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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
121462
|
Can you make butter-cream icing with margerine?
I want to make a tipsy carrot cake. One where I make a nice sugar pickle with brandy, treacle sugar, powdered ginger and nutmeg. Grate the carrots and let them marinate overnight in the sugar pickle and then add the brew to a pre-mixed bran muffin mix to get carrot cake.
I have a question on the icing. I'm pretty allergic to dairy. Can you make butter-milk icing with icing sugar beaten into margerine?
Im sure it will be different and maybe not as nice but will it be a flop?
What icing are you planing to make? You could ice a cake with many different things, and we cannot answer the substitution question before knowing which one you mean. Are you asking about making buttercream with margarine, or some other type?
Ok it looks like buttercream is the one I want. Will edit.
Sugar terminology will depend, in part, on where in the world you are.
There are dairy free/vegan versions of butter-cream icing (or frosting). I'd try to find a recipe that someone has tested, to ensure it actually works.
Hey, you are asking multiple questions at once. I answered the margarine one, but you should ask the sugar one as a separate question (mostly because people have Opinions About Sugar)
I will edit that out and ask a seperate question.
Yes, you most definitely can, and I have done so many times, since I often can't use dairy in cakes. Of course the flavor will be different, since margarine doesn't taste quite like butter. But the texture is fine, and if you're putting flavorings (such as vanilla) in anyways, your frosting should taste quite fine!
Note that I am assuming actual "margarine" available in the US, which by the standard of identity for margarine must be at least 80% fat. If you wish to use "vegan butter" (which has no labelling requirements and often contains less fat), then be sure that it contains at least 79-80% fat, otherwise the texture of your frosting will be off.
Joshua John Russell, video cakemaker, says you can. Cooking with Caffeine offers advice on which specific margarine to use.
in the US, at least, "margarine" has a standard of identity that requires at least 80% fat to be labelled as "margarine". The linked article speaks about "vegan butter," which has no such labelling requirements, but anything labelled as "margarine" in the US would fit the recommendations in the linked article.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.084689
| 2022-08-26T06:22:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121462",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"Neil Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117292
|
Thawing frozen meat: How long in fridge?
So I had a 4-5 lb chunk of chuck roast sitting in the freezer for a few weeks, it was obviously frozen solid at that point. I wanted to eventually make some roast in the slow cooker but I figured I would need to thaw it in the fridge of course.
However it takes more than 1 day to "thaw" such a big piece of meat. At what point am I starting the "Fridge Clock" when thawing? Food safety guidelines talk about total time that food can spend at different temperatures and different storage methods, but when does my roast stop being "frozen" and when does it start being "refrigerated"?
I wanted to make it tomorrow because it's pretty much mostly thawed but still a little frozen in the middle. Is it safe to wait another day? (It's been in the fridge maybe 2-3 days by now, but was hard as a rock the first few days.)
@Mercfh I made some edits, which I think differentiates your question from this existing question, to make it more specific to what you are looking for. Feel free to roll back my edits if they do not help identify your exact question.
When you have food transitioning between various temperature zones -- either frozen to fridge, or through the "danger zone" from hot to cold -- you always consider for the worst case scenario.
If thawing a roast, it is considered "refrigerated" the moment the surface starts to thaw & is no longer frozen, even if the middle part is still frozen. Similarly, when freezing something that was in the fridge, it isn't considered "frozen" until the entire item is frozen through.
With food passing from hot to cold through the 40°-140°F "danger zone", the food item is considered to be in that zone from the moment the first bit drops below 140°F until the entire dish is fully below 40°F.
For things that can be molded into shapes, it is usually ideal to have wide flat containers to help food pass quickly across these temperature zones, rather than thick, squat containers. (A shallow sheet pan is better than a cube.) For roasts & things that cannot be molded into a shape that warms/cools faster, you just have to be patient and recognize that the longer transition time to thaw completely is part of the "storage math" that food safety regulators consider.
I guess does that mean it's still safe though? If the middle is frozen but the outside isn't? (Since it takes a couple of days for the "whole thing" to thaw). Then again I guess people thaw thanksgiving turkeys weeks ahead of time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.084913
| 2021-09-22T18:06:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117292",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Mercfh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115408
|
Why use both milk and cream in a waffle recipe?
I live in Europe and use a lot of European recipes. Here, traditional waffle recipes generally use a mixture of cream and milk as the liquid. The recipes include melted butter, so I don't understand what the cream is doing. Any ideas?
Bocuse recipe for waffles (as an example) (found in Paul Bocuse "Die Neue Küche" Heyne Kochbücher 1976) - but representative of a great many traditional European recipes for dessert waffles.
500 g flour
a pinch of baking powder
a pinch of salt
1 tablespoon of sugar
250 ml milk
750 ml heavy cream
8 egg yolks
100 ml rum
300 g melted butter
4 egg whites
Is there a technical or chemical reason to use cream, even if you are already using butter?
Have you considered that it could be the other way round? Maybe for a French cook of Bocuse's generation/class, cream is the default liquid, and the technical reason he adds milk is because else the fat will make the waffles unbakeable?
Wow, that’s rich. I never made waffles like that, I am used to waffles = pancake batter, possibly with the whites whipped, sometimes with melted butter, sometimes with baking powder. This recipe seems a bit excessive?
If it helps, I make waffles often, and I always replace the cream by milk, and it works perfectly. If there is some cream left over from something else I use that, and it makes no difference that I can tell.
@rumtscho - that is interesting, and would make sense.
@Stephie - these are not eaten at breakfast. They are desserty things. As far as I have seen, Europeans do not eat pancakes or waffles at breakfast. They eat them at fairs and festivals for a treat. You could see it as a variation on cake.
@LisaBiesinger you do remember me and my location, right? ;-)
@Stephie, yeah, but. You like looking over the rim of your teacup, and I'll bet its contents are darjeeling, not Hagebuttetee (:)) and apparently don't use chefkoch.de for recipes, nor even Dr Oetker - all of whom use a minimum of 1 part butter to 2 parts flour (by weight) in their waffle recipes. Dr Oetker has nearly 1:1 flour to butter. Granted, Bocuse's recipe (online in quartered form - https://mehlstaubundofenduft.com/2015/09/29/die-waffeln-von-pauls-oma/) is even richer, but not by much. So given your location, why are you making waffles like Amis do? Not to mention pancakes. Eierkuchen!
I make them either like my Swabian grandmother did - flour, eggs, milk. Nothing else. Butter and cream was expensive! ^_^ Or Jamie Oliver’s breakfast waffles, which is the same plus a bit of melted butter and baking powder.
Ah. Wikipedia.de, referencing "Chronik bildschöner Backwerke" does say that waffles were never standard fare in Southern Germany or Austria, but rather reserved for the "gehobene Küche" (and fairs and whatnot). Most likely because cream and butter weren't cheap. Interesting that she made them at all. What kind of a waffle iron did she use? I am fascinated by the history of foods and cooking :)
I can't say with absolute positivity on this, but I suspect it's because butter in Europe is often cultured, i.e. made using partially fermented cream, which changes its flavor and makes it a bit acidic. Cream is not cultured, so it has a 'neutral' flavor, the ratio of butter to cream is balanced to give the right flavor profile.
I have used butter in many European countries and never noticed any acidity. I very much doubt this answer is right.
@Willeke it is not actually sour. Cultured butter has a slight aroma due to the butyric acid, but not a sour taste. I also doubt that this answer is right - the difference is certainly tasteable on toast, it might be noticeable in a buttercream, but it practically disappears in baked goods. I've baked extensively with both kinds (both are widely available in Germany, I don't know if that was different in the 70s) and I'm not sure I would be able to tell the difference in the final product from a blind test.
@GdD - thanks for at least giving it a try. Interesting idea. Maybe this is due to historical circumstances. That cream was more plentiful, cheaper, something, than butter? In any case, I guess there is no technical reason for it. At least that someone around here knows of. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.085132
| 2021-04-26T06:52:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115408",
"authors": [
"Lisa Biesinger",
"RedSonja",
"Stephie",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104502
|
Acrid taste on King Crab Legs
I bought some crab legs on Monday night. I steamed them on Tuesday night.
I couldn't have more than a bite; the taste and aroma was that of ammonia, although the taste itself did not taste poisonous. (My wife says she didn't notice and went happily along)
I am wondering if this could have been because the legs were bad. Also, I stored them in the fridge for 24 hours instead of keeping them in the freezer. A friend thought this shouldn't have mattered.
Any definitive thoughts as to what caused this effect?
Apologies, yes, that's it.
Fresh seafood should smell briny, like the sea. It generally should not smell strongly in any way--not in a "fishy" way, and not like ammonia.
According to the US FDA, you should not eat seafood that has even a fleeting, minor smell of ammonia:
Uncooked spoiled seafood can have sour, rancid, fishy, or ammonia
odors. These odors become stronger after cooking. If you smell sour,
rancid, or fishy odors in raw or cooked seafood, do not eat it. If you
smell either a fleeting or persistent ammonia odor in cooked seafood,
do not eat it.
The scent of ammonia in shellfish is a strong indicator that it's gone bad. When the crab meat begins to decompose, the byproducts create the scent of ammonia. Even thought the scent was minor (you could smell it, but not your wife), this would still indicate that the crab legs had begun to rot.
Crab legs are generally flash-frozen immediately upon harvest, and kept frozen until you buy them and bring them home. This keeps them "fresh" because they spend very little time in the danger zone.
Likely, in transit between the dock and your home, the crab legs thawed, spent excessive time (more than 2 hours) in the danger zone, and have spoiled. I would not expect the refrigerator storage to have caused this alone, unless there was also additional non-frozen time before you purchased them.
I completely agree with this answer, as someone who has had food poisoning from shellfish I can tell you from personal experience it's not worth the risk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.085465
| 2020-01-02T22:20:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104502",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86007
|
Can jams and compotes be frozen?
Suppose that my jams and compotes are in an uninsulated, cold place, i.e. -20°C in the winter.
Is it possible that they will be frozen, and the glass breaks, or not?
As you would normally fill a jar of jam only to the shoulder there should be room for expansion on freezing and most jars shouldn't crack. Jams are also <50% water, and if they contain significant pieces of fruit won't even be at the same concentration so won't freeze solid at a well-defined temperature, allowing them time to expand into the headspace.
The other main risk is thermal shock (as when you poor boiling water into a cold jar). This is unlikely except if you bring in a jar to use and put it on a hot surface or try to defrost it quickly. To be on the safe side (and, depending on your jam, to keep the colour nice) you should probably avoid direct sunlight on the jar.
A further factor to consider is loosening of the lids from freeze-thaw cycling changing the pressure inside -- expansion of the jam (water) will cause an increase in pressure at low tempertatures but the air will contract and cause a decrease. The net effect will depend on the relative volumes, the temperatures, and the rates of cooling/heating. If when the jars come back up to room tempearture, the lids are loose, the jam has probably not kept. So I suggest using proper jam jars with safety button pop-top lids so that you can tell.
If the jar is filled to the brim, then there is a good chance that on freezing the jar will break. If not it shouldn't break as long as there is no sudden temperature change. That being said, there are also jars available that are freeze-safe and you can use those for freezing jams for a longer time
Why do you emphasize that freeze safe jars can be used to freeze the jam for a longer time - wouldn't that also be true for those that aren't specifically labelled as such, but froze just fine? The critical part is the temperature window where the jam freezes, not the storage at significantly lower, but constant temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.085646
| 2017-11-29T21:48:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86007",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86530
|
How to refresh a frozen bagel
My kids like their bagels like they just came from the oven or the bagel bakery with a crisp crust and soft chewy center. However, it is not practical to make bagels or buy bagels in the morning on school days. What can I do with a frozen bagel to mimic fresh out of the oven?
Have you tried [F5] or [CTRL]+[R] to refresh it?
that is hilarious.
@BaffledCook Are you sure you're not thinking of cookies?
Why not keep them in the refrigerator and toast them? If you buy fresh bagels and you eat them every day, they will sure be gone before they go bad in about a month.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/09/how-to-reheat-old-bagels.html
Buy or make fresh bagels and store them uncut in a plastic bag with the air squeezed out of it in the freezer for up to one month. When you want to prepare a "like fresh" bagel, run it briefly under water (I used filtered water) so that the outside crust is damp but not soggy. Wrap it tightly in foil with a small vent, 1/2" long by 1/8" wide, on one side and heat in a 400°F oven (I use our toaster oven) for about 15-20 minutes, depending upon how cold your freezer is. The bagel will be as soft as it was when it originally came out of the oven and the hot oven will cause the crust to crisp through the foil. Don't let it over bake or it will be rock hard though.
This is a great use of self-answering to share this delicious technique you've discovered! I will have to try ASAP.
I understand this is kids, and they like things just the way they like them. But preheating an oven takes time you might not have. For me I'd defrost overnight in the fridge, then in the morning split and toast them.
To get closer to fresh-baked I'd turn the oven on to a lower temperature (no more than about 150°C/300°F) and put them in almost immediately for 5--10 minutes having just brushed or flicked water on the outside. If you really want to take them out of the freezer in the morning, 10--30s (for 1 or 2, if doing more try 30s, rearrange, 30s) in the microwave before putting them in the oven will get them defrosted or well on the way.
Assuming the bagels concerned are affected by staling in a similar manner to bread, you really should not defrost in the fridge. Bread goes stale much faster at cold-but-not-freezing temperatures.
@David defrosting at room temp means much of the bread is at fridge temp at any given time anyway, so would go stale as it defrosts on the counter. In the fridge you don't have to worry about condensation making it go soggy. Wherever it's been defrosted I would treat bread that's been frozen as needing warming or toasting to be nice, and the OP wants to warm it anyway.
I think I remember Dave Arnold and/or Harold McGee suggesting you lose very approximately a day of freshness through a quick defrosting alone. Fridge temperatures increase staling rates by about 500% or so on top of that, so I think you're getting the worst of both worlds. Condensation can be effectively addressed by using a bag.
@David (i) The OP is reheating, presumably to deal with staling. (ii) A bag doesn't help. I know I get soggy bread defrosting in the kitchen in a bag. Presumably it's water from the bread condensing on the coldest parts of the loaf and then soaking in. That's worse than stale bread.
I sometimes do this if I feel really fancy:
Put them into the microwave for a little while (like 20s at 600W for each piece). This will make them soft in the center.
Follow up with a couple minutes in the oven with the top heating element turned to full blast. I actually do this in the microwave as well because mine has a regular heater on top as well. I put the bagels on that riser thingy I got with the microwave, like the one you can see in the following picture:
Preheat your oven to medium heat, approx 350 F or so, pass your [uncut!] bagel quickly under running water (i.e. don't soak it), and pop it into the oven for a few minutes, like maybe 5. Bagels go through a boiling phase anyway, when they are made, so a little water contact on their outer surface won't hurt them.
So I actually do this all the time, because my local bagelery only makes pumpernickel on Fridays, so I buy a bunch and freeze them. In fact, I am about to do this in a few days for our traditional Christmas Morning Bagel Breakfast. After experimenting with several different approaches, this is the one I've found to work best:
Storage: As soon as they are cool, wrap each bagel in aluminum foil (I suggest also labelling what flavor it is with some tape and a sharpie), and then put up to 6 bagels in a ziplock freezer bag and freeze. The tightly wrapped foil retards freezer-burning, and is useful when you reheat.
Reheating: place the frozen bagels, in their foil, in a 300F/150C oven, which needs not be preheated. After about 15-20 minutes (20 to 30 if not preheated) the bagels should be thawed and warm. Remove from the oven, unwrap, slice and eat.
The above technique will get you as close as possible to having a fresh-from-the-baker bagel. As you can see, though, it might not be ideal for a school morning just because of the amount of time required. Don't try to speed up thawing with a hotter oven, because that will result in your bagels getting excessively dry and hard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.085961
| 2017-12-19T01:38:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86530",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Batman",
"Chloe",
"Chris H",
"David",
"Julie Ma",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"spacetyper"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112620
|
How do people make fried onions as an ingredient as opposed to a snack? Should I coat them with flour, milk, and spices?
A Pakistani dish I am learning to make calls for fried onions as an ingredient. The recipe says "golden fried onions" and later "fried onion paste", referring to the same thing. The video shows a clump of yellow brownish fried onion slices dumped into the pot. I don't think it is really a paste, more like clustered fried onions.
I know normally when you make fried onions you use spices and flour. Googling "fried onions" leads me to hundreds of recipes of fried onions as a snack or appetizer. Not what I need. Should I milk-dip and flour-coat them? How do people make fried onions as an ingredient in South Asian/central Asian cuisines? Simply deep fry?
Wikipedia's "fried onion" page has a picture of "Iranian fried onions" which I guess should be close to this ingredient in a Pakistani dish?
Is the dish/ingredient actually called "friend onion" or was that a typo?
I rather liked the idea of a dish called friend onions. Ah well.
@csk Apparently my right index finger too. :P
"Fried onions" are the base to about half the worlds dishes, very much so in 'indian' cooking. Could you provide us with the exact recipe & method - not a video.
You might want to look up recipes for "Bawang Goreng", which are Indonesian fried shallots, which should also work for onions. It's basically just thinly sliced shallots, deep fried until golden, and then drained.
You can buy containers of them at many international grocery stores.
If you're going to make them yourself, I would highly recommend purchasing a mandoline if you don't already have one. This allows you to slice the onions very thinly (needed to make sure they dry out fully before they burn), and a consistent thickness (so they all cook in about the same time, and you don't have part of your batch burning before the rest are done).
First - by your description of "fried onion" as a snack or appetizer and by seeying some videos on instagram I think the problem is in translation.
In polish "fried" onion would refer to one that are coated and deep fried. That look like flowers. Coating is a batter that is similar (or identical) to the one on onion rings.
But from the photo the name would in polish would be "roasted onion". Below is recipe I use (the only difference is I try to cut onion in little cubes while the asian make stripes).
4 onions
3 flat spoon of flour
1 flat teaspoon of salt
Pinch of sugar
Oil - quantity depending in what you will fry it, the idea is that when you add onion there shouldn't be an excess amount of oil.
Cut onion (in stripes or cubes), mix in bowl with two spoons of flour. Leave to rest while in fryin pan you heat the oil (the best would be just above "middle" on your settings). When the oil is heated add third spoon of flour mixed with salt to the onions. Put onions in oil (it should sizzle) and turn the heat to one quarter of your setting (beetwen "off" and "half"). Stirr the whole time until the temp go down. when the oil is "calmed" and slowly bubbling stir every minute. Fry for 20-40 minutes (depending on pan and heat) and until it get that golden brown color. Sif the onion and spread on paper towels to get ride of oil and sprinkle (while it's still warm) with pinch of sugar. Leave to dry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.086387
| 2020-11-13T02:14:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112620",
"authors": [
"Eddie Kal",
"Tetsujin",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108585
|
How do caraway and ajwain differ in taste and use?
These two seed spices seem confusingly similar. I have never used ajwain before. A new recipe I intend to try out calls for jowan (carom seeds) which, according to Google and Wikipedia, are also called ajwain. The pictures I found online of ajwain resemble fennel and caraway seeds but seem smaller than either. Since there are two different Wiki pages for caraway and ajwain, I was certain they were different things.
Today I saw a pack of ajwain at an Indian grocery store but "(caraway)" was also printed on the packaging. As per Wikipedia, ajwain is also called ajowan caraway. But how different are they?
How are they different in taste and actual use?
If I don't have ajwain what'd be a good substitute?
You are right about Ajwain and Caraway seeds, they are very different when it comes to taste; although both are considered as good digestives and add a distinct flavor to the dish.
Coming to your two questions @Neil hinted about how they taste. As its hard to describe how exactly they taste, I will mention how I used them.
I have used Ajwain when making concotions or when I am making chilli dumplings (mirchi bajji in regional language) with gram flour as they aid digestion of flour.
Caraway, I usually put a pinch of these when cooking rice as its gives nice aroma to the final dish you make, example tomato rice(rice mixed with some veggies and other Indian spices), meat pilaf's etc.
Although I cannot think of any real substitute to Ajwain, you can try adding some cumin seeds which is somewhat close. Hope this helps, happy cooking.
Thank you. This is an exceptional answer! A quick follow-up: I also saw a spice in grocery stores that looks like cumin and caraway but darker. It is labeled "black cumin". That is a totally different spice from caraway and ajwain, right?
Glad it helped. :) Yes, it is a different spice when compared with Ajwain and not very different from Caraway. Also, I believe it belongs to family of cumin. In Hindi, cumin seeds are called 'Jeera', while black cumin is called 'Shah Jeera' and can be used just like caraway seeds.
Ajwain is a plant in the family apiaceae, and its seed, which is used (especially in south Asian cooking) for its thyme-like flavor while caraway is a biennial plant, native to Europe and Asia, mainly grown for its seed to be used as a culinary spice.
Ajwain is used more for saviory dishes for it's thyme like qualities, while caraway is more used in baked goods similar to how aniseed is used.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.086663
| 2020-05-24T02:44:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108585",
"authors": [
"Eddie Kal",
"St1id3r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66657"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109748
|
How to de-seed a watermelon?
It’s summer and watermelon time. I know how to pick a good one (pro tip: a good greengrocer who has preselected the best batch on wholesale market). Then I cut myself a nice fat slice - and the problem starts. I am not a fan of watermelon seeds.
I grew up with watermelon served in wedges and then eaten by slicing off bite-sized chunks with a paring knife, removing the seeds as they appeared. But I would prefer to pre-cut the whole fruit in chunks, ready for portioning and then eating with just a fork or spoon.
No matter how I cut, there will always be seeds in the chunks and by the time I am done poking around with a paring knife, the pieces look like a crater landscape and there will still be some seeds left. Or I get small pieces floating in a lot of juice. Now, at home I can spit out the remaining seeds, but in the office, I’d rather spare my desk neighbor.
So how can watermelon be cut and deseeded cleanly and efficiently?
“Buy a seedless watermelon.” is explicitly excluded as an answer. Let’s focus on handling watermelons with seeds.
Are you opposed to just eating them? If you swallow them whole then they'll just pass through your system. If you chew them then they have beneficial nutrients inside.
@Richard two reasons. One, often the seeded varieties are sweeter or more flavorful and two, sometimes seeded are the only ones available. I excluded seedless because that would make the whole question moot. If you dislike the question, feel free to ignore it.
@MonkeyZeus to quote my child: “Biting on a seed when it cracks is like biting on a bug.” I personally will swallow the occasional seed, but would like to remove them as much as possible.
You didn't mention child pickiness. Regardless, the answer rests in which one you're more okay with wasting, your time or the fruit? This is literally a fruitless (ba-dum tss) task. Children are far more adaptive than you give them credit for; they learn by example quite well.
But... spitting the seeds out at your siblings/other people is half the enjoyment of eating watermelons! Unless you want to be a boring adult and spit them out on the plate or a napkin or something...
@Richard Seedless water melons are not --- Let’s get real about seedless watermelons: They have seeds
There are several hits on google, and many videos illustrating how to de-seed a watermelon. Most have you cut the watermelon length-wise to expose the rows of seeds, which are generally in a circle down the center of the melon (imagining the pattern if you were to look through the end). When you cut lengthwise, you expose the rows of seeds. I prefer to remove both ends, and the rind first. Then, slice in length-wise wedges. You can often hold a wedge in both hands and gently break it along the line of seeds. You can also cut the seeds out fairly easily this way, and create seed free pieces closer to the peel. However, there is quite a bit of melon surrounding the seeds. That, you just have to work at.
The way I, and all my fellow country-men and women do it, works only on well ripened water melons.
Imagine the watermelon is the globe and the stem is the north pole. Start cutting it at about 75 degree latitude along longitude lines, keeping the knife as perpendicular to the surface as possible (towards the south pole that will not be possible any more). Don't make the cuts wider than a timezone hour. Generally, thinner is better, but be reasonable. After n cuts, you'll have n-1 slices of watermelon falling aside.
Depending how thin your slices are, you will end up with some slices having no seeds, and some slices having seeds only on the outside, with very rare slices with seeds inside.
The seeds will be parallel to the exterior surface. Now you need to make a new cut just above the seeds line, knocking a bit the seeds themselves, resulting in a mini core slice that is seedless and a larger seedfull slice. Since all the seeds are now exposed, the only thing left to do is to turn the slice with seeds down and the rind up and knock the outside of the rind a few times with the back of the knife. The gravity will do the rest and voila, seedless watermelon from seedfull watermelon. If the watermelon is not ripe, the seeds will be too well attached and only part of them will fall.
Now you can slice the rind away and cut everything in blocks if you wish. Repeat with each slice.
There is no particularly easy way, you have to manually remove the seeds as most of them are still connected to the fruit. The way to make it efficient is to slice it thinly, remove the seeds you can see on one side, flip and remove from the other side, then cut it up into smaller chunks after you de-seed it. I use a spoon to de-seen mine, but I hold it close to the tip of the spoon so I can be exact with it.
You can also cut it into chunks and then de-seed each chunk from all sides, this does work but I think it is less efficient because you spend a lot of time turning each piece.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.086883
| 2020-07-19T19:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109748",
"authors": [
"Darrel Hoffman",
"James Jenkins",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45253
|
Should I wash newly bought plastic tumblers?
