" as in "how the site is supposed to work.")
@Paparazzi I didn't mean "why bother" any differently than "but why" - I was saying, yes, that is a perfectly fine answer. I was merely also saying that if you want to ask things like "what problem are you trying to solve", that would be better as a comment on the question. Your answer is perfectly fine, and I'd even upvoted it. It'd be nice if you didn't assume I meant the worst possible thing.
It is possible, and not too difficult to at least attempt.
The white will have a different to texture to that of a poached egg, but not a million miles off, and the yolk will be the same (assuming they are cooked the same amount)
I just ran into this situation today. I don't normally cook, but due to a nasty protracted cold, I bought (among other things) extra large eggs. I would bring them to boil, then set them aside. For 12 minutes. Boy, that was overdone. After some web searching, I found that I should set them aside for 5.5 minutes for runny yolks. That worked fine, but man were they hard to peel. For both 5.5 and 12 minutes, I would douse the eggs in cold water afterward to make them easier to handle and peel.
The difficulty in peeling suggests that the less cooked the egg, the harder to peel. This experiment was done with eggs from the same dozen. Odd thing is, I can't find mention of this on the web. On the contrary, I find the opposite claims. I wonder whether such a claim was based on a controlled experiment.
Barring any other egg boiling hacks, I had to boil them longer if I wanted easier peeling. I figure that one way to boil the whites longer without boiling the yolk as much longer (it is the whites that are in contact with the shell) is to put the eggs from the refrigerator directly into boiling water rather than bringing the eggs to a boil within the water. This is because of the temperature gradient between the egg interior versus the surface, which is minimal when the egg is brought to a boil.
Heck, if I kept the pot on the burner for maybe about half of the 5.5 minutes mentioned above for off-burner time, followed by cold water dousing, I would probably get a very well done whites, with hopefully runny yolks. I expect this because I'm maintaining the surface of the egg at boiling temperature, so there will be more heat diffusion into the egg, at least initially, which means more of a gradient. I will have to experiment. In any case, the more well done the surface of the egg, the easier it is to peel, according to the experiment thus far
Another thing that web search has revealed to be helpful is to add vinegar to the water. I have yet to try this.
2018-03-11 UPDATE: My experiments indicate that I can in fact cause the outside white to cook much more than the inner yolk, thus enabling easier peeling while maintaining a soft yolk. I placed the eggs directly into the water after it was brought to boil, and I kept the water on boil for four minutes. The outside yolk was indeed well done and easy to peel. The only problem is that I caused too much differentiation between the well done outside and the underdone inside. The inside was still quite wet. Next time, I will try five minutes of continuous boil, which should cook the outside even more, making it even easier to peel, while propagating more cooking into the yolk.
I came upon a realization, however. With a runny yolk, I really don't want to peel the egg. I want to lop off the top and spoon out the inside. So the whole question of peeling a (very) soft boiled egg is kind of moot for me. I will still conduct the 5-minute boil test out of scientific curiosity.
2018-03-31 update: Transferred eggs directly from fridge into already boiling water for 5.5 minutes before immersing them in cold water. Shell was easy to peel, and yolk was still quite running, though more cooked than previous attempt. I think 6 minutes boiling is the sweet spot for runny yolks. Again, my experiments have been with "extra large" eggs.
I have a thing for egg salad as well as soft-boiled eggs, so I regularly do a dozen at a time, without salt or vinegar or pre-cracking, and every time this is what works...
Boil your eggs to desired done-ness (everyone's varies depending on the number of eggs/pot size/burner setting/etc.
This is the important part:
Immediately remove from heat and drain
Douse/rinse with cold water and repeat until heat is removed - this means until you can no longer feel the rinse water warming up from the residual heat of the eggs. Everyone says this is to stop the eggs from cooking in the shell, but the reason it is critical is because the continuous cold water makes the eggs sweat (cause condensation) between the white and the shell and possibly initiates some slight shrinkage of the egg that assists the separation.
Let sit for a few minutes...
Peeling:
Tap the egg gently on table or counter enough to slightly crack the shell
Place the palm of your hand over the egg, and gently roll the egg forward and back on the table and alternating sides. Apply just enough pressure on the egg while rolling to make it crackle as it rolls. You will know how much that pressure should be because you will feel the shell separate from the egg as you roll it. Too much pressure on a soft-boiled egg and you will break it open.
Pick a loose spot and begin peeling. You should be able to peel off the entire shell in one piece in a matter of seconds. I've often done it in about 2 seconds. Sometimes, depending on how you've rolled it, the shell will just plop off in two halves. It's quite amusing how excited one can get looking for that one second shelling.
Your success depends upon your rinsing and rolling skills as you endeavor towards that one-second shell. Practice makes perfect. Good luck
That's actually my exact method for cracking/peeling the eggs! Though the question was more about whether you can do that with a soft boiled egg (runny yolk) - does it still work or is it likely to cause it to split?
@Lyall Actually, you can, but the threshold of when the white surrounding the yolk becomes solid enough to withstand peeling is tenuous at best. It's tough to get the complete runny-ness of poached with solid whites inside the shell. And its not the peeling that was the problem - it was handling it after, because the yolk isn't dense enough to support that thinnest part of the white and just too easily squishes in. But do you really want to eat runny eggs by hand? It's rather messy, unless of course, you're popping the whole egg into your mouth at once. In which case, bravo!
@Lyall I'm proud to proclaim success at producing the whole, peeled soft-boiled egg - intact. With photos. I set the timer at 5 mins and half-way thru, I turned the heat back up to a roiling boil hoping to produce a more solid white, and it worked! I ate one whole, but the thing is, I think I enjoy it more chopping it up with a spoon, mixing it up and eating it that way. The experience lasts longer as does the slurpy, yolky feel in my mouth.
Yes. The trick is how do you consistently and reliably get the egg whites cooked enough to peel without fear, but the yolks are still completely runny/liquid?
Check out America's Test Kitchen or Cook's Illustrated. They have a method for cooking soft-boiled eggs that is consistent and fool-proof. Basically, instead of a full pot of water, you just have a fraction of that amount in the bottom of the pot. This way, when you add the cooler eggs to the water, the volume is less to it very quickly comes back to boiling. You steam the eggs, and the water staying at boiling almost the entire times gives you that reliability. Mine come out with the yolk entirely liquid, but the whites solid enough to peel, every time.
This time I brought a mere 1/2 inch of water to a boil in my saucepan, and then I placed two cold eggs directly on the bottom of the pot, covered it, and steamed/boiled them. Because of the curved exterior of the eggs, I reasoned, they wouldn’t make enough contact with the water to lower the temperature significantly, so the cook time would remain the same as it did with the steamer. At the end of 6 1/2 minutes, I cooled the eggs by transferring the whole pot to the sink and running cold water into it for 30 seconds. I peeled the eggs and cut each one in half, revealing two beautifully tender yet fully set whites cradling warm, fluid yolks.
Subsequent tests with different-size batches (from one to six eggs) worked equally well using exactly the same timing. And with only 1/2 inch of water to heat, this recipe was not only the surest and most flexible but also the quickest. Just in time, my reputation as a serious and sane test cook was restored. Never again would I stress about producing perfect soft-cooked eggs for breakfast anytime, anywhere, under any conditions.
Cook's Illustrated:Foolproof soft-cooked eggs
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.067889
| 2017-02-14T16:21:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78408",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luciano",
"Lyall",
"Thufir",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65277",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"squidlydeux",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24295
|
Soft Boiled Egg Science
I've heard that the white part of an egg cooks (solidifies) at about 63°C (145°F). I've heard that the yolk cooks at about 68°C (154°F). Is this true?
Also what chemicals do the white and yolk contain, and what causes them to cook at these temperatures?
Pasteurization of eggs happens at 63° C; that must be where you heard that particular number.
Related (and the answers there mostly answer this): Sous vide eggs - how to get a perfect soft-boiled egg?
As an answer to your first question: what chemicals do the white and yolk contain?
Unlike the yolk, which is high in lipids (fats), egg white contains almost no fat, and carbohydrate content is less than 1%, it contains water, protein, trace minerals, fatty material, vitamins, and glucose. wikipedia
To get this kind of soft eggs:
Whites set at 155°F (68°C) and yolks set at 158°F (70°C). For best results, heat water to 180°F (82°C) as measured on an instant-read thermometer. After adding eggs, adjust heat to maintain temperature at 180°F for about 6 mins (+/- 15 seconds). If you do not have a thermometer, keep the water at the early simmer stage when tiny bubbles are just beginning to break the surface. food-lab-science-of-how-to-cook-perfect-boiled-eggs
So I guess what you have read is true. Hope to enjoy.
This answer seems to be oversimplifying quite a bit. There is no specific temperature at which egg whites or yolks set. Whites start to set as low as 62° C and continue to get firmer all the way up to 90° C; there are many stages in between, with the 70-80° range normally being considered "set" to "firm". Egg yolks are similar but need about 2° C higher for each stage. The assumption here is that there is a state of being "set" or "not set" but in reality there are just varying degrees of firmness.
Besides Aaronut's good points about this not wholly answering the question, this is also entirely copied from the linked Wikipedia article and Food Lab post. As Aaronut has explained elsewhere, merely linking to a source isn't enough to keep copying from being plagiarism, so we may have to delete this.
I suppose that you with "cook at N°C" mean that the components coagulate or turn solid?
Although all the egg's fat is contained in the yolk, the fat is not relevant for the different temperatures, at which egg whites and egg yolk turn solid. The process causing this is the so called denaturation of the proteins contained in the egg. The concept of denaturation is actually a broader subject and depending on the actual type of protein, the denaturation causes different chemical changes to the protein molecules, it can be triggered by different means and may or may not be reversible. As opposed to the proteins contained in eggs, milk proteins are for example not particularly sensitive to heat. You can heat milk to high temperatures without causing any reaction in the milk proteins. Adding even small amounts of acid (e.g. lemon juice) will however cause the milk proteins to denaturate at low temperatures and flock out as cheese curd.
Back to the egg ... Both in the egg white and in the yolk, many different kind of proteins are dissolved in the watery substance of a fresh egg. You can find about 40 different proteins in the egg white and a mostly different, but just as comprehensive mix in the egg yolk. Most of these proteins denaturates by rearranging the molecular structure in such a way that they loose water solubility and turn in to a more or less solid structure. Depending on the exact protein, the denaturation starts at different temperatures and progress at different speeds. I don't have a complete list of the denaturation temperature of all the egg proteins, but as a rule of thumb, most proteins in the egg white denaturates between 62 and 65°C, while the proteins in the egg yolk lies between 65 and 70°C. Especially in case of the egg yolk, the denaturation is a gradual process, starting with the yolk thickening but remaining liquid, before it actually becomes solid above 70°C. This can easily be seen when using egg yolk as a thickening agent for sauces or deserts. The sauce will start to thicken at roughly 65°, but if you reach 70°, the egg yolk may instantly turn solid and flock out (just as when adding acid to milk).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.069329
| 2012-06-08T04:12:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24295",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ampt",
"Cascabel",
"Darlene",
"Dianne Wineke",
"Jan Waugh",
"Janet Bauer",
"LILLY UNION",
"Paweł Czopowik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55381",
"indago",
"starscream_disco_party"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104495
|
how to calculate a standard drink from the alcohol percentage?
Part science, part arithmetic question.
For alcohol with proof x what volume constitutes a single drink?
Defining a standard drink as 14 grams of alcohol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_drink
although it seems to be the wrong units. I vaguely remember something about moles but wouldn't recall how to apply this here.
Actually, not sure where I got the 14 grams from, but a unit of alcohol looks to be perhaps a better measure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol
see also:
How to determine the alcohol content of a mixed-drink?
The question provided a link to "How to determine the alcohol content of a mixed-drink?", so I'll assume you want a simpler, easier to understand answer.
Consider some common drinks:
12 US fl.oz. (355 mL) bottle of 5% beer = 355×5/100 = 17.75 mL alcohol.
1½ US fl.oz (44.4 mL) shot of 40% bourbon = 44.4×40/100 = 17.76 mL alcohol.
5 US fl.oz (148 mL) glass of 12% wine = 148×12/100 = 17.76 mL alcohol.
Your other link defines an American standard drink as 18 mL of pure alcohol, so it's no coincidence that the examples they gave matched so closely.
Basically all you need is the volume of the alcoholic product in mL and the strength as a percentage, and simply multiply them and divide by 18 to get the equivalent number of standard drinks.
It is easier to define the standard drink by volume as you won't have to switch between concentrations by volume (as is normal in most drinks) and grams.
This is probably where your recollection of moles comes in as somewhere in this morass of units they get involved.
14 grams of alcohol is 17.7 ml
so 30% alcohol (many spirits) to get to a 100% you need to add another 70/100 ths of volume.
(17.7/30)*100 = 59 ml of drink which just so happens to be two fluid ounces for our american viewers.
or, slightly less intuitive but easier to use:
the volume of your drink = 17.7 / (the concentration or your drink /100)
Now if you want to use the "proof" of your drink as a unit of volume I'll need a drink first.
Note that this calculation by volume is slightly imprecise, because mixtures of alcohol and water don't retain their volume exactly - if you mix 100 g of water with 17.7 g of ethanol, you don't get 117.7 ml liquid, but somewhat less, so 117.7 ml of your new drink will have slightly more than the 14 g of alcohol your calculation suggests. It is up to the OP to decide whether this is relevant for their situation though, for practical purposes people may decide to just go with the formula you suggest.
You meant to write "100 ml of water with 17.7 ml of ethanol", I presume, not grams?
@rumtscho, alcoholic content is usually indicated as "v/v" (volume per volume) and takes this factor into account. For instance, a 40% alcohol rating would mean that there are 400mL of alcohol in 1L of product (which as you indicated, will contain more than 600mL of water).
@RayButterworth: Yes, that's how it works, though non-chemists may perhaps recognize the volume percentage definition as ABV.
There is an "easy" way to do this if you are drinking somewhere that uses fluid ounces instead of mL. I call it the "divide by 60" method.
A US "standard drink" is 12 fl oz of 5%. Multiplying 12 * 0.05 gives us 0.6 fl oz of alcohol as a "standard drink". However, since we are going to be using % alcohol over and over, I find it easiest to not do the conversion from % to decimal and just work with the % number. Then a "pseudo-standard" drink is 12 fl oz * 5 = 60.
Now you can calculate the "standard drinks" in your drink by taking the volume (in fl oz) multiplying by the alcohol percentage, then divide by 60. For example, a 20 fl oz glass of 6.7% IPA works out to 20 * 6.7 = 134. 134 divided by 60 is a little more than 2 (2.23 actually) and so your big glass of IPA is equivalent to a little more than two standard drinks.
Another example: a mixed drink with 3 "shots" of hard alcohol. In the US, a "shot" is roughly 1 - 1.25 fl oz. A lot of hard alcohol (vodka, gin, etc.) is around 40% alcohol. We can then calculate 3 fl oz * 40 = 120. Dividing by 60 gives us 2 "standard drinks" in your mixed drink. If you want to be on the safe side, you could round up: 3 shots * 1.25 fl oz = 3.75 fl oz round up to 4 fl oz. Then 4 fl oz * 40 = 160, divide by 60 to get 2 2/3 standard drinks.
I like this method because I find it somewhat easy (with a little rounding sometimes). I would probably need a calculator to use the other (good) methods that people have outlined in answers to this question, but I can do the "divide by 60" method in my head.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I like this method: very practical if you like to do the math in your head.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.069961
| 2020-01-02T14:51:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104495",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Federico Poloni",
"Ray Butterworth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20484
|
Proper temperatures for meats...foodie standards?
Possible Duplicate:
What is the internal temperature a steak should be cooked to for Rare/Medium Rare/Medium/Well?
I know that whenever you look at cookbooks they give you the recommended cooking temperatures for doneness in meats based on the USDA food safety guidelines. However, I been to certain restaurants where food has been cooked just slightly below those temperatures...essentially more on the rare side.
So what is the real safe temperatures for the meats that we eat? I.e. not thinking about any legal implications, what temperature would chefs cook their meat to? I'm trying to discern the difference, if any, between gastronomical and governmental standards.
See also this question on beef. I assume you are not looking for alternate advice on chicken.
Going to be charitable and call this a duplicate... please don't directly ask us to provide food safety guidelines that directly contradict federal regulations. The "real" safe temperature is exactly what the USDA says it is. Restaurants are only allowed to cook to a lower temperature when specifically requested by the customer - at that point the customer assumes any liability for the consequences.
@Aaronut. I don't think it's a duplicate. I'm asking about meat in general and not just beef. For some reason, most people assume meat means beef because all the answers have been about beef. :) I've seen on TV and also have read in cookbooks mentions of not having to cook to USDA standards. I want to the community to provide some answers and hopefully once answered it would serve as documentation that slightly lower temperatures are ok. I've been to Chinese restaurants where the chef likes to cook the chicken so that it is ever so slightly pink. I want to know if this is ok.
The colour has nothing to do with the internal temperature. Aside from that, the question is not appropriate. If you don't want to follow the USDA guidelines in your own home, that's fine, you're welcome to take the risk, plenty of people do and they're still alive. We are not going to officially sanction it by providing an alternative set of "real" temperatures that could potentially cause some future visitor to get food poisoning. It's getting really tiresome seeing one question after another asking for permission to ignore the guidelines; either follow them or don't.
The one exception to this rule is sous-vide cooking which is distinguished by very precise control over the temperature and a much longer cooking time than pan-frying/oven-baking/etc. If you're interested in temperatures for sous-vide, go ahead and ask that, but be aware that those temperatures are not appropriate for any other cooking method.
@Aaronut you have a good point about the color. I guess I was thinking that most cookbooks say to cook chicken so that juices run clear and pink chicken meat has nothing to do with the juices. I see your point about potentially having people get sick from not cooking foods to the USDA guidelines. However, I don't see why this question is not following this stackexchange's guidelines. I think that the question is a legitimate question about cooking. You're closing this question based on a 'duplicate', which I presented ample reason why it isn't. Are you also saying you are closing for safety?
People ask questions about food safety and I don't see why this is any different.
@Aaronut You have a great post here http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/266/2125 about these types of questions. I want to still plea my case and say that your comment is exactly why this question should be reopened.
You might be interested in a question I asked some time ago, Is "until juices run clear" a valid test for poultry doneness? Why or why not? Aside from that: take your pick of close reasons, Not Constructive would also apply since this question is flouting the facts and soliciting opinions on a number of different issues/foods. Sorry, but this isn't getting reopened, no way, no how. Do you walk into a doctor's office and ask for faith healing or homeopathic formulas? Let's try to maintain some level of professionalism here.
Your "juices run clear" question is a very good one. Your accepted answer is something along the lines of the type of answer that I would want for my question. Your specific question is about chicken, my question is trying to include other meats. Anyhow, I will ask my question another way and see how it goes.
This is purely personal preference, this is no magic number
Some people like it very blue, some like it grey. Some like it cooked it a very hot pan, some people like it simmered or steamed. Cook what you like
If you are going to have raw, or rare meat cooked at below your local governments recommendations, you should know the quality of the meat, or be involved in it's preparation (Zuckerberg style)
This is my wife's ideal steak. From the farm, grass feed young beef. Sirloin cooked plain in a hot cast iron pan for 30 seconds a side
That steak looks delicious! (I think I'm gonna cook one up for dinner) Regarding my question, I guess I should update it to indicate that I'm looking for the real safe temperature for meats.
@milesmeow The question is unanswerable then. The USDA temperatures are calculated so that there is maximally 1 in X chance of getting food poisoning in the wost case. You can say that you feel safe with a much smaller X, but this would be a personal preference different from the legal definition of "safe".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.070345
| 2012-01-16T09:03:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20484",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andi Gleeson",
"Daniel McCaig",
"LiHRaM",
"Toqeer Hussain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"justkt",
"milesmeow",
"rumtscho",
"theblindprophet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20179
|
What is a thorough way to clean my dish rack?
I have a Simple Human Dishrack. It was kind of a splurge when I bought it. We were swayed by the good reviews. The rack does not have the typical open wire design, as you can see in the link above. The dishes drain on a wired rack onto a sloped catch tray which then empties into the sink.
We've had it for about 6 months now and I'm noticing pink mold(?) where water pools/evaporates. (On the DIY Stack Exchange an answer to one of my questions there suggests that the pink stuff could be due to fluoride that's been added by the water company.) Potentially food particles could have built up over time, too.
How should I clean this dish rack to get rid of and or prevent more of this pink stuff that's building up?
CLARIFICATION
It has stainless walls, plastic bottom (which is the drip tray) and a coated metal rack (I'm not sure what the coating is).
I have non-flouridated water (from a well) and have seen pink mold, fwiw.
Bleach is your best bet. Scrub it with a long-handled scrub brush and either liquid bleach or Ajax and water. Let it soak a bit before rinsing it out. Since it's stainless steel, the bleach won't do it any harm and will kill off any organics growing on it.
In my experience, the pink stuff is a mold, not flouride.
FYI, bleach does attack stainless, just not as much as iron or plain steel. At the concentration of bleach you'd be using and the time immersed, it shouldn't matter, but make sure to thoroughly rinse.
Here's how to make a bleach cleaning solution: "Household chlorine bleach is a powerful disinfectant that is inexpensive, easy to obtain, and strong enough to kill the germs.... Bleach is also very caustic and emits potentially lethal fumes, so it should never be used full-strength. When using bleach as a disinfectant, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend using a 1:10 solution. Follow these steps to make a 1:10 bleach solution safely." http://cysticfibrosis.about.com/od/livingwithcysticfibrosis/ht/bleach.htm. Another link http://www.clorox.com/products/clorox-regular-bleach/how-to/
Here's another good link with steps to disinfect and bleach is involved in two of the steps. http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/pdf_forms/bleach_solution_fact_sheet.pdf
A strong bleach solution would be: 1 TBSP Bleach to 4 cups of water. This is the disinfecting concentration. Spray on, leave on for 2 minutes and air dry.
From the description you posted:
The drip tray, utensil holder, and inner wire frame are all dishwasher safe.
That's probably the cleanest you're going to get it. Just find some way to fit it into the dishwasher. Especially if you're using a dishwasher detergent with bleach in it, that plus the high temperature dishwasher option should thoroughly remove any mold.
(This is how I clean my dish rack, though its a different brand. It doesn't quite fit, but put it at an angle held in place with some nylon string, problem solved.)
I realized I could fit bigger things into the bottom rack of my dishwasher by removing the plastic fountain that sprays water up to the top rack.
I remove the top rack so there is more room in the dishwasher :)
The dishwasher is a great suggestion (+1). Probably easiest too. But believe it or not, I don't have a dishwasher in my current apartment. But I'll keep this mind for the future. :)
I wipe with a vinegar solution 3 parts water 1 part white vinegar. takes the water deposit away and disenfects witout removing the coating on the dishrack
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.070792
| 2012-01-05T04:48:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20179",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Ari",
"B.Beattie",
"DhruvJoshi",
"Gouri Dhatt",
"Jojodmo",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kyra",
"Michael Hoffman",
"TheChemist",
"Tim M",
"bogardpd",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"milesmeow",
"n0ukf",
"roe giglio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14551
|
Extra Firm Tofu past expiration date: safe, but for how long?
How long past the expiration date is pre-packaged extra-firm tofu safe, tasty and wholesome. Generally, expiration dates are for sissies, but something about the tofu made me think twice.
I've seen the fresh tofu expiration question already posted: how long is tofu good for? , but thought there may be a difference with the tofu from the grocery produce section.
"expiration dates are for sissies" - well, it's 8 years later, and I just cooked up the tofu my wife wanted to discard. Feb 15th expiration, so 10 weeks expired. It smelled fine and tasted as good as when it's 3 months younger. Not planning to push my luck that far again.
Tofu is high in protein, with a neutral PH. And it (normally) doesn't contain any preservatives like salt, sugar or nitrates. Bacteria love foods like that. If it's past the date, chuck it out.
+1 Tofu is cheap and it smells TERRIBLE when it goes bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.071109
| 2011-05-06T22:17:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14551",
"authors": [
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142"
],
"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
}
|
19072
|
Mousse has Raw Eggs -- is it Really Safe?
Possible Duplicate:
Is it safe to eat raw eggs?
I looked up a recipe for chocolate mousse the other day, and I noticed that pretty much all of them have raw eggs in them. And they're not cooked.
How is this salmonella-safe?
Is it really safe to feed to young kids (under one)?
Why on earth would you want to give a baby an empty-calorie food like mousse? They're already genetically predisposed to liking sweets, there's no need to compound that by introducing dessert before they're a year old. Just saying.
related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6142/chocolate-mousse-with-cooked-eggs
@Marti I don't plan on it. But since I have kids, I would consider avoiding mousse completely if it may be a threat. Sometimes, the unplanned happens.
There are a lot of foods you aren't supposed to give very young children that are perfectly safe for adults - honey, for example - for that type of thing it's generally best to consult a pediatrician if you aren't sure. Most of the advice we're able to give here is going to revolve around USDA or other government food safety guidelines which is not necessarily applicable to children or infants.
Since all of the answers here relate specifically to the safety of raw eggs and do answer the question, I think the linked question is a valid duplicate. Please feel free to discuss on [meta] if there's any disagreement.
Raw eggs are actually a lot safer than said to be believed, especially in recipes such as this one. Rocky ate raw eggs all the time! haha So please feel free to make the mousse and eat it too! Although cooking them almost always kills bacteria if they reach 150 degrees Fahrenheit. The most dangerous part about using eggs is something that many of us were taught to do at a young age, separating the yolk. Most people separate the yolk by cracking the egg and pouring it back and forth between the two egg shell halves. This is the easiest way to spread salmonella because it can hide on the egg shell or in the pores inside the egg. One thing to never do is wash an egg. They are washed after they are laid and a new barrier is put on by the egg company, some sort of hardened mineral I think. Washing the egg will make your situation worse by destroying this new man made barrier. For the last part of your question I suggest not feeding your baby and thing that has a small percent chance to have any bacteria, such as mousse, because their immune system is still developing. I would also choose not to feed your baby anything high in sugar, thats what Grandma is for later in life. The baby's tastes are forming now and veggies are the way to go with that. Need to teach them to like good for them foods. They like sweet stuff when they are born so they don't need to learn how to like those. Hope I helped!
You mean Yolk. Yoke is a thing you put on an animal to pull a cart.
I'm sure you meant it as a joke, and I think your answer is generally correct, but citing Rocky and no real sources doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Thanks for spelling correction it was a little late when I wrote answer. @Jefromi Yes haha it was a joke, glad someone actually got it.
I have made plenty of mousse(s) over the years, and have never seen anyone get sick. I have, however, never used anything but store bought eggs.
There is always a risk of salmonella due to raw eggs. Using pasteurized eggs is a pain in the ass, because it takes forever to incorporate air, and the retention can be awful.
If you are that concerned, heat a portion of your sugar with your eggs over a hot water bath (baine marie, double boiler), until you hit 110 F or so. That will kill off harmful stuff, and you will have an easy time incorporating air. And, as a bonus, it is fairly stable.
Did you use any source to determine that 110F will kill bacteria?
Hahahhaa... It was almost five years ago that i made the comment... Can't remember off the top of my head.
The risk of salmonella comes from the outside of a fresh egg. Washing your eggs nearly negates the risk of contracting anything serious. It takes a lot of salmonella to overwhelm an adult immune system.
However, if I was being completely cautious, I wouldn't feed an infant raw animal products. The risk of infection is higher and more serious for a baby.
If you live in the US, the eggs are already washed, and washing them yourself is, if anything, bad. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Does_Washing_Food_Promote_Food_Safety/index.asp#4
That doesn't quite make sense. Washing an egg and then immediately using doesn't give time for any bacteria to take hold and begin multiplying. And it doesn't take into account any potential contamination of commercial equipment or mishandling by shippers.
I did say "if anything, bad", i.e. not good and possibly bad, however unlikely. I'm not the FDA, but my understanding is that if you somehow get something on the shell during washing, and it's cracked, you might get it in the egg, then if you're baking, it'll have some time before it's actually heated (or much longer for a mousse!), so it's possible for it to be bad.
That's still pretty spurious; contaminating an egg by washing it? It sounds more like the federal government protecting themselves from liability, no matter how remote the chances.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.071345
| 2011-11-22T23:19:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19072",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Erin Rampy",
"Felix L.",
"IMTheNachoMan",
"Karen",
"Marti",
"Mazhar",
"Michael R. Bailey",
"SomeInternetGuy",
"Thomas willman",
"Tom O'Connor",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8061",
"jinawee",
"mendota",
"mrwienerdog",
"nayiaw",
"rajakvk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81208
|
How long do I have till my chili garlic sauce spoils?
First post on this exchange so I hope this is appropriate!
Anyway, I don't cook much, so I made something simple following this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSSF4O4o2eE Since I love chili.
Anyways, I have it bottled, and I didn't refrigerate it the past few days. If it's been on the shelf (and stays on the shelf) how long do I have till it goes bad? I cant really tell...
And, since it may be a lost cause for my current recipe, how can I lengthen its shelf life for the future? Recipe looks pretty simple, can't imagine adding anything that wont mess up the intended flavor.
Ingr:
1 cup vegetable oil
1/4 kilogram garlic, chopped
15 pieces bird's eye chilies (add more if you want it spicier)
2 tablespoons salt
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
2 tablespoons brown sugar
3/4 cup water
1 Pour oil in a preheated pan, add the garlic and let it cook for 5 minutes.
2 Add the chilies, brown sugar, salt and black pepper. Allow to cook for 5 minutes over low heat.
3 Add water then let it simmer and cook for 30 minutes or until the garlic turns dark brown. Mix occasionally to prevent the garlic from burning.
Can you post the actual recipe rather than needing us to watch the video please?
From a very fast skim through without sound, looks like it's basically just minced chiles and garlic cooked in oil.
@Catija, yes, what Jefromi said. ingredients are pretty basic. I will update the op.
This is absolutely unsafe - it's a botulism risk. This isn't a matter of it going bad in the sense of becoming obviously spoiled and unpleasant to eat, it's a matter of it being a safety risk - it could look totally fine, but send you to the hospital.
What you're making should not be kept unrefrigerated at all. It's safe for short periods refrigerated, or essentially indefinitely in the freezer. The FDA's ultimate conclusion in this document on vegetables and herbs in oil is 4 days in the refrigerator. They do say that 10 days in the refrigerator is safe if it's 3-5C, and the recommended fridge temperatures are indeed 40F/4C or below, but many fridges are warmer than that, at least in spots (nearly 30%, according to that paper).
We have a past question, Botulism, Garlic, Cold pressed Olive oil and mason jars, covers in more detail exactly why this sort of thing is a botulism risk. It is possible to make it safe with just garlic and oil, through a very specific process (see for example How to make garlic oil in a safe way...tomorrow), and the same also works with certain herbs and oil, but that won't help you with your chili-garlic sauce. As the PDF linked from there says:
The acidification procedure was developed for garlic, basil, oregano, and rosemary. Do not use it with other vegetables or herbs until the
appropriate research has been conducted.
When confronted with this sort of advice, people often point out that things like this have been made by people all the time in the past, and they never got sick. It's true, many people never got sick. But it's also true that people have gotten severely ill from this sort of thing. Unless you want to take that risk, you have to go with the strict guidelines.
This is honestly quite enlightening. Didn't know garlic on oil had this effect. Definitely at least keeping it in the right conditions. Though with those risks, I wonder if it's even worth preparing at all since it's mostly unavoidable without lasting less than a week. (Planned to make a batch). One of the videos I looked up even mentioned it would last up to 2 months, so I thought it was safe. The facts are against that however. My reference
Yeah, when people say it lasts that long, they're generally basing it on tradition and obvious spoilage (as I alluded to in the last paragraph. And in that sense, yes, it does last two months. But there's a small risk that in that time it's become invisibly dangerous to eat, which people aren't going to realize unless they go do some research, or are unlucky enough to have actually encountered the consequences.
@Arvayne Although this batch might be a loss, if you make this again you can easily keep most of it in the freezer and pull out portions for use within 3-4 days. The recipe also looks pretty easy to scale down to a half batch.
Unlike plain garlic oil, though, pressure canning might be an option here.
Check out jamie olivers how to make chillie sauce... he keeps his for a year as long as you put in a steralized kilner style bottle... also fresh stuff will keep for 10 days to 2 weeks
Would you please provide links to an online source for the Jamie Oliver reference and also to the documentation for the shelf stability statement?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.071806
| 2017-04-24T23:28:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81208",
"authors": [
"Aroueterra",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90152
|
Excess oil in fan grease trap after stir frying in a wok
I use a steel wok on induction. When I weekly check the fan grease trap, there's enough oil to run a 1957 DeSoto through the Nevada desert and still have plenty left over for John Travolta's hair.
When I travelled Asia, the chefs always seemed to douse the food in oil (and stock), and my own impression is that without sufficient oil, it feels as if "nothing's happening" in the pan.
In particular, vegetables like broccoli, seem to absorb oil like there's no tomorrow. I use rapeseed oil and run my wok on 85% of maximum heat, which seems to be the perfect temperature.
My question: How much oil is required for a standard one person wok meal, and how do I make sure the oil goes into the food, not into the fan?
(I'd also appreciate a physical/chemical explanation of why this happens. I assume it's because of the high temperature, that the oil is transported along with the "smoky" streaks from the cooking.)
Update: An important part of the problem is how the Swedish quality fan is constructed: The oil caught in the grease trap will slowly drip down outside the outer edges of the fan screen onto the induction top. Is this a problem with all kitchen fans, or could I solve the problem by replacing it?
Little over the top. Oil will vaporize. Even before the smoke point. Just like water will evaporate below the boiling point.
@paparazzo: That's good to know. Annoying, but good to know.
Vaporizing water also tends to pull oil into the air along with it...
Partial answer to the new formulation:
how do I make sure the oil goes into the food, not into the fan?
You don't. The oil is not supposed to go into the food that's being fried, it should be fried at the temperature where it does not soak through, else it becomes quite unappetizing. It is normal that you get a lot of oily vapor when frying, especially at higher temperatures, you cannot prevent that. A splatter screen is sometimes used, but it is not suitable for wokking, because you can't move the foodd items with it.
As for what is the right amount of oil, I can't help you exactly because I don't do much wokking on my own. But I suppose good temperature control will indeed use up more fat than modern Western cooks tend to use.
There is a related question of a user complaining about oil splatter, and the conclusion is the same: you have to live with it. Good way to prevent grease build up in kitchen?.
That's interesting! I never thought of it that way: "The oil is not supposed to go into the food that's being fried". Splatter on the induction top is a minor problem for me. But when your kitchen fan has more excess oil than the gulf of Mexico, you kind of tend to ask yourself what you're doing wrong with your life. If this is just how the food tech works with woking, then I'll just label it as a non-problem and run my grease traps in the dishwasher more often.
This might be true for deep frying (where you also tend to use cheap, nasty oil), but for stir frying/stir braising, you do want some of the flavoured oil to be part of the sauce and/or coat the food (or even soak into lean and/or porous ingredients).
@rackandboneman good point with the coating. I would still say that lots of fat still sprays out, especially if you are doing a very high temperature stir frying such in a wok. There should be more oil left sticking to the food in a wok than in deep frying, and it is still normal that the amount of vaporized oil is higher than the amount of oil sticking.
Oil will vaporize. Even before the smoke point. The smoke point is where the oil begins to break down. Water has no smoke point as it does not start to break down before boiling (and it won't burn). Just like water oil will evaporate below the boiling point.
Oils with a higher smoke point as like to have lower vapor pressure. smoke points
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.072181
| 2018-06-04T08:42:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90152",
"authors": [
"forthrin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125015
|
Can a generic clay smoker work as well as a Kamado Joe?
I've been wanting to buy a regular-sized 18" Kamado ceramic grill, but they're extremely expensive. Not only that, but I don't live in the continental US so I have to pay to transport this 300-lb grill to my place by air.