Just bought these cups from IKEA.
Beside from being dusty, I asked myself whether I should put these once before usage into the dishwasher to "wash away toxics" that might be on the surface of the cups.
On the other hand, this might be pure superstition.
My question:
Should I dishwash plastic cups/plates before first use?
Care to tell me why the downvote?
Why would you NOT want to wash something before using it to consume a beverage?
@coscallis maybe because it came wrapped and/or looks clean and/or is likely to be covered with something that is not cleanable by simply washing with water and soap?
I think washing by hand with warm water and soap should be fine. A dishwasher isn't necessary.
Generally, yes, to wash off any chemicals that might have been used to finish the plastics or rinse any sprue away. If you're going to be putting the dishwasher on anyway, you might as well throw them in.
And if the products were not packaged, wash off whatever ended up on the product after who-knows-how-many other people in the store handled it before you bought it. When you've seen someone in a store pick their nose then pick up some kitchen appliance and then put it down, you'll know what I mean. ;)
What chemicals might these be? Least time I checked food grade injection molding didn't use spurious chemicals. Only virgin resin and heat
@TFD, most likely, a release agent used to coat the injection mold.
Release agents aren't normally used for plastic injection molding? They are used for fiberglass etc.
Lemon and or pine oil (lemon first) could be helpful along with baking soda mixed in, shake it around or use as a warm washing mix. Alternatively you can use soap and warm water, just be sure it smells like clean plastic when you're done, not chemicals from production or from your soap.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.087327
| 2014-07-02T14:00:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45253",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cos Callis",
"Cow",
"Donald P. Hecht",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"JeffsChic",
"Justine Jordan",
"Mark",
"TFD",
"Toni Lettan",
"Uwe Keim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"user107748"
],
"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
}
|
25475
|
How to mimic Giordano's Pizza CRUST at home ? (part 1)
Yesterday I indulged in a real luxury, I had Giordano's Pizza, (from Chicago) delivered to me in Oklahoma. It takes two days notice and six hours to thaw the pizza before you can 'finish' baking it; BUT OH IT IS WORTH IT...
Of course, what would be better is if I could make Giordano's style pizza at home. There are really only two things I need to accomplish this, the CRUST and the sauce (part 2). How do you make a deep dish pizza crust that will mimic Giordano's?
The crust at Giordano's is in (what I would call) the 'hand tossed' thickness, but when baked is 'substantial enough' to hold up the (considerable weight) of the pizza but is not 'too crispy'. It browns up nicely on the outside and on the top layer (is this possibly a 'different crust') it bakes thoroughly while inside the pizza. (possible 'technique' sidebar: should the pizza be partially baked before the top most layers of sauce and cheese are added?). When I have tried to make this style of pizza at home the crust has either failed to bake through, when burnt on the outside it isn't 'done' (too doughy) on the inside.
(note: this 'recipe request' falls under the "restaurant mimicry" rule for Seasoned Advice)
Following the guidelines set forth in the meta post that you specifically linked to, you should explain what specifically it is about this crust that makes it unique and/or that you can't replicate with ordinary recipes.
@Aaronut, good point, edit in progress (sauce question edit to follow as well.)
Can you include details on how you have attempted the crust in the past? Ingredients, cooking technique etc.?
Amusingly, when I ate at Giordiano's, I wasn't that wowed by it.
Unlike Neopolitan pizza crust, Chicago pizza crust is made with a heavy, relatively low-moisture dough with a LOT of oil (or, in some cases, butter) in it. These crusts are not blind-baked in any way; instead, they depend on the long cooking time (45min) and the high oil content to become crunchy despite being buried in toppings. If the frozen one doesn't take that long, it's probably because they're par-baking it before they ship it.
Having had Giordiano's pizza at the restaurant, the crust seemed to me to be typical for a chicago pizza crust, so try a general recipe and then tinker with it if it doesn't seem quite right.
Cooksillustrated did their typical workup of a butter-based Chicago Pizza crust in the Jan/Feb 2010 issue; I know people who have made that one and liked it (you can get it from Cooksillustred.com with a fee; there's also a video). Other internet resources:
Discussion of the recipe for crust and sauce for Gino's East
Food.com Chicago Crust recipe
Thanks, the recipe link looks like just what I wanted. And, yes, according to their website Giordano's does par bake them before freezing them for shipment)
Chicago thick crust is unique because of the texture and the flavor that people mistake for corn flour or cornmeal. There's neither... really.
There are two secrets. 1) the ferment, and 2) corn oil in the dough.
When thinking leavening, think sourdough. The funkier that starter is, the better the pizza will taste and feel. If possible, let the dough sit in the fridge for a few days. It won't go bad if you make sure it stays wrapped (watch for blowouts)
Use enough water to get thr yeast going, and then use CORN oil in thr mixer until the dough comes together. Unlike traditional pizza, you're not depending on high gluten development... it will pull just fine with the added oil. Roll it thin and press it into a well oiled pan. Nothing worse than bready pan pizza.
Bottom rack. 425 degrees. About 40 min.
When you think it's done, poke a knife or fork to the bottom. If you don't have to push through the crust to get to the pan, its not done, yet.
If you nerd to save an underdone bottom, crisp it up in a pan on the stovetop.
Use LOTS of oil (usually corn oil) and a very short knead time (under 2 minutes). Giordano's runs their dough through a sheeter, resulting in a thin piece of dough that is draped into the pan. The tomato sauce is made with 6-in-1 ground tomatoes and the cheese is made by Stella. They do not par-bake, but at home, it helps a lot to do so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.087545
| 2012-08-04T19:50:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25475",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Candy ",
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jon Sampson",
"Neo Ko",
"TonyC",
"genericity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57061
|
Mothballs in the pantry: is it safe to keep food there?
My roommate put some mothballs in the pantry and when I came home and saw them, I took them out.
They were probably only there for a few hours, but is it safe to store food in there? Should I throw out the food that was in there together with the mothballs? I'm leaning towards 'when in doubt throw it out' but I'm unsure whether that is overkill in this case.
Aside from the toxicity (to humans) of mothballs, look into why your roommate put them in the pantry. If you have flour moths (aka flour flies), I don't think mothballs would even work; however, there are traps that can work to significantly cut down on an infestation.
Mothballs work by sublimating (evaporating) a toxic substance into the air. That substance, be it para-dichlorobenzene or napthalene, recondenses on whatever else is in the area around them, and makes those objects toxic to moths etc.
However, the sublimation takes a long time. You can leave mothballs in a closet for months, and still not see very little weight loss in the balls themselves. That means that not much will come off in 'a few hours' to wreck your food.
Tell your roommate that a pantry is not a good long term storage spot for mothballs, but eat the food with confidence. It hasn't had time to get contaminated.
and if the food were properly packaged, no problem whatsoever...
You'd get a greater exposure from wearing clothes stored on mothballs for years.
Most things probably just fine. Some have a fairly strong odor that could be transferred to some foods. Would probably throw out bread. Would also throw out moths. Even a few hours exposure might damage them to the point where they won't have that fresh moth flavor.
I, for one, hate it when my moths lose that special moth freshness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.087916
| 2015-04-28T23:04:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57061",
"authors": [
"Andrea Alexander",
"Erica",
"Jaspreet Kaur",
"Jenny Paul",
"MING CHIN WU",
"Marilyn Miley",
"Mark Potter",
"Mark Sisco",
"Preston",
"RalphMudhouse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769",
"jwenting"
],
"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
}
|
92341
|
Why do shrimp / lobster / crab turn pink or red when cooking?
Cooking is a form of chemistry - so there must be a scientific reason behind this.
Why do all crustaceans turn pink or red when cooked?
@Fabby thanks for the edit, I only was thinking about shrimp, but you're right, all crustaceans turn pink! Good edit :)
You're welcome! Thanks for the acceptance, favour returned, question upvoted and now it's also a bit more generic so whenever anyone googles for lobster / crab / shrimp turning pink, they'll see your question as the first hit in a few months. Actually let me add red too! ;-)
“Cooking is a form of chemistry” — this really isn’t sufficient reason: Yes, lots of things in cooking are chemical reactions. But not all things are. For example, evaporation when boiling water is a purely physical process, no (relevant) chemical reaction is occurring.
@KonradRudolph yes it's a physical process, but it's encompassed under the chemistry umbrella.
@SnakeDoc No, the opposite would be true.
@KonradRudolph Nope: they're protein unfolding so not changing molecular composition, only molecular form, thus physics, not chemistry.
@Fabby That's my point. Not sure why you say "nope". That said, protein unfolding often does involve chemical changes (such as covalent bond breaks). But it's not obvious that any effect of cooking must be due to chemistry.
@KonradRudolph Let's continue this discussion in chat
@KonradRudolph It's quite a nit, don't you think? Unless you boil water by itself and drink it... cooking will involve chemical changes, ie. chemistry. Oxidation, maillard reaction, acids, salinization, and more. Also, physical changes are part of chemical properties.
@SnakeDoc You continue to misunderstand my point. I’m not saying that chemistry is irrelevant. I’m just saying that it’s not a given that, just because some chemistry is involved in cooking, that every phenomenon in cooking is due to chemistry. To illustrate, your statement is logically equivalent to the famous faulty syllogism “All cats are mortal. Aristotle is mortal. Therefore Aristotle is a cat.”
Crustaceans like shrimp, lobsters, crabs and crayfish have a pigment called astaxanthin in their shells.
Astaxanthin belongs to the terpines class of chemicals of which the carotenoid ¹ class is a subdivision and, in a marine environment, gets produced by an algae that is subsequently consumed by crustaceans (and other animals like salmon, red trout, red sea bream and flamingos ² )
As Astaxanthin absorbs blue light, it will appear as its opposing additive colour: a deep red. The more this deep red is diluted, it will subsequently become red, orange or yellow in colour.
While the crustaceans are alive, astaxanthin lies wrapped in the tight embrace of a protein called crustacyanin. The protein holds the pigment so tight, in fact, that it’s flattened and its light-absorption properties are changed. The astaxanthin-crustacyanin complex then winds up giving off a blue-green color. ³
This can be observed if you have aggressive live lobsters you want to cook: just put them in the sink full of water with a glass of white wine added for a few minutes and they will get drunk instantly as they've never had alcohol in their lives relax and the blue colouring can then be clearly seen at the fronds of their carapace.
The astaxanthin-crustacyanin complex gets:
separated when a crab or lobster is cooked. Crustacyanin is not heat-stable, so introducing it to a boiling pot of water or a grill causes it to relax its bonds with astaxanthin, unravel and let the pigment’s true bold red color shine through. ³
Note ¹: Carrots have given carotenoid its name
Note ²: Eating minuscule shrimp containing this carotenoid is what turns flamingos pink: pink flamingos will be more well-fed than pale flamingos...
Note ³: Sourced here
I thought giving alcohol to underage crustaceans was illegal in most states (although notable, not Florida, because ... Florida).
YMMV, but here in Europe, it's only illegal to give them good wine: cheapo cooking wine is perfectly fine... @RoboKaren ;-) >:-)
Ah, you bohemian Europeans.
In civilized parts of America, we give our lobsters marijuana before boiling them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/09/20/baked-then-boiled-why-one-maine-restaurant-is-sedating-lobsters-with-marijuana-smoke/
Folks, please try to use comments as intended: for requests for clarification or suggested improvements. We're not entirely anti-fun, and I've left a few, but I've had to delete a lot of things here that went pretty far astray.
This is most probably due to the occurrence of a specific carotenoid (Astaxanthin) in their body. This carotenoid (like many others) is
susceptible to enzymatic or nonenzymatic oxidation, which depends on the carotenoid structure, the oxygen availability, enzymes, metals, prooxidants and antioxidants, high temperature, and light exposure
Sources:
Carotenoids Functionality, Sources, and Processing by Supercritical Technology: A Review
“Astaxanthin” on Wikipedia
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.088226
| 2018-09-19T15:40:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92341",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fabby",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"RoboKaren",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103999
|
Is there a significant difference between Indian and Chinese star anise?
I’ve just bought some star anise, but I'm not sure of its origin. It smells zingy which kind of reminds me of Chinese food.
Taste-wise, is there a difference between Indian and Chinese star anise? I wanted the Indian one, as per a recipe, but I’m wondering if I have the Chinese one and if that will give the same taste the recipe intended?
The culinary star anise is Illicium verum. Just to be clear, in English the plant called the "Japanese star anise" is a different species, Illicium anisatum, which is toxic and not fit for consumption.
In my experience, star anise is star anise. I don't think the origin matters much for your recipe, but there might be a marginal difference. I've never paid much attention to the origin of my star anise.
The star anise shrub (Illicium verum) originates in China, so it's all going to be pretty similar regardless of where the pods you bought are actually grown; where I live distributors don't even label origin for it. Nor can I find a single online publication source that mentions any differentiation of star anise by origin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.088621
| 2019-12-09T21:28:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103999",
"authors": [
"Michaelyus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75297"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115700
|
Thermal Properties of Seasoned vs Anodized Aluminum?
I recently made an Aluminum baking "Steel" for baking pizza. The entire point of Aluminum is that it is orders of magnitude more thermally conductive than steel and (relative to its weight) has a higher thermal capacity; While not sharing the same sort of cost as copper.
But one thing I have never heard mentioned is the thermal properties of adding an anodized/oxidized layer or a seasoned layer. Is their any research or scientific theory on what thermal peripheries a layer of seasoning adds to an aluminum cooking surface vs just lettings the surface oxidize/get professionally anodized?
Why the pizza-stone tag? And why do you care about thermal conductivity in a baking steel at all?
Isn't the whole idea of a pizza steel/stone that it retains heat? If Aluminium were a better material, then surely that's what people would use.
@Tetsujin That is what people use, I did not invent the idea.
@romtscho Because that is the tag used to denote products used to cook pizzas on. Seasoned Advice does not have a different tag for every material used. Wither you use a ceramic, steel, or aluminum, a pizza stone is used to concentrate the heat of your oven. Over the preheating stage it absorbs a tremendous amount of heat energy, and because of its high conductivity it can take 500 degrees and make it feel like a professional 700 degree oven. It is like how metal left out in the sun will burn your hand, while wood left out in the sun will not and stone is somewhere inbetween.
So you mean that you intend to use your new implement to bake pizza on it? Because this is not recognizable from the title or text of your question.
While you're right about aluminum's better conductivity, the problem with it is that it has much lower density than steel, leading to lower mass unless you make it much thicker. AFAICT, that's why folks don't do Al baking steels.
BTW, please blog your Al-steel experience. Nobody's really experimented with this, so your results will be interesting.
@Tetsujin Not that aluminum is common, every step up in price(and performance) is +90% less common from what I have seen (stone->steel->aluminum).
@rumtscho Ah, I see your point. The baking Steels are only used for pizza (more or less) but that might not be obvious from reading this.
@FuzzyChef I will try, but it will be hard to give any results that than: "it tasted good before, and I think I might light it slightly better now?" It is not like I am likely use any other method beside the aluminum to test side by side. Here is all the info I have read about it (https://www.reddit.com/r/Cooking/comments/ejjm20/dimensions_for_bakingpizza_steel/fd60do1/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
@FuzzyChef Yes, you typically want 1" of solid aluminum, while the typical steel would be 1/2". The volume goes up, but you can store more heat in 1lb of aluminum than 1lb of steel.
Well, if you're doing pizza, photos of crust rise and bottom browning are common. Example from my blog: http://fuzzychef.org/ooni-koda-hacking-part-1/ Sadly, you'll have to share that somewhere else since SA is a Q&A site.
A surface insulating layer (whether deliberate anodising, natural oxidation, or seasoning) will only really affect the heat flow through that layer from the bulk metal into the food on top. It won't affect the heat-spreading effect used for even cooking, and it won't affect the heat capacity.
So now we're considering the difference between various surface layers. These will probably have a similar thermal conductivity to a ceramic pizza stone (to order-of-magnitude precision), but being thin layers between the food and the aluminium sheet heat reservoir will have a small effect compared to the temperature drop between the core of a pizza stone and the food on its surface. This means whatever has happened to the surface you'll couple the heat from the sheet to the food better than with a pizza stone, which would appear to be your goal.
The thermal conductivity of most foods that you'd cook on a stone/steel will be far lower - most consist of dough with gas bubbles in, basically insulating foam. That's what will limit the time for the middle to cook through. Perhaps a smoother layer will give better contact, but clean seasoning and anodising are both quite smooth.
More of an issue than thermal effects will be sticking. This is an application where you really don't want the food to stick, as it will carry on cooking while you free it up. It will also be a pain to deal with as I find with my home made aluminium pizza peel on thin bases. Hopefully the thorough, fast cooking will avoid sticking in the first place, but spills of sauce etc. will still need to be cleaned up, so a bigger question than heat flow would be ease of cleaning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.088747
| 2021-05-17T14:50:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115700",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Jonathon",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"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
}
|
19358
|
Should I skin the common sole for pan?
I have already cooked a common sole once before, and have skinned only the upper side (the dark side). The result was quite tasty. However, some people say that there's no need to skin it. For what recipes would you pan-dress a sole by skinning it, and for what recipes would you leave the skin on, and why?
The original question asked strictly for opinion, which is off-topic for this board. I sumbitted and edit to permit a factually-based answer.
I would say it's totally up to you.
I prefer it with the skin still on, it get's really juicy inside. However it's a bit more difficult to eat. So perhaps if you were making it for kids (although, you could just skin them after they are fried), you could skin it.
One opportunity I really think is better without skin is when you serve it with sauce. Having to fiddle around with the skin covered in sauce is not really handy nor fun.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.089432
| 2011-12-03T19:04:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19358",
"authors": [
"Anthony Spinelli",
"CM.",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"john",
"neelshiv",
"zuazo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99853
|
Can I deep fry food in butter instead of vegetable oil?
I was wondering if it is possible to deep fry food that would normally be fried in vegetable oil in butter or lard instead? Will the result be different?
Caesar: I edited your question to remove the health aspects of the question, which are off-topic for Seasoned Exchange. Also, that way you don't need to answer any more comments about them.
You can certainly deep-fry foods in clarified butter (also known as ghee) and in lard. In fact, there are many foods that are traditionally fried in these fats. They both have very high smoke points and are excellent for making crisp fried foods.
For example, Puri, Indian fried breads, are deep-fried in ghee (clarified butter). And many Southern USA and many Mexican deep-fried foods are meant to be fried in lard, such as hand pies or sopes. In fact, if you watch the videos of Cowboy Kent Rollins, you'll see that while many of his recipes say "frying oil", what he actually uses is lard.
As for the flavor question: yes, using ghee or lard will affect the flavor of what you're frying, but in subtle ways. Both of these fats are mild-flavored (at least, high-quality lard is). Generally, the extra flavor you get from the butter or animal fat is considered desireable; they fell out of fashion in the use due to concerns about cholesterol, not taste. Only foods that are meant to have a very light, airy batter (like tempura) are unsuitable for frying in animal fat.
There are some other animal fats that can be used for frying and deep-frying, such as beef tallow, schmaltz, horse fat, or duck fat. These have a much stronger flavor that is recommended for specific foods (for example, there are many aficionados of duck fat french fries), but aren't a good general substitute for vegetable oil.
One other caution: if you switch to frying with animal fats, you need to make special provisions to dispose of the used fat. It can't be safely poured down the drain. This is actually true of all deep-frying oil, but animal fats are a greater problem: they may clog your pipes as well as hurting the sewer system.
ADD: per @wjandrea below, clarified butter, ghee, and brown butter have different flavors based on the amount they were cooked while clarifying, which will affect the flavor of any fried foods made with them.
It shouldn't be any special provisions because you shouldn't pour any fats down the drain. If anything, animal fats are often easier to dispose of because of the higher melting points (more likely to be solid at room temperature)
Small nitpick: ghee is clarified butter that's browned before straining.
True, although the two are the same as far as frying characteristics go.
This is a good answer. In Southern Germany/Austria, Schnitzel is traditionally deep-fried (fat should go up to at least half the height of the Schnitzel) and my mom was always using clarified butter, which gives a nice buttery flavour. I also think that the bread crust is a little more tender, because you can fry at lower temperatures, whereas the high temperatures you need to fry with vegetable oil would make the bread crust relatively hard.
@Ian Oil going only half-way up would generally be considered "pan fried". Deep frying implies full submersion, hence the "deep".
Regarding "considered desireable", one consideration is that they're not vegan/vegetarian (respectively) and this may be non-obvious to the people you're serving the food to. If using animal fats for cooking you should make sure this isn't an issue to anyone who will be eating what you've cooked.
@FuzzyChef One question from a non-native speaker: why do you make a difference between lard and schmalz? Here in Germany Schmalz is basically just pork fat (strictly speaking any animal fat, but just Schmalz defaults to pork). There are salted variants with onions and/or the deep fried crunchy leftovers of the skin (Grieben) but to me all that is schmalz. Can you clarify the difference of Schmalz and lard?
Ah, in Yiddish, "schmaltz" (with a T) is specifically chicken fat. I didn't know that Germans used a similar word for lard, although given the origins of Yiddish it's not surprising.
R: the amusing thing about my answer is that I am a vegetarian, and therefore don't use any fat I name except clarified butter.
Thanks for the clarification. Oddly here I never have seen chicken fat sold commercially.
As an added benefit, clarified butter is also cheaper than cheaper than (regular) butter. The German name for clarified butter is "Butterschmalz"; and the German Wikipedia article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterschmalz) actually mentions that it can be used for deep fat frying. Well, the English Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarified_butter) mentions sautéing, which is also some kind of oil/fat frying, just without the "deep" (because that could get messy).
JMK: it's pretty much a Jewish thing. https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2015/04/schmaltz-rendered-chicken-fat-recipe.html But a lot of Western cooking has Jewish influences, so you see it elsewhere.
No, you cannot deep-fry in butter. It simply can't handle the heat; it will brown and burn before you reach deep-frying temperatures.
In a comment you say that vegetable oils are unstable when heated, but it is in fact the opposite: butter is much more unstable when heated. Butter has a smoke point of 200-250F, around 120-150C. Many vegetable oils have smoking points of around 375F or 205C. Lard has a smoke point of around 370F, 188C, which makes it possible to deep-fry with in theory.
You can clarify butter and turn it into ghee, which has a very high smoke point, and you should be able to fry in it, though I havent done so.
Your temperature conversions are way off: for example, 200-250F is 93-121C. It looks like you forgot to subtract the 32F.
Deep frying is just submerging your food in hot oil. There are many examples of deep frying in butter.
@PieterB By your definition it is not possible to deep-fry in butter. Butter is an emulsion, not an oil.
@PeterPaff when I deep fry in butter, the water evaporates and you are left with the oil. You could argue that it stops being butter at that point, but in normal use language people would still call that: "deep frying in butter".
As @ElectricToothpick said, the milk solids in butter will brown and burn, so that's not a good option. Since ghee has had the milk solids removed, that's not an issue.
Traditionally, rendered animal fats like lard were used for deep frying, and french fries were originally fried in beef tallow. McDonald's followed that tradition until health-conscious people made them quit. If you ever hear anyone talk about how McD's fries used to be better, its not nostalgia talking. It's the truth.
Frying in rendered animal fats gives you a crispier and more delicious final product. I should probably qualify that statement with "in my opinion," but I refuse to acknowledge people who prefer soggy fries. Someone else mentioned flavor but not texture, so I'll add that animal fats have a very different mouth feel and foods fried in them are going to lean more towards buttery and crisp than to greasy and hard in my experience.
Electronic Toothpick is correct about deep frying in butter. Lard, however, is perfectly acceptable for deep frying. French fries taste better fried in lard (imho). Solid fats in general are still used; especially in commercial establishments. The biggest drawback is waiting for the fat to liquefy and heat up to temperature compared to vegetable oils.
You can deep fry with any oil, it's all about taste and reusability of the oil. The higher smoke point doesn't just mean you can cook hotter, but generally the oil will last longer and can be reused more often.
I think taste is most important, it really depends on what you are cooking. Peanut oil is used often as it has the least noticeable taste. If I'm making tortilla chips I will use corn oil, shrimp is good with coconut oil. Eggs deep fried in lard is yummy, I had a relative that had a cast iron pan of lard on the stove at all times, cracked the eggs right into the oil, along with breaded summer squash slices. I've purchased frying oils that are a mixture of several oils, so mixing to get the flavor you want is always an option.
Ordinary butter is not good for deep frying as it has a low smoke point (~300F/~150C) and it consists of 17% water that would evaporate.
Welcome! Could you please add a bit about the actual question: Can the asker use butter or maybe lard instead of oil?
@Stephie I added butter, lard is already in there. Not sure what you mean by instead of oil. Lard is an oil, its just solid at room temp.
@rtaft in common English usage, the generic term is fat. Oil, if no further qualified, means a fat derived from a plant. Butter and lard are not considered oils, they are counted (together with the oils) as fats.
The main goal of my comment was to encourage you to focus on the question at hand, so thanks for the edit. Btw, “oil” is typically assumed to be plant-based, as opposed to lard, which is animal fat.
I'm not sure where that comes from, as "Cooking Oil" can be plant, animal, or even synthetic. Maybe it's different over in Europe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.089593
| 2019-06-29T19:15:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99853",
"authors": [
"Based",
"Bloodgain",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ian",
"Joe",
"Klaws",
"Pieter B",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"Stephie",
"TonyK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76303",
"jmk",
"rtaft",
"rumtscho",
"wjandrea"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118069
|
Is it okay to wash your hands in the kitchen sink washwater (with the dishes)?
Is it okay to wash your hands in the same dishwater that you are using to wash the dishes? In other words, Can someone use the kitchen sink filled with soapy dishwater to wash hands after using the restroom? Is it safe or just gross?
This was actually the punch line of a professional comedian here ("I always wash dishes after I poop, very efficient, washes my hands at the same time", delivered in a deadpan voice) and the audience collectively went "Eeewww!"
No! This risks fecal contamination of the dishes.
One of the most common methods for disease to spread is the fecal-oral route. By washing your hands after going to the toilet in the same water as the dishes you're cleaning, you're transferring that fecal contamination to the water and then to all the dishes washed in it, and then to all the food eaten from those dishes.
Your answer reminds me of a person who was repulsed by the thought of washing their underwear with their other clothes. Do you also wash dishes that held raw food separate from cooked food? I say that washed hands in the same dish water makes no difference and your link is not quite the same thing.
@Rob "Do you also wash dishes that held raw food separate from cooked food?" That shouldn't matter. The water should be hot enough to kill any bacteria from that - but if it's cold enough to wash your hands in, it's too cold to do that.
@Rob There are likely two scenarios at play here— a home cook, and a professional. For a professional, this would be a health code violation. For a home chef, maybe you won’t get hundreds of people sick, but you’ve just walked all the way from the bathroom to the kitchen without washing your hands. Did you touch and doorknobs or light switches on the way back to the kitchen? I admit I’ve washed my larger pots in the bathtub before, but that was because I lived in an apartment with a tiny sink that couldn’t even fit my plates unless they were at an angle. (The kitchen was about 5ft wide)
@Rob re washing dishes: If you wash glasses, then table crockery/cutlery, then prep stuff and cooking pots, you're very nearly washing the raw stuff separately
@nick012000 washing up water is rarely hot enough to kill stuff, which would require over 60°C for some time. It probably doesn't come out of the tap at 60°C and you wouldn't want to repeatedly reach into a bowl of 60°C water for things anyway
@Joe as a temporary setup I've done something similar (though a bowl on a board over the bath is far more ergonomic). When it comes to cramped, in my campervan there's only one sink and (cold only) tap - so before using the toilet I have to make sure the sink is clear for handwashing (there's also very limited space, so the sink is rarely clear)
@ChrisH And no one does that order of washing dishes. And no one washes dishes separately if they noticed flies landing on a plate. In most normal living environments, living things get along, and despite sounding disgusting, no harm will likely occur.
"you wouldn't want to repeatedly reach into a bowl of 60°C water for things anyway" That's what the rubber gloves are for. If the water's not hot enough to feel like it'll burn your hands if you're not wearing gloves, it's not hot enough.
@Rob that's a very sensible order, but not mainly for hygiene. It's efficient to go from things that show grease marks but aren't very dirty (glasses) to things that leave the water greasy (frying pans)
@Nick maybe, I don't wear them. But then the little hand-washing I do is baking stuff and similar. Everything else goes in the dishwasher (at 50°C but of course that's chemically harsh) including anything from the very rare occasions I cook meat. But the gloves won't keep your hands happy in 60°C water for long, and by the time you've warmed a few plates in it, even if it was 60° when it came out of the tap (that's a likely upper limit), it's not for long. And even 60° isn't enough to kill everything nasty in the minute or so a dish is in the water.
it may be worth stating explicitly that this criticism applies only to washing hands after using the loo, and not after food prep
@nick012000 Most tap water doesn't go above 60C (140F), and you'd need to hold your hands in that water for 12 minutes to be good bacteria-wise according to food-safety time-temperature tables (see http://www.foodprotect.org/issues/packets/2012packet/attachments/iii_018__all.pdf), at which point you'd have 3rd degree burns from the water (5 seconds @ 60C is enough for a 3rd degree burn: https://ameriburn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/scaldinjuryeducatorsguide.pdf).
@Tristan unless you've been handling some very organic produce. Seriously though, after harvesting muddy stuff from my garden I wouldn't wash my hands in the washing up water
that's also a good point! There definitely is some food prep after which that could be significant
@Bob - there's a cutoff on my water-heating system that kicks in at 56C and I believe my system is common enough (when my wife complained to our plumber that the water wasn't hot enough for her, he explained the 56C cutoff and showed us where it cutoff was and how to dial it up to around 60C. It would apparently go a little higher [I think he said 66C] but he would not recommend it, even in a house with no kids, due to the risk of scalds from water straight out of the tap).
@Spratty mine is set to a similar temperature, but note that going much lower is a bad idea because legionella can survive up to about 60°C (and grow up to about 45°C) while high 50s is still enough to scald
I completely agree that after the toilet it's a very bad idea. Just don't. Food hygiene regulations for commercial settings, strictly interpreted, are likely to mean that you wash your hands after the toilet and on arrival in the kitchen, i.e. again.
If what you're washing off is from food prep, it's less clear-cut. I still wouldn't recommend it in a professional setting, where there should always be a separate hand-wash sink. At home, when cleaning as you go, sometimes you have little choice. I find this especially true when batch-baking, or when preparing a lot of fruit/veg for several dishes at once - you may need to wash the onion smell off before prepping dessert, for example. Then you're either washing in or over the washing up water.
Somewhere in between is dirty food-prep. By this I mean tasks like getting soil off root veg transfer the soil to your hands. You wouldn't want that in your washing-up water either. Of course that's fairly unlikely as you'll need a sink to clean the veg, so you'll have somewhere to wash (once the veg is out of the way so you don't get soap on it).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.090273
| 2021-12-01T05:47:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118069",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Rob",
"Spratty",
"Tristan",
"bob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119603
|
Bartenders friend left on too long
Is it safe to use stainless steel pot after left bartenders friend on for 25-30 minutes? Noticed it left a dark ring on bottom edge of the pot. If I rinsed it thoroughly, is it still safe to use for cooking?
According to the directions on my can, one is to rinse thoroughly within one minute of application. From reading the mentioned ingredients on the can, and seeing the warning about potential "etching or dulling" of some surfaces, it appears that the acids and salts in the product are the most active ingredients. I would think as long as you've rinsed your pot thoroughly, it is safe. I think you do have some surface discoloration from leaving the product on so long. If you want to be absolutely certain though, there is a telephone number on the can that invites questions about the product: 1-800-433-5818.
There might be a risk of bacterial contamination if the etching opened up pores in the surface that they could grow in.
@nick012000 bacteria are generally neutralized at temps above 149°F (65°C).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.090888
| 2022-01-22T21:25:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119603",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"moscafj",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123026
|
How do I tell if imported jerky is parasite-free?
Recently bought a pack of beef jerky (it is a rather rare find in my country). While I have bought jerky before, those were produced in EU, but this packet is originating from Brazil and - I don't want to offend anyone - Brazil has much lower food safety standard than the EU.
Are there any real concerns regarding parasite infections or am I just exaggerating? This is a commercial product, properly imported to my country.
Is it a good idea to put the packet in the freezer for a few days?
That's a very different question from the OP.
@FuzzyChef maybe... Perhaps mods can edit one of the questions or combine the two. For site organizational purposes, it makes little sense to have two questions with essentially the same title question.
Folks could also suggest and edit to the title instead of voting to close it. It's pretty new-asker-hostile when folks close a question without even reading the actual question.
Apologies, @Moha, you're a victim of "close first, read second".
I am trying to understand why people think that this would not be a duplicate. Moha, are you asking whether food imported into the EU is legally required to meet the same food safety standards as food produced within the EU? Or is it that you are expecting us to pronounce a general "it's safe" or "it's unsafe" verdict, or give a probability of contamination? The second desire is understandable, but impossible. There is no such thing as knowing the risk that comes from a given food. The best approximation is the binary "meets the standards"/"doesn't meet the standards" - but there is no ...
... "higher" authority to which to compare food standards and declare that "food which meets standard X is really safe" and "food which only meets standard Y is not really safe". It is up to you, personally, to decide whether you trust a given standard, or not, there is no objective way to make such a decision. In that sense, we cannot answer a generic question. If you wish to reopen, we could rewrite the question to the first suggestion - whether the EU allows imported food to be produced by the producing country's standards, or requires its own standards to be met.
If a food product is manufactured for export to a country with food safety guides , it should be safe for consumption.
The product must kinda satisfy the local food safety rules it will not be imported, or, same thing for every other food product will be recalled if some issue is found on the product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.091011
| 2023-01-14T13:20:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123026",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129118
|
How to choose a bag to carry lunch straight of the fridge?
I am interested in an isothermic bag to carry my lunch. What characteristics should I look for when looking for which one to buy?
If I understand correctly regardless of each one, adding ice packs is critical?
Also is there a difference between an insulated bag and an isothermic bag?
Update:
Usage: carry cooked food (chicken, beef, rice, pasta) etc straight out of my fridge to the way to the office. My understanding is that such bags can't keep it in proper temperature for hours but should be able to keep it in a very good temperature at least till I get to somewhere I can put the lunchbox in a fridge. Also has to be small and easy to carry
I don't think this question is answerable as it stands. We would need to know things like what you intend to carry (I'm assuming food), what sort of temperature it is in, what sort of climate you are in and for how long an exposure (i.e. if for cold food how hot is it in your environment and for how long will it be exposed to that), as well as anything else that might influence the decision. In the end this might well boil down to product recommendations, which are explicitly off-topic here.
@bob1: updated post
I think that isothermal bags use some sort of a gel cold pack that changes state at a specific temperature so they tend to stay in a fixed temperature range for an extended period of time. Unless the cold packs are part of the bag itself (which would take up more space in the fridge or freezer), they’re mostly just an insulated bag. (They might have pockets for the cold packs, or some way to monitor the temperature for the high end medical ones)
After some confusion in comments and flags, I'd like to remind everybody how our site handles "shopping" questions. We don't allow direct asking of "which brand and model of X should I buy", but we do allow "what should I look for in a good X". From my point of view, this question is on-topic for us, and not closeable.
I’m not sure if there’s any good way to tell how well a soft-sided cooler will hold temperature without actually testing it, so here are some considerations that I’ve used:
How easy it is to clean (both inside and out)? Some have a rubbery or plastic inside that’s easy to wipe down… some also have this on the outside, while others are more fabric-like. Depending on your situation, a fabric outside might be beneficial, as you can wet it down for some evaporative cooling in dryer areas.
How does it close? Some have zippers, some are Velcro. Test opening and closing it a few times, as some zippers will get stuck, or Velcro may not grab all that well.
Does it fit what I plan on carrying? If you have a specific container, like a bento box, it should fit that, possibly an ice pack if appropriate for your area, etc.
It it excessively large or heavy? If it’s too big, it’s a pain to carry, so it’s hilly best to be the size of the stuff you’re carrying
How durable does it seem? There are times when you might accept a more flimsy bag for size & weight but just be prepared to replace it sooner, but I would still look over if there are any stitching issues at the seams and straps. If it has an inner lining, consider how thick it is, as thinner ones will rip sooner.
How do you carry it? Some larger ones may have a shoulder strap, smaller ones might have a small carrying strap/handle, or it might assume that you’re going to place it in something else. Also take a note of where the strap is relative to the closure (I had one that pull the Velcro open if you used it), and if your container will be at the proper orientation when using the carrying strap (so it’s less likely to spill)
Does it fold flat? If you’re going to be returning with an empty bento or similar, this isn’t a consideration, but if you have bagged sandwiches or similar, you may want to collapse it for the return home. You may want a non-folding bag if you tend to carry stuff loose in the bag (not in a separate hard sided container) that might get crushed, such as fruit.
And for the ice packs… if you’re in a really hot place, and you want to eat your food cold, or it will be held for the whole day, then yes. Sometimes you have a food that’s eaten closer to room temperature and is relatively safe (some sandwiches, whole fruit, packaged shelf-stable food), so you may not want one so it warms up slightly by the time you’re going to eat.
Please see update in my post
You actually DON’T want to make it too specific, or they’ll close the question because it won’t apply to other people. Some people think that overly vague questions are not answerable, but good answers make them more useful in the long run. In your case, I would probably look into a smaller bag that folds up, but maybe also a silicone bag or similar to put the chicken into if it’s fried(or wrap it it freezer paper, which is resistant to grease). You might also look into some of the silicone containers that collapse after use for the pasta and similar
But the question is about the temperature of carried cooked food and not how to make sure the food is not spilled
@Jim I made tha assumption that getting the food to the other side intact and in a condition that you actually want to eat is implied. It’s like if you hire someone to build a house, you kinda assume there’s going to be a roof
I get it. Makes sense. Do you have any suggestions about the food safety?
That’s going to be an issue of temperature retention (which is a function of material (type & thickness), surface area, cold pack, how well the bag seals, thermal mass of the food, etc… but also a function of the cleanliness (if something spills or leaks in there, making sure you can clean it well).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.091234
| 2024-08-30T20:56:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129118",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Joe",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
115780
|
Cocoa powder stays stuck at the bottom of the cup
I am trying to make a warm drink using cocoa without much additions.
Basically I boil water and the slowly add it to a cup with cocoa powder while I stir. I also add some cold milk.
When I stir with a spoon, I see that it becomes sticky and liquid and looks like butter melted.
The problem is that when I fill the cup with boiling water and some cold mild and start drinking it, in the end most of the cocoa powder have stayed stuck at the bottom of the cup.
How can I make it so that it is completely dissolved but only using water and a bit of milk?
Please note, that I don't have a microwave
Are you using 100% cocoa powder, or a pre-packaged hot cocoa mix (which contains sweetener, and other additives like powdered milk and emulsifiers which allow the "just add water" instructions)?
@AMtwo: Yes 100$ cocoa powder
Mix your cocoa powder with your cold milk before adding the hot liquid, while stiring.
That way most of the cocoa powder should get into the drink.
But water, cocoa powder and a little milk will not make a normal chocolate drink, for that you need sugar, or a replacement, and a lot more fat, like milk instead of water.
Your recipe would work with chocolate drink powder "just add water".
Does it matter if the milk is skimmed/low fat?
We used to use coffee creamer (so very fatty 'milk') as the starter, with sugar added. Chocolate to eat is rather fatty, so making a fat free or almost far free drink does not seem to fit.
Cocoa powder does not dissolve in liquid, it prefers fatty liquids like milk.
You need to create a liquid think enough so that the cocoa particles stay suspended in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.091715
| 2021-05-23T21:46:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115780",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Jim",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123231
|
How much mg/gr ginger in tea vs how grams in tea infuser
When creating ginger tea from grated/small parts of ginger it is not clear to me what is the relationship between how much mg/gr are in the tea vs the grams of grated ginger used.
E.g. if using a tea infuser add 1 full teaspoon and leave in the hot water; the tea itself how much grams (or mg) of ginger is it supposed to have?
Update
To give some context, I am asking because since I had read about nutmeg's toxicity I always check the dosages of spices and herbs. So for ginger I read that there is a threshold of ~4grams for no side effects so I wanted to understand if having it as a tea and using too much grated ginger steeped in water could cause to exceed that. Other than this I don't need any exact measurement for any reason
This seems to be a continuation of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123111/how-much-dried-herbs-to-use-per-portion-of-tea and by extrapolation, also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123221/measuring-powder-vs-non-powdered-e-g-sugar-with-measure-spoon-and-precision-s
@Tetsujin: that is good point. There is no mention from seller how much to use and also I could have grated something myself
It all ends up with the same answer. Try it & see how it works out. Next time you'll know whether you want more or less, longer or shorter.
@Tetsujin: The question is not about taste though. It is about too much in terms of side-effects. I updated the post for clarity
This site is about cooking, not health issues.
@Tetsujin: don't we take proper measurements into account when cooking? So is the idea just put at will regardless if it turns out toxic?
@Tetsujin: My question is about coooking and not health
May be I am confused about this in recipes etc
You seem to be completely confusing the issue. The "health" risks you're talking about are for continued excessive usage of ginger extract, not the stuff in a spice jar, a teaspoon of which is about a gramme. If you're getting through a jar a week, you might want to consider some variety in your diet. Conversely, an inch of ginger root weighs about 25g. The studies seem to be talking about 'health food' ginger capsules, high dosage. If ginger was that bad for you, half of Asia would be ill with it right now. They're not.
@Tetsujin: How do all these relate to the tea? If you put that inch of ginger root that weighs 25g in hot water to make tea, is it like consuming 25g of ginger?
"Ginger" is not an absolute. It's not an element, so you cannot accurately tell what percentage of 'purest ginger' any of these 'health advice' pages is discussing. 25g fresh seems to come out around 1g 'pure'… whatever 'pure' may be.
@Tetsujin: May be my question is not clear. All I am interested in is if I should care how much grams of grated ginger I put in my tea for any other reason except for taste. After reading about nutmeg https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-788/nutmeg-and-mace I pay attention to such details. But may be I am misunderstanding something
@Tetsujin: I basically stop putting nutmeg in food after running into that article I shared
Bit of an over-reaction. You'd be amazed how many things there are that are beneficial in moderation yet not in excess. If you tried to eliminate them all completely you'd probably die of malnutrition… or boredom.
@Tetsujin: The thing is that the usage mentioned seemed to me so low I thought even moderated usage my e.g. my oats could lead to problems so I stopped it. I might be misunderstanding something about the dosages and usages though
All of this scaremongering research reporting is about repeated high dosages. You don't eat exactly the same things every day, do you? On many levels, that's not good for anyone.
There usually is no such thing as "how much grams is the tea supposed to have". Tea recipes are not precise, and it doesn't really matter how much ginger you use.
If there is some reason for you to want a very exact measurement in weight, then it is totally impractial to try to calculate it from a volume measurement. You should instead measure your ginger by weight.
The above assumes that you want to know how many grams of raw ginger you used to make the tea. If you want to know the total amount of ginger extract that you are drinking (after straining out the ginger solids from the tea), that is not something you can find out in practice. I don't doubt that there are laboratories equipped to measure it (given that a professional food chemist first defines precisely what should count as "ginger extract") but it is not doable under home conditions.
To give some context, I am asking because since I had read about nutmeg's toxicity I always check the dosages of spices and herbs. So for ginger I read that there is a threshold of ~4grams for no side effects so I wanted to understand if having it as a tea and using too much grated ginger steeped in water could cause to exceed that. Other than this I don't need any exact measurement for any reason
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.091887
| 2023-02-01T10:40:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123231",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127757
|
High pressure cooker classic vs electric multipurpose
I was looking to buy a pressure cooker and I see that besides the classic ones with the valve that you put on the kitchen stove there are some that are electric and also multifunctional i.e. pressure cooker, slow cooker etc.
My question is in terms of safety is there any difference between the classic and the electric multicooker with setting for high pressure cooking?
Update
Just for context in case it matters my main interest is legumi.
The electric cooker has a timer and automatically regulates the power. Nothing will burn.
@LookAlterno: So the pros are it is easier to use and safer? Is the con the more cooking time?
I don't don't know if it's slower, but it required no time/attention from me.
There should not be safety concerns when properly using any modern pressure cookers. They all have multiple safety triggers. You may want to compare venting vs. non-venting (some believe non-venting preserves aromatics better). Also some electric models max out at a lower pressure then stove top, spring valve models.
Also some electric max out at a lower pressure then stove top models does that mean it takes more time to cook? Also what should I check to verify that?
@Jim it depends, but in general higher pressure = faster. Just check max psi of the models you are comparing. Upper end on a stove top model is usually listed at 15psi.
I don't see psi mentioned though e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tefal-CY505E40-Electric-Pressure-Stainless/dp/B07C1MPN1S/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3I45B48YGLEWH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ope7l9nNfY-_8-_cLQV8WQ.EoJW55jMrxmXI0Yt-MwuKDmozDsTBt1ESU8QenMMmYU&dib_tag=se&keywords=B07C1MPN1S&qid=1708978504&sprefix=b07c1mpn1s%2Caps%2C58&sr=8-3
@Jim go directly to Tefal website. It maxes out at slightly over 10psi.
Re. the pressure level: it is a small difference in cooking time (but you will soon learn what your preferred timings are, even recipes can have a certain range depending on ingredient selection and cut size), but relevant if you want to do pressure canning. Then authorities demand a certain pressure level for a safe product.
That said, I know and have used both and would always and without hesitation pick the electric one. Personal preference, of course.
@Stephie: What is "pressure canning"? Also why would you always pick the electric one?
@Jim pressure cookers, electric or stove top, are not recommended for pressure canning. One would need a dedicated pressure canner, made specifically for canning. This has more to do with size and heating and cooling rates.
@Jim happy to explain my reasoning in [chat].
@Stephie: I didn't see that chat and I don't see an option to reply there. So basically convenience but what is the difference in cooking time. For context my main interest is legumes.
@moscafj: I see here https://www.tefal.co.uk/Cooking-appliances/Pressure-Cookers/Pressure-Cookers/Tefal-All-in-One-CY505-Pressure-Cooker-%E2%80%93-6L-Black-%26-Stainless-Steel-/p/7211003272 that it mentions 70kPa (Up to 5x faster than pot cooking*) What does that mean? Where does it say slightly over 10psi?
@Jim 70kPa = 10.1526 psi
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.092296
| 2024-02-26T19:27:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127757",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Look Alterno",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105851
|
Wrapping in aluminun foil and place it in a skillet pan
If I wrap something in aluminum foil and place it inside a non-stick skillet pan while cooking something is that something that could e.g. ruin the pan or ruin the food?
Specifically I had in mind wrapping vegetables
what do you hope to accomplish with this method? Off the top of my head you may scorch the pan, ruining it.
Why not just cover the pan?
Consider parchment paper?
@SteveChambers: I was thinking it might speed up the cooking of the veggies
@user3528438: Won't that catch fire? Or melt with the food?
Yes, it can ruin the pan. Non-stick pans are very sensitive to overheating. When their bottom is well covered with fat or fluid and pieces of food, the heat coming from the stove gets conducted from the pan to the food, and it usually doesn't overheat. But if you place a bundle on the pan, there will be large spots not in direct contact with cooling fluid (food) and so the teflon will get destroyed by the heat.
Wrapped cooking techniques are not usually meant for pans. They are much more typical in ovens (or in fire/embers, in more traditional settings). Sometimes wrapping is also done in steaming. But doing it in a pan is highly unusual. So consider looking up typical recipes and following them.
If you really need to do wrapping on a stovetop, use a pan material which can take the extreme heat, this would be cast iron (seasoned, not enameled) or uncoated stainless steel.
I had seen someone put the vegies capped with something like an iron cap inside a grill and thought of the aluminum foil
Putting wrapped vegetables on the grill is different from putting them wrapped on the pan, it is more comparable to the embers thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.092552
| 2020-03-16T13:26:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105851",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86315
|
tarry deposit in wok
I've cooked maybe a dozen times with my flat-bottom wok (carbon steel, uncoated). A layer of ‘tar’ has developed in the bottom, which I've been unable to clean out. The ‘tar’ doesn't seem to affect flavor, but recently when I cooked tofu for the first time I saw unsightly black flakes on the tofu.
What can I do short of scraping? Can I loosen the ‘tar’ by boiling water in the wok? Or should I just live with it?
Next day: I woke up late and found that the elves had taken off most of the ‘tar’ with oil, kosher salt and paper towels. Now for the boiling water.
Also how do you wash it, what utensils do you use in it, and have you ever done anything to season it?
Depending on the construction material of your wok, you can try going through the following four steps:
1) boil water in the wok to loosen the "tar" as you suggested.
2) scrub it out with a paste made of coarse salt and vegetable oil (about 1:1)
3) use a chain link scrubber if the salt paste doesn't work
4) re-season by heating the wok and then coating the surface with a thin layer of vegetable oil. Wipe out excess when the wok is cool.
If the wok is made of stainless steel, you can apply bar keepers friend to remove the remaining residue.
If your wok is coating-free, use oven cleaner. Spray it on, place it in a plastic bag, & give it a few hours/overnight (best) to work. It should all wash out easily the next day. Wash well, dry, & re-oil w/olive oil, etc.
PS: this also works wonderfully with those enamel-on-steel pots & similar stovetops.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.092739
| 2017-12-13T05:11:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86315",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86424
|
How to keep cream from separating in milk?
I have fallen in love with raw milk. It tastes so much better than processed milk. Raw milk is not pasteurized or homogenized. Because the milk is not homogenized, the cream will separate from the milk. Also, pasteurization or homogenization changes the flavor of the milk so the milk does not taste as good. Homogenization breaks up the fat cells.
I buy three quarts of milk at a time. As I use the first quart, the cream is well mixed in the milk. By the time I open the second and third quart, the cream has separated from the milk and settled at the top of the bottle. How do I keep the cream from separating? I suppose I could shake each quart each day, but that is more trouble than it is worth.
Once the cream has separated, it requires a lot more effort than shaking to get the cream to mix back in. I have to stick a knife through the opening at the top and break up the cream. Then, I have to shake vigorously.