Today, while searching again for cheap ceramic Kamado grills, I noticed a few of these clay smokers that are built locally: Smoker, Smoker2
Let's say that I buy some gasket for an airtight seal, a proper top vent, among a few other improvements, would this function as well as a Kamado Joe or any other ceramic Kamado?
With these minor improvements, would this produce even, steady heat? Would clay insulate as well as the ceramic dome of the BGE or the Kamado Joe? What about maintaining a precise temperature for several hours?
I would guess impossible to say without specs and knowing what a Kamado is made of. That's a rather large opening at the front. If you want a smoker and grill, look into offset style ones; they are pretty commonly available in many parts of the world. Doesn't match up to a Kamado or similar though in my experience.
You might be able to fashion a cover for the lower front opening from wood cut to fit snugly, then screw some sort of metal to the inside to shield it from burning. (But beware of aluminum flashing… I think they coat it with something). You could also cut a hole in it to add some sort of vent that you could adjust
The Kamado is made from high-fire stoneware clay.
There are a couple of important features of the kamado-style grills (I've had a Big Green Egg for over 20 years), which you may be able to replicate with the cooker you've shown as an example. First is the weight and thickness of the material. It retains heat. Second is the seal, which as you mention, you could add. Third (and related to the seal) is the venting. These cookers have the ability to adjust both the top opening and the bottom opening quite finely. So, for example, when I do a pulled pork, low and slow, over night. I can stabilize the temperature in the desired place by keeping the bottom vent open at about the width that is slightly larger than the thickness of a credit card, and the top vent is open slightly more than that.
So, you would need to play with those three features, but, if you have no other option, and the price is right, I think you could rig it to make it useful.
The challenge is going to be that the pictured smoker has nowhere near the depth of a kamado, so it's not going to be able to hold the same amount of fuel or give it adequate airflow. Which makes sense if it's designed as a smoker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.072480
| 2023-08-20T02:24:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125015",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
99510
|
Nonstick Pan Ruined in High Heat?
I bought a nonstick Greenpan at Williams and Sonomo. It was kind of expensive like $100. It was working great. Then someone used it on high heat. Now it sticks a lot. Visually, I don't see anything wrong with the pan, but it seems to be totally broken.
I'm surprised that using it just a single time with high heat was enough to ruin the nonstick surface entirely.
Was this my fault? Or should an expensive nonstick pan be a bit more durable than that? (I am new to cooking so sorry if it's a newbie question. Any info appreciated!)
Washing improperly and high heat aren't great for nonstick pans, however I doubt it could "ruin" a good quality pan in a single use. Luckily, there are a lot of explantions on How to make non-stick non-stick again if you do a bit of reserach.
How hot did the pan get?
10 min at 500F will permanently destroy any nonstick pan, regardless of price.
Where is the threshold? 450? Or less. I don’t put mine (Le Creuset and Henkel) above 400 or 425, but I have wondered.
RFlack: https://www.chemours.com/Teflon/en_US/products/safety/key_questions.html#q4 Like most things, it's a temperature+time thing, but basically anything above 490F is bad news.
What I'm surprised by is that there was no visible indication just that food sticks now. When my kids have ruined non-stick pans it has been visibly scorched or warped.
Usually it just looks "dry" or "matte" compared to good nonstick.
Possibly see also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9531/is-greenpan-safe
Yes high heat can burn off the nonstick coating.
My roommate's girlfriend did one of my pans that way, heating it very hot while dry. It was pretty spectacular. Everyone in the house had this weird little cough like from dilute pepper spray. Anything silver in the house tarnished. I presume the nonstick was burned off and floated around in the house, causing these effects. The pan was still usable after, just no longer nonstick.
All of your silver? Really? How far was it from the kitchen? Just wondering because I'm not willing to do the experiment myself.
@FuzzyChef- I had a souvenir silver fish in my bedroom upstairs and it tarnished.
A single session at temperatures above 500F/260C is sufficient to ruin any PTFE-based nonstick pan, regardless of price or "quality". PTFE is base for the vast majority of all nonstick coatings, and goes by the brand name "Teflon". Degredation can happen at lower temperatures (anything above 400F), but at 500F or above it is both certain and swift.
You haven't said how hot the pan got, but assuming that it did get to 500F, then (a) yes, it is your fault, and (b) no PTFE-based nonstick pan is going to be more durable against excess heat than that, no matter how much you paid for it.
At a high temperature, PTFE undergoes "pyrolysis", during which some of its flourine compounds vaporize (which isn't good for your lungs, and can outright kill birds). After pyrolysis, the coating loses a lot of its nontstick properties, even though it may appear undamaged. In my personal experience, there is a subtle change to a more "matte" appearance to the nonstick surface.
Manufacturers of Non-PTFE nonstick claim that their cookware can withstand higher temperatures without loss of nonstick properties. GreenPan, for example, claims to be good to 850F. However, to date these claims have not been verified by independent authorities. Also, note that some cookware which claims to be "non-Teflon" or "PFOA free" is still based on PTFE (such as ScanPan).
I use the term "PTFE-based" because there's a lot of argument about whether Teflon is just PTFE, or PTFE+PFOA, and that argument is irrelevant to the question of heat degredation.
For (a), to be fair, it is the fault of the "someone" who used it on too-high heat. From the original question, that may not be OP. Though it is certainly user error :)
The OP's question was "was this MY fault", not "was this their fault", so by my reading "someone" is the OP.
Heating nonstick pans above 500° Fahrenheit or 260° Celsius will burn off the nonstick coating
The toxic vapors released can cause serious problems for some animals like birds that are more sensitive to polluted air, which is why it is frequently recommended that a person be very careful with nonstick pans if they have those animals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.072732
| 2019-06-12T14:28:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99510",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Hugo",
"Megha",
"Paul D. Waite",
"RFlack",
"Sobachatina",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123234
|
Alternatives to mustard oil?
Is there an accessible, legal product in the USA that will impart the sinus-tingling sensation of mustard when preparing spice blends for Indian cooking?
No sooner did I discover the sinus-heating magic of cold-pressed mustard oil than I learned that it is illegal for consumption in the United States. (The matter is controversial, but banned is banned.)
There is one FDA-approved mustard oil, made from a specially bred varietal: Yandilla. The cost of such an oil would add up quite quickly, and it is often out of stock in most of the few places that carry it.
The FDA also acknowledges another mustard-extracted product: steam-extracted mustard essential oil, also known as volatile oil of mustard. Since I mostly just want a bit of mustard "oomph" for my tadkas, this seemed like the right thing.
It's not clear that this is a real, viable product, however. While there are a few ancient articles about it, every bottle of "mustard essential oil" that I can find for sale in the United States says that it's cold-pressed, meaning it's actually virgin oil. Even outside the US, mustard essential oil seems incredibly obscure. After a good amount of searching, I eventually found one vendor in India, and they still market it as intended for external use.
Prepared mustard is a totally different animal. Mustard powder tastes totally different from the oil, and can easily be turned bitter (and not spicy) during cooking. Which leaves me with the (expensive, low-inventory) Yandilla. Or does it? Is there another way to obtain this flavor profile?
@rumtscho, this question was not a solicitation for medical advice, or opinions about what's safe. I was asking for known alternatives to an ingredient that has been banned by the FDA. I have revised the question to emphasize this, but it should not have been closed in the first place.
Now I am confused. You say that the authority you use for defining what is acceptably safe and what isn't is the FDA. Per the question, you already checked what the FDA considers safe. How would you expect us to arrive at a different answer that fits the FDA criteria, if the FDA itself has already published what fits its criteria, and you know it?
I am not asking for more products in the banned category. I am not even asking about safety. I am asking for products that are not banned, and which have similar flavors to mustard oil. The cause for the ban is erucic acid, whereas the spice from mustard oil comes from a different compound.
OK, I see it clearer now, I think we can reopen if we edit the question to be more specific. Are you looking for a) a mustard-derived product that the FDA has on some kind of "approval list", or b) a non-mustard product that is kinda similar (which would be a standard culinary substitution question)? Either formulation would eliminate the need for the answerer to define what is safe (which is the criterion for closing under the 'health' reason). The second is more likely to get answers, even though they wouldn't match the taste, the first would be nicer, but unclear if it exists.
I had already revised this question quite extensively. I just revised it to completely remove any and all mention of the word "safety." I continue to maintain that the original closure was unjust.
Mustard oil is also 'illegal' in the UK, though that doesn't actually stop anybody using it, as you can buy it quite readily "for external use". KTC [a UK/Indian company] one of the country's larget edible oil suppliers, makes a 'legal' edible mustard oil. I've never tried it, but maybe you could get it on import?
I have found a good quality cold pressed rapeseed oil (aka canola oil) is somewhat similar in flavour - slightly nutty and mustard-like. I often use it when cooking curries. Rapeseed/canola is basically a variety of brassica, from the same family as mustard. Highly refined rapeseed oils typically used for deep fat frying are more or less flavourless by comparison.
Hmm.. KTC's edible is actually 50/50 mustard & rapeseed. You can buy their 100% in any supermarket in the UK, you just have to go look for it in the hair product aisle;)
@DavidBruceBorenstein thank you for the editing, it is indeed much clearer now. Most importantly, now your questions defines the exact criteria for judging which products would be acceptable for your purposes.
@BillyKerr that sounds like an answer, why don't you post it?
Personally, I am a US resident, and have found that while mustard oil is technically banned, it's actually readily obtainable in many places.
@FuzzyChef - OK, added an answer now. Yeah, it's also technically banned for food use here in the UK, but the oil itself is not banned and is readily available in Asian stores, even some supermarkets, but it has to be labelled "for external use only". I highly doubt if that has ever stopped any Indians living here from using it.
@Tetsujin 'you can buy their 100% in any supermarket in the UK' stock is tailored to demand, which can be a product of local demographics, not at lot of KTC oil products available in standard supermarkets in the Highlands, though I saw them regularly when I lived in Smethwick.
@Spagirl - sure, I'm generalising. Same as saying you can get fresh pasta, or frozen garlic, or Polish bread… if you're out in the sticks you're going to already know your choices are limited.
I would start by first identifying what exact flavor of the mustard oil I am trying to reproduce. It can broadly be divided in two:
the sharp bite of the mustard oil that is raw or just warmed up (for example, in Bengali smashed veggies called "Vorta")
The warm and slightly bitter background notes of a curry that started on Mustard oil, and cooked for a long time.
If you are after the first, may I suggest a good quality Wasabi oil? (basically refined oil plus horseradish) you should get a similar, but not exactly same, punch and sinus clearing. (horseradish is used in many Bengali packaged foods that want to mimic the mustard punch)
If you are after the second, I usually use a heavily fruity/bitter extra virgin olive oil. Gives a similar effect.
GREAT answer! Can you suggest a good wasabi oil?
@DavidBruceBorenstein I don't have any brand suggestion, and different brands may have different pungency. this looks like a good candidate "Shirakiku wasabi oil", I would do some trial runs to compare the pungency, and if needed dilute it with canola oil.
I haven't tried it, but you can make your own (See https://www.instructables.com/Homemade-Mustard-Oil). Personally, I would stick with yellow mustard seeds, anything else would probably be very harsh.
I have found a good quality cold pressed rapeseed oil (aka canola oil) is somewhat similar in flavour - slightly nutty and mustard-like. I often use it when cooking curries.
When frying your spices you could also add some black mustard seed to help ramp up the flavour. These are often used in Indian cuisine. You don't need a lot, perhaps half a teaspoon. Also note that unlike mustard oil, cold pressed rapeseed/canola oil doesn't need to be heated up to its smoking point before use. In any case you probably want to avoid the risk of burning it anyway. You can even use it raw in salad dressings.
Rapeseed/canola is basically a variety of brassica, from the same family as mustard. Note that the highly refined rapeseed oils you can find in supermarkets which are typically used for deep fat frying are more or less flavourless in comparison to a cold pressed oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.073095
| 2023-02-01T14:31:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123234",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ron",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"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
}
|
107879
|
How to soft boil eggs with a countertop egg steamer?
Having misplaced the custom measuring cup for an "egg steamer" device, not quite sure how to steam eggs. Desired result:
so that:
The perfect soft-boiled egg should have firm, custard-like whites and
a warm, runny yolk
Firstly, I've never poked holes in the egg; seems fine without doing that. I suppose the odd egg cracks, but that's not the end of the world. So this is assuming no holes are being poked.
Is there a formula?
I'm looking for a method to cook up to four eggs at one time: soft-boiled. Not quite sure what temperature the yolk should be, but it's not hard-boiled.
By random experimentation, six minutes with half a cup of water seems to work reasonably for two eggs, resulting in a soft-boiled egg.
I'm reiterating soft-boiled because hard-boiled eggs are just inherently easier.
This is using a generic type "egg cooker", but I can't see that it's any different from steaming in a pot on the stove?
Not using a pressure cooker or anything technologically sophisticated.
It seems like you already found a method that works for two eggs. What exactly are you hoping for? A way to adjust it for four eggs?
I happen to have some experience with steam egg cooker.
For starters: how does an egg cooker work?
The egg cooker doesn't use a timer. Instead, the cooking time is determined by the amount of water you put into it: the more water, the more time it takes to boil off and trigger the overheat alarm. This is why your egg cooker has a water measure cup that has markings for different number of eggs to cook.
Secondly, to soft boil an egg you don't actually control the absolute temperature, but control the temperature gradient: you want the outer layers of the egg to be very hot (rolling boil water or steam) but the inner core of the egg doesn't really have time to heat up, which is why 6min in rolling boil water gives you reliably good results, although you may need to adjust a fraction of a minute depending on the temperature of your fridge. Strong temperature gradient (difference between outer and inner parts of the egg) is what gives you the "water balloon effect" e.g. the yolk is near liquid and white is like a thick and strong membrane.
OK then how do you steam your egg?
For your situation you basically need to reverse engineer your measure cup that comes with the steamer. I propose following procedure:
Put about 1-2 tbsp of water in your steamer, turn it on, wait till
boiling.
Put egg in, steam for 6-7 mins.
Turn steamer off and check one egg, three things can happen:
a) This egg is under cooked, you can salvage them by cooking them for another minute.
b) This egg is over cooked, then your data is useless, you need to wait for another chance to repeat this experiment and deal with 4 medium done eggs for now.
c) The egg is perfectly cooked.
If you hit case a) or c) you are in luck, wait for the steamer to cool and measure the remaining water. Subtracted from your initial water you get your desired water amount for 4 eggs.
Based on my experience, 1 tbsp and 7 min should yield a close enough result and I'm sure you can get this right within 3 iterations.
How do I know all this?
I once owned a egg steamer (6 eggs) and lost the water measure cup as well. I ended up putting about 2tbsp of water and cook for 7 min. It takes roughly 20sec for water to boil and generate steam and 40s for the surface of the egg to equalize with steam, so the net cooking time is about 6min and result is mostly perfect. At the end there's always some excessive water, but I never bothered to reverse engineer the measure cup and stuck to the 7min rule. In fact, because I never carefully measured water consistently, the net cooking time varied and fluctuates the doneness of the end product. If you control the water and time constantly you will get much more consistent results than I did.
Having found the measuring cup, it seems to roughly translate as:
30ml five eggs
35ml four eggs
37.5ml three eggs
40ml two eggs
45ml one egg
for soft boiled eggs.
Curious as to whether that's "standard" for these types of steam cookers, etc. Obviously, there are assumptions built into those measurements...but that seems to be what they provide.
Just used my measuring cup from my 7 egg Hamilton Beach egg cooker.
Water amount for SOFT boiled eggs:
1 egg: 40 ml
7 egg: 25 ml
So roughly 2mls difference between each egg amount. With less water the more eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.073743
| 2020-04-25T02:53:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107879",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1162
|
How to soft boil an egg
Is there a fool proof way to make sure the white of the egg is set but either all or some of the yolk remains runny?
Very few people have tried a perfectly cooked soft boiled egg. There is a tradition among chefs of trying to show each other how perfectly they can cook something as simple as an egg. Chef Fernand Point, who serves as inspiration for the affable chef Gusteau in Pixar’s animated movie Ratatouille, would test his apprentices by asking them to fry an egg. With a responsive thermometer, such an infrared one, you can approximate their work at home.
If you ever get that mad scientist feeling, try cooking the egg in a bowl of water placed in the oven. Start with cold tap water in the bowl, place the eggs in the water and the ensemble in an oven set to its lowest setting. Every five minutes, check the temperature of the water in the bowl. If you are using an infrared thermometer, stir the water before measuring. Let the water hover between 65°C to 68°C for an hour. In most ovens you will have to turn the oven off and on to keep the water in that range. The result will be a bright yellow firm gel. I have a picture of the gel for the fried version of the mad scientist egg (what I call Eggs Mondrian):
If you want the yolk runny, then the temperature of the water should be between 63°C (to cook the whites) but below 66°C to keep the yolk runny.
brilliant, I've got various kitchen thermometers so I'm going to try and experiment get my egg to just under 66, thanks
There's a great chart that shows the changes to an egg in order of degrees from CookingIssues. http://www.cookingissues.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/eggchart2.jpg
Heston Blumenthal has just written an article on this subject: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/11/how-to-boil-an-egg-the-heston-blumenthal-way
Read this article for complete scientific explanation of the process: Towards the perfect soft boiled egg
The most important part is this formula:
which with boiling water (100C) and a refrigerated egg (4C) results in these plots:
so depending on exactly how soft you want your egg and how large it is, you might want a cooking time anywhere from 4 to 6 minutes.
Cook the egg in already boiling water for 4 minutes and remove. Hack off (more like tap) the top of the shell with your spoon, add some sea salt, and dunk in slender pieces of toast until you have consumed all of the egg deliciousness. If the egg is cold from the fridge, put it in the pan with the water as you bring to a boil; if the egg is room temperature (better), drop it into the already boiling water.
Like you, I love a runny yolk and hate a white that isn't set! I've been experimenting with the soft-boiled egg a few mornings per week for the past couple of years, and have discovered the following:
I like a 5-minute egg; the 4-minute egg is, by my lights, underdone and icky.
Barometric pressure does have an impact on how fast water boils and how quickly it boils away!