You could get the milk homogenized. Which, as I understand it, is just shaking it up to break up the fat particles so they remain dispersed in the milk.
If shaking is more trouble than it's worth, then basically raw milk is more trouble than it's worth. There was a time when there was no such thing as homogenization, so you're kinda going back to that time. The main difference being your milk isn't delivered to your doorstep in the morning.
@ThePhoton for real homogenization (fat broken up in very small particles to stay permanently suspended) you need equipment the average household doesn't have.
The problem with homogenization is that it changes the taste of the milk. Unhomogenized milk tastes much better. This is why I switched to raw milk.
Have you had homogenized raw milk?
@JamesMcLeod I have not had homogenized raw milk. I barely have access to raw milk. If the taste of homogenized raw milk is the same or better than raw milk, then I would buy it.
You made the statement that homogenization changed the flavour. I make the point that this claim is unsubstantiated even by your own anecdotal evidence.
@JamesMcLeod Excellent point! You are right. I only compared raw milk to milk that is pasteurized and homogenized. I did not compare to milk that was only pasteurized or homogenized but not both. I edited the question to remove blaming homogenization for changing the flavor.
A very quick option is to buy less milk at a time - unless there's a very specific reason to by in bulk, picking up a quart only when you're ready to use it may solve the problem, since it seems mixed when you buy it. Additionally, raw milk has a shorter shelf life than pasteurized, so buying fresh may be better anyway.
If you did have a reason to buy in bulk, you might try mixing the whole (separated) quart when you first open it, and perhaps every few days when using. Shaking may take more effort, but pouring into a container and using, say, an immersion blender may very quickly mix the milk well enough to keep for a few days while using.
If you get hold of a little milk frother (works kinda like a very very tiny immersion blender) it may be useful to mix the milk still in its container, at least as long as the liquid is high enough to be reached.
Another possibility, one I've no idea if it will work or not, is that depending on the shape of the milk containers, you might be able to stand them on their heads, say, every other day. Cream rises upwards, having that upwards change direction every so often might keep the cream in suspension longer without requiring a lot of physical effort. I've heard it works to keep peanut butter from separating (even on longer timescales, flipping once per week or month), but then peanut butter is so thick and the timescale it takes to separate so much longer I'm not sure if milk will work the same way.
I don't recall how long this kind of mixing will stay un-separated - I tended to shake just before use and that was effective enough for me - but it may help, even if you have to do it periodically.
The milk comes out the cow with the cream and milk mixed well together. When I buy the milk, the milk came out of the cow that same day. As for shelf life, the raw milk will last about 2-3 weeks. I will look into flipping the milk.
Raw milk lasting 2-3 weeks? Seriously?
@Stephie I do not know if the milk lasts 3 weeks every time, but this last time I bought the milk and it did not develop any funny taste until 3 weeks later.
I am able to lay the milk jugs on their side. This spreads the cream out and makes it easy to shake the cream back into the milk.
Homogenization is the process that breaks down fat particles in milk so that they will not separate. The least expensive hand-held homogenizer I found on Amazon is over $700US. I would say your options are (a) buy a homogenizer, (b) agitate your milk regularly, (c) buy less milk more often, (d) skim off the cream and use in another way, or (e) ignore the separation.
Homogenization changes the flavor of the milk and practically the whole point of buying raw milk. So, option a is out. The other options are good ideas.
@Nathan all options, including homogenization, either change the taste of the milk, or do not prevent the cream from separating, making them not really meet the requirements you described in the question. "Agitate regularly" is just a homebrew version of homogenization, which does not really prevent the separation very well, but to the extent it does, it works exactly like industrial homogenization, resulting in the same type of taste change.
You may have better luck storing the milk on its side. The cream will have much more surface area, making it easier to break up during a quick shake.
If the cream had turned to a solid then you buying to much at a time as it takes time for it to change form a liquid to a solid that requires you to use a knife or something to stir
Do you actually know of a way to prevent the cream/milk from seperating? Or is your "answer" to buy a smaller quantity more frequently? How long does it take to seperate (you seem to know)?
A good way to homogenize milk is to store the milk bottle on its side (as long as it is done early enough), the fat will stick to the side of the milk (or now the top, whichever way you look at it) then when ready to use just give it a good shake. A 1 minute shake should result in completely homogenized milk (fridge must be cold!).
That's what I do now. I shake it vigorously to mix the cream back in and it will separate over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.092915
| 2017-12-15T22:02:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86424",
"authors": [
"Derrick",
"James McLeod",
"Nathan",
"Stephie",
"The Photon",
"Todd Wilcox",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9165",
"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
}
|
86534
|
Mixing starches with sugar to make chewy candies
This is a bit of a Moby Dick for me. There is this candy, Gingerbon, that that has a very tough (for lack of a better word) chew to them. The texture is like a very chewy taffy that sticks to the nooks in your molars. However, it's resilient enough to not deform under moderate pressure.
The ingredients, listed in order, are simply sugar, tapioca starch, ginger, and vegetable oil.
I suspect the vegetable oil is used as a releasing agent for whatever mold is being used. This is simply based on the idea that the ingredients are listed in order of prominence but, since this is a candy made overseas, the order might not indicate anything.
The candy is mfg'd in Indonesia. I looked it up and found Permen Jahe but the recipes online seem to make something more akin to a gritty tootsie roll.
The only other potential candy that might resemble this in the States is Gin Gins (formerly known as Ginger Chews) by Ginger People. They only list 3 ingredients (no oil).
I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe starch gelatinization breaks down well before the soft-ball stage of sugar so boiling them together at the same time doesn't seem like the best option. Adding it towards the ends seems like a it would just make something akin to twizzlers since, again, it wouldn't have enough water to gelatinize. Adding a slurry of gelatinized tapioca to hot sugar seems like a recipe for disaster...
I would love to experiment but I don't really have the resources for it. Is there another way to get chewy candy with just starch and sugar?
Thanks.
Welcome adozendonuts, what exactly is your question?
Sorry, I'm looking for a way to make a sort of taffy but the chewiness comes from the starch, not from pulling the sugar.
Have you tried calculating the water content from the nutrition information (the total weight the minus weight of fat, carbohydrate and protein should be close enough) and comparing to other chewy candies? This could indicate whether extra water is introduced with the starch. How about starting from a Turkish delight recipe and modifying the proportions (this recipe combines a boiling cornstarch mixture with sugar solution at 118C -- firm ball)
I think it'll be very difficult to mix everything without any liquid, but if you cook everything long enough until (almost?) all liquid is evaporated, maybe it's not necessary to list it anymore.
But here is some info to get you started on your experiments:
In Germany there are tons of "vegan gums" with very similar ingredients like your candy, but they all list fruit juice.
I found a product with slightly more detailed ingredients list than usual that may be similar to what you ate here. If you experiment with the added liquid, you may get chewy candy.
The shortened and generalized list of ingredients is:
invert sugar syrup; 15% fruit juice; starch, glucose syrup, 4% ginger pulp; acidifier; ginger extract.
Usually, "starch" refers to potato or corn starch here. But I've seen "modified starch" on the packages and "tapioca starch", too.
Unfortunately I only found one recipe to cook something similar to that here (also in German, sorry). The ingredients if condensed are also basically sugar, starch, liquid, some carrageen (see note #1) and flavouring.
The tl;dr recipe would be:
Mix everything, bring to boil
Stir a lot until the bottom of the pan becomes visible between strokes
Dial down and continue cooking while continuously stirring until "your desired toughness" is reached. To test this, a small piece is dropped into cold water (sounds a lot like cooking sugar).
While warm, the mass can be pressed into molds (either starch dusted or silicon). The oil is used to remove the starch and bring it to shine.
Annotation #1: The mentioned recipe uses "Tortenguss" which is mainly modified starch and some carrageen. Also, the author uses three types of sugar (refined sugar, glucose and fructose).
Annotation #2: Someone in the comments of the mentioned recipe reported that they cooked everything so long it became hard candy.
You're correct about the water. There is an exemption for "Substances that are added to a food during the processing of such food but are removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form" (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.100)
I stumbled onto this post looking for a recipe for candy made with tapioca starch because I was wanting to find out how to make GinGins also. I bought my first tiny pack today (of the chewy ones)…and now I am addicted…
On the back of the package, sold here in Canada: Cane sugar is the first ingredient followed by Ginger (10%) and tapioca starch last.
I suspect that the recipe involves boiling sugar with the ginger in enough water that it does not burn, but can be boiled out somewhat and then a tapioca slurry added.
My best guess, using my Home Ec degree training and experience, is to boil the water, sugar and ginger until prior to soft ball stage, where upon a small amount of tapioca starch in water is “tempered” by adding a little of the hot?…Warm? sugar mixture into it, mixing and repeating more times until the temperature of the slurry is at a point where it can be stirred into the hot/warm sugar mixture without becoming “a recipe for disaster”.
Additionally, bringing the mixture to soft ball and cooling it a little will give one some working time, when tempering the tapioca slurry. The tapioca will become more transparent when gelatinization is reached. The dark colour of the GinGins may be a result of the ginger and/or the starch colouring (Maillard Reaction) in the sugar as it boils.
Regarding amounts…check a number of candy recipes to figure out the ratio of water to sugar, making sure that your ginger amount is 10% of the amount of sugar (by volume?) and use the tapioca starch to both thicken and interfere with sugar re-crystallization.
Your guess about the oil would be correct. They may have used more tapioca starch on the GinGins to stop the mass from sticking after they rolled it out and cut it. The pieces of GinGins look cut along the sides/ends, not molded.
Note in the UK at least, there are 2 types of GinGins. I have a packet of the hard sort here; the chewy ones seem slightly less common
The Questioner - adozendonuts - was asking about the chewy variety…not the hard variety. Any time you decide to “clone” a recipe, it takes a few tries, unless one is really lucky and can hit it first time.
Exactly, you and the OP were both talking about the same sort, but other readers may be more familiar with the other product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.093563
| 2017-12-19T04:54:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86534",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Debbie M.",
"Joshua Engel",
"R. A. Y.",
"adozendonuts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63842"
],
"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
}
|
126351
|
Aligot's texture is off - too solid, not runny/liquid enough
I made some aligot, which is, kinda, sorta, like a mashed potatoes fondue, minus the wine and plus... a lot of heavy cream.
boil 1.5# potatoes, rice them, add 1 cup heavy cream, work it in, lot, then 10 oz grated cheese. Don't forget 100g butter, and garlic, it's a French dish (from the Midi region). Real mountain shepherd's dinner kinda stuff.
The consistency should be a semi-liquid soupy mess that will stretch out from the pot when you ladle it out. Not break, not dribble either. Close to condensed milk, but a bit firmer. Not quite liquid, now, but way more runny than a paste or mash potatoes. You eat it as is, possibly with some salami or pickles or whatever. Not bread though.
Here's the thing. My partner is lactose intolerant and I would have balked anyway at so much cream. So I used (lactose free) yoghurt instead. And butter.
The taste was great. The texture wasn't there though. More like really soft mashed potatoes, but never quite the unctuous behavior of the real aligot.
Was the missing bit not using real heavy cream? Finer ricing? The texture is a big part of the attraction.
Also, don't have a ricer, so I used rather a big cheese grater, which was hell on my hands, so I might have looked the other way if bits broke off and smashed them the regular way, by spoon.
"I would have balked anyway at so much cream." what's wrong with cream?
did you get the right cheese?
Yogurt is very high acidity compared with cream, as well as having some enzyme and bacterial action from the culture. Presumably you were using a low-lactose cheese as well. And you didn't have a ricer. Given that, I would have been shocked if the texture hadn't been different.
If you're going to try to make low-lactose aligot, you should try to match the original recipe as closely as possible, using lactose-removed cream and the proper tools.
Well, what's missing is probably the cream, which contains a unique suspension of fat globules which doesn't occur in butter. You can't leave out the fat, or change it for a very different sort of fat, and expect the texture to be the same. It's also possible the potatoes are different; waxy potatoes are the norm in France but russetted potatoes are the norm elsewhere.
(As a rule of thumb, I avoid using a recipe I don't intend to follow. If I'm going to balk at a major aspect of the recipe, I balk at the recipe instead. I suspect that googling "low fat aligot" will lead to only disappointment, but if you want to make low fat aligot, that's the best way to find a recipe for it.)
Incidentally, yogurt and cream contain similar proportions of lactose.
it was a lactose free yoghurt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.094141
| 2024-01-13T06:01:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126351",
"authors": [
"Italian Philosopher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127798
|
Would Bulgur be a good substitute for barley in soup?
I would like to use Bulgur as a substitute for Barley in a Vegetable Soup Recipe. Would this be a good replacement?
What do you mean by "good"?
As far as I can remember, bulgur cooks more soft than barley.
Depends on the type of bulgur, and the type of barley.
Good substitution: #4 bulgur for pearled barley
Bad substitution: #1 bulgur for raw barley
This is because large-grain bulgur is fairly similar in texture and cooking time to steamed barley. But fine bulgur is pretty different from, say, raw barley (which needs to be soaked before cooking).
(#4 bulgur is large pieces the size of rice grains. #1 bulgur is a fine grind, the size of bread crumbs)
+1 but bearing in mind what bulgur you (@Carolyn) have and how long it takes to cook, you might need to adjust when you put it in. The sort I have (unspecified size) cooks quicker than pearl barley
Yeah, a bit, but it shouldn't matter for soup.
Are #1 and #4 some kind of denominations for bulgur? - EDIT ah yes, they are in the US.
Ah, didn't realize those aren't used elsewhere. Adding a note to my answer.
In a soup, anything even remotely similar is a decent substitute.
Unless you don't like bulgur, it will do just fine.
There is a slight but noticeable difference in taste between barley and bulgur.
However, do with that what suits you. You may like the flavor of bulgur more than the barley, or not.
The other answers do very well with summing up grind and cooking time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.094392
| 2024-03-03T00:19:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127798",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"WoJ",
"deEr.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66268",
"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
}
|
124340
|
How to sanitize popsicle sticks
Is there any way of sanitizing the wooden sticks? I have the feeling they may become dirty once the package is opened and as this is will come into someone's mouth that's why I am asking.
BTW I purchased the ones saying food grade and came in a good sealed packaging.
Welcome to the Cooking Stack. Please take a [tour] and visit the [help] for more information on this site and what makes a good question and answer.
A clarifying question - if you like you can edit the answer into your question: What are you doing with the sticks after the package is opened - using more or less immediately? storing in a clean sealed container/packet/bag? Storing in an open packet (where?, how clean?)?
do you sanitize your spices every time you open the jar to take out a spoonful? Do you sanitize your dishes when they sit in the cabinet for a few days? If it's food grade and they didn't get dirty specifically, nothing needs to be done.
bake them at 200F for 15 mins.
Dip them in a solution of sodium metabisulfite (beer bottle sterilizer), but really its overkill. Just don't open them all the way, take out what you're going to use and reseal the rest in a zip seal bag.
I don't think you will get ill from a popsicle stick unless it has been used before, or put somewhere that was dirty.
I do not think you need to worry if they are new and sealed but if you are concerned just clean them with the sanitizer as mentioned above and rinse it off
Welcome to the Cooking Stack. Please take a [tour] and visit the [help] for more information on this site and what makes a good question and answer. This is not a bad answer for minor surface contamination. Speaking as a microbiologist, the major problem here is lack of penetration into the wood for sanitizers - the same reason its recommended not to cut meat on wooden boards; you can't clean them sufficiently, but if deep penetration of contaminants was a problem, just throwing them out is easiest.
@bob1 - it's not like the OP is saying the dog's been chewing them, after leaving them out in the yard for a week. tbh, I think we have an over-reaction to 'insidious & all-pervasive 'germs' perception', & really the answer is 'don't bother, they'll be just fine.'
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.094550
| 2023-05-30T23:48:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124340",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127842
|
What is the rationale behind mixing light and dark soy sauce?
It's common for recipes to call for both light and dark soy sauce mixed together.
Is there a specific rationale for doing this, such as a specific interaction between these two ingredients when cooked together, or is this simply a method to dilute dark soy\increase the flavor of light soy?
Dark soy sauce has a richer, more complex, and less salty flavor compared to light soy sauce. It's also a bit sweeter and has notes of molasses and caramel. It's also thicker and obviously darker in color.
Dark soy sauce is sometimes used in cooking to add color, but most importantly for me as a chef, it adds a depth of flavor that light soy sauce does not. Light soy sauce is great for both seasoning (i.e. salt) and umami (glutamates) as well as its own flavor profile.
Dark soy sauce is fermented and aged much longer than light soy sauce. This extended aging increases complex flavor development and gives it a thicker consistency and a darker color. Think of 25-year DOP balsalmic vinegar compared to the crap they try to pretend is from Modena in your grocery store.
Dark soy sauce isn't typically used as a table sauce like light soy sauce, but try it on scrambled eggs. Yum.
Aha, I think we're having some labelling problems here! The problem is that the term "dark soy sauce" can be used to refer to several different products. In your answer, you're refering to aged, naturally fermented soy sauce. In my answer, I'm referring to the standard Thai "weak soy sauce fortified with molasses and roasted wheat", which is what generally appears as "Dark Soy Sauce" there. This also shows up in Chinese cuisine. The world-popular Pearl River Bridge Dark Soy is the fortified-with-molasses kind.
I'm not sure how 'world popular' Pearl River Bridge is - it's hard to get in the UK. I've seen it but never bought it or tasted it. Far more likely to get Kikkoman, Lee Kum Kee or Amoy here. I use Kikkoman for almost everything, unless I want to specifically avoid the distinctive flavour, then I'll use whatever generic 'Chinese' one I got from the supermarket - I can barely tell the difference between those once they're in the food.
Light soy sauce is added for flavor: it has more umami (from glutamate) and frequently more salt than dark soy sauce.
Dark soy sauce is added mainly for color, particularly when you're mixing your soy sauces with several other clear liquids. It also has some sweetness that light soy sauce doesn't.
Ref: Hot Thai Kitchen
That’s honestly not what I would’ve expected. Neat
I disagree with this. I cook a lot with dark soy sauce. It has a much deeper, richer, and more complex flavor profile than light soy sauce. Have you tasted the two side-by-side?
I'm going to stick with the advice of the Thai chef with two award-winning cookbooks, thanks.
Appeal to authority is not useful here. There are many books, sites, and articles that discuss light vs dark soy sauces (and all the many varieties of these and others) that you may want to consult. Or, read some of what people like Kenji have written. But I'd try them both yourself. Keep in mind that soy sauces straight from the bottle will taste different from cooked soy sauces, and their effect on foods is complicated, so tasting them side-by-side from the bottle doesn't give you the whole picture. You need to taste them in actual dishes to understand the differences they impart.
@myklbykl you seem to have forgotten what site you're on. This is an SE site, it is all about authority. If you think you have a better answer, then post an answer, with citations. Stop trying to get me to change my answer just because you personally disagree with it.
I did post an answer. I am a certified chef and food science instructor (I also teach other cooking and baking classes). I personally work with many respected authorities, including people like Harold McGee and chefs and scientists in many fields related to food. I have plenty to learn like everyone, but I'm just trying to contribute what I can. I still disagree with your answer, but I'm sorry if my note was offensive to you. I really did not intend that. You have been very generous with your time on this site.
Suggestion: use those citations and evidence in your answer, both your personal experience and any authorities you can refer to. This is actually true of your other answers on other questions. The OP can't tell that you're an instructor unless you tell them.
It is simply to obtain a desired balance between the flavours, and perhaps also consistencies, of the ingredients. If you only have one available then use that.
Could you describe what these desired elements are?
Keep in mind that light soy sauce and dark soy sauce are fundamentally different foods, with different ingredients and preparation steps. They aren’t differing concentrations or shades of the same thing.
So they are mixed when both ingredients’ contributions are desired, the same as with any other ingredients.
Could you specify what the desired contributions are?
Their different tastes. Have you tasted them?
Well, and the color of dark soy sauce, I suppose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.094785
| 2024-03-09T16:22:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127842",
"authors": [
"Aaargh Zombies",
"FuzzyChef",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123268
|
Does pepper dissolve into hot / boiling water similar to salt?
I read this article here on why whole peppercorns are used and looked at this quick 30 minute recipe for chicken pho which uses peppercorns instead of pepper.
It just seems a lot more expensive and wasteful to use peppercorns for Chicken Pho.
If I use plain pepper, will it dissolve into the broth? Is there an easy way to modify this recipe for plain pepper?
Welcome to SA! When linking a video recipe, it's helpful to summarize the recipe.
I had a typo, it is a quick 3 minute video, not a 30 minute video. Does toasting the spices prior to adding water add any benefits?
It's not a typo, the recipe takes 30 minutes, regardless of how long the video takes. The length of time that the cooking takes is highly relevant to your question.
Also, if you want to ask additional questions, post new questions, don't ask them in the comments.
Why is it 'expensive & wasteful'? Pepper, by weight, is virtually the same price ground & whole.
In a make-from-scratch pho you would also have an entire chicken carcass, bay leaves, lime peel, star anise etc to throw away too. They've done their work.
While one of the answers to the other question addresses this, it's not the chosen answer (which is wrong), and it doesn't really complete the reasoning, so I'm going to answer here.
The reason for adding whole peppercorns to soup and other long-cooking dishes has to do with flavor release. Piperine, the main flavor chemical in black pepper, is highly volatile, and does not dissolve in water. This is why, for most dishes, you add any black pepper near the end of cooking or even when plating the dish. If you add ground pepper any earlier, most of the piperine will be released by the ground pepper grains and cook out before you eat the dish.
For soups and other dishes where you want the piperine to be released slowly, and give it a chance to penetrate the ingredients (such as the chicken in the chicken pho) before cooking off, you want a "slow-release piperine". Fortunately you have one in the form of whole peppercorns.
You could definitely skip the whole peppercorns in pho, and replace them with ground pepper towards the end of cooking. However, you'd have to figure out several things:
how much ground pepper to replace the more subtle whole peppercorn flavor
when to add that pepper so that it wasn't either overwhelmingly peppery or cooked off and bland
And, even so, it wouldn't taste exactly like it would if you were following the recipe.
So, to summarize: no, pepper doesn't dissolve in water like salt, and, no, it would not be easy to modify the recipe.
My recommendation: find a cheaper place to buy peppercorns, like a discount food store or an Indian market.
If it does not dissolve, I think some of it might get caught in the strainer, obviously depending upon the size of the pepper grain and if it adheres to other ingredients caught in the strainer. However; water evaporating will not take any of the pepper with it as it does not dissolve into the water.
I'm not talking about the water evaporating, I'm talking about the piperine doing so.
Also: the piperine doesn't stay in the ground pepper grains. It gets released. Modified the answer slightly to spell that out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.095197
| 2023-02-03T17:54:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123268",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"k.m."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123568
|
What are some safer alternatives to metal wire grill brushes?
There are some dangers in using wire grill brushes.
How can a grill be safely cleaned without the risk of wires getting into food?
You can use a cloth, a ball of aluminum foil, or a wooden scraper....or, just use a grill brush and wipe with a cloth after brushing to ensure there is no debris, either from the grill or the brush, left on the grill.
Wiping doesn’t always work. I’ve noticed them stuck to the side of the grate, so food that dipped down come in contact and adhered when cooking. (I think it was deboned chicken)
Also, other cleaning items: the metal blade side of a a grill brush (if it has one), large bricks of pumice stone, grill brushes that are made from coils of wire. You might also be able use a wok brush before it’s heated (strips of cut bamboo bound together)
If you are worried about bits of metal in the food I wouldn't use a ball of aluminium foil. Aluminium foil is much more fragile than any metal brush and the risks of small chunks tearing off is much higher than with a wire sponge.
The grilling industry would be trilled to sell you any number of alternate cleaning devices. These come in three main types.
First, there's the non-wire brushes. The best of these, and what I use, are nylon with abrasive grit. In addition to being non-wire, they're also great for use with more delicate grill types, like my cast aluminum grates. They need to be used while the grill is cold.
Second, you can get grill "scrubbies", which basically attach a heavy-duty kitchen scrubber to a handle. While some of these are wire or metal, since it's in loops it doesn't carry the same dangers as regular wire brushes. These are great for getting off really baked-on messes, but aren't so good for getting between the grate slats.
The third type are scrapers. The most dramatic of these are the wooden scrapers which you first use on a very hot grill to burn the shape of your grill grate into them. I don't know how well these actually work, but they look cool.
Thank you for the answer! I saw in your edit summary that you said that site has malware. What malware does it have? There's definitely controversial content on the site, but not on that page as far as I could tell, and even on the political pages I've never seen malware.
I got an alert from privacy badger on several of the ads. Since that story is available from multiple outlets, I just swapped in a different one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.095484
| 2023-03-08T15:30:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123568",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Someone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117250
|
An effective process to extract coconut oil
I have tried to extract coconut oil. Below is the process I have followed.
Ground the coconut flesh with some added water.
Milked the ground coconut flesh by cold pressing it and filtering all big particles.
Dried the milk for a few hours in a steel vessel using butane flame.
Filtering out the dried brown residue.
The resulting oil looks like the following.
My question is about the efficiency of my process. I have a strong feeling that the colouration is due to the heating or bad filtering techniques. I tried to rest it for the night, and it doesn't seem to have any "heavier" residues at the bottom of the oil bottle. I tried filtering it with 4-layer muslin cloth with no luck. Is there a process that does not involve heating (assuming my intuition is correct)?
P.S. I'm not a scientist and I don't have a lot of background in chemistry. Please explain to me in layman's terms if possible.
Ok, I haven’t done this before, but I will try. Thank you.
Are you asking for an efficient process (= one which is done with the least effort possible), or for an effective process (= one where the final product's quality meets your specifications)? The title and the body contradict each other there.
What are the characteristics you're looking for in your oil? And what kind of equipment do you have access to? There are several different techniques used in industrial-scale coconut oil production depending on desired grade and characteristics, some of them can be reproduced at home, some can't
@rumtscho I’m looking for an effective process. I have asked about a heat-free process, because i thought the heat was causing the coloration. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
@Juliana, my understanding is that, coconut oil is clear as water when it is in its purest form. I want the extraction to be as much pure as possible. I’m interested in process that can be reproduced at home.
Unfortunately, that level of clarity cannot be achieved at home with high yield - very clear coconut oil was chemically refined and clarified and you won't be able to do this in a domestic kitchen. Coconut oil without chemical refinement is slightly turbid. You can get better results with a few tweaks to the process but not to your idea of coconut oil
Juliana: that sounds like an answer, why not post it?
In step 3 you write „dried“. I guess you heated the mix until the liquid (water) evaporated?
The color could be due to your heating. You can try a cold-press method to get a clear oil. While I have never done it, there are process descriptions online.
Make the coconut milk (should be the same as your steps 1-3)
Leave the coconut milk overnight to separate. You will get, from bottom to top: coconut water, coconut oil, and coconut cream.
Separate the oil from the other layers. I suppose a fat separator pitcher will work for that.
The oil will still have some water, milk and solids mixed in. Filter it well.
Leave the oil sit, not tightly covered, until the residual moisture has evaporated.
You can see the process (in a commercial setting) documented on YouTube. The interesting part (after step 2) starts at 3:30.
The factory in the video creates a completely clear oil with this process. Of course, they have some heavy-duty filtering system for step 4. If you are only working with a nut milk bag or similar, you will likely have some particles left over. But without the heating step, it is unlikely that they will brown to give you the yellow color you dislike.
Commercially coconut meat is dried before extracting oil. The practice is so common that the dry coconut has a name ; copra. Many decades ago I read that copra is a major product of commerce in some areas, presumably it still is
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.095830
| 2021-09-19T14:24:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117250",
"authors": [
"C--",
"FuzzyChef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95618",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114243
|
Vietnamese Coffee (cocktail) - what to sub for condensed milk?
If you've ever enjoyed a Vietnamese Coffee, they're to die for. Blend:
crushed ice
shot of espresso
condensed milk
... avocado
(add dark liquor like bourbon if a cocktail)
blend them together and this is where the condensed milk and avocado shine: ends up this buttery sweet thick ice cream texture, from a blender. I add bourbon to it (which really doesn't matter unless it impacts the substitution ingredient).
Question: if you are serving a milk-intolerant (not vegan) guest, what could you sub for the condensed milk? I'm thinking I could replace condensed milk with honey or sugar mixed with soy/almond milk. Maybe blend the whole crushed ice and all together ahead of time in order to avoid heating milk substitute.
Edit: here's a credible-looking recipe, as it says, this drink is quite common in SE Asia.
Avocado ? that's the first time I hear about that.
It sounds like Vietnamese Egg Coffee (cà phê trứng), but she substitutes avocado for egg yolks. Or she might be mixing two different things altogether: avocado smoothie (sinh tố bơ) and Vietnamese-style coffee.
How about non-dairy condensed milk like condensed coconut milk?
Is there no lactose free (condensed) milk or cream available in your area?
If they are just lactose intolerant, you can buy lactase drops to add to food without affecting the flavor. But that won't cut it if it's an allergy.
Honey or sugar, etc, sounds good and why not try it? If it tastes awful to you, it prolly will to guest…
Vietnamese Iced Coffee does not have avocado in it.
@FuzzyChef Please tell that to the, Vietnamese, cafe that served me one.
What you got was "avocado coffee", es alpukat kopi, which apparently is a trendy thing lately. That's not standard Vietnamese iced coffee, though, which has only coffee, chicory, and condensed milk in it.
@FuzzyChef Given my experience, as a French person, with the non-French abominations that are called French Dressing and French Coffee as well as the fact that French Fries and French Toast aren't really seen as French in France (we associate Belgium with fries), I can't say I am overly concerned about the finer points of English terminology. Pretty darn sure the Vietnamese don't call it either type by that name. Plus, had I put "avocado coffee" in the title, I would have been EEEEEWWed to oblivion. But it is really quite tasty.
The drink should be called sinh tố bơ cà phê (lit. means avocado smoothie with coffee). It's a coffee variation of a regular (Vietnamese) avocado smoothie. (sinh tố = smoothie, bơ = avocado, cà phê = coffee).
If you're comfortable with a modernist answer, you could use 210S, a 50/50 blend of modified (for cold solubility) Gum Arabic and Xanthan gum, popularized in part by Dave Arnold's book, Liquid Intelligence.
Sweeten your favorite milk substitute (eg. almond milk) and then add 0.5%-1.0% by weight to thicken it. This will require a blender, and I suggest dispersing the 210S in some sugar to prevent clumping.
If you can't source 210S (it is available on Modernist Pantry), then you can use unmodified Gum Arabic and Xanthan gum, but it will require heating.
Another approach could be to use 0.2%-2.0% lambda carrageenan with a nut milk, though I'm not sure it could achieve quite the same viscosity as 210S without gelling. Coffee Mate (suggested in another answer) uses carrageenan (among others) as a thickener, though it is not nearly as thick as sweetened condensed milk.
I'm picking this because it looks like the ingredients least likely to transform the recipe with a flavor of their own. carrageenan is probably a no-no though as it gets flagged as a problematic for some kinds of diets, so that takes out Coffee Mate.
Well thanks! I'm curious, though: which diets can't tolerate carrageenan?
I would suggest that you use cream of coconut, which is the base for piña coladas as a substitute. It's thick and sweet, and should complement the avocado pretty well. Note that this is a canned produce, the most widely available brand in the USA is Coco Lopez.
Outside the USA it's harder to find, and can be pretty expensive. There are also products that are confusing, like creamed coconut, which isn't remotely the same thing. I make my own by spooning the cream off the top of coconut milk and mixing it with some palm sugar (regular sugar works fine too) and then cooking it down to thicken it.
If you decide to skim coconut milk, a few notes: buy coconut milk without stabilizers if possible (you want the ingredients list to say "coconut and water"), look for coconut milk with as high a fat content as possible, and try not to shake or tilt the can for as long as possible (and at least several hours) before you open it.
All good points @Sneftel, I prefer to get my coconut milk from the Caribbean section of the supermarket, or from Asian supermarkets rather than the watered down stuff in most regular supermarkets, it's got much higher cream content. I've even found whole cans of coconut cream!
Sorry, while coconut milk is interesting and easy for me to find, it has way too high a flavor profile to replace condensed milk - the flavor of coconut would be quite perceptible and would change the original recipe.
Soy or almond milk will be comparatively watery, so you'll lose the some of the luscious creaminess of the original drink. Also, since you mentioned trying to avoid heating your non dairy milks, soy milk does taste terrible if heated, but almond milk and coconut milk taste fine when heated. (I'm talking about the the kind of coconut milk that's intended as a milk substitute and comes in cartons in the dairy cooler at the supermarket, not the kind that comes in cans.) But if the only heat source in your drink is the shot of hot espresso, I don't think the heat would be an issue even with soy milk.
I suggest using a liquid non-dairy creamer. It won't be quite as thick as the sweetened condensed milk, but it should be closer than any of the non dairy milks. You have two options - the shelf-stable, unrefrigerated kind (eg, Coffee Mate brand),
and the refrigerated kind that you find in the dairy cooler next to the half and half.
I expect that the refrigerated kind is a higher quality, but I haven't done a side-by-side comparison.
From my quick google search for the example images above, I also learned you can get coconut-based liquid creamers. That sounds delicious to me, but there are many people who hate the taste of coconut so it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.
There is also canned non-dairy evaporated milk, available in the baking section of the grocery store next to the sweetened condensed milk and regular evaporated milk.
Honey and sugar can be tricky to dissolve in cold liquids. If you mix the drink in a shaker, you may be able to get them dissolved with vigorous shaking. But a much more foolproof way to sweeten a drink is with simple syrup. Combine equal parts sugar and water in a saucepan and simmer for several minutes until the sugar is dissolved. Once cool you can store any leftover in a bottle in the fridge.
In my opinion, none of the nondairy substitutes will taste quite as good as the original sweetened condensed milk. So you might want to adjust the proportions so the final drink relies less on the condensed milk, and more on the avocado, for its creaminess. Also, you could add some banana. It'll add a different flavor element, but bananas will definitely give a blended drink that thick, creamy texture you described.
I use sweetened condensed coconut milk. Nature's Charm is the brand I have access to, there may be others.
This is a good, low-cost answer, though it will of course impart coconut flavor. Even though OP didn't want that, someone else might!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.096404
| 2021-02-12T07:51:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114243",
"authors": [
"0xFEE1DEAD",
"Alex Reinking",
"Dokkan7",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Italian Philosopher",
"Max",
"Michael",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90999",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91681
|
How do I avoid a burnt underlayer with pressure cookers?
I use my pressure cooker a fair bit but sometimes I struggle in translating a regular recipe to it and I get a charcoaled underlayer at the bottom of the pressure cooker. Some of the time the rest is still edible, sometimes it has to be thrown away.
For example, with a split pea soup recipe I ended with some extremely burnt bottom layer which gave a nasty chemical smell that took a while to clear from the apartment. Obviously the whole thing had to be thrown out.
Not all recipes will necessarily turn out well in a pressure cooker, I get that, but at least I would like to find ways to minimize this particular problem.
I guess I should watch cooking duration and also turn down the heat once the pressure's up. But ideally I would like something that kept the ingredients from contacting the bottom of the pan and allow only water to circulate there. Does something like steam wok bottoms exist for pressure cookers?
When we use a pressure cooker, we do so with separate pans inside the cooker - flat round tins, in our case - that can be kept off the bottom by adding something underneath. Or stack up cook several things at the same time, if the size allows.
I recall seeing these largish round metal rings like an inch high that I think were for that, or (inverted) small steel plate or bowl. Since there's no (or little) direct contact the bottom doesn't overcook. I imagine some kind of rack or other insert would also work.
@Megha's answer was pretty much spot on.
This is what I got in a cooking utensils store.
Made a cassoulet (with lentils) in my pressure cooker
The holes are pretty big, so some food did make it through but it did not stop the heat exchange taking place. There was no burnt layer at the bottom this time.
It needs to be a snug fit, so measure your pressure cooker before purchasing - in my case there's about .5cm/1/4inch on each side once resting at the bottom.
Also, I often use my pressure cooker to pre-cook things like roasted potatoes. Using this device, my potatoes came out dry rather than soggy and the finishing pass in the oven came out much better.
What's this device called, please?
@JohnDallman no idea, it was just on a shelf
I had a poke through Amazon.co.uk, and it seems to be a "steam tray."
the things to look out for would be: diameter vs your pressure cooker's, size of holes (too big and food will get through settle down and go right back to the original problem) and height of feet.
The problem with pressure cookers is that the food sits on the bottom of the pot and you are unable to stir it while the pressure builds.
First, check to insure you are getting a good seal around the lid, assuming you have a seal around the lid. Make sure you have the recommended amount of liquid in the cooker before heating.
Make sure you don’t place food directly on the bottom of the cooker. Use the items that come with it to elevate the food.
Use added items such as an elevated metal plate to lift the food above the liquid. As soon as your cooker comes up to temperature and starts producing steam, make sure you have no leaks of any kind. If you have a “jiggle cap” type pressure gauge, make sure to adjust the temperature to get no more than 2–3 jiggles per minute. If it continuously jiggles, you are cooking it too high and with each jiggle you lose a bit of fluid.
Adjust temperature appropriately. If you have a needle gauge, do not exceed 10 pounds of pressure. If you scorch or burn during the recommended cooking time, you are losing fluid through leaks or excess temperature, or you are cooking the food on the bottom of the cooker.
You can also try bring the cooker up to pressure with a lower heat level.
Or you could also bring the food to a boil and stir it before you attach and seal the lid.
Don't over fill pot;usually around 2/3 full
Watch your time if you don't have automatic pot.
Last, (if you are using a “manual” pressure cooker) be sure to turn heat down as low as possible AFTER it starts to hiss (it should barely hiss a few minutes after you do this;adjust heat accordingly to maintain a bare hiss)
As dumb as this sounds, keep notes. You will quickly learn the personality of your particular pot.
Source: Pressure Cooker Cooking
I have had a lot of trouble with burnt or undercooked food in my beautiful looking Kuhn Rikon pressure cooker. I had much more success in my ancient Namco cooker! I think it is because I now use an induction hotplate, rather than electric coils or gas.
Here is some information that I found that seems plausible, though I haven't yet tested it. From this link:
How to Pressure Cook on Induction
DON’T pre-heat the cooker.
I got into the habit of preheating the base of the pressure cooker on a low flame to give me time to slice onions or peel garlic cloves while the cooker was pre-heating. But, on induction, I kept getting burned olive oil and charred onions. Don’t pre-heat your cooker on induction – the cooking surface is hot and ready to saute in 15 seconds!
DO slice the aromatics first, and then turn on the induction burner just before tossing oil or aromatics to saute’.
DON’T bring the cooker to pressure on high heat.
Following the old standby advice about bringing the cooker to pressure on high heat several obvious things will happen: the cooker reaches pressure at break-neck speed (about 4 minutes), tomato sauces carbonize and bond to the base of the cooker, and the food comes out disappointingly under-done. One more thing that is not obvious will happen, too: the pressure cooker does not have time to expel all of the air and actually cooks the food at a lower temperature (mechanics explained, below).
DO bring the pressure cooker to pressure on medium heat or tack on a few minutes to the cooking time to compensate for the lower pressure cooking temperature and shorter time to pressure.
DON’T walk away from a very full or wide cooker right after you’ve adjusted the heat.
This is where the instant heat of induction does a disservice to pressure cooking. Although the cooker may have reached pressure, the sides are still at a lower temperature than the piping hot aluminum-disk-clad base. Walking away from the cooker once the heat is lowered will cause internal pressure to quickly fall since the heat generated from the base is not enough to both keep the food inside boiling and maintaining pressure and heat up the rest of the cooker or food.
DO hang around to make heat adjustments for the first 5 minutes of pressure for very full or very wide cookers.
DO use the induction burner’s timer feature to set the pressure cooking time so the burner turns itself off automatically when time is up!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. You mentioned a link from where you got the information, but there is no link. Please add it.
I had the same problem, and found the solution was right in front of me -- my Presto pressure cooker came with a steam tray that is about 1/4 inch high and snugly fits within the bottom of the pressure cooker. I now use this regularly, and although a piece or two of vegetables may fall through the holes, and of course the liquid does as well, I no longer experience a burnt layer so problem solved!
After removing the lid, use a long fork down the side of the pressure cooker to get under & remove the steam tray, stir everything together, and all good!
In the future, I think I'll look for the actual trays, something shaped like a cake pan but without flanges. Friends of mine have a stackable set they purchased and they actually cook the different duration items in different trays, and take out the top trays at the right time and resume cooking the lower trays that need longer cooking.
I read several of the above replies. One person said they are using olive oil. Olive oil has a very low burn temperature. Perhaps, another oil would work better. That presto disc another poster mentioned. I often make corned beef in my pressure cooker.
That disc is thin aluminum so it is easy to do. I took my electric drill and drilled a hole into each of the three dimples on the disc. I stuck 2 inch stainless steel bolts, diameter about 3/8ths, in each hole creating legs. To make a corned beef, I put the disc into the pot, fill with water just touching the bottom of the disc so two inches of water-it works great. Typical corned beef sold in vacuum packs cook time is 1 hr and 15 min at 15 lb pressure. I have but it is not a good idea to cook two corned beefs together there is a danger they will plug the vent. Also, I would not use any pressure cooker less than 9 qts for anything. It is dangerous and food burns if you fill the pot more than half to 2/3 full.
Someone mentioned an pretty pressure cooker that burns. I am not familiar with that brand. I own several presto pressure cookers one is about 4 gallons, belonged to my grandmother, the original cookbook has a 1945 date code on it. You can still get parts for it. The bottom of the pot is about 1/4 inch thick, it does not burn. I also have more modern stainless steel ones and they are far more likely to burn. Solution is simple, You can buy a disc to fit under the pot to better distribute the heat. You can as I did cut a disc out of an old heavy fry pan that is large enough for your pressure cooker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.097015
| 2018-08-13T23:31:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91681",
"authors": [
"Italian Philosopher",
"Johannes_B",
"John Dallman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121134
|
How do achieve a dry injera top without burning the bottom?
I've tried making injera 3 times so far, the last time went best, but I struggled a bit with actually cooking them.
Note that I don't typically make pancakes or crepes either, so my familiarity with their techniques is low.
My recipe came from How to Make Ethiopian Injera- Ferment Teff Flour - YouTube. No, it might not be very traditional, but that is not a big consideration for me. I'll mention the overall idea, but prepping the batter went well enough:
2 parts teff, 1 of water bit of salt and yeast. let sit 3 days.
add 1 part flour (I subbed amaranth for wheat as one motivation for injera-making is gluten intolerance from my partner). some water. 2 more days.
So, after 5 days I ended with a sourish-as-expected smelling injera and batter somewhere between pancakes and crepes that flowed easily.
But this where things got challenging:
I don't have a non-stick pan - I prefer avoiding non-stick surfaces - and am instead using a cast iron pan, on a gas range. I slightly smeared some avocado oil to lessen sticking.
Experimented with various heats, from high to medium. The video shows 360 on an electrical plate, so not sure what I am aiming for.
My main problem is achieving a "dry top".
Injera is not supposed to be flipped. While I can achieve something somewhat satisfactory on the bottom side, I found that the top remained rather wet and moist and I could not dry it out sufficiently without burning the bottom.
Nothing I saw in this video or others really gave me any idea of how to do this. If anything the video proposes covering the injera once it starts to bubble which would retain water.
Should I?:
Use a lower temperature throughout and let it sit in the pan longer? What duration should I aim for?
Try pouring the batter more shallowly? I tried doing that but the cakes tore apart upon removal. I had best results at about 4-6 mm (1/4").
Use another flour than amaranth? My first tries were with pure teff and that didn't really work any better with regards to my "wet top" problem.
Have more or less water in the batter? I am hesitant about this as the consistency did seem fairly optimal for pouring and spreading.
Remove it once it seems cooked at the bottom and let it sit for a few hours? I found my injera improved significantly in that regard after a few hours. They were quite good later, just not great at first. Maybe that's just how it should be prepared?
I also tried removing them and finishing them off in the microwave for a few minutes. Not entirely conclusive but it seemed to help a bit.
I tried covering. And not covering. The difference wasn't super clear - remember my problem is an overmoist topside so that wasn't intuitively obvious to me (but, yes, noted Esther's remark, quite helpful).
I was pretty happy overall and would like to continue experimenting. Still I would welcome any tips on bettering my cooking technique.
If wheat flour is a problem, just add more teff flour. I don't know anything about amaranth, but different flours retain water and heat differently.
Why don't you want to flip them, only because it isn't traditional? I have made different styles of pancake with teff (but not injera itself) and they all had a tendency of not drying. In fact, the American style pancakes (flipped) usually stayed raw in the middle.
The Injera I've had when I've eaten in Ethiopian restaurants is pretty moist on top, how dry are you expecting the result to be, and do you know what you are comparing it to?
By "If anything the video proposes covering the injera once it starts to bubble which would retain water", are you implying that you chose not to cover the injera while cooking?
the wetness on top is raw dough, not moisture that escaped from the dough. Covering the pan will make the dough cook on top, which will make them less wet on top
@Carmi As noted, my previous tries involved all-teff batter and had the same problem.
@rumtscho their consistency makes them fairly fragile so a flip would be tricky to pull off.
I'm no injera expert, but I would suggest two things that come to mind, and one item I picked up from the linked website: If you are using a cast iron pan, make sure that it is very clean and well-seasoned. This will help with any potential sticking, and allow you to use less oil (which may put you in a frying situation). Alternately, a well-seasoned carbon steel pan will do just fine as well. Then, use a lower temperature and be patient. If you are getting burning, it's too hot. Finally, are you covering the injera during cooking? There are several steps for traditional cooking that you might need to review. You should be able to make it work, and the less successful ones are probably still delicious.
Looks promising. I'll wait to see what else people suggest. Agree with needing a very clean pan. And I'll probably post an update when I have better results.
As commented by @Esther, covering cooks the top (by steaming it, pretty much) and that is the solution to your "wetness on top", which is raw dough, even if you find that counterintuitive.
I happen to pan-fry all sorts of dough & batter things and covering definitely helps to cook more evenly (also works for a non-Julia-Child-approved slow omlette process to cook the top.)
The "retained water" from covering it when it starts to bubble is steam and steam will transfer heat to the top of the food if you don't just let it escape. After it has cooked, you can uncover the pan to dry some, if needed.
I've had really good results seasoning cast iron with a mixture of 80% grapeseed oil and 20% beeswax. Melt the wax in the oil and then let it cool.
Not much experience with injera, but I've made a lot of english muffins on a cast iron griddle and experienced similar burning issues early on. It's really easy to overheat the griddle on a gas stove. I use a bit below medium-low to shoot for 375℉.
I’ve only made injera a few times, with various levels of success, but I do know that 1/4 inch is way too thick for injera. The bubbles should go almost all the way through it.
Making sure that it’s properly cooked through should make it more structural, and less likely to fall apart on you, even with it being thinner. It might still be a bit damp when it comes out of the pan, but letting it steam out and cool should help dry it out.
If you still continue to have the same problems, reduce your heat so the bottom cooked slower. I’d aim for medium heat to start, and adjust from there.
I’d also look for a recipe that relies on 100% teff or a non-wheat blend rather than modifying it yourself. The wheat in there is very likely for the gluten to make it easier to manage. You can also look for Somali canjeero recipes which use a part finely ground corn meal and doesn’t require as long to ferment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.097774
| 2022-07-25T04:14:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121134",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Esther",
"GdD",
"Italian Philosopher",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118049
|
Is smoothing out an oven's on/off cycling possible with a pizza stone?
Will adding something like a pizza stone smooth out the highs and lows of an oven's cycling (the switching the element off and on)?
What kind of things have you cooked where the cycling affected the outcome? How large are your oven's temperature fluctuations?
Kinda sorta duplicate of this question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/19969/7180
For some reason I was thinking that the question was about turning on and off the oven while enjoying an evening out :D
Every dish responds differently to an oven. If the cycling is a problem it's usually because of radiated heat from the element being too hot on the bottom of the dish. You can fix this when it's a problem with just a metal cookie sheet or any other piece of metal that can act as a heat shield between the bottom element and the dish. A stone would do something similar, but it takes much longer to properly come to temperature so you'd need longer preheat times doing it that way. A cookie sheet is usually enough to let you skip the preheat since it stops scorching on the bottom.
@FuzzyChef more like an exact duplicate? Use of pizza stone in gas oven
This question specifically asks about temp cycling, something that's only mentioned tangentally in the other question. It's also about electric ovens, whereas the other Q is about gas.
I've used pizza stones to even out fluctuations in two different ovens which had severe on/off temperature cycles. One oven was an older gas oven, and the other one an older electric oven. In both cases, installing the pizza stones did indeed lower the amount of temperature fluctuation in the oven; in the electric oven, fluctuations went from +/-45F to +/-20F, which helped a great deal with cooking times.
For this to work, the pizza stone needs to be sufficiently massive to act as a heat sink; each of the stones I used were over 15lbs. This will also cause the oven to take longer to heat up.
Pizza stones will also help even out random hot spots created by a bottom flame or element, but as @dbmag remarks, they won't do much, if anything, about top-to-bottom gradient.
If you're baking on the middle rack, with a pizza stone on both the top and bottom racks, it will take a bit longer for the middle rack to come to temperature, but provide the same heat shielding from both heating elements.
The oven would need to be tall enough to have 3 usable racks, though, which a lot aren't.
It will go some way to reducing the temperature fluctuations, and is usually done to mitigate the sudden temperature drop caused by opening the oven door when making something that wants a high temperature like a pizza.
The consequences of the oven cycling on and off tend to be felt more in terms of placement within an oven; if the heating element is at the top of the oven, say, then food at the top is more exposed to periods of high temperature. That wouldn't be necessarily resolved using a stone.
The fact that this isn't a common practice for everyday cooking, whereas other techniques like putting food on the middle shelf or covering with foil are common, suggests that there's not much need for this. But if you suspect the cycles are causing you a problem then by all means give it a go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.098434
| 2021-11-29T12:34:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118049",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"AncientSwordRage",
"FuzzyChef",
"J...",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107929
|
Is Virginia creeper safe to eat?