"Soft-boiled" eggs should actually be called "simmered eggs," because you DON'T want a hard, full-rolling boil.
To make a perfect soft-boiled egg:
Remove your egg/s from the fridge and set them on the counter.
Bring salted water to a boil.
Put the egg/s into the boiling water.
Boil gently for exactly 5 minutes, no more, no less.
Plunge into cold water for about 5 seconds.
Eat immediately!
I get ideal results from putting the eggs in boiling water and then turning off the heat. Start the timer.
I find 6-8 minutes is perfect, while up to 10 can produce good results. Once the time is up, pour out the hot water and replace with cold water. This helps both peeling, and to slow down the carry-over. The whites are solid but not rubbery, and the longer time benefits a creamy, orange center. It takes longer, but the results are really tasty.
Note: use enough water in a big enough pot so that the number of eggs doesn't overly change the water temperature, otherwise the timing will vary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.074119
| 2010-07-16T19:53:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1162",
"authors": [
"Babak",
"Chris Simpson",
"GreenKiwi",
"Martin",
"Nick",
"Springtimetigger ",
"Umar Farooq Khawaja",
"Weatherseal -Defence Colony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6379",
"user2154",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107283
|
Bagels: Flat, no rise, gummy inside. Over kneading?
Edit: thanks for all the advice! I worked these half as much, and made sure to let them cool. Great, round results!!
To start, I'm using this recipe: https://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/bagels-366757
My first try I used AP flour and honey (both in the dough and the poaching liquid). Resulted in bready bagels that didn't have any of that chew on the inside, or the outside.
Second, I switched to diastatic malt powder on the dough, and bread flour instead of AP. I also increased the cooking time to 12 minutes per rotation (because after 8 and 8 they weren't golden brown).
The second resulted in almost crispy outsides (probably a little long in the oven, and the use of a dark pan, causing this), but gummy insides, and flat bagels. There was almost no rise at all, and cutting them resulted in most of the insides ending up on the knife.
Is this a proofing issue? Are the bagels not being allowed to come up to temp long enough outside of the fridge (they are passing the float test after 60 minutes)? Am I over-working the bagels (I'm doing 3 minutes per round, with a 5 minute break in the middle, on a pro series kitchenaid stand mixer with the dough hook).
Which step results in an underbaked-tasting gummy inside? What do I need to do to get a more tender (albeit chewy) interior and a good rise?
Attaching three photos. You can see the lack of rise in two of them (flat bagels, and holes that don't seem like they closed up very much). You can also see the knife in the background, with the gummy insides all over it. Last one is the dark bottom (again, I think this is pan related).
Did you do the float test recommended in the recipe? Did you allow the bagels to cool completely before slicing? The recipe says at least 30 minutes, but my experience suggests longer might be needed: if you slice too early you'll get a gummy inside (it's still saturated with water vapour) rather than the chewy texture you want.
Mark - I did do the float test - but that's an interesting point. I did not allow them to cool. I didn't realize that was an integral part of this. They're still quite flat, but now that they have cooled I will cut and report back.
Happy to report that you were right on the cooling, Mark. I just cut into one that's been sitting since I made them this morning and the inside is much more like I'd expect. They're still quite flat, but the inside has the proper texture. Thanks for pointing that out!
You're welcome. I'll post my comment as an answer in a moment.
It is essential to allow the bagels to cool completely before slicing. The recipe says at least 30 minutes, but my experience suggests longer might be needed: if you slice too early you'll get a gummy inside, since it's still saturated with water vapour, rather than the chewy texture you want.
Thanks again Mark. Another question: My Brooklyn bagel shop pulls bagels out of the oven and slices them right away, and they're amazing inside. How do you think they're pulling off this magic trick?
My guess is that they are using the oven to reheat already cooked bagels. Generally just-baked bread is in a unique, highly humid state, to which it will never return. Reheating bread in an oven only dries it out further, so there's no problem slicing it immediately.
I would suggest you knead them less if you are using a higher gluten flour.
I'm doing to recipe's prescribed amount of kneading, with the flour the recipe calls for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.074501
| 2020-04-04T13:12:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107283",
"authors": [
"Mark Wildon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"jimmy0x52"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85888
|
Red kidney beans, break up long cooking time
Since they take so long to cook I was wondering if I could do something like cook them half the time one night and then finish cooking them the rest of the time in the morning or if there would be some problem with that.
Consider a crock pot and cook on low overnight
Don't have one and can't afford one so not an option for a while.
You sure? Amazon has some under $20.
It will be inconvenient, and you are likely to run into food safety problems. You would have to somehow make sure that they cool quickly enough after the first cook, and then heat up quickly enough for the second, and then cool again, that the total time in the danger zone is below 4 hours.
The more practical thing is to soak them before cooking. You can soak them overnight, for example. Then the total cooking time is much less, I don't have numbers in my head for kidney beans, but other beans are done in about an hour after a good soak. They are also a bit tastier that way (better hydrated) and it is an easy way to save energy.
Don't forget to boil them properly
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.074788
| 2017-11-24T01:07:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85888",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58619",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"windy401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20265
|
Baking Dark Chocolate in Cookies Without Burning Them
I just tried this amazing chocolate chip cookie recipe. The recipe calls for adding hand-smashed dark chocolate chunks into the batter and mixing.
It seems like the chocolate doesn't break much. I used the good stuff, 90% cocoa products (very dark!). What I'm worried about now is that the chocolate will burn instead of melting into oozy goodness.
The recipe calls for 350 degrees for baking. I read somewhere on Seasoned Advice that dark chocolate can burn at temperatures as low as 60 degrees celcius (140 degrees Fahrenheit).
So how do I reconcile this? Can I actually bake this somehow without burning it? If so, at what temperature?
(I'm also curious to know why the recipe calls for baking soda and baking powder, as one is a subset of the other.)
The additional baking soda is to combat the acidity in the Chocolate, while the baking powder (despite containing baking soda) is the primary leavening agent.
@Mien my pleasure :D looks delicious!
Dark chocolate is actually more heat resistant than other kinds. Milk chocolate can scorch at 115° F / 46° C or higher; semi-sweet can have problems at 125° F / 52° C or so. It's mainly the dark chocolate that can withstand temperatures as high as 140° F / 60° C.
I think there are two misconceptions to clear up here, those being:
Baking at 350° F does not mean you are raising the internal temperature to anywhere even close to 350° F. Even yeast breads are not baked to an internal temperature higher than around 200° F, and it's much lower for soft breads and especially cookies. It's hard to find much data on the recommended internal temperature for cookies, but I'd estimate it to be around 160° F simply for food safety reasons.
Just because a food can burn above a certain temperature, does not mean that it will happen immediately. Just as heating oil slightly above its smoke point does not immediately result in flames and rancid taste, heating chocolate above the aforementioned temperatures will not immediately cause it to scorch. What it means is that chocolate can be sustained in a melted state indefinitely at lower temperatures, but raising the temperature further will cause it to eventually scorch. The higher the temperature, the less time it will take.
These "scorching" temperatures are mainly cautions against direct stovetop or microwave heating; with these methods it is easy to get the temperature very high, very fast. When you bake cookies, you are applying very slow, gradual heat; if the temperature of the chips even gets as high as 140° F, it won't stay that high for very long. It's not enough to burn, and that is why even milk chocolate or white chocolate chips tend to do fine in cookies.
So just bake them, and don't worry. The cookies themselves will probably scorch before the chocolate does.
P.S. As SAJ14SAJ writes in the comments, this assumes that you bake the cookies on some kind of insulating material like parchment or a baking mat. There is a risk of burning if you bake them directly on a metal tray and the chocolate comes into direct contact with it, as it will then heat up very quickly to approximately the same temperature as the tray. So don't do that - if you use a metal tray or cookie sheet, make sure there's something between that and your cookies. They bake from the ambient heat in the oven, and don't really need direct heat from the tray.
+1 I forgot that the food temperature won't reach the "oven set" temperature. Thanks :)
While all this is true, for the center and body of the cookie, scorching chocolate in direct contact with the tray is a real risk. For this reason, this type of cookie is best baked using parchment or a silicone mat on the tray, which mitigates the heat conduction from the metal tray, and lessens the risk of scorching.
@SAJ14SAJ: That's true, and I guess I just assumed that since almost every cookie recipe I've seen or used involves parchment or a baking mat. But worth adding to the answer anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.074918
| 2012-01-09T03:06:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20265",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caroline Mifsud ",
"Jacob G",
"Lindalee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ashes999",
"fiona shaw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93168",
"kbtombul"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47235
|
Is there any advantage to resting (banana) bread batter?
I make several different types of breads (apple, banana, etc.). All of them have some commonalities, which includes that they start out life as a batter, don't require yeast (baking soda and hot water does it), and use normal (not gluten-free) flours.
What I can't quite figure out is whether resting the bread will have any impact on it. I know (from sources including this question that gluten makes many flour-based dishes (like crepes) gummy.
But does that apply to breads? Is there any significant difference if I actually rest the batter before baking?
If it matters, I mix aggressively with a KitchenAid mixer (so I expect there to be lots of gluten).
Related question where the answers explain how leavening works: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32291/why-are-there-no-recipes-combining-both-yeast-and-baking-powder.
And a note for people who want to up/downvote: downvoting without comment is acceptable behavior in our community. It is more courteous to the OP to leave a comment, but please don't get the impression that it is required.
no, the general rule is not that you should leave a comment. Askers have frequently asked for such a requirement to be technically implemented, but it has always been turned down, because downvoting serves other important functions than suggesting improvements to the asker, and voters should feel free to do it without also do the suggesting-improvements part, rather than skip the whole downvote because they don't want to leave a comment. I agree that it is an unpleasant feeling to get downvoted without apparent reason, and ideally a downvoter will take your distress (cont.)
(cont.) into consideration, as well as the added benefit of giving you a suggestion, when taking the decision whether to leave a comment or not. But still, they should not feel that there is pressure to leave a comment, or that it is a bad thing not to do so, it is perfectly acceptable to do it. Sadly, this system does have its downsides, including sometimes having good quality questions getting low scores for no reason; on sites with more activity the upvotes make up for stray downvotes, but we have very few votes here overall. On the other side, you yourself are under no obligation
to react to a downvote being left on your question; somebody (a single person!) just told you that they don't like your question. That's no big deal; if they did leave an explanation, you could have tried to improve it, but now that they didn't, nobody expects you to change the question or lose any sleep over it.
It's not about culture fit, it's about the network purpose. All stackexchange site are created to be extremely efficient ways to transmit/publish quality information. Some of the instruments needed for that - for example the ability to easily pass negative judgement over content - are at odds with people feeling good about the interaction. But the sites just accept that tradeoff, because we haven't found a better way to reach our purpose. I see how it feels unfortunate if you came here looking for a supportive, understanding community. It has tripped me up quite a few times too. But
... but really, the site is fulfilling its purpose the way it is, and we can take it or leave it. When we change our expectations of it and start coming exactly than when we need what it offers, it is a very useful place to come to. But it cannot offer everything at once, and it has chosen its niche.
The leavening action of baking soda begins as soon as it is moistened - that is as soon as you mix your wet and dry ingredients your baking soda begins the chemical reaction that creates the carbon dioxide which causes the rise in your quick bread. Because of this I would say that there is no advantage, but in fact a disadvantage to resting a quick bread. Also, it is usually recommended to mix quick breads as little as possible and over mixing them can cause them to be tough.
What exactly is a quick bread? And why does the recipe call for mixing the baking soda with water?
Quick breads usually are any breads that are leavened with something other than yeast. For example - muffins, biscuits, pancakes, cornbread, etc. Usually this takes the form of mixing all dry ingredients, all wet ingredients, and then the wet and dry together. I admit I haven't seen any where you mix the baking soda with water directly. Do you have link to the specific recipe?
I don't have a link, sorry. I'm not sure where this recipe originated.
Any time you have a recipe that calls for dissolving baking soda in hot water before mixing with other ingredients, it is done to enhance the color of the final product. Baking soda is a leavener and also contributes to browning in baked goods. Many, but not all, recipes that call for this added step also include some baking powder in the recipe (I repeat - many, but not all).
As for the resting issue, quick breads should not be rested. Resting can exhaust the leavening agent. Resting allows for the formation of gluten (kneading accelerates that process, but time also contributes to the formation of gluten). Quick breads should be quick - mixed until the ingredients just come together - and baked immediately.
Most sources recommend mixing briefly by hand with a spatula or wooden spoon. Your stand mixer and aggressive mixing will probably contribute to tough quick breads.
Why do you say that resting allows for the formation of gluten? I thought resting decreases gluten (hence why you rest crepes before cooking them).
Basically, gluten begins to form when flour is combined with liquid. For yeast breads, gluten is desirable and its formation can be accelerated by kneading OR can be allowed to develop on its own over time (that's what happens in the "no-knead" bread variations that are all the rage these days). With quick breads, gluten is undesirable. Gluten begins to develop during resting - not a lot, but some. More problematic with resting is the exhaustion of the leavening agent. As for crepes, resting allows any bubbles from mixing to subside - bubbles can cause crepes to tear when they cook.
@ashes999 Stephen is correct about gluten formation - the process is called autolysis, and is what makes no-knead-bread possible. The gluten just forms due to basic brownian motion, instead of being accelerated through the agitation in the kneading. As for crepe mixture, the bubbles are a very small part of it. The main reason is that you want a well-hydrated starch, which makes for a nicer, smoother texture. It's less important with today's finely milled white flours (the flour grains are penetrated quickly because they're small), but still soaking improves quality.
Here's an interesting discussion on "resting" batter.
http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/harold-mcgee-on-letting-batters-rest/
Harold McGee on Letting Batters Rest
By
The New York Times
August 7, 2008 5:33 pm August 7, 2008 5:33 pm
Lana, thanks for the link. It's a good idea to also summarize what's in it, just in case of link rot. I suspect that although the initial response is about thickness & hydration, this part might be more important: "Good point, Doug, you’d want to make up and rest these batters without the chemical leavening, and add the leavening just before cooking."
Hi, and welcome to the site. We generally discourage link-only answers (because links change/break). Could you possibly quote, and summarize the key points from that link?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.075278
| 2014-09-18T22:34:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47235",
"authors": [
"Anthony Catanzaro",
"Fran Kline Bigelow",
"Gert-Jan van Rooijen",
"Joe",
"Rudy Serroni",
"Stephen Eure",
"Steve Groat",
"ashes999",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"rumtscho",
"shellaessa simon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27669
|
Is there an alternative and less toxic way to clean an oven than using oven spray?
I have drippings that have caked on to the botton surface of my oven. Now, every time we use the oven, they start to smoke and set off the smoke detector.
What are some natural ways to clean the oven? There's probably some major scrubbing in my future. :)
(Note: Someone at DIY Stack exchange https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/1890/672 suggested that I cross post here)
What do you define as toxic? Any strong alkaline will help, many of these are used in common baking. Otherwise elbow grease is your friend
Oven spray is toxic? What is the source of this claim?
@Aaronut Oven spray is very toxic if not used as directed, says so on the can!
@TFD here's my definition of toxic => anything that gives off noxious fumes, is harmful to your skin, etc. (not a scientific definition by any means :) )
Using a bicarbonate of Soda paste is a good way to clean the oven and does not involve any nasty chemicals.
Also, as you need to clean the base of the oven, it can help if you remove the door if it is a drop down door. This makes reaching inside much easier. Most doors are designed to be removed easily. Sometimes your manual will provide instructions on how to remove the door for cleaning.
Otherwise this video on removing oven door may help as it covers four different types of hinge.
For our US friends--Bicarbonate of Soda = sodium bicarbonate = Baking Soda
Never underestimate the power of baking soda. It's amazing how much stuff you can clean with it. To add to this comment, I'd say make a baking soda paste (just add with some water) to work in with the sponge. It's a great abrasive.
Note: Any residual sodium bicarbonate will convert to sodium carbonate in a hot oven, a more toxic alkaline
@lemontwist: It's a good abrasive but not a very good disinfectant. So feel free to use it as a degreaser, but don't rely on it to sanitize kitchen surfaces after handling raw meat or any other potentially-contaminated food.
@Aaronut, that is a good point. I don't allow animal products in my kitchen, and usually use a mix of Dr. Bronner's soap and vinegar as an actual cleaning fluid.
@lemontwist: I hope you don't mean literally mixing them, since the Bronners themselves recommend against it - they have opposite pH and effectively cancel each other out when mixed, leaving you with inert oil and water. (Used separately, one after the other, wiped down in between, they're fine.)
@Aaronut, wow, thanks for that info. I've seen a lot of homemade cleaning blogs suggest mixing them and have always done so. I guess I'll start using them separately!
Most spray oven cleaners contain sodium hydroxide in a foam suspension. If used as directed they are quite safe. The foam is effectively a slow release agent for the sodium hydroxide so any minor spill or over-spray should not be damaging
By itself sodium hydroxide is a very dangerous alkaline, and will cause major skin loss and eye damage. Do not let children use it, or get near it
Sodium hydroxide is commonly used to made soap, pretzels, tortillas etc. So you are probably already have it in your house
In terms of noxious fumes, I would suspect heating chilli to be more toxic:-)
I don't think many people actually have pure sodium hydroxide in their house... they just have products made with sodium hydroxide.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.076249
| 2012-10-08T03:50:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27669",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Automator_Junkie",
"Lauren",
"Pennie Brumage",
"Ray",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62481",
"lemontwist",
"milesmeow",
"tokenarky",
"user62475"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112353
|
Which kinds of rice can replace Uzbek devsira?
I found a recipe for a Fergana-style plov (English version), one of the main versions of Uzbek plov. The description asks for devsira, a type of Uzbek rice. Not having that I wonder which other types of rice I can use instead. Any hints?
I can't provide an answer, but Google turned up this great explanation from a user on TripAdvisor Looks like it may be hard to substitute, as it's fermented & aged. This says you can use baldo, but I know baldo well & it's more like regular risotto rice, arborio etc.
BTW, I didn't realise the recipe was in Russian until just now - Google Translate to English link
@Tetsujin Uzbek food is very popular in Russia; rightly so, in my opinion.
...but this site works in English, so I assumed most people would prefer to be able to read it in English. Now they can ;)
@Tetsujin Sure! These days with Google or Yandex translate one can always get a reasonable result.
I would not recommend risotto rice for a Fergana-style plov as it might turn out too sticky, while plov should be crumbly.
You can't replace devzira—it's unique. That said, I've seen people use anything from Arborio to Kokuho and results were quite good.
Of course it tastes different, and it's much harder to cook it without getting rice sticky, but with some trial and error it's possible. The authentic plov taste is dpominated by the taste of lamb, carrots, and zeera (cumin). Rice contributes more to the texture than the taste. If you can't find Uzbek zeera, buy Iranian variety it's pretty close. Moroccan and Indian has very different taste.
Surely this will make your Plov unauthentic, but in practice any medium-grained rice will be an acceptable substitute. If you find the correct spices (or close enough; cumin gives most of the flavour anyway), and some nice fat lamb, you should be able to make a delicious dish.
Even if the article on TripAdvisor mentions fermented and aged rice, this is a rarity; in most cases ordinary non-aged rice is used.
Trying the Baldo style (Bodrum) and the performance isn't good. Its sticky and make u the king chief of british lamb pudding.I used several times Stalik recipe with devzira style rice and also 'lazer' style rice if it available. https://stalic.livejournal.com/1457.html
The comments under the Yandex recipe reveal an interesting fact: devzira sold in Moscow is significantly cheaper than other varieties. Most likely what was used is not an authentic devzira, but just an unpolished rice.
So don't bother with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.076566
| 2020-10-28T06:43:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112353",
"authors": [
"Alexander Pozdneev",
"Martin Peters",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125891
|
Is there an official name for the pasta in between carbonara and cacio e pepe?
Traditionally, the four pastas of Rome are carbonara, cacio e pepe, alla gricia, and amatriciana.
You get alla gricia from a cacio e pepe by adding guanciale (pork jowl), and adding egg on top of that gives you carbonara.
My question is: if you were to make pasta involving cheese, pepper, eggs and pasta water, but no guanciale, what would that pasta be called? Is there a "proper" name for it? Or would you just say "carbonara without guanciale/cacio e pepe with eggs"?
We actually make this occasionally in my family and call it "pasta non carborundum", which is a weird mock-Latin joke. Nobody else calls it that, though. It's pretty good, but add some chopped sun-dried tomatoes for texture/flavor contrast.
From a quick google search, it seems to be named "cacio e uova", uova in Italian means eggs.
If you can read italian this giallo zafferano recipe might help
https://ricette.giallozafferano.it/Pasta-cacio-e-ova.html
Here in Italy some people including my family put cream instead of eggs so if you were to give it a name it would probably be called "cacio e crema" but personally I would just stick to the conventional recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.076786
| 2023-11-22T11:44:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125891",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42162
|
Baking a cake in a larger/smaller pan
Is there a guide or rule of thumb about scaling a cake. If the recipe calls for an 8-inch square pan and I use a 10-inch square pan, how will it behave in the oven? I expect the baking time will be longer but should I change the temperature for more even baking?
Note: I already realize that a 10-inch pan will requires roughly 1.5 times the batter than is called for for a recipe designed for an 8-inch pan.
for square pans: (10 * 10) / (8 * 8) = 100 / 64 ~ 3/2
for round pans: (pi * 5 * 5) / (pi * 4 * 4) = 25/16 ~ 3/2.
Within reasonable limits, baking time is proportional to the thickness of the cake.
If you scale your recipe proportionately to the change in surface area from the standard pan to the one you are going to use, the baking time will be approximately the same. You can continue to use the base time as a guideline, but as always in successful cooking and baking, you will want to test when the layer is done with an appropriate method, such as the toothpick test.
On the other hand, thinner layers require less time, and counter-intuitively, higher temperatures; thicker layers more time and lower temperatures. You should not see this requirement if you are scaling based on pan surface.
When you begin to make very large layers, as for a wedding cake, changes to leavening will also be required.
Here's a little table of cake pan sizes in inches and square inches:
Cake pan sizes, with square and circular areas
inches square circular
5 25 19.6
6 36 28.2
7 49 38.4
8 64 50.2
9 81 63.6
10 100 78.5
11 121 95.0
12 144 113.0
13 169 132.7
Columns:
inches is the length of a side of a square, or the diameter of a circle.
square is the area (in square inches) of a square with inches sides.
circular is the area (in square inches) of a circle with a diameter of inches.
Example: If a recipe called for for a 9" circular pan, (63.6 sq. inches), and the only pan that was available was an 8" square pan, (64 sq. inches), that'd be a close match.
Generally substituting an n" square for an n+1" circle, for area gives a +/-10% margin of error.
Perimeters are less interesting for cake, but might be of interest with pizza crust.
Equivalent diameter circles always have 21% less perimeter than squares.
Not so for an n" square and and n+1" circle, where the perimeter percent difference increases with size. For example an 8" square pan has a 32" perimeter, a 9" circle has a 28" perimeter, a 12% difference; but the perimeter of a 9" square is 13% larger than that of a 10" circle. This perimeter percent increase gradually slows down and levels off at 21% at and above 83".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.076901
| 2014-02-19T15:14:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42162",
"authors": [
"Gork Skoal",
"Rob Martin",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98426",
"user1165922"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9778
|
My tea bags are expired, can I still use them?
This box of tea has an expiration date which has passed but I would like to know if I can still use it. What do you think?
Something about tea as in proper tea in bags, and dried fruit or herbal "teas" that also come in tea bags (and might have spoilage risks, eg mold) being conflatable here is worrying....
The only harmful way tea can spoil is mold, and you can spot that easily. As it ages, it loses aroma and flavor gradually, but never becomes actually harmful.
Tea bags will be fine for at least a year in the pantry, but even long after that, they're still safe to consume. They just might change colour or flavour.
If your tea has an expiration date then it's just for best quality, not safety. I've personally found tea bags sitting at the back of the pantry that were more than 3 years old, the packaging had even started to fade, and the tea was still fine. I just had to steep it for a little longer.
It depends a lot on the packaging - if they're not individually sealed they may have lost a lot more of their flavor.
@Jefromi: Even so, just means you need to steep 'em longer to get the same flavour. Sort of like old spices - if they haven't been kept properly (i.e. in the freezer) you might need to increase the amount.
Yup, you'll never get food poisoning from tea. However, it will be bland as all get out after a few years. Green and Oolong teas suffer particularly from this.
The oldest tea I've tasted was about 32 years old, well older than I am. It was kept in a sealed metal box and besides having a metal-ish taste - it was perfectly fine.
Thank you for this! I think I can sleep well tonight @ytoledano My Linden herbs box had still some teabags, and I drank the last one today, checked the date and it expired in 2011.
My neighbor gave me some old boxes of tea she wasn't going to use. I use them to make iced tea. When I threw out one of the boxes, I discovered it had a best if used by date of 1997! That pitcher tasted a little off but it wasn't terrible.
This is a good point: the flavor might not just be weaker; it could have picked up smells from other things, and different components of the original flavor might deteriorate at different rates, so even with longer steeping, it may not taste the same.
It's funny to see westerners asking "when does tea go off"? Answer --- it doesn't.
Here in Asia, many people drink tea that is years old, including the Chinese who have a tea that is more than 20 years old and is highly desired and very expensive to buy.
Tea does not 'go off'. It is dried, so like any dried herb. Like someone else said, you may have to steep it a little longer but it will never hurt you.
Stop believing all this hype about 'sell bye' dates. It's why so much food is wasted in the west. For sheer profit. Nothing more.
I'd say it's not exactly for "sheer profit in the West", but there are other reasons there. Depending on the way the tea is produced/industrialized it might lose quality, as said before. Depending on storage it may get mold. And all sorts of products may either really expire or lose quality, what certainly most brands want to avoid - you don't want someone to link a low-quality product to your brand just because it didn't have an expiry date and the consumer let it expire. The next answer even points a so-called east green tea with expiry date, so... it's not a west thing to waste food.
Yes, it should be fine. I am drinking Japanese green tea right now which has been stored in a tight tin. It was expired in 2009. I heard that green tea is OK to dring after its expired when I was in Japan. However, flavour is definitely not the greatest if you know the real taste. They suggest to keep them in FREEZER if you can.
Keeping tea in the freezer is generally considered a bad idea unless you vacuum pack it. Water condensing on the leaves during freezing can cause them to mould once removed from the freezer.
I believe they are now putting an expiration for the famous word Profit. Think back, when we were kids that word did not exist. I will agree to the possibility that the flavor may be altered, but spoiled, No!
Generally tea, like other dry herbs, doesn't really expire, but may loose flavor and aroma. So while your tea bag may not taste great, it should still be ok to consume, if the tea bag hasn't come in touch with too much humidity. Only with excessive humidity, the dry leaves may absorb it and develop mold.
Green tea, fresh white tea
Green tea and fresh white teas may deteriorate faster. This is because it contains more water relative to other teas, and therefore the leaves will oxidate and change color. Green tea should ideally be consumed within 6 months. If you can't, I recommend to split it in several bags. Then leave one bag in the cabinet and store the rest in the freezer to preserve the flavor for up to two years.
Black tea, oolong tea
On the other hand, teas like black tea, have very little water content left, and will therefore last longer. When stored in an airtight jar, you'll probably be able to keep the taste fresh for two years.
White tea, pu erh tea
Pu erh tea (and other dark teas) as well as aged white teas doesn't really expire, but improve in flavor due to its aging ability. For pu erh, the older the better, while for aged white tea, it's supposed to be the best around 7 years of aging. This, however, will depend on the specific storage conditions.
If you're interested in all the factors which are important for storing tea, you may read my guide: how to store loose leaf tea. It's about storage for loose leaf tea, but the same principles in fact apply for tea bags as well.
My guess would be yes. Though they might not be as flavorful.
I have never seen any expire dates on tea before, I'll have to look at my tea bags when I get home. I've had them for a while.
I will have to check mine as well, I have never noticed an expiration date on tea bags.
The expiration date is actually on the box, not the individual bags....
So you just keep them and throw away the box; that way they never expire! ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.077143
| 2010-12-04T18:53:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9778",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Brian K1LI",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Hattie Taylor",
"Jürgen A. Erhard",
"M.K",
"Mari",
"SF.",
"Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena",
"Textmode",
"TheXed",
"Tracy",
"Varuuknahl",
"hkk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"igorsantos07",
"rackandboneman",
"user73495",
"ytoledano"
],
"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
}
|
103738
|
Oven baked cashews taste good but not cripy
I tried roasting cashews twice. The first time i added tamari sauce (just a savoury soy sauce) and roasted them. The tamari got a little burned but overall the taste was good.
Except the nuts were not cripsy of crunchy, not rubbery per se but just not the expected 'brittle-nes' of roasted nuts.
Next time I was inspired by this and this receipe, to soak the nuts in salty water with some lemon juice prior to draining, seasoning and roasting them. (Which again added both flavour and moisture to the nuts) The nuts tasted good but were not crispy.
How do i get my oven-roasted cashews salty and crispy?
EDIT: Tried the same with almonds with similar results. Soaked them for 2 hours in water, lemon juice and tamari sauce (soy-sauce). Then roasted them for 25 mins at about 150degrees. Taste good but no crisp.
I'm not sure cashews will get crispy, they are a rather soft nut to begin with. Have you had crispy cashews?
The tamari cashew i buy are crispier - in my memory anyway. Have not tried them side-by-side. Maybe i should try the same receipes with almonds.
Is this in an oven, and if so, is it a gas or electric oven? Burning most hydrocarbons (eg, natural gas, propane, etc.) produces water which may hinder your attempts to dry them out fully.
@Joe Its an electric oven.
Have you tried roasting them in a dry pan instead of an oven?
@JohnW. Not yet, that will be the next experiment.
As mentioned before, cashews are a softer nut(seed) than other nuts to begin with. Soaking cashews is recommended when you are using them in a recipe where you want them to be smooth and creamy, therefore, soaking them might be your problem. Try just roasting them without soaking beforehand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.077665
| 2019-11-27T13:42:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103738",
"authors": [
"Ivana",
"Joe",
"John Doe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109176
|
Can I know if lemons are safe to eat whole (peel and all)?
Is there any way to tell if lemons contain a residue of something that is harmful to humans?
The last two winters we have been buying oranges in bulk through a website, directly from the farm and i really like it. I would like to buy lemons in bulk too.
They say their lemons are not treated with anything but I would like to have a little more reassurance. The fruit is not certified organic.
When buying in a store I assume the person buying the fruit for the store tests occasionally and consumer organizations and governmental organizations also sometimes test.
But now I will be buying directly from the farm, without the middleman so to speak.
Related:
Lemons and oranges coated with imazalil
EDIT:
The type of answer I am looking for is how can I test, at home, in the kitchen if the fruit is covered with something like fungicides. I know citrus is often waxed, but that can be washed off, and I will wash the fruit anyway before eating.
Alternatively, maybe pesticides and fungicides are so expensive that farmers are likely to avoid it if they can. Remember, these fruits are shipped straight from the farm, only fruit that is in season is sold, so there is no reason to keep them long.
Hi, this is a legal question. You would have to provide a jurisdiction before someone can look up and tell you which treatments are legal and which of the legal ones have to be disclosed.
If you are buying from the same farm, it is very very likely that the lemons and oranges are treated exactly the same. Organic also doesn't mean no pesticides, it just limits the types that can be applied -often more pesticides are used in organic farming than non-organic because the organic ones are less effective.
@rumtscho, this is not a legal question at all. My question is: i want to eat a whole lemon, can i know if it has been treated with something that will cause me harm?
After rethinking it, I realized that if it was not clear to you that you have to use legal information, then the explanation how you can use it is already an answer. So I reopened and wrote it up.
Also, "safe to eat" is always a legal question - of course people's emotional feeling of "being safe" (or disgust, or whatever else is involved) is frequently not overlapping with the legal definition of "safe", but we cannot help with this kind of subjective conclusions.
this may be too simple. But I would think you could ask the owner of the website what chemicals the farmers use. Especially if you are concerned about particular ones. I haven't seen a web store without a "Contact us:" link
I guess the owners could lie to you, but without knowing a lot about chemical tests, that's the best I've got.
I am adding another answer to respond to the edit.
There is no way that you can, personally, in your kitchen, test for specific chemical substances. Unless you are a trained chemist and own a chromatograph - in which case you wouldn't be asking this - you can forget going into that direction.
Alternatively, maybe pesticides and fungicides are so expensive that farmers are likely to avoid it if they can.
No, the opposite is actually true. The reason why pesticides and fungicides are used to a much larger extent than the public wants is that this practice leads to highest profits. Insects, viruses, fungi and bacteria tend to kill plants and/or spoil fruit long before it can be picked and sold. If no poison is used against them, part of the produce (or in some years, all of it) becomes unusable after the farmer having invested many workhours and maybe having gone into a debt they intend to pay after selling it. The price of the chemicals is negligible in comparison. So farmers always have an incentive to use more and more incecticides, herbicides etc. than is technically needed, as a kind of "insurance".
Again, the conclusion is - if you can't trust someone who should know (either the farmer themselves, or a government agency which takes random samples of fruit available on the public market to ensure its regulations are followed) you have no way to know.
(By the way, this "you cannot test it yourself" part is a basic statement about food safety, it applies to pretty much anything you eat, not just pesticides on lemons).
No.
There are so many products used in so many different ways in crop protection and as preservatives for harvested fruit, that it is impossible to say beforehand what the most likely contaminants are and how to test for them. I was hoping only waxed fruit is treated with preservatives, and that i could test for wax easily, but it is impossible to say if a lemon was waxed, and unwaxed lemons may be contaminated also.
I have not even been able to find a top 10 list of most-often found pesticides and preservatives on/in lemons.
The name that does come up very often as a preservative applied after the harvest is Imazalil.
The up-side is, it can be washed off to some extent.
But this only focuses on the zest, and unfortunately 1/5 of Spanish lemons (and 1/2 of the Turkish) contain chlorpyrifos, which is neurtoxic pesticide that will be banned at the end of this year (2020). It is added to the ground so it is in the fruit, not just on it.
In general however most of the preservatives and pesticides stay within safe margins (Dutch link). If the farm also sells to supermarkets and such the product will have to be clean enough to pass tests, which most fruit does.
I have found little info about what organic farmers use to protect their crops, what i found seems pretty ok (Dutch link). Also the lemons are in season currently so they are anyway less likely to be treated after harvest.
The best options are to contact the farm and decide how much to trust them or to rely on store-bought food that has some labelling and certification.
As always in life, you can never prove a negative. Your goal becomes even more utopic when you state it as "something that will cause me harm" - it's not always clear what will cause you harm. But you might be able to use labeling to sift out the most egregious cases.
Governments help you protect yourself from harmful pesticides in two ways: First, they forbid use of the worst offenders. Second, for some of the allowed pesticides, they require that they are listed on a label. Then there are also certification organizations which have a similar role: they set up more stringent criteria for use and labeling, and only allow their certificate on foods that meet the criteria.
So, there is a possibility you can know it (barring fraud) for some substances in some jurisdictions. The way to go about it would be:
Check if substance X is listed on the label. If it is, you know for certain it is there. If it isn't, go to the next step.
Check if substance X is legal in your jurisdiction. If not, you can stop worrying about it. If yes, go to the next step.
Check if substance X is required to be listed on the label. If there is such a requirement, then you know for sure it has not been used. If there is no such requirement, there is no reasonable way to know it.
Repeat with the next substance you care about.
If you are buying fruit with a certification, you have to compare both the government's list and the certification organization's list. Also, sometimes there are government-restricted certifications like "Bio" in Germany (note that comparable words may have no legal meaning in other places, e.g. "organic" is AFAIK not regulated in the USA).
So generally, if you want to get more knowledge on the subject, you have to study local regulations.
I am not buying from a store, so there is no labelling. Also i have no way of knowing if any regulations are followed.