Spring and the Virginia Creeper is growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocissus_quinquefolia
It is native to North America, and common. I read on Wikipedia the berries have "dangerous amounts of oxalic acid" and I have not tried those. The leaves taste good to me; sour and much like sorrel.
I wonder if anyone knows if historically, anyone ate this stuff. Rhubarb has oxalic acid but is good if cooked a little, and cooking is recommended for old sorrel. One would think that back in the days that people ate pokeweed someone would have tried creeper; it is everywhere. But my googlefu is pretty strong these days and I have turned up nothing.
Virginia Creeper can be toxic if eaten. Both the leaves and berries should be considered poisonous and not eaten.
According to poison.org:
Although they are pretty, Virginia creeper and wisteria can be harmful if they are chewed or swallowed. Both plants can cause mouth pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and should not be eaten.
Both the berries and leaves contain oxalate. While not everyone may have a severe reaction, it's difficult to predict when a reaction may happen, and thus it's best to never eat Virgina creeper.
Since you mention rhubarb in your question, rhubarb contains oxalate in it's leaves at toxic levels, only the rhubarb stalks are safe to eat. Rhubarb stalks do still have oxalate, but at lower concentrations, reducing the chance of illness or death.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.098722
| 2020-04-26T13:14:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107929",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103258
|
Sour cream pound cake
I have a recipe that calls for
a Duncan Hines butter cake mix
4 eggs
½ cup sugar
1 cup Wesson oil
8 ozs sour cream.
Cook in preheated oven 1½ hours at 300.
I have made numerous cakes like this and they turned out beautiful until Duncan Hines changed the cake mix from 18oz to 15oz. Since then I have not been able to make this cake without problems.
I added ⅓ cup of another mix and it ran over and fell.
I made a mixture of 1½ cups flour, 1 cup sugar, 2 teaspoons baking powder, ¼ teaspoon baking soda and added 6 tablespoons of this mixture to my cake mix and it still ran over and fell. This one tasted fine but was not pretty.
Do you have any idea what I can do to make it where it won’t fall and run over?
If Duncan Hines made their box smaller by 16.6%, have you tried decreasing your other ingredients by a similar amount, rather than adding more things?
I have not decreased the other ingredients, really don’t know where to start to do that.
If the package of cake mix got smaller (and otherwise didn't change) then you could try reducing every ingredient by a similar amount, to keep all the ratios the same.
If the package decreased from 18 to 15 ounces, that's makes the new package 83.3% (15÷18) the size of the old one. You'll want to reduce other ingredients similarly.
Your "18 oz recipe" was:
18 oz cake mix
4 eggs
½ cup sugar
1 cup oil
8 oz sour cream
With the eggs, an exact reduction would be 3⅓ eggs, and ⅓ egg is just silly. I'd suggest rounding down to 3. To keep the other measurements at round fractions, the ratios will get thrown off a bit.
If you keep all the measurements even fractions for a "15 oz recipe" you might try:
15 oz cake mix
3 eggs
⅓ cup sugar
¾ cup oil
6 oz sour cream
I've rounded everything down on that... Which means I think it might be a touch dry compared to the original.
A slightly fussier attempt at a "15 oz recipe" would be something like this:
15 oz cake mix
3 eggs
⅓ cup + 1 Tablespoon sugar
¾ cup + 1 Tablespoon oil
7 oz sour cream
That still might need some tweaking to get it "just right"... And of course, if Duncan Hines changed more than just the size of the box, your recipe might need more careful adjustment.
Baking time will also likely be shorter for a smaller quantity of batter.
I found a fix online last year, 2022. It calls for adding 1 cup of self rising flour to same recipe. Works! But tastes different. This year I'm following a bundt cake recipe that adds 1 box instant pudding. Also adding 4 TB self rising flour. So far, so good. I believe they changed more than just the size. Taste is not as rich.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.098876
| 2019-11-03T20:21:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103258",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Dugan ",
"O Mitchell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103510
|
Please name me an easily accessible chilli pepper which is low heat, sweet and aromatic?
As the question states. I'd prefer something which has very little heat if any at all but it should be strongly sweet, aromatic and grassy. I am in the UK so something easy to get: fresh or powdered.
If you don't want heat, any reason you're asking for a chilli rather than just using bell pepper?
@Cascabel A low heat chilli maybe have sweeter and more tasteful qualities than a bell pepper? As I see it, people dont pick chillis just for heat but rather the flavours that come with it?
I think you'll have to be a bit more specific in your question. Compared to the Carolina Reaper pepper, a Habanero or Thai Birdseye chilis are not too hot, but are only "not hot" by comparison--they can be quite hot. Personally, I'd consider a Jalapeno to be "very little heat" ... But hotness is very subjective, so a more specific question will make for a better answer. Do you find a Jalapeno spicy?
Sorry, we don't take list type questions. You have to decide for yourself which chilli you enjoy eating. There are scales online which show a rough level of heat, although they aren't perfect, since you have heat differences even between different chillis of the same plant. So you can take such a scale and simply start tasting the chillis from the lower end.
UK stores do not have much variety of chili powder in the low heat range, however you can get good quality paprika in almost all stores. Paprika is low heat, sweet and aromatic (provided you get decent stuff). Some stores sell Spanish Pimentón, which is good quality paprika. Pimentón comes in dulce (sweet) and picante (spicy) although picante isn't really very spicy.
I have found chipotle powder from specialty stores which is also a good choice, it's basically a smoked Jalapeño. I have found Ancho as well, which is red poblano, neither is particularly spicy.
There's a lot of chili powder on offer in the UK that is in the hot range from Indian, Pakistani and Caribbean influences, so many stores have sections for each cuisine, it's worth having a trawl through there to see what you can find as occasionally you'll see mild chili powders for sale, and they are good value.
Chipotle is a smoked Jalapeño. Ancho is a red poblano. These days you can get both [& more] in the big supermarkets. The only real problem is they don't tell you much about them on the jars, just the name; so you need to know in advance what the properties of each may be.
Thanks for the reminder @Tesujin, I had those mixed up. I see both rarely in supermarkets.
Rather than trying to use a lot of a mild chilli, you might be better using a tasty pepper, and adding a little heat in a more controlled way. In the supermarkets I go to, the long thin red and yellow sweet peppers tend to have more flavour than the normal bell peppers, and they're sweeter.
When it comes to adding a little controlled (ideally tasty) heat, either: use a finely chopped not-too-hot chilli (like a jalapeño, or the unspecified varieties often available) early in cooking; or use hot smoked paprika (assuming you like the smoky flavour and it's suitable - Pimenton de La Vera is widely available and reliable.
I have grown almost heatless chillies, but they're not widely sold, and anyway the heat isn't very reliable - you can end up with a batch that have no heat, or more heat than you expect.
When you say 'long thin red and yellow sweet peppers' do you not know their name or likely heat profile? I mean are these known for being sweet and low in heat?
@James they have no heat, but are normally sold as something like "sweet pointed red peppers". They may be Corno de Toro, a variety I've grown, but mine are smaller
Another good choice that's relatively available in the UK is Aleppo pepper.
Marash pepper would also be viable, but I don't know how easily available it is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.099116
| 2019-11-16T01:13:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103510",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"James Wilson",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68735
|
Use of sour milk for bread making - how long after the expiration date is it safe?
My mother uses (and my grandmothers used to use) sour milk in the baking of homemade bread. This was generally whole raw milk that had soured.
I'm not so lucky as to be able to get whole raw milk from a source I trust any more but occasionally a carton escapes the thirsty horde at home and goes past its expiration date. If it's only a day or so gone then I'll use it as normal given that I exercise a healthy degree of scepticism anyway about BB dates but if it's any longer then my idea would be that I'd use it in a bread recipe.
To clarify: the carton is unopened and has been refrigerated since purchase. It is not UHT milk as that's relatively rare here with HTST (72C for 15 seconds) pasteurisation the norm (probably owing to the relatively low ambient temperatures here)
The question is how long after the expiry date is it safe to use milk in this manner?
Downvoter, care to comment?
Maybe someone didn't like the assumption that sour milk is safe at all? It's hard to tell whether it's safely soured or unsafely spoiled.
If you really want some tasty sour milk, just drop some absorbic acid in a glass or what ever amount your going to use, A pinch in a glass, ~1/8-1/4 tsp per qt. The more you add the more sour the taste.
I'm not so lucky as to be able to get whole raw milk…
Wait, then there's a flaw in your premise. Check the label. Any milk treated using high-heat processes like UHT, pasteurization or ultra-pasteurized milk doesn't sour like it used to in your grandmother's days; it spoils… goes rotten.
Spoiled milk is not the same as soured milk.
The ultra-pasturized milk sold in the supermarket is essentially a dead product, with little to no live bacteria. When it goes bad, it rots and should be thrown out (or you can make plastic with it). Modern industrial pasteurization kills the “good” bacteria that once made sour milk a wonderful thing for cooking and making bread and cheese.
Substituting "Sour Milk"
If you have a recipe calling for sour milk, put a teaspoon of vinegar in a cup of fresh milk and let it sit for a few minutes. That's about the best you can do if you do not have access to raw milk.
I don't think you even have to say "ultra" here; as far as I know, any pasteurization at all means it'll at least potentially spoil rather than safely souring. And even with raw milk it's not a guarantee. It's much more likely safe, but still, even with most people in the US drinking pasteurized milk, there are around ten outbreaks a year due to raw milk with "bad" bacteria in it. And those people were probably just drinking it fresh. If you let it go sour and your milk was contaminated, you could get much more severe foodborne illness. Maybe not a huge risk, but not really safe either.
@Jefromi Yes, you are correct. Low-heat pasteurization methods aren't in wide-spread use that supposedly retain more of the healthy properties that high-heat kills. Nothing guarantees against bacterial contamination, but I was writing more on the defensive side in case someone wanted to call out that not all pasteurization creates a near-aseptic product.
The clincher here for me is the phrase "spoiled milk is not the same as sour milk". Here in Ireland UHT is relatively rare with HTST (72C for 15 seconds) pasteurisation the norm (probably owing to the relatively low ambient temperatures here)
It's not a specific date, as there are just too many variables -- what temperature it's been stored at, and how many days since the seal has been broken are likely more significant.
Growing up, my mom would use it for pancakes and baking once it started to smell a little bit off, but would dispose of it when it started to curdle (separate & get chunky).
...
As for the dates -- they're often not 'expiration', but dates to get stores to rotate their stock. (and if the stores or customers trash the product, the manufacturer makes more money, so doesn't care). They're dates like 'sell by' or 'best by' and such like that. See :
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/food-product-dating/food-product-dating
http://www.stilltasty.com/articles/view/5
And there's usually a few news reports at any given time talking about how they're kinda crap (except for infant formula). Today's is from Canada.
Agreed. With milk, your nose knows. With whole milk I get AT LEAST a week after the "sell by" date. 2% doesn't last as long.
The biggest variable is what it's been contaminated with after pasteurization, in particular after opening. Very often it will never turn into safe soured milk: it'll go from not sour to spoiled. It may still last well past the expiration date, for sure, but without being sour.
FWIW the dates on milk cartons in Ireland are specifically "use by" dates (with the usual caveat that once opened you use it within 3 days). The original question refers to an unopened carton that's been refrigerated since purchase.
@ChrisBergin Re the "nose knows", I agree wholeheartedly but didn't express it as succinctly when I said that I exercise a healthy degree of scepticism anyway about BB dates.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.099444
| 2016-05-02T13:23:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68735",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Bergin",
"Jerryf",
"Robert Cartaino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"noonand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66701
|
What are the guidelines for creating a canning recipe?
I am looking for the criteria that make an acceptable recipe for canning. Most sites say to only use approved canning recipes and not make substitutions, which is totally understandable, but surely there must be some guidelines for what makes those recipes acceptable? What levels of salt, acidity, water activity, etc make a recipe suitable to be canned?
I've wondered the same thing.
Nearly any recipe can be canned, the only caveats are that lower-acidity foods and recipes require a specialized pressure canner to kill bacteria, and there is also a short list of ingredients which are never a good idea to can, but many people wouldn't think twice about adding/subbing into a recipe - fats, dairy and eggs shouldn't be in a canning recipe because they'll still go rancid, grains and flours are good insulators and will actually protect bacteria from the heat, and thickeners that people will often throw into a recipe like cornstarch or tapioca will chemically break down from the canning heat. You'll find plenty of cases of people canning grainy/floury things anyway with no ill effect, but that simply means there was no bacteria to kill in the first place. Better safe than sorry.
Most people don't even know what pH is, let alone how to test it or how a recipe alteration would change it. They also aren't going to know much about bacterial growth conditions or heat transfer. It's a heck of a lot easier for a recipe site or book to just say "no substitutions" than to try to teach people how to do it safely, especially when there's plenty of idiots who wouldn't pay attention and sue when they get bacterial poisoning.
So there's really only two guidelines you really have to worry about for your recipes:
Avoid the ingredients that shouldn't be canned, or at the very least, understand that you're taking a risk.
Foods with a pH level of 4.6 and below can be canned in boiling water. A pH of above 4.6 requires pressure canning. This pH chart gives some examples of commonly canned items.
Sources:
The acidity rule is a fundamental safety rule that any decent guide will have. Ball's guide mentions it first thing in "Getting Started". Most guides will simply refer to high-acid and low-acid foods. This safety guide from the National Center for Home Food Preservation details the pH reading of 4.6 as the dividing line, which is also visible in the pH chart linked in the answer.
The dangers of canning cakes and breads have been published by many research departments, including those at Penn State and University of Georgia
Thickeners such as cornstarch chemically breaking down due to the heat involved in canning is detailed in the Cook's Thesaurus. This breakdown is the entire reason for a product called Clearjel, which is also mentioned on the same page as a substitute for cornstarch
Clemson University states that no safe methods for home canning dairy products exist.
Do you have sources for any of this?
There's also the problem of 'dense foods', in which you have to also worry about how thickly you cut the food so that the acids can properly penetrate them. (pumpkin pickles are when I typically see this mentioned)
@Jefromi I added some concurring academic sources to the answer.
Building on what Joe mentioned, pH can change after canning as the acid comes to equilibrium with the food. So home canning recipes based on a pH you measure yourself at canning time can be wildly unsafe. I think your second guideline is correct, it's just that in practice it's actually pretty hard to follow.
Some other odds and ends: how do you know what shouldn't be canned? Does it include anything besides grains/starch? And even if you know, say, that boiling water canning is safe for a given food, how do you know what processing time you need for safety?
The acid level in pickles (which Joe mentioned) is too low to get anywhere near 4.6. If the pH in something else is too close to call, common sense would dictate to err on the side of caution and use the pressure method. Measuring the level yourself is perfectly fine and how to do so detailed in most canning guides. How else do you think it's determined if not by measuring? I also cited the largest (and 125 year old) manufacturer of home canning supplies as well as the largest national association for it; if they aren't authoritative enough please suggest who would be.
Additionally, yes the list of things that shouldn't be canned contains more than grains and starch. I detailed as much in my answer, and cited publications from the science departments of major research universities. As far as the processing time goes, there are tables based on altitude and jar size in every canning guide. It isn't some mysterious arcane knowledge, anyone who cans at home uses those tables unless it's an item they've done so many times they just remember from experience. This is complete common knowledge for anyone who has ever canned anything or even read a beginner guide
Clarity: "the danger of canning bread in glass jars". Let's not put B&M Brown Bread out of business.
@Barkode I'm suggesting things that should be clearly addressed in your answer, not saying they're all impossible to know. Remember, you're answering a question from someone who doesn't know all this stuff, and other beginners will read it too. You really don't want any of them to get a dangerously oversimplified impression from your answer.
Also, I've seen totally different processing times for different fruits/jams, even for the same jar size and altitude. So it sure seems like you can't actually know what time you need without finding an already existing recipe for the specific thing you want to can.
The question specifically asked what makes a recipe suitable for canning. Home canning is nothing more than killing existing bacteria and inhibiting future growth. The entire answer to this question is to simply avoid anything which can rot after being canned or will prevent the heat from killing the bacteria. That isn't an oversimplification. Creating any recipe, canning or otherwise, requires a modicum of common sense. Those who lack it should stick to the recipe no matter what they're doing.
I think cases have been found where light bacterial activity actually messed with the pH, resulting in other bacterial activity...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.099868
| 2016-02-21T20:44:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66701",
"authors": [
"Barkode",
"Cascabel",
"Darryl Cliff",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paulb",
"Susan Hammers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jay harris",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89358
|
Can I fix my unset Crème Brûlée bars
I followed this recipe:
and messed up the temp to bake at because I confused myself when I was doing it. I wanted to make this for my class and so I doubled the recipe as well. I have to bring it in tomorrow morning and was wondering if there’s anything I can do to fix the custard.
It is completely soupy, I would say it maybe thickened a little bit like if you added heavy cream to coffee since I let it sit for the past 3 hours. I have made this recipe before successfully in my cooking class but I actually wasn’t there for when it was taken out of the oven and the setting process after so I wasn’t completely sure what it was supposed to look like.
What temperature were they baked at? Was it sitting in the fridge or on the counter?
I accidentally baked them 25 degrees too low, so instead of 300, 275 and after i got them out they set for an hour on the counter and then 2 more hours in the fridge
It's a bit late for "tomorrow morning" but I would've baked them again at 190°F to evaporate most of the extra moisture.
Why 190°F? Well, that is below the boiling point of water but will still get rid of the soupy texture by removing the excess of water without over-baking the entire thing.
Alternatively, you can also just rename the end product to "Crème Anglaise Brûlée" as that is what you ended up with: still tastes good, but just has a different texture and who knows that some people will like your version better as it's "lighter" then the original!!!
:-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.100363
| 2018-04-23T05:56:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89358",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Marlowe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66754"
],
"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
}
|
90822
|
Why does my banana bread have a moist top?
My mother always made banana bread when I was growing up, and my favorite part was the the fact that the top of the loaf was sweet and moist, to the point that it would leave residue if you touched it! Hers is the only banana bread that I've seen that does this.
When I first tried making the recipe, the top stayed dry, but these days it becomes moist just like when she makes it. As far as I can tell, the top is dry straight out of the oven, then as it cools it becomes slightly tacky. After saran wrapping, the top develops the moist layer that I'm familiar with.
Does anyone know:
What physically causes this moisture on top?
What I can do to reduce or enhance it?
You've partially answered your own question:
When wrapped in foil, the water contained naturally in the ingredients will re-moisturise the banana bread.
a. To reduce:
don't wrap it
leave it in the oven to cool down with the oven slightly open so that most of the moisture can escape
b. to enhance:
make a dome of tin foil above it before putting it in the oven
Wrap it in micro-wave resistant plastic foil the moment it comes out of the oven
P.S. Don't use Saran foil when it comes straight out of the oven. I've tried and it's not pretty!!! :-(
P.P.S. For perfect balance, I don't wrap it in tin foil before putting it in the oven but do leave it out for 5 minutes before wrapping it in microwave-resistant plastic foil, but my mum is not your mum, so YMMV. ;-)
P.P.P.S. Unless you're my brother, in which case your mum is my mum and I want to know: Why didn't you call mum yesterday??? :D :D :D
Thank you so much! I don't think I've ever tin-foil wrapped anything going into the oven (at least nothing that was meant to rise), that sounds intriguing. Would I just make a kind of dome of foil over the loaf before putting it in the oven? Do you think adding a water bath (not necessarily submerging the loaf pan, but perhaps just a container of water on a rack below it) could also get this effect?
Interesting: I've never tried a water bath, but indeed creating a mount in tin foil should do the trick, but like I said: I don't... (Answer edited to include this and other ramblings.) :-)
@sgbrown I put an earthenware container filled with water next to anything in the oven while baking it for moisture release; (E.g. dry pizza) but in this case I wouldn't because the bananas are so moist already that you're going to end up with a bunch of bleurgh bread instead of banana bread: start with the microwave-resistant foil, then tin foil, then tin foil with holes, etc until you get it right just like mum used to make it! ;-)
Why does the foil need to be microwave resistant?
@sgbrown When you bake bread with a water bath you get a thicker crust. Putting foil over the banana bread (or other cakes) partway through cooking is good for preventing burning or unevenly cooking the top quicker than the rest of the banana bread if your oven is too hot.
@Kat Because when you take the banana bread out of the oven and wrap it in normal foil immediately, it'll melt and sick into the banana bread and to the container and is very hard to remove.
@Lag and to keep the moisture in...
Do you mean microwave-safe plastic wrap? I would guess so, since you also said "saran foil" instead of "saran wrap." To me, foil is metal, so it melting or being microwave safe doesn't make much sense.
Tin foil is metal, Plastic foil is well... Plastic in my part of the world... ;-)
I've never heard the phrase "plastic foil" before today. Foils, in every context I have ever had need to speak about them, are metals which are hammered or rolled into very thin sheets, so tin foil, aluminum foil, gold foil, etc make sense to me. I wonder if "plastic foil" is a regional thing? I am curious---where are you from that you can buy "plastic foil"?
@XanderHenderson Europe...
After it’s cooled part way, cover it in an airtight container
The moisture gets trapped and will make the top sticky and moist
Or cover soon after flipping it out if the pan.
To reduce this, let it bake fully then let cool completely before wrapping. That’s my opinion/no scientific facts!
Moisture and steam go hand in hand
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.100541
| 2018-07-05T19:24:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90822",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Kat",
"Lag",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"sgbrown"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92248
|
Eggs used as Binders
Eggs are commonly used as a binder in meatballs and other foods.
If separated, is one part of the egg a stronger binder:
Is the white a stronger binder than the yolk?
Is the yolk stronger than the white?
Is either separated portion a stronger binder than the whole egg?
I'm sure there's a difference, I'm trying to find the science before adding an answer
Depending on the answers you get, I might be interested in a follow-up question about the resulting texture (I sometimes make savoury oat/cheese/egg flapjacks and they can turn out a little rubbery with too much egg, but much less and they fall apart) +1
Further research using Google has provided the information I was seeking though not in the form I had posed my question. It might be helpful if I first state what I'm ultimately trying to achieve:
I want to make chicken nuggets using only chicken thigh meat (and possibly chicken skin).
On my previous attempt, I used whole egg as a binder and achieved less than satisfactory results: over here I found a recipe mentioning that using the egg white, which has much more protein than the yolk (mostly fat), would give me the best shot at succeeding:
Lean Poultry Patties:
Unlike beef, ground turkey and chicken, either alone or in combination, benefit from the addition of egg whites when forming burger patties.
The egg whites help the lean meat to bind together, especially if you're using additional ingredients such as chopped vegetables.
To form patties made with ground poultry, use a food processor to chop vegetables such as onion, pepper or mushrooms into small pieces.
Use one egg white per 1 pound of meat.
A tablespoon of savory flavoring to the meat mixture, such as soy sauce or barbecue sauce, adds body and moisture
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.100972
| 2018-09-14T08:24:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92248",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91407
|
What additional ingredients and steps to take to make fast cooking oatmeal from oats?
I am specifically dealing with oat flakes, however I would be happy to hear answers from the spectrum of oats.
Preferably cheap, healthy, fast and easy but a comparison of the different possible methods would be great. If anybody could tag this post with oatmeal that'd be great.
I bought a bunch of oats (a nice bulk bag), and have learned the distinction between oats and the quick cooking instant oatmeal which I love.
Upon adding boiling water to the oats, I am left with softened oats but how can I get a product similar to instant oatmeal with the bulk oats I have already purchased?
Can you clarify what exactly you have bought? Terminology varies from country to country so if you can describe them or link to something that matches there will be less ambiguity. This site might help To me 'oats' with no qualifier are groats, the whole grain, 'oatmeal' is groats that have been milled, and I make porridge from, Which gets confusing because for some people the thing I call 'rolled oats' are 'porridge oats', whereas the only use I've ever found for them is stopping my bread sticking to its proving basket....
I am not sure what you are missing here. Is it that you didn't realize that standard oats have to be cooked before consumption? Or do you know that this is typical, but are asking if there is a way to preprocess them on your own at once, so that cooking is no longer needed later? Also, do https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63015/ or https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47097 cover what you wanted to ask?
Oats are naturally big grains that look kind of like brown rice. In order to make them cookable, those hard shells have to be breached somehow. In the US, you can usually buy either "steel cut" oats which are just groats sliced open, or "rolled" oats which are sliced open and pressed flat between rollers. Both make fine oatmeal; it just takes much longer to cook the steel-cut kind. If you have whole oats, you'll have to find a way to break into them.
@Spagirl oat flakes question updated
@rumtscho I misunderstood myself, fast cooking, close this question as duplicate if applicable
I read the question as the OP wants to know how to turn their big bag of regular oats into instant oats for future consumption
I use large flake oats. Two-to-one by volume tap water to oats in a bowl. Don't even stir, you'll have to do something with the wet spoon if you do. Handful of dried raisins and/or cranberries. Microwave for 2 minutes at 70%. Add a few shakes of salt (salt is really important for oatmeal) and give it a good stir. When you take it out of the microwave it will look done, but stirring will reveal there are less cooked oats under the ones at the top.
Give it another 2 minutes at 70 and stir it well again. I often stir in a little milk at this point, which can cool it as well as making it creamier. If you find you would like it sweeter, a little brown sugar or maple syrup over the top and not stirred in work wonderfully.
If instead of large flake you have quick oats, you'll need less time in the microwave. Instant oats need only boiling water, but they generally only come pre-flavoured and sweetened. If you did get plain instant, you'd probably want to cut your dried fruit small so it would be ok with just boiling water. Steel cut oats need significant cooking - most people I know use a slow cooker over night. If you're not sure what you got from the bulk store, either experiment with different cooking times until you're happy, or look for pictures of various oat forms until you know what you have.
You could perhaps incorporate a link (there's one in my comment on the question but there are others) to a site that helps to identify different kinds of oats?
@Spagirl : steel cut oats are little cylinders. 'large flake' is also known as rolled oats -- they're roughly flat circles with a darker line running down the middle. Instant oats are also flat like rolled oats, but the flakes are broken up oats, so they're not as regular in size and shape as instant.
@Joe cheers, I’m not confused about them myself but suggested incorporating more info to make a better answer. Terminology is not always the same across the anglosphere which is why I included a disambiguating link in my comment on the question. :)
Instant porridge/oatmeal normally has milk powder added to par-cooked oats. Non-instant porridge normally uses milk. You can make a water porridge, but soaking is good for most oats if you're going to do that. The exact method will depend on what sort of oats you have, but you will need to simmer for a few minutes at a minimum.
If you want a handy shelf-stable preparation my camping recipe works well: 60g of rolled oats, 30g of milk powder, 1 tsp sugar, and any dry flavourings you like (cinammon, dried fruit...). Add 350-400ml of hot water, bring back to the boil, turn down heat and cook until done. I actually turn the heat right off for about 10 minutes and cover/wrap in a towel, to save camping fuel and because my stove is rather fierce, before finishing off over the heat. This can also be microwaved in a large bowl - 2 minutes on high, wait a few minutes, 1 minute on high, repeat the wait/1 minute part until ready.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.101147
| 2018-08-03T02:09:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91407",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"Joe",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user1821961"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117573
|
How long to steam tofu (extra firm) without predrying or what is cooked temperature?
I understand meats have recommended cooking temperatures to tell when they are done, but the extra firm tofu I buy says to fry it for like 8-10 minutes or something. I want to steam this tofu and was wondering if I should be doing it for X time or aiming for a certain internal temperature like meat. How can I determine when the tofu is done.
I am also very lazy so I don't thoroughly dry or press the tofu before cooking.
I'm just looking to cook the tofu to make it easy/safe tp eat, no particular culinary texture/flavor goals.
It's good to be lazy. Drying/pressing tofu is largely a waste of time.
Is your aim to just "cook" the tofu or are you trying achieve a particular texture or flavor?
If the concern is safety or "rawness" of some sort, tofu is cooked and perfectly edible as-is. Really, just warming it up (or not at all!) to the temperature you want should be fine.
The instruction for frying has a set time because it aims to significantly change the flavor/texture of the tofu. If your aim is to change the tofu somehow, I don't expect steaming to do much, as the process of making tofu itself already involves steaming (or boiling, depending on exact method) the soybeans.
I'm just looking to cook the tofu to make it easy/safe to eat, no particular culinary texture/flavor goals, updating question accordingly.
Steaming or boiling or microwaving until 100c boiling point will get the tofu to release excess water and therefore hold onto any seasonings added after.
A good step before frying if no flour/starch coat is used to aid a nice crust.
From microwave, you can hear and see tofu sizzle when hot. By boiling, depending on thickness, 2 - 10min.
Steaming harder to judge temp without laser.
Simply strain in colander and maybe a firm pat dry.
Watch soy sauce etc soak in without typical puddle forming from salty condiments added to straight-from-fridge tofu
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.101549
| 2021-10-20T23:40:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117573",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"user1821961"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71197
|
How do I know if escargot is fully cooked?
I recently had escargot the first time at at buffet. It wasn't piping hot but I was able to pull the meat out of the shell easily and it was chewy. There are bits of black
here and there on the meat.
Questions
1) How do I know if it's fully cooked?
2) What are the little black bits on the meat?
I asked the servers but they all said it was fully cooked and safe to eat. But how do I know?
By the time escargot1 are heated to serve (I presume you had the standard garlic / herb butter gratin version served in the shell?), they have already been cooked for two to three hours in total.
Escargot are killed by dumping them in their shells in boiling water, not unlike some cooks prepare lobster.2
The soft body is removed from the shell, inedible parts and mucus removed, then cooked for another two hours. Snails will always be a bit chewy (they loose about 2/3 of their weight during cooking), but shouldn't be rubbery.
After that, the meat is ready to serve or to be used in other recipes, stuffing them back in their shells with garlic butter is only one of them.
Without pictures, it's hard to tell what you mean by "black bits", from pigments in the snail's skin to flecks of herbs or peppercorns there are many options.
1 Typical cultivated species:
The Burgundy snail (Helix pomatia)
The Garden snail (Cornu aspersum)
2 Yes, some kill lobster before boiling them, but that's not the main topic here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.101720
| 2016-07-04T01:43:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71197",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71418
|
Cooking with sourdough starter
I have recently begun a sourdough starter. General advice is to throw away half the starter every few days then feed what remains with additional flour and water.
Is there a reason why most instructions say to simply discard half of it? I just fryed up some "wholemeal starter pancakes" instead of chucking it in the bin. Is this advisable? I've got a fear there's a food hygiene issue here that is more pronounced because I'm not baking it at 200c for 20mins.
Bad idea or good use of what is otherwise waste?
--FOLLOW UP--
I've been going for about a week now and the starter is really acidic and doesn't taste very nice in pancakes... I think i might have found the real answer to why it isn't suggested to do 'something' with the waste before the first bake - it doesn't taste very nice!
The instructions should read to throw away half the starter if you haven't used it to make bread (i.e. the starter needs to be refreshed in order to continue living). If it doesn't get new flour and water, it has nothing to keep it alive. So it tells you to get rid of half (by baking or, at worst, chucking it out). You could keep it, but you would end up with a hell of a lot of starter (exponentially!).
As for food safety, I don't think you have much to worry about... However I'm sure some of the other food scientists on this site will regurgitate a bunch of stats for you soon...
Well the by-product tasted nice. This is the answer I was expecting so I've excepted unless anyone can convince me otherwise that I'm going to get ill should I continue doing it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.101865
| 2016-07-14T18:20:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71418",
"authors": [
"Suipaste",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48045"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92216
|
Which type of chocolate to use for covering a coconut ball
I wanted to try a chocolate ball which is made of:
condensed milk
a little almond powder
raisins
I mix these ingredients into a soft ball and then I want to cover the bar with chocolate that can survive a Southern Indian climate.
I do have moulds of different shapes so I wanted to try this one but the original recipe instruction was to get bitter chocolate and then roughly chopped chocolate has to be microwaved to bring it to a liquid consistency so that it can be filled in piping bags.
Could you please let me know what kind of chocolate to use?
Welcome to Seasoned advice! ;-) Could you please [edit] your question and: share the recipe, tell us what climate you're in, how long you want to store them, ... In other words: Tell us what you're trying to achieve so we can give you the perfect answer as there is a ton of different kinds of chocolate out there
Please don't thank me but consider accepting after you've tried my suggestions and they helped you.
Sure will try it and let you know.
I would use the hardest local dark chocolate I could find that does not melt easily as the other ingredients are quite sweet already and you don't need more sweetness.
However, as I'm advising hard chocolate, microwaving will be out of the question and as you're a beginner, I would melt the chocolate "Au bain marie" instead:
Nearly fill a big kettle with water and submerge a second smaller kettle inside it and then put the chocolate inside kettle 2 and put the entire contraption on your stove. Please ensure the inner kettle has a lid on it so that no moisture from the boiling water gets into the chocolate!
Once the chocolate has melted, try putting your pinky in the melted chocolate: if you can keep your pinky in the chocolate for 5 seconds without burning yourself, it's at the right temperature. ;-) If you have a thermometer, let it cool down to above whatever the melting point was (measure while melting: it depends on the chocolate.)
Take a soup spoon full of chocolate and put the ball inside and then drip some more chocolate on top with a coffee spoon: this will not only make it easier for a first try, but will also look good as you'll get that "dripped" home-made effect.
If you have good moulds, fill them half up with chocolate, then put your ball inside and then close them: the ball should now be encased in chocolate.
Whichever method you use: put them in the fridge for cooling down and take them out one hour before serving.
Enjoy!
Although high-power microwaving will screw up most first time chocolatiers, so can a bain marie if they get moisture into the chocolate, and it seizes. You can fix seized chocolate by adding more liquid, but that would ruin it for making a hard shell
@Joe True! Thanks! clarified answer... (although the pic shows a lid, this was not clear from the text)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.102020
| 2018-09-12T08:58:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92216",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69204",
"user23599"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95100
|
Cooking more than one meat - will I have to adjust my cooking time?
So I’ve got two amazing recipes for pork and lamb shoulder. The pork takes 6.5 hours at 150°C with the last thirty mins at 220°C to get the crackling right. My pork (de-boned) weighs 3kg and will have some water in the tray for the gravy.
I also have a lamb shoulder that weighs 3kg (bone-in).
I only have one oven. It is a modern Bosch electric oven.
I want them both, ideally, to go in the oven at the same time, with the pork on top. I’ve cooked both these meats separately before.
Will I have to adjust the cooking time?
I was going to cook this so that it’s ready 2 hours before serving, then resting it for thirty minutes before I then wrap it tightly in foil and leave it in my boiler room.
In this time my potatoes will be roasting. Once the potatoes have roasted I’ll be putting the meat back in the oven - with the foil removed for fifteen minutes or so to come to temperature.
Does it sound like my cooking times will be OK? I’m hoping for melt in the mouth meat.
Yes, you can put both meats into the oven at the same time and take it out at the same time. However:
You need to sear both before putting them in the oven to keep the juices inside and you will need to cut thin strips from the lamb when serving and then put it back in the oven as it will not be cooked to the bone.
Bake the potatoes before the meat as leaving the meat out for 2 hours will cool it down too much. Subsequently, re-heat the roasted potatoes for 2 min in the microwave at 750W for 2 minutes, let rest for 1 min and then another minute at 1000W. (or the highest setting) just before serving them. No one will notice the difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.102263
| 2018-12-24T08:21:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95100",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91930
|
How to decide whether to reduce a sauce or thicken it?
The approach I always adopted to thicken a sauce is to reduce it so the water can evaporate, leaving a sauce that is more concentrated. Earlier, I watched a video where the host was talking about thickening agents such as flour. Looking up on google, It seems that the thickening is a term commonly used when employing other substances to thicken the sauce rather than just letting the water evaporate. I wonder how to decide whether to reduce a sauce versus thickening it (or both)?
The best way to decide whether to reduce a sauce or to add a thickening agent is to taste it. If the flavour is as strong as you want it to be, then reduce it no further and add something to thicken it.
If the flavour is too weak, keep reducing it.
Other points to consider/caveats:
reducing will increase salt concentration, so even if the flavour is too weak you might make a sauce inedibly salty if you reduce it too far
some flavour compounds will get destroyed by too much boiling, so consider how the flavour might change as you reduce it (e.g. lemon juice will lose some of its fresh, bright flavour, alcohol will lose some of its kick)
various thickening agents will thicken the sauce in different ways. it may be useful to familiarise yourself with them
some thickening agents will have an effect on the flavour of the sauce (especially wheat flour, egg yolks, but also to a lesser extent cornflour)
You are on the right track. Reducing is when you let the cooking liquids gently evaporate until the resulting sauce is concentrated to your desired taste and consistency.
Thickening is when some type of starch such as flour, cornstarch, arrowroot, etc. is used to actually thicken the cooking liquids. This is how you would make a traditional gravy or thicken the base for a stew.
Cooking liquids can be more than just water and can include things like meat juices, wine, broths, stocks, etc. So, in order to thicken you need liquid, just not necessarily water.
Update - The question was edited after I posted this answer.
There are a few different reasons to choose a reduction sauce or a thickened sauce.
A reduction sauce is typically considered to be more delicate and "cleaner" tasting. (Not less flavorful.) I typically drizzle a reduction sauce over meat and lighter vegetables such as asparagus.
A thickened gravy is typically heartier. Most often you will see a thickened gravy used with heartier vegetables and sides such as potatoes or stuffing. It is also used when cooking "smothered" dishes and stews.
In the end, just as with other things, it comes down to what you like.
In either case, there can be pitfalls. With a reduction sauce you want to be sure not to reduce it too far as the flavor can become too strong. With a thickened sauce, you want to be sure not to add too much starch as it can reduce the base flavor or drastically alter it.
but how to decide whether to reduce let's say a broth by just letting some of its water content evaporate, or adding some type of starch to the mix?
Using a thickener just thickens; it does not affect the flavor much. Reducing a sauce concentrates the flavor. So you typically will want to reduce a sauce to the point where it is flavorful but not overpowering, then thicken if needed.
i don't think this answers the question - OP is not asking how to thicken sauces, and they seem clear on what the difference is. The question asks when to thicken vs when to reduce
@canardgras The question was edited after I posted this answer. I will update my answer shortly.
@Cindy yeah my bad, I didn't make myself clear :P
It depends on the sauce. A gravy you can thicken with flour. I would never add flour to a tomato sauce. Simmer also lets the flavors combine.
Flour is good for gravy, but don't rule out cornstarch - it's great for many difference sauces.
A lot of points have already been made, so I won't repeat them, but perhaps one thing is worth a thought. A lot of Western sauces depend on thickening by creating emulsions of fat in water.. French-tradition reduction sauces are often thickened this way, with butter. The mouth-feel is very different from thickening with starch - think of the difference in feel between mayonnaise and bechamel. Also, emulsions can carry and intensify the flavor of fats - an olive oil which is very pleasant to dip bread in might be way too strong in a mayonnaise.
It is all a matter of what tastes good to you and to those you want to please by feeding them. There is no universal answer! Some will taste better if reduced, some if thickened and some with a combination of reduction and thickening. The only real answer is to experiment! Try both ways or a combination with different recipes. What is best for one dish, might not be right for others
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.102430
| 2018-08-27T18:12:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91930",
"authors": [
"Amine Hajyoussef",
"Cindy",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"SnakeDoc",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68926"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103723
|
Is a borosilicate glass pot safe to use on a gas burner stovetop?
I've seen similar questions about Pyrex, but as I understand it Pyrex manufactured in the United States is now made from tempered soda-lime glass, so I am not asking about that.
UPDATE:
To address a similar question: the answer to the question on Pyrex was, first of all, a generic question on Pyrex (not just borosilicate Pyrex), and it left an open ended answer for personal testing on borosilicate, which doesn't answer my specific question, and it attracted boarder answers (many completely oblivious to the materials used). I'm really looking for a specific answer from personal experience with borosilicate.
The Question:
I specifically would like to know if anyone has used a (verified) borosilicate glass pot on a gas burner stove top, and if it is safe for regular use, and by "regular use" I would specifically mean:
Is it safe to take a chilled pot from the refrigerator to a full open flame?
Is it safe to take a pot that has been on a full open flame (for an hour or so) to the bottom of the sink (risking a little cool water splash)?
OR are there limiting factors, and if so, what are they?
I just want to make sure I can treat a borosilicate pot the same way I might a regular pot or pan. I've done a decent amount of research, and according to the stated temperature limits, it would seem that it might be okay, but I've not seen enough information on the effects of rapid temperature change. So I'm really interested in actual experiences.
I once spat on a hot incandescent light bulb, and I just want to make sure this pot won't explode the way that light bulb did.
I wouldn't take a borosilicate dish from the oven to the sink, but do put mine on a cold cast iron pot support (over the idle gas burners)
Possible duplicate of Is pyrex safe to use on a gas burner?
At least some of the "similar questions" you should have seen do specifically call out the difference between current Pyrex formulation and borosilicate glass, and address your question directly. Such as proposed duplicate above.
this Slow-mo guys video is relevant, here. When Pyrex goes, it goes fast. It's unlikely to just crack.
quenching is worse than heating, but just a splash of water won't be critical. Do mind that used in a laboratory, heating of such vessels are rarely done with flame directly against the glass - there are grids w/ a ceramic layer that acts as the "stovetop". It is poor form to heat stuff with naked flame, it causes explosive boiling, superheated reactions and not to mention soot stains.
It depends completely on the glass. Where did you get this pot? Did you make it? Was its original design originally as kitchenware? Or is this a "pot" of some other sort that you wish to use in the kitchen, even though that was not its as-manufactured intended purpose? How do you know it's borosilicate glass? What else do you know about it? Formulation? Heat treatment? Any chemical hardening? All of this will be important.
@PeterDuniho: I specifically looked at that question and others before writing an answer here, rather than flagging as duplicate. To my mind, this is a completely separate question as Pyrex (to my knowledge) does not manufacture any borosilicate glass cookware that it labels as safe for stovetop use, anywhere in the world, and it hasn't for about 40 years. It does make its Visions line of out a different type of glass (calexium) that is safe for stovetop use. Meanwhile, OP here specifically asks about non-Pyrex and a (presumably designed-for-stovetop-use) borosilicate pot.
@PeterDuniho I've updated my question to address the possible duplicate. I had seen this question, but it did not help. It attracted uneducated answers about Pyrex, and while some (including the top answer) acknowledged the manufacturing not using borosilicate in the US, it did not answer the effect of using borosilicate. He just said to try it out. I'm interested in answers about experience from those who have knowingly used/tested borosilicate with specific details on safe use, as I don't have any disposable pots to test myself.
@J... I got a pot from Amazon (who apparently stocked it from China) with inadequate roughly translated promotional-mumbo-jumbo type instructions. So I was wanting to do some research to asses the actual safe-use instructions.
@Hawkeye Well, if it was sold as a pot for use in a kitchen and was advertised as being safe for use on a gas range then go ahead and use it. If it breaks, learn the lesson that cheap imported stuff from Amazon comes with few guaranteed quality standards. You could literally have two nearly identical glass pots, but depending on how they were manufactured they can have very different resistance to impact and thermal shock abuse. If you buy quality kitchenware from good companies you can expect them to perform as advertised. If you buy cheap crap from Amazon... roll the dice and eat the gamble.
@Hawkeye Really, the only person who can tell you whether your pot is safe to use on a gas burner is the person who manufactured it. If you want a definitive answer, the best place to ask is the company who produced it. They are the only ones with specific information about your pot. We have no such information to be able to give you a clear answer.
@J... I only asked because the pot's instructions were frustratingly nonspecific and stated that it was "for heating soup" (which is pretty limited usage, and does not address safe handling), so I was wanting others experience. But I really appreciate all the input.
I specifically would like to know if anyone has used a (verified)
borosilicate glass pot on a gas burner stove top
I have used borosilicate glass vessels on a number of different heat sources, both in laboratory circumstances and on a standard home gas stove.
and if it is safe for regular use, and by "regular use" I would
specifically mean:
Is it safe to take a chilled pot from the refrigerator to a full open flame?
Is it safe to take a pot that has been on a full open flame (for an hour or so) to the bottom of the sink (risking a little cool water
splash)?
Generally speaking, no. I mean, it depends on what you mean by "safe" -- borosilicate glass is less likely to shatter in explosive ways compared to some other types of glass. Glass vessels designed specifically for cooking are probably even less likely to fail in a way that is dangerous.
But will the vessel survive doing such things repeatedly over an extended period? Probably not. It may eventually crack. Depending on how extreme the temperature difference exposed to, it may even break more violently. But most likely, cooking vessels like this will simply fail by developing a crack (which will then leak contents).
OR are there limiting factors, and if so, what are they?
I would consult the specific documentation that comes with any glass cooking vessel for guidelines appropriate to it. (And in case this isn't clear, I would NOT recommend using borosilicate glass vessels on the stove top unless they are specifically designed for such use. Even lab glassware will eventually crack if not used over an even heat source, which is why labs tend to use various heat diffusion devices when employing an open flame on a glass vessel.)
For example, the Pyrex company had a set of glass pots for stove top use called Flameware, which was discontinued (I believe) in the late 1970s. Instructions can be found here, which state (among other things):
Heat uniformly, using low to moderate flame [...] Do not heat when dry
or cook to dryness. [...] Add water before food is put in dish and
stir occasionally while boiling. [...] When dish is hot, avoid pouring
in cold liquids. [...] Avoid setting dish on damp or cold surfaces.
All of these warnings have to do with avoiding stress created through rapid temperature changes, which will eventually cause a pot to fail. Note these are warnings for a line of Pyrex specifically designed for stove top cooking.
For a standard producer of borosilicate glass for stove top use today, see JENA's Trendglas, whose products here are specifically designed for direct heat:
The very even wall thickness ensures outstanding thermodynamic
qualities so that our glass products can be placed directly on heat
sources. [...] Our glass products [...] show a high resistance to
sudden temperature changes with a temperature difference of
140°C/284°F (three times as high as normal glass or lead crystal
glass)
These glass products have instructions here. And that document includes similar warnings to the Pyrex products discussed above:
[...] Always use evenly distributed heat and never heat your Trendglas JENA product empty. The heat source and the glass shall be
heated together.
Avoid sudden cooling, don't place the hot glass under cold water or on wet hot pads. [...]
Only heat water-containing foods on the stove, never use it for heating solid foods or oily liquids.
Make sure that the hob is not smaller than the bottom of the glass product. [...] When using a gas stove, we recommend using a gas stove
grate.
Basically, glass is a substance that can crack from thermal shock. No amount of engineering is going to make a glass vessel as durable and resistant to thermal shock as a metal pot. That said, scientists use borosilicate glass all the time in complex procedures involving heating and cooling, and exploding glassware is rare unless you do something very stupid. But cracks and failures of glassware that is used over and over for applications involving thermal stress and rapid temperature changes are also to be expected.
If you follow the manufacturer's instructions for your pot and take advice like that listed above (avoiding thermal stress, heating gradually, etc.), some glass pots can last for many years or decades. And you may get away with occasionally forgetting and making a mistake. But even if cracks don't appear immediately, those stresses can build up over time and eventually cause failure.
EDIT: After reading over some of the comments that have appeared, I wanted to incorporate some ideas and re-emphasize a point I stated above: I would NOT recommend using borosilicate glass vessels on the stove top unless they are specifically designed for such use.
Some of the answers on previous questions about borosilicate versions of Pyrex (still to be found, particularly outside the U.S.) say it may be possible to attempt to heat borosilicate containers (Pyrex or otherwise) on the stove top, but I would strongly advise against this unless it's actually a vessel labeled for stove top use or described in its instructions as appropriate for stove top use.
It's not just borosilicate glass itself that makes a pot or other vessel safe for the stove top. Glass intended for use on the stove top usually has higher standards for production. It is often more even and thinner (like lab glassware) than some other types of glass bakeware and kitchenware, as thicker glass will have a larger thermal gradient between the surface and interior that can make the glass vulnerable to fracture. It may employ a somewhat different formulation of ingredients in the glass (to respond better to thermal stress, rather than to emphasize durability). It may also have specific design features in terms of its shape and variance in thickness to account for the type of expansion that occurs during stovetop heating (i.e., heating from the bottom) vs. bakeware that will usually expand more at the top (because food inside will be cooler in the initial stages of baking, while the top of a glass baking dish may get hotter without food in direct contact with it). And I'm sure there are other design features that make glass safer for stove top use.
User SiHa linked a video showing what can happen if borosilicate glassware is inappropriately heated. That measuring cup is specifically labeled as not for stove top use, and it's not designed for that sort of stress. A measuring cup is probably only expected to take the variation in temperature caused by things like introducing boiling water, not an open flame applied to it. But also note that the catastrophic failure in that video (and mild explosion) likely happens due to two things:
the uneven heating of a blowtorch, which already inflicts a huge amount of stress even without the introduction of water; the third cup breaks even before they apply water to it
the thickness of the cup, which is designed to be durable and to resist breaking when handled roughly or dropped, not for heating; the thickness allows more energy to build up in the cup before fracture, leading to the explosive burst, rather than the more mild fracture than would likely occur in a thinner vessel
I don't mean to scare anyone too much here, only to emphasize the importance of only using glassware designed for direct heat on the stove top. As I mentioned in my original answer above, when borosilicate glassware designed for direct heating fails, it is more likely to crack (perhaps crack a lot, but still simply crack into pieces) if handled appropriately. That can create a mess, but it's usually not dangerous or explosive unless one does something stupid with it.
The Arcoflam stuff I've used has similar warnings. One thing to note is that lab glassware is much thinner, meaning less of a temperature gradient between the inside and outside than in thicker cookware. I have, and would again, use my borosilicate dishes over the lowest flame my stove will give, for example for keeping something hot while reserving it, but this is very much an edge case.
" scientists use borosilicate glass all the time" - and I was able to buy cheaply, or even get for free, used glassware that went thorough enough heating cycles they no longer wanted to use it, even if no cracks were visible. Of course, never use such glass for anything but an art purposes.