Then I'm afraid the question is moot - there is no reasonable way of knowing it. Theoretically, if you are always buying from the same farm, you could try finding a lab which can test a batch for you once, but 1) the labs who specialize in this kind of test usually don't do work-for-pay for individuals, they do random sampling for the government to detect whether regulations are being broken, 2) from a single batch, you can't conclude much about other batches, and 3) if you find it as a service, it will be prohibitively expensive.
@Ivana Could you just ask the farm?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.077845
| 2020-06-20T13:16:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109176",
"authors": [
"Ivana",
"LSchoon",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18487
|
What is the black, slightly sweet, flavour in some Asian food?
It seems to be a popular ingredient in Asian (esp. Chinese?) food. I encountered them on pork spareribs, and some side dishes. Apparently it turns everything completely black when it is added.
I can rule out soy sauce (which is too salty and tastes entirely different) and I realise that this question is rather vague. What additional information could I provide?
Edit: I can rule out oyster sauce. I asked in a restaurant what the black stuff was, but either she didn't understand me or she didn't want to (all she told me was that it contained salt). Finally she said she made it herself. Anyway, I bought Hoisin sauce:
and I think it's as close as it gets (perhaps the restaurant uses a slightly different version of the one I bought, as mine is a bit saltier and a bit less sweet).
Update: I finally discovered the exact sauce I was looking for. It turned out to be Black Bean Garlic Sauce.
Maybe you can ask at a restaurant that serves one of these dishes?
Aside: not all soy sauce is salty; in particular, Indonesian Kecap Manis doesn't taste particularly salty.
Hoisin sauce, oyster sauce, and black bean paste seem to be the most likely culprits. What is the texture of the sauce? If it's smooth, it's hoisin; but hoisin tends to be salty. If it's not smooth, it's black bean paste. Oyster sauce is a little oilier than the other two, and is used in almost every Asian sautee.
Whether it's smooth depends on the particular dish, so I'm not sure if it's the sauce or something else. If I think about it, it reminds me a bit of liquorice. Could they actually be throwing that in?
It could be liquorice root, or anise, which would explain the different textures. The sauces I listed above are all "sweet," in the Asian style; but none taste like liquorice.
Oyster sauce is sometimes not particularly sweet at all, whereas hoisin is often cloyingly so.
@bitmask : the licorice flavor was most likely star anise, which is fairly popular in asian barbecue rubs. As you specifically mentioned spareribs, I'm guessing syrion's right on it being hoisin, but there's enough variation in recipes, and it may be mixed with other stuff so it's not as obvious.
@Joe You should make this into an answer.
Two things spring to mind: it could be dark soy sauce, which is much less salty than light soy sauce. It's thick and very dark and is almost exclusively used for colouring, which sounds like the sort of thing you're thinking of.
It could alternatively be black rice vinegar, which is much sweeter than normal vinegar, and in fact doesn't taste vinegary at all.
The only thing I can imagine that would turn it black would be be black beans (or black bean sauce). It's often used with pork spare ribs as well. It isn't generally sweet though, so that'd have to come from another ingredient.
Spare ribs are usually dressed with a combination of soy sauce, vinegar and sugar. A sort of sweet and sour sauce. The sugar will mask the salty edge or the soy sauce.
It may also have been Kecap Manis, or other soy sauce. There are a vast number of soy sauces out there, some are sweet, some are salty, some are subtle, and some are very strong.
They certainly do differ substantially in taste.
Also, there may have been sugar added as well, even in addition to the already sweet Kecap Manis.
If u encountered them on pork spareribs, and it turns everything completely black ,as well as it tatse slightly sweet..I think it just becuase the cooker flavored the pork spareribs with sugar and vinegar.I'm a Chinese girl,my family always flavored the pork spareribs in that way. Btw:at last,we usually mix a little soy sauce on it，just for the color of a dishes.
It's also on aubergine. However, it has a very specific taste (I'm just not eloquent enough to describe it). Nothing I would expect from simple vinegar and sugar. Is this a specific vinegar you are referring to?
Yes.Chinese cookery is very complicated n interesting.Not that dressing is so comlicated,but that different dishes we put different seasoning on a different scale.They fit toghther creat different flavor.
Possibly molasses as a lot of recipes I've seen call for brown sugar which is often a substitute. However it could also be a combination, particularly with hoisin, that causes the result you're describing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.078572
| 2011-10-21T02:08:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18487",
"authors": [
"AVLien",
"Asser",
"Cascabel",
"Erik P.",
"Frank Arnold",
"Hank Gay",
"James",
"Joe",
"Katy wu",
"Nancy",
"Ray",
"Suhasini",
"asthasr",
"binsnoel",
"bitmask",
"fillphree",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84500",
"val",
"zhenith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7797
|
How do I "fold in" egg whites?
Possible Duplicate:
What does it mean to “fold in” an ingredient into a mix?
I made pancakes this morning using a recipe on the back of the package. I mixed up the dry ingredients, poured in the water/egg yolks, and then I was supposed to "fold in" the beaten egg-whites.
What is the purpose of "folding in" the beaten egg whites? What is the proper technique? How do I know when I'm done?
I tried a gentle lifting motion, which didn't work very well. The egg whites were stiff enough to mostly keep their form so I had to smooth them out and push them around a bit to get them kind of mixed in. By the end, I felt like I was frosting a cupcake and then lifting the whites until they broke. I kept doing that type of motion gently until it became kind of pancake-y. I really had no idea what I was trying to accomplish.
I don't know if I did it right, but the pancakes turned out well! :) I would like to know how to do it correctly for next time though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.078926
| 2010-10-03T18:47:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7797",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18292
|
Why did my hot pepper oil get moldy?
While following the advice in this answer I placed two ripe Bhut Jolokia peppers in a fresh bottle of olive oil, and put it on the shelf to sit for a month so the heat from the peppers would infuse the oil.
However, one of the peppers became covered with white mold.
The two peppers were put in at different times, as they ripened, since I only got half a dozen peppers from the plant, and they all ripened at different times.
The first pepper went into what had been an unopened bottle of olive oil, after I cut out a small blemish, and removed the stem and top of the pepper. It floated at the top of the oil for a few days, perhaps as long as a week, before sinking to the bottom of the bottle.
The second pepper was added about 1.5-2 weeks later, and was more intact (there was no blemish, so I only removed the top to remove the stem and expose the seeds). That pepper floated on the surface as well, but about 1.5-2 weeks later, I noticed that it was still floating, and was now covered with a patch of fluffy white mold just above the surface.
What did I do wrong here? How could I prevent this from happening next time?
I'm watching the answers. I had something similar happen to me about a month ago. The mould was sort of puffy-looking and translucent. The difference: My pepper had been cut open to expose the inside and had sunk to the bottom (and stayed there for about 2 weeks before the mould appeared). The alternative to cold infusions seems to bee heating up the oil with the pepper and then putting them back in the jar (after they cool), but that much hot oil kinda scares me.
Unfortunately...I think that other answer gave some dangerous information.
Sticking a raw pepper in oil and letting it sit out is dangerous. Not only could the moisture cause mold apparently but sticking something like that in oil runs the risk for botulism.
You could reduce the risk of mold by using dried peppers, but botulism is still there.
Can you bake them or anything to kill the bugs? or soak them in vinegar or anything?
@Rikon You're not going to be able to heat them high enough in a homemade product and still have a usable ingredient afterwards. Making them more acidic should help. Chili infused vinegars don't have the same issue because of the PH. If you sterilize the jars and soak the chilies in vinegar first, then put them in the oil, and refrigeration - you'd be much better off. This is basically what the USDA requires now, both acid and refrigeration to reduce the botulism risk.
rfusca is correct. You should never, ever make flavored oil this way. Always heat it to at least 160F for 20 minutes with the flavoring ingredients (exact temps/times can vary). Infusing raw peppers into cold oil carries a serious risk of botulism: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09340.html
That linked articled from CO state backs up my acid comments, get the PH below 4.6 to be safe.
@rfusca: Would the chiles have to drain the vinegar and dry out before putting them in the oil or would it be OK to put a chile still dripping in vinegar into the oil? I don't really want an infused vinegar, I'm not sure it could be used the same way as an oil. Do you have a link to this process in more detail (or can you describe it in more detail)?
I find taking the seeds and heating them in oil is great for drawing out the spice/flavor. That can be done and then added back in to the rest of the oil no?
As a former Angina suffer I am always concerned with blood circulation and I am regular to eat hot peppers. If you are placing your peppers in oil to preserve them I would rather suggest to simply thread them with an ordinary needle and thread...hang them up in any convenient place to dry. Air drying will not produce mold and I have had strings lasting 3 years in my kitchen. Cut off one or two as you wish...works for me. (They look awesome too)
Secondly, if you do wish to put them in oil for your purpose, heat the oil and place place in the oil let it cool, remove and discard the peppers(or eat now) ...viola spicy oil...keeps well in the ref. for several months.
Lastly, try this ... add peeled garlic, carrot slices small pearl onions and some of your favorite seasoning such as Sage, tarragon,peppercorns, rosemary sprigs, fill with apple cider vinegar....close tightly.refrigerate ...after about a month these will be awesome as a garnish or for spicy nibbling. The vinegar will not allow bacteria and for your taste buds and heart....they will love you too.
As one who loves to cook and eat Italian, going as far as to continue the time consuming process of making my own tomato passata and ready made sauce..I have learned that anything you jar, or want to keep in a jar needs to be heated to a boiling point for 30 minutes, ensuring that you have killed all sources of bacteria and other bad stuff. Failure to do so will present you with exploding jars, and a chance to become very ill, and perhaps worse...just read the instructions provided by your mason jar manufacturer, buon appetito
This is not actually the case. Pasteurisation can be carried out at lower temperatures, but the time required is a function of the temperature. Food safety regulators publish tables.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.079046
| 2011-10-10T15:32:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18292",
"authors": [
"Clover",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kerry Filby",
"Luke",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rikon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8778",
"pyInTheSky",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84766
|
How long will my homemade lemon juice marinade last?
I have a question regarding a marinade that I made. How long will it keep in the refrigerator? I have the marinade in a air tight plastic container.
Here are the ingredients:
1 lemon/lime zest
1 lemon/lime juice
1 clove of garlic
1/2 tbsp balsamic vinegar
It's impossible to say, a few days to a week probably, however it will lose potency and flavor. You're better off using a marinade right away.
With that small quatity (maybe 1/4 cup in all), it will spoil faster.
It could even gain flavor from extraction.... I guess any safe/unsafe spoilage discussion would need more knowledge about the exact ingredient qualities (acidity of lemon, how the garlic was cut....)
This question is similar to: How long will my homemade marinade with orange juice last?. If you believe it’s different, please [edit] the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
My experience is that freshly squeezed lemon or lime juice does NOT last overnight (if one were making salad dressing, for example).
If you're making a marinade, I would squeeze the citrus immediately before adding it to the meat. Then remove ALL the air out of the bag (search "water displacement" method); this will prolong the potency of the citrus.
The garlic will be better if fresher too.
EDIT:
Per @Cindy, here's a search for finding out about the water displacement method
Hello TdeV and welcome. Just a friendly suggestion: Rather than post an answer that requires someone to search for information, perhaps you could describe the method, citing sources if needed. You could also give alternatives, in this case perhaps vacuum sealing. You can always edit your posts by clicking on 'edit' under your post.
@Cindy. Many folks don't have vacuum sealers and the traditional water displacement method for getting rid of air is a good choice. There are LOTS of videos and pictures all over the internet. You want me to paste a google search string?
I know that many may not have vacuum sealers. But we try to give answers that benefit many, not just the poster. We suggest adding links for sources and adding info in because the links may go down. All said, your answers have been good. Just trying to help you acclimate to the site. :)
How long will my homemade marinade with orange juice last?
Your question is very similar to the question from the above link. This is the most accurate answer I could find. The shelf life of food kept inside the refrigerator will all depend on the way the food was prepared, considering that all the ingredients you used were fresh. And since you mentioned that you used an airtight container, it may also give a longer storage time, provided that it is kept tightly closed without unnecessary opening. It is also nice to know that citrus fruits can go into fermentation stage which will definitely cause a change in the taste. So up to two weeks is the best time to store the marinade.
Yes it's the exact same answer I've found before posting here, it's just that my ingredients and quantity were different. I then wonder 1) what specific ingredients are key to preserving the marinade? Should I take out the citrus at all? 2) What minimum quantity (in grams/ml) of marinade should I prepare every time to make it last the longest? and 3) I'll basically open and close the container once every 2 days (just for when I grill chicken) Is it going to make much difference or is it just fine?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.079503
| 2017-10-01T22:40:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84766",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Dan B",
"GdD",
"Max",
"TdeV",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61938",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90851
|
How to adjust this salad dressing recipe to extend storage life?
Following this question: How long will this homemade vinaigrette salad dressing keep in the fridge?
Which of these adjustments will prolong storage life to a significant extent?
remove garlic
add honey
replace lemon with (or add) vinegar
change acid:oil ratio from 1:2 to 1:1
instead of shaking mixture (to emulsify oil and acid), just whisk to blend
I recommend including the recipe in this question, since the other question has been marked duplicate.
Also, to answer your linked question: a lemon-oil dressing is still tasty in the fridge for two to five days, and probably non-toxic for a few weeks.
Some answers:
Swapping lemon juice for vinegar will extend storage life, because lemon juice contains volatile compounds that break down in a few days, whereas vinegar is a fermentation product that is shelf-stable for long periods of time. Also, vinegar has a slightly higher acidity, and (all else being equal) higher acidity foods are more bacteria-resistant.
Changing the oil:acid ratio would also increase shelf life for the same reason. However, you wouldn't necessarily want to use the resulting dressing, as it would be way too "sharp".
Increasing the amount of salt in the dressing would also increase its storage life, at the cost of undesireable flavor.
I see no reason why mixing method would affect the shelf life of a vinagrette. It will separate during storage regardless.
Swapping the raw garlic out for powdered garlic should increase the storage life, because raw garlic (being a below-ground bulb) often carries significant bacterial content.
There is no reason to think that adding a small quantity of honey would affect storage life.
However, all of this leaves out the way to ensure the longest shelf life for salad dressing: don't mix the ingredients until you need them. All of the ingredients in your recipe have storage lives of weeks (garlic) to months (oil, dried basil) to years (vinegar). In unmixed form, you can be ready to dress a salad in a matter of minutes for months, especially if you're willing to use powdered garlic. As opposed to all of the methods above, which you'll notice each involve downgrading the flavor of the dressing in some way, which is why supermarket bottled dressings are so bad.
The property of lemon juice that would help stability is the acidity, which is not volatile and will not go away.
Mars: You're assuming that his question was only in reference to the dressing going bacterial, rather than just losing flavor. I'm not assuming that.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars If I get it right, this dressing will be safe for at least a month? (because the acidity from the lemon eliminates the risk of the garlic going bacterial?)
@FuzzyChef I was wondering about both flavor and safety, the latter being of greater concern. It's a big relief knowing I no longer have to prep my dressing every single day but rather make one weekly/monthly batch to keep handy in the fridge
I haven't sent anything to a lab, but my experience was that vinagrettes seemed fine for at least 2 weeks in the fridge. However, per the above, a vinagrette which has been in the fridge for 10 days definitely lost flavor, and a Greek-style lemon dressing (your original recipe) loses flavor a lot faster than that, like 2 days. Based on personal experience, then, I'd say make it weekly.
One other thing that will reduce storage life: minced fresh herbs, for the same reason as the garlic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.079807
| 2018-07-07T01:18:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90851",
"authors": [
"Dan B",
"FuzzyChef",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61938",
"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
}
|
17274
|
Should french fries be fried two times?
Most professional cookbooks tell me to fry french fries two times. First at a lower temperature of about 150-170°C and then at a higher temperature about 180-190°C.
Reference: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:French_Fries#Variations
Related: What varieties of potato would be good for chips / french fries?
What are the advantages of frying the potatoes two times?
Something I have found works quite well is to microwave the potatoes first. This serves as the first cooking and they are fried to a golden brown and crispy finish in the deep fryer in no time. (ok, significantly less time).
@CosCallis idk if ur gunna see this, but how long did you microwave them
Only twice???
The lower (first) temperature actually cooks the potato so that it is tender, the hotter temperature (second) is what gives the crispy golden coating.
If you just did the lower temperature, your fries might be too soft. If you just did the hotter temperature they would be too too tough.
You are correct. And I know 'cause I'm a belgian girl :)
You are correct. And I know 'cause I'm a Dutch guy :)
What we really need is a French person to verify these claims.
You are correct. And I know because I'm a french guy :). Also you should listen to the belgians, they cook the best fries.
@ClementHerreman thank you :) Finally recognition!
@Mein I think i'm going to start calling them Belgian fries
The 'French' in french fries refers to 'frenching' the VERB :to cut into long strips prior to cooking. It has nothing to do with the cuisine of France. Go Belgium!
And all my life I thought french fries were actually an American invention! Mind blown.
@BrownRedHawk it actually does refer to France, as they came to the US from France (and weren't, in fact, "frenched" at the time, they were either sliced or more similar to curly fries now but in all other senses identical)
Well, that is part of what is going on. Frying at the lower temperature does get it cooked through without over-browning. However, if you kept cooking, you could get it brown without crisping. So, actually it has a lot to do with the changes to the starch molecules in the potatoes. The lower temperature frying brings the starch and water to the exterior of the fry, forming a coating, that is then crisped nicely on the outside while leaving the interior softer when cooked at the higher temp.
This blog actually explains it very nicely if you want more detail: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/01/the-burger-lab-why-double-fry-french-fries.html
I've used the method here: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2010/05/perfect-french-fries-recipe.html with very good results as well. It's an extra step, but they are the best fries I've ever made.
I know I'm a bit late here, but I do have an alternative to frying twice. If you don't want to fry twice, you can also boil the french fries in water that has one or two tablespoons of vinegar or lemon juice for about 15 minutes. You have to allow the fries to cool down after the boiling, at least until the steam is no longer present, before frying.
This is because the purpose of the first time cooking is to stimulate gelatinization and water loss. The fries are able to crisp due to the absence of water in the outer layer of the fries. The acid from the vinegar protects the starch from reacting with the boiling water. If you leave out the vinegar/lemon juice, the end result will not be the same.
Personally, I like this approach because it's less messy than frying twice and you can leave the pot unattended.
But do you neutralize the vinegar somehow? or is the acidity expected to be evaporated in the process?
According to McGee, the ~10min low-temperature (250-325F) fry is the stage that the foundations of a thicker crust is formed; During this period, starch leaks from the swelling starch granules near the surface, forming a thick reinforcing "glue." If only high heat is used, this crust-thickening stage is heavily shortened because the outer granules aren't allowed to pick up water and leak starch--not enough moisture loss also contributes to crust-softening. You can progress through the two stages without pulling out your fries. Raw potatoes stored long in temperatures colder than 43F have some starch converted to sugar, making browning often too quick (it appears old potatoes are more likely to have more sugar); apparently storing your potatoes at room temperature for a few weeks will "recondition" your overly-sugary potatoes back to normal. Potato type matters too: the "mealy"-type russet gives you the dry/fluffy interior. Starch should be rinsed off the raw fries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.080108
| 2011-08-29T17:17:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17274",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"BaffledCook",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Clement Herreman",
"Cos Callis",
"Dan Henderson",
"Esther",
"Fermat's Little Student",
"JYelton",
"Liz H",
"Mien",
"Tim",
"Uma",
"crash15",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97340",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
20572
|
How can I get frozen egg whites out of the ice tray?
I read in Can raw eggs be frozen? that you can freeze eeg whites and use them later.
I saw this suggestion about using an ice tray to make frozen egg white cubes (which makes it easier later on when you want to use a few eeg whites out of a frozen batch).
My problem is, the frozen cubes won't come out of the ice tray! They seem to expand or for some reason stick to the tray very hard. I needed to melt them by running the back of the tray under hot water to get them out.
Obviously I can't use any oil or anything like that in the tray to prevent sticking.
Any suggestions?
I think you answered your own question. Anything you use will freeze and not let go. I get the egg whites out by dipping the tray in warm water for a second. You should post your warm water solution as the answer and accept your own answer. :)
Isn't this normal? My water ice cubes don't come out of the tray either if I don't run hot water. Unless I am using a silicone mold of course, but it seems that yours is of the normal, hard variety.
Really! I have always used plastic trays and if you twist or bend them they let go of the water ice cubes, or sometimes I need to tap the back with a spoon or something!
@rumtscho completely depends on the ice cube trays. More expensive ones seem to release a lot. Just a slight twist of the frame causes them all to 'pop' out. On cheap ones, I've had to resort to hot water.
@rfusca- that's true for ice but I've never had a cube tray let go of frozen egg whites.
@rfusca A simple twist works fine for $5 ice trays from Target. I do notice that older trays that have been over-twisted don't release very well, at which point I just buy new ones
@Davy 8 5 dollars is the more expensive ones. Walmart has a 3 for 2 dollars or something that are terrible
@Sob - ya, I was just addressing rum's comment. If you're going to do egg whites much, try silicone.
So to sum up, so far, we have:
use a silicon tray, there should be no problems there.
put the tray in warm water for a short while and they would let go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.080534
| 2012-01-18T17:27:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20572",
"authors": [
"Ali",
"David Ly",
"Jeff Bethune",
"Jewell ",
"Nebu",
"PS58",
"Sobachatina",
"boulderfield",
"cjh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7085",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19775
|
Why you shouldn't use soap to clean a pizza stone? or some pans and pots?
I was reading answers to this question How do I season my new pizza stone? and many people advised not to use soap on a pizza stone, I don't have a pizza stone but I have read similar advice for some pots and pans,
My question is why you can't use soap to clean this stuff, is it just unnecessary (because a pizza stone is always in the oven and every thing on it will burn) or there is a reason NOT to do it?
my moka also says do not use soap
Some cookware are 'cured'. Mostly cast iron pots and pans. I never heard of a pizza stone being cured, so I'm guessing this is to avoid eating soap. Other than that, I wouldn't know.
Cast iron gets cured for two reasons: 1. Create a non-stick layer 2. Avoid oxidation. Neither of these reasons apply to stones (or do they?)
According to this answer, a non-stick layer is indeed created.
I was told it is because pizza stones are porous, and you can season then with oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.080839
| 2011-12-19T18:33:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19775",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Manako",
"Matteo Caprari",
"Midhat",
"dowlguest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19770
|
If you freeze and later melt egg whites would they still be suitable to whip
I read all the very useful answers to this question
Can raw eggs be frozen?
But my question is a bit different:
When making anything that needs whipped egg whites, the condition (cleanness/pusity) of utensile and the egg whites is essential. I wanted to know if I freeze egg whites would I be able to melt and whip them later?
Yes, quite well -- I have personally made successful angel food cakes with frozen whites -- but if volume matters, they will not quite reach the maximal height of fresh whites (say, loss of 5-10%), and achieving peaks will take a little longer whipping time than normal.
5-10% is quite acceptable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.080959
| 2011-12-19T16:16:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19770",
"authors": [
"Ali",
"Charlie Harding",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7085"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24403
|
Whiskey and Water
In his answer https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/24354/6279 @user5561 indirectly makes the claim that it is 'preferable' to mix whiskey with water from the same source as the distillery.
So the answer is that yes, serious whiskey buffs would never mix
"good" whiskey with anything except a little water (preferably from
the same source the distillery gets their water from).
This is a claim I find intriguing and something I have never previously heard. Can anyone validate this? (or discredit it?)
note: I am skeptical because if there were truth to it I would think one would find branded bottled water in every liquor store.
[Edit/Clarification: When I ask for "validation" of this I am looking for more than just 'confirmation' of the claim, but some evidence or rational that explains why it is true. How does using 'the same water' augment the flavor, more so than 'plain' 'clean' water. What does the water used to create Highland Park do for Highland Park that it doesn't do for Jack Daniels? (and does the water need to be as old as the whiskey?)]
The reasoning is that water from the same turf as used for making the malt gives a better taste. Now, I admit that water tastes differently from place to place, but I doubt anybody can tell the difference in a blind test. As I don't have any data, just commenting. I think this is pure BS.
Some good additional information about how water affects the taste of whiskey here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21902
I too had never heard of this until I read @user5561's answer. So although it's news to me, I'm going to venture an answer. I believe the "reasoning" is as follows:
The overall taste of the whisky will be comprised of the flavour of
the water, the flavour compounds generated by the fermentation and
distillation, and finally the flavour generated by aging the whisky.
Therefore, if you wish to water the whisky down, you should use the
same water the distillery used so that you are not adding additional
flavour components to the final drink. If you use a different water,
you will be introducing flavours that weren't present in the whisky as
it came out of the bottle.
Now there are three assumptions this belief will be predicated on:
There is a human being on this planet with a sense of smell so developed that they would notice the difference.
The water you are using will somehow always make the drink taste worse and never complement what's already there.
The original flavour components in the water the distillery used have not undergone any changes during the fermentation, distillation and aging.
I take issue with the first two assumptions. You won't be able to tell the difference unless you're using water you just scooped out of a swamp and, with good water, there's no reason to believe it could not possibly improve the drink. I doubt the third but don't have any evidence either way.
I've come across a similar argument used for pizza, coffee, stock, etc... For example, since coffee is mostly water it's the most important ingredient. It seems logical until you realize that the neutral flavour of water is so subtle that it's quickly overwhelmed by just about anything you add to it (especially ground coffee beans).
I appreciate you taking exceptions to the the first 2 assumptions you identify. I would take exception to the 3rd as the process of turning water into whiskey involves distillation, a process I believe would leave behind anything that might produce a unique flavor from the original water.
I think 1 & 2 are probably broadly true, but not absolute. If you've ever had the water in Florida near the beach, you'd agree. It's disgusting, with a strong sulfur flavor. It's not good for anything, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the taste was strong enough to linger in your whiskey.
As the person who introduced the original claim (not sure where I first heard it, but I don't doubt that someone, somewhere actually does it), I agree with you. If your water tastes good by itself then it'll taste good in your whiskey, and you don't use much anyway.
Your first "assumption" is flawed--the "flavors" in water are mostly minerals, unlike the "flavors" found in most foods. That means that although most such flavors are really smells, which are much more subjective and subtle, the mineral profile of a local/regional water supply will tend to be much more constant and quantifiable. I would also suggest that it is quite common to notice this difference--as demonstration of this effect, notice the popularity of mineral enriched bottled water like Dasani over unadulterated water (even if people can't attribute their preference to the minerals)
This also means that the 3rd assumption isn't quite fair, either. True, one might expect volatile aromatics to break down, especially in distillation, but salts are salts, and in solution they are just ions floating around in your whisky. The same minerals present in the beginning will be there through the end. The 2nd 'assumption' may your strongest argument, but at that point you're primarily in the realm of personal preference. Scotch drinkers tend to want to isolate the essence of the single malt. It's not worse to bring out some different flavors, it's just not what they're going for
@Ray,although minerals do affect the flavour of water, they are removed during distillation. The minerals and ions are removed. This is precisely why distilled water is used in car batteries and radiators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_water So which will affect the flavour of your drink more, the water you're used to or a strange one you've never had before?
Too late, but I would add that while it's true that minerals are removed during distillation, any whisky not sold as "cask strength" (usually 50-60%ABV or so) will be watered down by the distillery to 40% (or maybe a bit more), thus adding the minerals back.
@Swoogan The water in whiskey is not distilled so much that it's purified. If that were true, Scotch would not taste smoky from the peat fires that contributed (water soluble) phenols to the malt before the beer was brewed. A double-distillation in a pot still is actually incapable of producing pure water, which is why water purification by distillation must use a continuous still.
@user5561 Even more, it's not casked at still strength—the whiskey off the still is diluted with the same water before being put into the casks. So the water is involved tree times, twice after distillation.
According to whisky lore, the best water to use is the same natural, pure spring water used in the production of the whisky itself (every distillery has its own natural water source). Unless you live near the distillery (or buy ridiculously-priced local spring waters sold by some distilleries), this is impractical. Your best bet is to use bottled natural spring water, or a mild bottled mineral water (taste it first, it should taste clean and clear and not like chemicals). If your tap water is drinkable and not especially hard or soft, or if you use a filtration pitcher, you can use this water in a pinch too. Lastly, this water should be ROOM TEMPERATURE or just slightly cool. Cold water will do the same injustice to the whisky that ice does, and dull its
http://scotchnoob.com/2011/03/09/water-ice-or-neat/
Thanks for the confirmation that this claim has been heard by others, perhaps even documented. I'm looking for "How" this can be the case.
If it stems from "folklore" then maybe you won't get a "how" answer, it may just be a tradition, a custom, a popular belief, that has been carried on throughout the years. I guess before tap water and Chemicals to cleanse it came about they did use the local spring water,"Fresh"from the spring water with no additives would always make something taste better ? Just a guess on my behalf, I just thought the link had some useful tips about Whisky.
indeed if it is mere folk lore then all I should expect to hear is just that...and that is really all I expect.
When making whisky, water is used at several stages; first, it's used in the vat to give the yeast more mobility to fully digest all the starches (and to ensure the alcohol concentration stays low enough to not inhibit the yeast's growth). That water is removed during distillation (which typically produces a spirit between 140 and 150 proof; a traditional open-air still simply cannot remove all the water from the alcohol), and then a little fresh water is added back in, producing a "cask strength" somewhere in the 100-120 range. The extra water slows evaporation of the alcohol and keeps the barrels hydrated during the aging; regardless, some of the spirit is inevitably lost to the air (the angels' share) and to the wood of the cask itself (the devil's cut) as the barrel sits in the aging vault. Finally, just before bottling, the cask's proof is tested and the whisky diluted to 80-100 proof for sale in the U.S.; a few distillers also market a "cask strength" that doesn't get this last step.
Therefore, the whisky in the bottle contains a good dose of whatever's in the water in the brook flowing by the distillery, typically referred to as "peat" as most of the water in that region filters through layers of peat moss before arriving at a stream (and over in the Islay reagion, it's less stream, more peat bog, leading to the quite extreme flavor of whiskys like the Laphroiag).
It's traditional to add a splash more of water to a whisky to "open it up"; the whisky loses some of the powerful alcohol sting and displays more of the complexities of its taste (two primary variables in Scotch are a smoky note from the char of the barrel and the earthy peat from the water). Filtered water is generally acceptable, especially across the pond where local water from the distillery is hard to come by, but hardcore Scotch connoisseurs who look for those earthy peat tones unique to the spirit will prefer to add more of that same flavor in the water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.081071
| 2012-06-12T22:48:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24403",
"authors": [
"Allycat Nourse",
"BaffledCook",
"Cos Callis",
"Kathy ",
"Louise Conrad",
"Lucy",
"Ray",
"Rick",
"SevenSidedDie",
"Sonorazona",
"Swoogan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"marge",
"onin",
"scottishpink",
"user5561",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90103
|
How to make a jellyish sauce for plate design
I'm looking for a method to make a plate sauce with a jelly consistency. The type of suace you would typically see on a plate in a restaurant, where they place a dallop of sauce on the plate and spread it with a spoon.
I don't want to use mayonnaise as a base, but rather something with a jelly consistency, with preferably little or no flavor, this way I can add flavor to my liking.
I have tried to make a jello using beet juice and a packet of clear unflavored jello, letting it harden and then blending it up in a food processor, but the final product would not smear, it just recongealed despite the blending.
Any ideas?
totally read that as 'jellyFish' sauce
@Spagirl Ask it !
Me think you don't need extra ingredients, most of those sauces are more or less reduced purées.
@Max Totally off topic, but do you mean methinks?
@Spagirl https://www.dailywritingtips.com/methinks-vs-i-think/
@Max Well quite, but that’s about ‘methinks’ while you use ‘me think’. I mean, you do you and all that. I just wonder, when I see you use ‘me think’, how you mean people to interpret it.
Hmmm. this will be tough. Most sauces that are dolloped and smeared are based on heavily reduced vegetable base, or a bean or legume, or a 'mayonnaise' or aioli base.
To get a thick, smearable sauce with jelly or gelatin is tough, as it will want to 'set' to thicken, which will not allow smearing.
There are new thickeners like Xantham Gum and Carageenan that might help. Cook's Illustrated has a nice piece on Xantham Gum and alternate uses here:
Xantham Gum at CI
Thanks for your answer! I think xanthan gum is going to achieve the look I am after, however I have never used it and am not familiar with how to use it.
Would plain old corn starch work if your sauce doesn't have to be perfectly clear?
Maybe arrowroot or potato starch even?
Another vote for Xanthan Gum. It's flavourless and only a small quantity is required to thicken the sauce substantially. (It can be a bit hard to mix, though. A blender is recommended.)
You have the right idea but the wrong gelling agent. Use agar agar instead of gelatin. You can probably find it in the Asian section of your grocery store. Make the gel and then blend. As agar agar has different sheer thinning properties than gelatin, you'll get the result you're looking.
Here's a recipe for a port fluid gel (along with a lot of background information) and a picture of what you can expect:
That's definitely the look I'm going for. Any reason to use agar agar over xanthan gum?
I'm not sure. I've done fluid gels with agar agar but never used xanthan gum for that purpose. Try both? Agar agar might be easier to find as most grocery stores stock it in the asian food section.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.081901
| 2018-06-01T02:26:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90103",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Max",
"Popup",
"Spagirl",
"harvey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"rackandboneman",
"remco",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84828
|
No Lava in my Pressure Cooked Lava Cake!
I tried a youtube recipe for making lava cake in a pressure cooker. It really turned out very good except there was no lava, just cake. I think it was because I over cooked it. I'm not really sure. I preheated the water and then proceeded to pressure cook. I only pressure cooked for 5 minutes because it took 5-10 minutes to build the pressure.
For lava cake, cooked using any method, there is a relatively fine line between perfect and over cooked. It appears that you crossed that line.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.082151
| 2017-10-05T04:54:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84828",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125572
|
Soft goat cheese as pizza topping without mess
I use soft unripened goat cheese as a pizza topping. I prefer it over crumbled goat cheese for these reasons:
Soft goat cheese browns easier, melts easier, and has stronger flavour/tang compared to crumbled goat cheese.
Soft goat cheese is cheaper than crumbled goat cheese.
But of course, soft goat cheese is quite messy to deal with. I end up slicing sections with a knife from the brick of cheese, awkwardly pulling the sections into pieces, and placing them on the pizza — if I can get the cheese to unstick from my fingers. My hands get covered in sticky cheese in the process, which is messy and wasteful.
Is there something I can do that's less messy? For example, is there a way to extrude the soft goat cheese onto a pizza? I'm picturing a device similar to a caulking gun.
There are many kinds of goats' cheese. Can you be more specific, perhaps with a picture? But have you tried pushing the slices of the knife with a rubber spatula, perhaps after wiping the spatula with oil? That at least would save getting your fingers messy
Your first link gives me an 'access denied' error message.
@quarague I'm not sure why you got an 'access denied' error. It's a public website. Anyway, I edited the question and used screenshots as links.
Lick your fingers, waste solved.
Further to Chris H's point, there may be more varieties of goat's cheese than cow's… even though despite producers' best efforts, few wholesalers and fewer retailers or restaurants understand that.
Then, there might be goat cheeses better suited but after long wondering why pizza always and only used mozzarella, I finally Searched it and found four separate reasons why mozzarella really is better…
Please Ask your own search engine why mozzarella is the best cheese for pizza…
A piano wire cutter is great for semi-soft cheese. Get one which is just the wire and the handle, not a "guillotine-style" cutter with a base. Some have a roller integrated to control the thickness; set that to "as thick as possible" and ignore the roller, freehanding the thickness.
The nice thing about the piano wire cutter is that it doesn't stick (much) to the cheese. But it isn't as good as a knife at moving the cut piece away from the rest of the cheese. You can cut a sufficiently soft block of cheese with a piano wire cutter, and afterwards it's still one piece. To get around this, slice directly onto the pizza, holding the cheese block above it and slicing horizontally on the bottom so that the slice falls off as it is cut. Basically you want to never touch the cut pieces, but have them fall into perfect arrangement. (You'll probably have to adjust them the first few hundred times.)
As for the extruding idea: Sure -- you could just stuff some cheese into a pastry bag -- but I suspect you wouldn't be happy with the "ribbons of toothpaste" look of the result. Melty, edge-browned cheese chunks look good on pizza. Stick to that shape.
I suspect the OP might be cutting not semi-soft cheese, but the kind that's like a log of goat cream cheese. I haven't used the cutter you show, but I suspect it will smear all over the cutter, because it's so soft, it's halfway to a spread.
@rumtscho That's exactly the kind I had in mind. The cutter is great for that sort of cheese because the surface area in contact with the cheese is so low. There's no opportunity to stick or shear.
Sneftel, thanks for clarifying that!
So (just for clarification) this is the same idea as "Cheese Wire"? (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cheese-Wires-handles-Spare-included/dp/B00237TZLI/ref=sr_1_5 for example)
@Justinw It's similar, but the two-handled kind is for a much larger cheese wheel, and requires both hands. Since you need one hand to hold the cheese, I think it would be tricky to use it here.
You can also get cheese wires built into boards, with a hinge and a handle. They're good for hard cheeses, but a pain to wash after something soft (I've got a wooden one). Not recommended here.
@ChrisH that’s the guillotine style I mentioned. TBH I don’t love them for hard cheeses either, a spade-shaped cheese slicer works best there.
@Sneftel That's not a guillotine style, but a garrote style. A garrote is a length of wire between 2 handgrips intended to strangle someone. A guillotine is a gravity-assisted blade on top of a pillory intended to behead someone.
@Nzall that’s not the style ChrisH was talking about.
@Sneftel Oh right, I mixed up Justinw and ChrisH replies.
How randomly fortuitous! I just realised last night (as I was cutting cheese) that I didn’t actually know the proper term for the kind of cheese slicer shown in the image here. I even considered asking a question about it here – and now I see was answered just a few hours before I even thought of it!
Perhaps the cheese you're working with is a bit different but with the soft goat cheeses I've used it should be possible to:
cut the front of the packaging
gently press the cheese log from the back so a portion protrudes, then cut it (scissors make this easier)
the cut piece will stick to the scissors or knife, place it on the pizza (can use a toothpick or second knife/fork)
##########################
### cccccccccccccccccccccccccc
#######################
^ press here cut here ^
If the cheese is too soft, you can probably even use your fingers to detach a portion by pinching the front - or just spoon it over.
Slices won't be perfect especially for the last two methods but after it melts it shouldn't be noticeable.
If the chèvre is very fresh, you can cut a small hole and squeeze it out like a toothpaste tube. As the chèvre ages, it firms up more and becomes more difficult to do, but I suspect that you could leave it out at room temperature for a while. I just use a spoon to knock off bits every so often.
Just for completeness, I'll post a kind of negative answer here. My point is that I would advise against extrusion.
The kitchen equivalent of a caulking gun is a syringe-like device that's intended as a reusable replacement for pastry bags. The more widespread version is made from not-so-stable plastic and is intended for cake decoration. It works with soft substances like buttercream, and if you pack it full of goat cheese, I expect it to either not expel anything, or break. The sturdier version, which is used to press a log of cookie dough with shaped edges, may be able to extrude goat cheese - or maybe not, since the ones which can be fit with a small diameter nozzle are more likely to be intended as double-duty, and it's possible that it only has enough force to push soft creams through a small nozzle. In any case, these devices are very messy. If you can get them to work, the pizza itself will look pretty, but filling, using and taking apart the device creates quite the mess.
A similar argument can be made against the second type of extruder in the kitchen, the meat grinder. It will produce strands of cheese, but they will most likely stick together immediately. And even if you manage to get a standard-sized meat grinder to work with a single log of goat cheese, half of your cheese will end up as waste, and taking apart and cleaning the grinder could take longer than baking and eating the pizza.
At this softness, you might just about get away with the third option for extrusion - a spätzle press. If you get the cast aluminum cylinder type that gelaterias also use for spaghetti ice cream, and process small pieces at a time, you will end up with strands similar to the spaghetti ice cream. Again, you won't be able to separate the mass well when it falls onto the pizza, and the cleaning involves some time with a brush and a toothpick.
So, for all possible extrusion devices, you can expect that in all factors - cheese piece "niceness", cheese waste, and time spent cleaning - they are much worse than your current method of using a knife.
I agree, but a piping syringe that uses nozzles with a wide screw thread, and the nozzle omitted might just work. A sausage filler (even a cheap nasty thing from amazon) would be sure to extrude soft cheese, and if its parts could be put through a dishwasher would be a handy but wasteful way of getting the wrong shape of cheese onto a pizza.
@ChrisH interesting options, especially the sausage filler. I must admit though, I wouldn't want a sausage-thick snake of cheese on my pizza. May be an option for something like a calzone, that gets (geometrically) thicker filling.
Indeed; if I use goat's cheese I slice and place it with 2 table knives, or one and a spatula. But I'm more likely to have blue cheese, or even feta
If I was making pizza this week I'd get some similar cheese and demonstrate - because I want it now. But I'm going out for pizza so won't make one
In addition to any technique for cutting, freezing or partially freezing the cheese will make it less sticky and easier to work with. When frozen, it will be more likely to break apart. If you're looking for nice looking slices, you can get a bowl of hot water and dip your knife in that.
You could try using unflavored floss to cut off slices of cheese and section the slices into the size you want. If you do this on a cutting board, then you can scrape the pieces off the cutting board onto the pizza.
Presumably the reason you care about your fingers getting covered in cheese is that you're trying to do a bunch of pizzas in a row and don't want to keep washing them. If so, I have solution for you:
Get an extra-small cookie scoop, like a 2 Teaspoon one.
Not only will the scoop keep your hands clean, it'll help you portion the goat cheese evenly across the pizza. Plus they're useful for all kinds of other portioning tasks.
That’s probably slower than just taking a spoon to the log. I just cut it with the side of a spoon while still in the package, and can then mostly sprinkle the bits out onto the pizza or flatbread. (May need to spread it out some if it falls as a clump)
Joe: I find that chevre tends to stick to a spoon and need my thumb to come loose.
it can, but it’s like it something sticks to your knife, just keep going and the next bit will push the stuck part, and you only need to clean it at the end
Use a wire cubing tool with cheese wire, in a wood frame, on your cheese when nearly frozen. Maybe toss with whey protein powder to prevent stickiness, or lay the cubes out to dry.
Coincidentally this question was bumped a few days after I tried this.
With a soft Abergavenny goat's cheese log a simple solution worked for slices/chunks, cutting it in the plastic tray after peeling back the lid. There was no mess and the only wastage the cheese stick to the inside of the packaging
I simply used two table knives, one to cut, and the other to push the slice off the first. If it ended up as too much of a blob, that was dealt with after it was on the pizza: either one knife in each hand pulling it apart, or the rubber spatula I'd used to spread the sauce
Put the cheese in the freezer for 5 - 10 minutes to harden. When you take it out you can slice it with a knife and it won't stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.082270
| 2023-10-17T02:09:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125572",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"FuzzyChef",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Joe",
"Justinw",
"Nzall",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Sneftel",
"User1974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"quarague",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86755
|
what to mix with milk other than sugar to give good taste
I want to drink milk without adding any sugar [ for Diet ]
is there any alternative for sugar to mix with milk which give good taste ?
I dont want honey [ more calorie ] , stevia , cocoa butter [cocoa butter is only fat].....
has anyone tried with cocoa powder, is there any other option ?
Taste is subjective and questions like this one are likely to be closed. That said, is there a reason why you don’t just drink milk? That’s how millions of people do it...
@Stephie thanks, i don't like taste of only milk..... until now i was adding energy drink to milk , so it gave good taste, after i got that energy drinks are loaded with sugars , so i want some alternative.....
I spoke with a hospital dietitian about a study that concluded with the fact that as long as you are getting your vitamin D and calcium from other sources milk is unnecessary in the adult human diet.
She agreed and noted that lactose is hard for many people to digest and added the fats and calories can be best "spent" elsewhere.
...but if you insist...
Try making a smoothie with whatever fruits and veg you can have on this diet of yours.
If you can have cooked cereals you can either use the milk in cooking or pour over it when ready to eat.
There are recipes for puddings that are thickened with cornstarch (instead of eggs) and use cocoa as well....I have never tried this but it may be right up your alley.
Thanks, i tried drinking hot milk without mixing anything today, seems like i can manage with only milk :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.083524
| 2017-12-28T11:19:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86755",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"USer345738380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63117"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128002
|
What is Ultralight Malt Extract and Light Malt Extract, and how do they compare to Dry Malt Extract?
What does the term light and ultralight mean in the context of malt extract? What actually happens to Dry Malt Extract to make it light and ultralight?
It has to do with color, which matters when you are making beer, and not for most other uses of malt extract.
The color (or lack therof) is from the malted grain being roasted or "kilned" to various time&temperature profiles in the making of the liquid malt extract, which is then dried to make dry malt extract.
Very dark malts have flavors associated with carmelization and roasting. There's not a lot of difference in flavor between the various grades of "pale" in my experience, but my beer-making doesn't tend that way so I might not be the best judge of any subtle flavor difference in grades of pale malt. At that end of the scale it seems to be mostly about what shade of yellow beer you get.
In my opinion, there is zero dependable difference in taste between light and extra-light DME.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.083677
| 2024-04-01T20:53:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128002",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25871
|
How is the chai latte in Starbucks made?
I can brew my own chai latte (without the foam machine). It smells great with different types of spice. However, it just doesn't seems to reach the taste of the chai latte from Starbucks. The chai latte from Starbucks has a sweet taste like fruit. I wonder if they add other ingredients.
Here are the ingredients I use: cardamom, clove, ginger, cinnamon, low-fat milk, and tea.
The chai tea latte at Starbucks is made from the Tazo Chai Tea Latte concentrate. This product is available at supermarkets and online, and is mixed with milk to make a product not unlike what you have at Starbucks (minus the foam, as you pointed out).
So, what are these flavors (say, if you wanted to make this from scratch)? The website mentions that the black tea is malty. You could likely reproduce that with a maltier tea like Assam, though the box also says a "a rich blend of flavorful teas", meaning that a stronger blend like English Breakfast might be a closer match. It looks like you are on the right track with the spices as well: cinnamon, ginger, cardamom, and cloves are all listed, though the website mentions black pepper, star anise, and vanilla in addition, which ought to lift your cup of chai a bit as well.
Cool. I just use plain black tea. But I think honey could be the key to the fruit like taste.
I do see that both honey and cane sugar are used as sweeteners in the Starbucks chai. (http://www.starbucks.com/blog/chai-tea-latte-experience-a-classic-again/1074)
However the type of honey could be problem. Some honey has strong scene AFAIK.
I would highly recommend Big Train Vanilla (not Spiced) Chai powder. You can get 2 large cans of it on Amazon for about $20. I used to use the Tazo liquid concentrate, but have since upgraded to Big Train. You'll find that some coffee places use Big Train just like Starbucks uses Tazo.
I find that the pre-made mixes are the best way to go if you want a cafe style, chai latte. Mostly for textural reasons; the powders and concentrates tend to produce a slightly thicker drink.
I tried to add longan honey with other additional spice such as cassia, star anise and vanilla extract. The taste was good and I was satisfied.
The Big Train powder mentioned above has seen a major price hike on Amazon since that was posted.
I tried this concentrate and found it nothing like the chai lattes from Starbucks: http://yamikuronue.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/tea-diary-week-2/
The Tazo Chai Concentrate they use in the store is thicker like a syrup, that’s why they only use X amount of pumps ( I think it’s 4 or 5. Which is also why they use water & milk! When you buy the Tazo concentrate it’s been thinned with water already so therefore you don’t add water but use an equal concentration 1/2 c chai 1/2 c milk.
Well, I cracked it and tasted better than Costa or Starbucks.
I used hot milk with seasonings and a Twinnings chai teabag steeped in hot water.
Microwave 3/4 cup milk one minute. Add cardamom seeds, cloves, cinnamon, black pepper, a teaspoon of honey, ginger, a teaspoon of vanilla (Monza), and anise seed to the milk.
Whisk with a battery whisker (available off eBay £3.00) until frothy.
Pour 1/4 cup of hot chai tea into glass. Add frothy milk & stir. Add cinnamon dusting.
Voilà.
The closest I have gotten to a StarBucks Chai Tea latte is using "Oregon Chai - SPICED" with either Almond Mile or Regular Milk. And, I think I pretty darn good one. Incidentally, it is far less expensive to make it this way versus going to SB and paying 4-6 bucks for 1.
https://www.oregonchai.com/
The concentrate that Starbucks sells is not what they use in their stores. The in-store chais are secret-recipe full concentrate and taste better than the concentrate that they sell. We are not supposed to know that the secret concentrate exists; but it does and I have seen it.
Can you provide any other information on the differences in ingredients between the commercial and "secret" versions?
There is no secret as to how Starbucks make their tea... the Tea they sell as the Concentrate is exactly the same they use. Many friends have worked at Starbucks & another friend was a manager!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.083814
| 2012-08-27T02:42:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25871",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Fuzzymonkey",
"Irene Majewski",
"John",
"Matthew Serrano",
"Monika Rose",
"Phone Repair More",
"Ray",
"Sid Patil",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97493",
"lamwaiman1988",
"life-on-mars",
"logophobe",
"rohitpaulk",
"steo",
"user94066",
"user97493"
],
"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
}
|
114102
|
Arugula is very salty, and doesn't look like arugula
I recently bought some arugula, partially to make salads with. I tasted some leaves though, and it's incredibly salty. It also doesn't look like any arugula I've ever had before:
I'm used to more "serrated spear"-shaped leaves. This looks more like spinach than anything. If I tear it up though, it releases the distinct, sharply-bitter smell that I associate with arugula.
I thought that the salt may be a result of a pesticide or something that was added to the leaves, but the packaging claims it's pesticide free, and also that it was grown via aquaponics. The salt taste also survives several rounds of washing.
Is there something wrong with the arugula, or is this a particular variety? If I search for "salty arugula", the results are almost exclusively recipes that involve adding salt, which isn't very helpful.
Round-leaf arugula is apparently an actual variety that exists. However, it is not noted for having a particularly salty flavor.
Given the strong salty flavor, and the appearance, it's more likely that you got orach instead. A nutritious and tasty green, Orach is known for its high salt content, making it excellent in salads (just don't add more salt to it).
Thank you. It's hard to say looking at images on my phone. Ill need to check the images when I get home. It's definitely not red though, so I would be the green variety if it is orach, and the leaves I have are much darker than the images of green orach that I can find.
I've grown green orach before; the leaves you have aren't beyond the range of color for it. They do look more like spinach, though, but I can't find a spinach variety that's as salty as you say.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.084214
| 2021-02-04T19:01:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114102",
"authors": [
"Carcigenicate",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36134",
"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
}
|
124458
|
Is there a meaningful difference between potato starch and potato flour?
Is there a difference between potato starch and potato flour? Corn starch is made from the endosperm of the corn kernel does this also apply to potato starch? I have tried both and I cannot really taste or feel a difference
Couscous is made from semolina dough.
If they are correctly labeled, they are not the same thing, and can only be substituted in certain recipes.
Potato starch is the dried pure starch was washed out of potatoes. Potato flour is 100% of the potato flesh, dried and then ground into fine meal. Per King Arthur flours:
What’s the difference? Potato flour includes fiber, protein, and flavor, while potato starch is pure flavorless starch.
This means that potato starch will not work as a substitute for potato flour if you are making a bread which expects the flour to have "substance". Likewise, if you are making Korean dumplings that expect pure colorless potato starch, you cannot use potato flour instead.
Of course, there will be another set of recipes where it genuinely doesn't matter, particularly ones where you are adding small amounts of flour/starch as a thickener. Additionally, if a product is multi-lingually labeled, potato starch sometimes gets labeled as potato flour and vice-versa. So you should check the ingredients in whatever you're buying.
In principle, there is a difference, yes. I'm not sure how it relates to products and their labeling, though.
Starch is, strictly speaking, a chemical compound. It is produced by different plants, and you can isolate it from them.
Flour is a fine powder made of dried plants - the prototypical case is wheat, but the word covers easily all of the grain and pseudograin flours, and it's also used for other high-starch powders such as potato, plantatain or chestnut flour. It contains not only starch, but also the cell walls and other non-water stuff found in the plant's cells.
Admittedly, flours are made from plant parts which are specialized to store starch, so there would be very few non-starch components in potato flour. So I don't think that you'd notice the difference between pure extracted potato starch and milled potato flour in daily use. I tend to use the same product whatever the recipe says (here in Germany, it's sold as potato flour, Kartoffelmehl) and haven't had anything fail.
I've seen books though which make a point to use one and not the other. These are usually books on gluten-free baking, where the authors spend hours perfecting a mix of different starches and flours to get a good result. For example, see Carol Kicinsky's all-purpose flour blend: she warns both to use potato starch and not potato flour, and to not use a specific brand of potato starch, "as it is made with sweet potatoes and is not the same".
I have never researched labeling requirements for potato starch and potato flour, and these may well vary by jurisdiction. If sweet potato starch is allowed to be labeled as potato starch, I wouldn't be surprised if it's also the case that producers are allowed to mill a potato flour without doing any extractions, and label the result as "potato starch", since it's mostly starch anyway. But I have no idea if this is legally allowed or not.
To sum it up: for everyday purposes, if you just need a generic kind of starch, you can use potato starch and potato flour interchangeably (and other similar types of starch too). If you suspect that the recipe has low tolerances, stick to the letter and use exactly what it prescribes.
Just for additional reference and clarity, here are some technical documentation for your review:
Brand: Avebe
Product: Potato Starch (clean label)
Specification Sheet: [Original Not Available] [Backup]
Brand: Bob's Red Mill
Product: Potato Flour
Specification Sheet: [Spec] [Backup]
Additionally, there is a technical whitepaper published by Potatoes USA that is intended for the cracker manufacturing sector; it is very detailed, and has a section that covers the functional differences between the flours and starches in-depth. Here is the whitepaper and a backup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.084375
| 2023-06-14T12:46:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124458",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.