@Mołot I used to use a genuine lab beaker as a coffee cup. It was brand new from a sealed box, but still wound up my colleagues. I would hope that not eating/drinking from used labware would be too obviously a bad idea to need saying, but I've met humans
@ChrisH In Polish Craft Beer scene using lab equipment to drink is quite in fashion now - but only with printed design that clearly identifies festival, brewery etc. to distinguish it as drinking containers.
This is precisely the sort of information I was looking for. My pot is stated to be designed for the stove top, it is thin, and it looks to be of even thickness, but all the images showing the usage show a low flame, and it states that it is a soup pot. From that information and the information you've provided, I have concluded... it is a soup pot, that can only be used on a low flame, and should be treated... like glass (to state the seemingly obvious). Thank you for all the helpful links and information!
No.
Is it safe to take a chilled pot from the refrigerator to a full open flame? Is it safe to take a pot that has been on a full open flame (for an hour or so) to the bottom of the sink (risking a little cool water splash)?
...
I just want to make sure I can treat a borosilicate pot the same way I might a regular pot or pan.
The answers to all of these questions is no, it is absolutely not safe. You would be playing russian roulette, the question is not if but when it will break and leave you with a dangerous mess. The material was not designed to be used this way and cannot be treated like a metal pot. Yes, it's intended to be able to withstand high amounts of thermal shock, like being moved from a freezer to an oven, but open flames or other stovetop cooking methods are an entirely different matter.
I just want to make sure I can treat a borosilicate pot the same way I might a regular pot or pan. I've done a decent amount of research, and according to the stated temperature limits ...
The link shows you exactly why you cannot -- borosilicate should only be used at temps around 400 C for a short amount of time and begins softening at 800 C. A gas burner can reach temps up to 2000 C, and even the cool flames are well above 800.
I would be thinking about the worst case failure mode, however unlikely. The pot shatters, the contents are no longer supported by the sides of the pot.
Could that result in the cook being seriously burned? If it's food that is liquid, such as soup, the answer is yes. If it's basically solid, no.
If the pot is in an oven or microwave, that provides some containment. A big mess, but not a pint of boiling soup headed for the cook's groin.
"worst case failure mode, however unlikely" for any kind of pot would be handles falling of just when you are holding it over the floor, full of freshly boiled soup, when your kid runs by or something like that. It is unlikely, but it can happen, right? What I mean is that "however unlikely" is terrible measure here, because pretty much anything in the kitchen can kill someone if you are willing to imagine unlikely enough, not strictly proven impossible, scenario.
Handles don't spontaneously fall off aluminium or steel pans. They are held on with screws which you feel have worked loose, and re-tighten. Or rivets, plural, which don't break under the weight of a pot. You are right, a ceramic soup tureen is intrinsically less safe than a metal pot. However, applying a flame to ceramic vastly increases the stress on it, and is outside most manufacturers' specifications. "However unlikely " ... I can't think of a short phrase for "However unlikely it is that the glass will suffer flame-induced brittle fracture in spite of the manufacturer's promises".
Chemex coffee pots are made of borosilicate glass, and the Chemex web site explicitly says that you can use a low gas flame to keep the coffee warm. But I would worry about drastic temperature changes like putting a hot pot under running water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.103080
| 2019-11-26T22:57:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103723",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Chris H",
"Hawkeye",
"J...",
"Mołot",
"Peter Duniho",
"SiHa",
"Stian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"nigel222"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92300
|
Made a bland curry, it's cooled down and about to freeze it. Help!
I've just made a tasteless chicken and veg curry. I have put various spices in, but it's still bland. It's cooled down now and I was going to freeze it tonight as I've made it to take camping next weekend, so will be heated up again then.
My question is - can I save it now? Can I add more spices to cold curry now, mix it and then freeze it? If so, what spices will give it more flavour?
I have no idea how you're going to reheat your curry, but if we assume it's in a pot over the campfire, you have a few options:
Bring spices with you, bloom them in oil, then add your pre-made curry to reheat.
Make and cook a spice paste ahead of time (or buy one), as it won't have the 'raw' spice qualities that using a curry powder will. You can then stir it into the curry to taste as you heat it up. If you're using a curry roux, you may need to add a little extra liquid, as it'll act as a thickener.
Bring along chutneys, Indian relish, or similar things that people can mix-in to add flavor. (I like the 'hot' chutneys for adding flavor. Sweet chutneys are better for mellowing out a chutney than adding flavor on its own)
Serve it over heavily seasoned rice. Dice up some carrots and onions, cook them in oil with a (possibly heavy) pinch of salt, add any spice powders or seeds (tumeric, mustard seeds, whatever else you like in your curry), add the rice, let it toast a little bit like for risotto, then add your liquid and steam as you normally would. I'll sometimes also throw in a cinnamon stick or a few cloves in just before I add the liquid. But count the cloves and warn people, as eating under poor lighting conditions can result in surprises.
I wouldn't suggest reheating your curry in advance; camping typically suggests food storage without refrigeration, and you often have hungry people not waiting for food to fully heat back through. Because of this, it's best not to keep reheating / cooling off food unless you're going to bring it to a full boil each time, and that could start turning the meat and vegetables into mush.
Upvoted for point 3. Sealed jars of chutney will keep as long as you like at any temperature, and a proper preserved chutney (acidic) will keep at least a few days open in a cool place (how long is a matter for personal judgement taking into account ambient temperatures).
+1 for counting the cloves (speak from experience).
@RedSonja : and related, always count bay leaves and don't use ones that are really torn up, as it sucks to that half a leaf in a pot of tomato sauce
Adding spiced to a cold curry isn't going to do much for you, you need heat to activate them and draw out the flavors. I would take the spices with you and add them once the curry is heated up. Try some Garam Masala and don't forget salt.
Thanks. I'm not sure how easy it'll be to take some etc I was hoping I could add them before freezing, then they'd activate once defrosted and reheat :/
That might work, they could stick together and get claggy though. I don't like adding curry spices to cold curry because they often end up with an uncooked taste to them.
@GdD : for that reason, I'd recommend heating up the spices before adding the cold curry.
garam masala doesn't add heat only aroma.
As someone suggested, bloom some spices in oil - you could do this now, in advance, and store the spiced oil (in the fridge or freezer), to mix it in later when reheating. You could also mix the spiced oil in now, before freezing the whole.
Also, you might want to season it with more sugar, salt, and acid (vinegar or lime juice). If this is a vietnamese/thai/chinese/japanese... (as opposed to indian) style curry, also consider adding soy or fish sauce or even MSG.
Reheat your curry. Add the desired spices until it gives you a satisfactory taste then freeze it for your upcoming camiping trip.
Depending on the style of curry, that can go wrong - some depend much on the spices being cooked in oil or at least in the rich, undiluted sauce. A thin, lean curry could easily turn cardboardy, harsh or bitter if you just cook powdered spices in it. Whole spices are YET another matter - some (bay leaves, cinnamon sticks, star anise) will work cooked in a broth, others (whole cumin or coriander) will need heat above the boiling point of water to release the flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.104460
| 2018-09-16T20:17:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92300",
"authors": [
"Abdussamad",
"Buttoon",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"RedSonja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73532",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92344
|
Badly burned hand on pan sitting on unlit burner
Can a pilot light on a commercial stove cause a thin aluminium pan to get so hot it causes a palm burn bad enough to blister? The pan was moved for cleaning and was on the unlit burner for about 15-20 minutes.
Updated/Edited 10-14-18
Yes, the whole palm got burned because they were not expecting the pan to be hot. The person (not me, really!) had ice on it for two hours before I saw them. Bad move. This required cold (not ice cold) water running over it for 10 minutes. We dabbed the palm with Witch Hazel and then applied Neosporin and covered the hand with a light covering. The following day the pain was almost gone but the skin was red and "tight", so we dabbed some organic apple cider vinegar on it, which very quickly gave the hand's mobility back and all pain gone. There was one 1/2 dollar sized blister on the palm, just below the thumb. We think the apple cider vinegar kept it from breaking. It did finally break, but a couple of days later. We kept dabbing with apple cider vinegar daily and the hand is perfectly fine. It was ok to use by the 2nd day, but carefully due to blister.
Thank you for all your comments.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! ;-) Are you asking about an induction stove?
I don't know about a commercial range as I've never used one or ever been close to one, but back when our gas ranges had pilot lights (electronic ignition in our home for past 18 years) yes, they could and did get that hot
Did you get burned?
@paparazzo It was a mild first degree burn as I was not in contact with it more then a few seconds. Once I'd sensed how hot the pan was, I quickly moved my hand away
@Cynetta How can you answer for Junae?
Related question: Could such a setup ever set off a grease fire under pessimal conditions?
As an aside, hopefully that will never happen again, but have someone peel raw potatoes and smother the burn in raw potatoes. That will heal the burn and cause there to be no scar. It's amazing!
Yes, aluminum is a good conductor of heat and a pilot light is a fire, even if it's a small one. It's happened to me as well.
Natural Gas/Methane burns at ~1950 C in air. Propane burns at 1980 C in the same conditions.
This is hot enough to burn you if exposed directly, so any pilot light will be hot enough to burn you if you were to touch the flame.
The question of "will a pan get hot enough to burn me from the pilot light" has the every popular answer of 'it depends'. if the pan is very heavy, has a high specific heat, or is too far away from the pilot light to be heated effectively, then it might not get hot enough to burn you.
You said that the pan was thin, and aluminum. Aluminum has a specific heat of only 0.9. This means that relative to other materials, it heats up very easily, and cools off very easily. It also means that it does not hold much heat.
A thin aluminum pan that is directly above and physically close to a natural gas pilot light will quickly heat up a few hundred degrees centigrade. Human skin burns at as low as 44 C over a long time period, and will very quickly burn at only 80 C. Source (Warning: Moderately graphic images of burns... nothing that will sear itself into your mind but still not fun to look at.)
So... it depends, but it's certainly possible - as long as the pan isn't cooling off hotter than the pilot light can warm it, it can reach burn temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.104844
| 2018-09-19T16:46:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92344",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"Fabby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17349
|
Do beef bouillon cubes expire or cause expiration?
Possible Duplicate:
Do Bouillon Cubes/Powder go bad?
I tossed into the soup the last 2 bouillon cubes in the jar. Then, as I threw it away, I looked at the jar's expiration date: May 1979. Am I going to die?
30 years...ouch
How did you come to have 30 year old bouillon cubes? Time to go through the cupboards and spring clean a little.
See the answers to that other question... however, I will give you points for a much more entertaining question title!
Barring unforeseen advances in medical science, yes, you are going to die, but it is not likely to be soon or from 'bad bouillon'.
My parents have spices in their cabinets older than their marriage and they refuse to let me go through it and 'update'. I am guessing there is stuff in there from 78-79 too. They haven't gotten sick yet >shrugs<
Bouillon cubes can last for quite a while. Thirty years may be pushing that limit, though, as they lose flavor over time. Typically, they are good to use for a year maybe two; that depends on how they were stored, though. If they were in a dry cool place, they should be fine for while. They are loaded with fat and salt which are natural preservatives, anyway. Although dying is unlikely, it is definitely possible to get sick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.105138
| 2011-08-31T02:17:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17349",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Carla Raquel",
"Chad",
"CoffeDeveloper",
"Cos Callis",
"Katey HW",
"Rincewind42",
"aebabis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86584
|
Baker's Ammonia with yeast—good idea?
I recently made a moderately successful gluten free loaf of bread from a recipe for Japanese Milk Bread from the book Gluten Free on a Shoestring Bakes Bread. Respecting the author's trade secrets, I won't copy the recipe here, but suffice it to say the dough ends up very much like wheat bread dough.
EDIT: a little detail: the recipe uses whey protein isolate, pectin, and modified tapioca starch to emulate gluten, a water roux, and for leavening, yeast + 1 egg. I used active dry yeast, not instant yeast, but followed the cookbook's direction of multiplying the amount by 1.25~1.5. The dough also undergoes bulk rising in the fridge over a period of two days.
However, it's not perfect—a little heavy. I could allow longer proofing times, but I was worried about the bread becoming too sour. Other Seasoned Advice questions say that mixing synthetic leavening (i.e. baking soda or baking powder) and yeast generally is ineffective or causes bad flavor.
However, baker's ammonia (unlike baking soda) decomposes completely into water and gases, so I'm wondering whether it would provide a good alternative that wouldn't "ruin" the bread while still helping the yeast, which doesn't seem quite up to the task of making a light, airy loaf.
It's not a trade secret if it's been published in a book.
Still though, it's obvious that the profitability of the book depends at least in post on its recipes and unusual ingredients not being posted on the internet. Is more detail really needed about the recipe? I think my question should apply to wheat bread too, not just GF.
Apparently the author doesn't think so, since she put the recipe on her web page. Probably because it's not an original recipe, she adapted one she found on someone else's web site.
It's not the same recipe.
Actually since she does post a recipe for Hawaiian rolls from the bread book on her blog (which includes the magic ingredients, whey protein isolate and modified tapioca starch), I don't mind telling that much about the recipe. Anyway, the dough for the recipe I followed (though I added a bit more water) was much more stretchy and not "shaggy" as described in the Japanese Milk Bread recipe on the blog.
See also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32291/why-are-there-no-recipes-combining-both-yeast-and-baking-powder. The same issues apply.
@RossRidge I think erring on the side of respecting the author isn't a bad thing.
@MishaRosnach Except the author wasn't being respected here. This post falsely suggested that the author was trying to keep some special ingredients a "trade secret".
@Ross Ridge bad wording maybe but it was the best I could think of. Feel free to edit it if there's a more accurate way of describing the recipe.
@RossRidge It's a secret if you didn't pay for it.
Can you list the leavening agents used in your Japanese Milk Bread?
Baker's Ammonia is NOT a good choice. The milk is likely to trap the ammonia and leave an awful taste. Baker's Ammonia is Ammonium Bicarbonate and Ammonium Carbonate and was used before Baking Soda. You should only use this for low moisture baked items like crisp cookies and crackers where the ammonia can vent out and not get trapped. Ammonia also interferes with Yeast's ability to communicate and since Yeast needs moisture the two should never be combined.
If your Milk bread recipe has baking soda or baking powder you'll need to study the ingredients and look for the leavening agents need to be pH balanced to ensure that enough leavening acid to fully activate the carbon dioxide rise without leaving an aftertaste (soap if too much baking soda, sour if too much acid). Milk can be matched to baking soda. You probably should add Baking powder which already includes the right amount of agent to acid to cancel out, but if the recipe is relying on the milk as an acid you may need to keep the baking soda to keep a balanced taste.
As for which kind of baking powder you need to look at the ingredients. MCP only gives 1 rise within 2 minutes of hitting a liquid so you need to mix and get into the oven quickly to keep it fluffy. Look for SAPP which will give you a second "double" action with a rise once it warms up in the oven. If you see bubbles hitting the surface then the dough isn't able to trap the CO2 (why gluten breads are better at this).
You could use baking powders with aluminum sulfate, but between the inedible aluminum salt ingredient and the bitter taste it can impart I wouldn't bother unless you really want a strong second leavening boost when it hits the higher oven temperature.
If you want to make this with yeast and are failing it is probably because the yeast isn't up to the task. Look for INSTANT dry yeast (also sold as breadmaker yeast). It has a finer granulation than Active yeast and doesn't require mixing with water before hand.
I've been working on a leavening book and have found that the secret to a good yeast that can give you a strong lift is to make your own yeast starter. Take a mason jar and add equal parts water to flour and a spoonful of yeast (fresh, active or instant it doesn't matter). It is important that the water have sat out for 24 hours on the counter before using (tap water has chlorine which if not vented out will kill most of the yeast). It is also important you use the same flour as your recipe. The goal is get the yeast used to converting the flour's sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide (that gives your milk bread the rise).
Use a chopstick to mix the flour, water and yeast in a mason jar and after you get a pancake batter consistency put a lid on the jar and leave it on a piece of cork, plastic or wood cutting board (just not a cold piece of tile or metal). Each day open the jar and look for bubbles and smell for alcohol (the key sign of a happy yeast taking to your gluten free flour). Go ahead and dump 1/2 in the garbage (don't clog the drain). Add another equal amount of water (left out 24 hours) and flour and mix. Recap and check again tomorrow.
After a week you should have a pretty good yeast champion that will outperform your sleeping dry yeast. Go ahead and swap in the activated yeast and count it towards your flour and water portion of your recipe. Don't use milk in the growing of your yeast since it is likely to spoil and either make you sick or make your bread sour from bacteria converting lactose to lactic acid, perfect for sourdough bread, but not Japanese Milk Bread!
Make sure your Milk bread gets a chance to proof in a warm environment. If it is too cold the yeast just won't work.
Hope that is helpful and it is cool seeing your question on how to get a better rise in your bread!
Wow, what a detailed answer! Thank you! I edited my question to answer your initial question and provide a bit more detail.
Unfortunately, the link doesn't work for me...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.105312
| 2017-12-21T02:11:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86584",
"authors": [
"Joshua Engel",
"Misha R",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"triskit"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73574
|
Vietnamese burnt sugar beverage
A while ago we ate at a Vietnamese restaurant in San Francisco's Chinatown. We were given these nice burnt sugar-flavored beverages to drink, but unfortunately the staff did not speak fluent English so I don't know what it was called.
I've tried in vain to research it but can't find anything close.
The beverage was very dark brown, but served with milk (I'm quite sure it was dairy milk, not coconut milk) poured on top, which when mixed turned it a caramel color. The consistency was thin, but the beverage was very flavorful---the burnt sugar flavor would have been almost bitter if it didn't have the milk added. Burnt sugar seemed to be the only major flavor---it was not a coffee beverage, though there might have been other spices. The beverage was sweet, but not extremely sweet. It was served in a standard plastic restaurant glass with ice.
I found the restaurant's menu online. Apparently this is Tra Thai. I must have mistaken the flavor.
Tra Thai
Since we have a canonical answer already, perhaps there might be room for a speculative answer without stepping on toes - that is, if someone is interested as I am in figuring out how the originally described drink might have been...because it sounded interesting.
I first thought it might be a Vietnamese equivalent of agua dulce, which is a hot raw-sugar drink (con leche when served with milk), served as an alternative to coffee or tea - the molasses in the raw sugar gives it more flavor than just sugar. Obviously, this is the wrong country and language, being from Costa Rica, but Vietnam has its own sugarcane - and drinks fresh sugar cane juice cold - so there is no reason it might not have a hot drink equivalent. And being burnt-sugar flavored, which would probably be due to processing, might be a local variation due to cultural flavor preference (bitter like coffee or strong tea) or economics (not wasting over-processed sugar, which then becomes the traditional flavor).
Historically, this sort of drink was used for extra energy for laborers, so the sugar content - and minerals and vitamins that came with the raw, minimally processed sugar (which was also laborer-cheap, and had enough flavor to stand as its own drink) - would be a welcome boost. Since this sort of drink would be served like coffee or tea, both of which are brewed strong and bitter and served sweet in Vietnamese cuisine, the dark and bitter notes from a burnt sugar equivalent of agua dulce would probably be welcome.
If this were a historical drink, the burnt notes would probably come from the processing, if the sugar being evaporated down was cooked a little too long or at too high a heat - either poor quality control, since it would be the cheapest raw stuff for a laborer drink, or eventually on purpose to get that flavor profile. Scorching on purpose on an individual level would take time, effort, and skill - less likely for a common, laborer level drink and more likely if it were a rarer delicacy higher up on the status chain. Though in that case, I don't imagine raw sugar would be traditionally used, and the resulting drink would lose out on the heartier flavor profile - perhaps instead being used (as burnt sugar syrup is today) as an exotic flavoring added to a different drink rather than standing on its own.
So to make something like this drink, probably one would start with raw sugar - and I mean raw like jaggery or dulce tapa or piloncillo, minimally processed with all the impurities still included, which is about a third less sweet than processed stuff and has enough of its own flavor to be the base of a drink. Jaggery would probably be the most authentic, as it is used through Asia, but they're similar enough to pick any by preference or availability. To get the burnt-sugar notes, it would have to be further cooked - burnt sugar syrup is usually made with a dry caramel method, where the sugar is heated until dark, just starting to smoke and with the beginnings of bitter notes in the scent, then cooled with water to stop the burning (which involves lots of spluttering and seizing) and mixed until the sugar dissolves into a syrup. Any other spices could be infused on their own, or added to the syrup.
Most recipes for burnt sugar syrup use processed white sugar, some few use regular brown sugar (white sugar with molasses added back in). Raw sugar doesn't have to behave like either, so I'm not sure it will melt quite as easily or still be clumped up even when hot enough to scorch... it can be pretty hard stuff, and also its preparation might matter - that is, if it were grated vs chopped as well as if it were a softer or drier variety - but even so, it should be able to be roasted till those dark burnt notes appear, and dissolved into water afterwards even if it takes a little longer. Alternately you might use much less water and make a burnt-sugar candy, which will likely store better (shelf stable) and which can be dissolved into water at need to make the syrup - much like our pseudo-historical drink.
The syrup, once made, could be heated and thinned if desired with water or a spiced infusion, and would then be either mixed with milk or served with it on top, to taste - either evaporated milk, or condensed, as both are used in Thai coffee or tea recipes. It should be quite a dark brown and very sweet, with dark bitter notes from the scorching, and also earthy from the molasses in raw sugar. Which sounds...very tasty, I would like to actually try this at some point.
Thank you for the interesting comment. It does sound tasty. Tra Thai was too---and easy.
@user48147 - I'm glad you liked it :) By the time I saw your answer, I'd already done the research for what it might have been (if it were a real thing) - so thought I'd post anyway, for anyone who might want to know "how to make such a thing" as well as "what actually was that drink". Your answer lead me to a number of good recipes too, I might well try making Tra Thai myself now that I know what it is - so fair's fair.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.105953
| 2016-08-30T18:02:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73574",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48147",
"triskit"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30001
|
Can you boil the potatoes for mashed potatoes too long?
I know that you should cook potatoes for mashing until they are fork tender but what happens when you boil them too long?
Edit: if I need to hold them before mashing, what's a good way to do it?
See this question, which is actually about the results of overboiling potatoes for some thoughts: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29515/watery-potatoes/29520#29520
Yes, you can.
The problem is that the potatoes start absorbing water, and you end up with a really runny mash that's difficult to flavor (as most people flavor their mash by the addition of flavorful liquids).
update : There's a few things that you can do to hold them. The first is to drain the water, and leave the potato bits (unmashed) in the pot. If you leave them uncovered, they'll cool off, but it'll also let moisture evaporate, which can help to fix some of the problems I mentioned earlier.
You don't want to let them cool off too far, or they'll not mash up smoothly; if you're going to need to hold them for more than 5-10 minutes, put a lid on them. Once it comes time to mash, refresh them with whatever liquid you're going to add to the mash, warmed.
If you're going to need to hold them a really long time, you have two options ... one is to mash them but intentionally reduce the liquid, and then refresh them with more hot liquid a few minutes before serving. The other is to transfer them to a baking dish after mashing, and put it in a low oven. (if you rough up the surface, and put it under the broiler right before serving, you can get a crust on it for a bit of variety).
I concur with what Joe is saying in his answer above. Mashed potatoes are notoriously hard to hold for service, as they become gluey or pasty.
The methods Joe suggests for holding them are probably among the best possibilities. I will add these thoughts:
Some people advocate putting a layer of melted butter or cream over the surface when using the oven holding method as outlined
For moderate periods (say an hour or two), you can also use a slow cooker on low to hold, and serve them directly from the crock
Mashed potatoes made from low-starch or waxy varieties (like the US Red Bliss type) tend to hold better than those made from high-starch (like US Russets) varieties--of course, there is an element of personal taste as well, as the variety of potato has a huge influence flavor and texture of the dish
While it isn't in your question, you may also wish to consider other dishes that hold much better or offer easier logistical challenges. A gratin type dish, such as potatoes anna, for example, has many virtues:
many folks find it still delicious moderately warm or even room temperature
it can also can be held for a moderate time in a warm oven
more importantly, it can be prepared ahead, and then baked at the last minute without much other attention, and so might fit into your logistical plan more easily.
its delicious, although certainly not the same as a good pile of mashpos, which I admit is my own personal favorite way to eat potatoes
...what happens when you boil them too long?
They take on water and turn to mush.
Not really what you want for great mashed potatoes.
I'm not sure what you mean by hold them but from reading the other answers it seems you want to delay making your mash. I let my boiled potatoes stand for some time, to get as much water out of them as possible before I make mine and by then they're usually cold anyway.
I use a potato ricer to make my mash potatoes and put them through the ricer whilst they're cold. I then microwave them back to hot, add butter only (no milk or liquid) and simply salt, freshly ground white pepper (not black) and a touch of freshly grated nutmeg.
I find this produces the smoothest, creamiest mashed potatoes you can achieve. You can also add some single cream, creme fraiche or soured cream for different flavours.
It all depends on how you like your mashed potatoes.
In this context, 'hold' means an extended delay between preparing and serving.
College students' open secret recipe for quick and lazy mashed potatoes casserole:
I microwave potatoes with 1 cm of water in a pyrex-ware for 6 minutes in a 1200w oven to get steamed potatoes. Poke holes or cut the potatoes in half to prevent splattering.
To get mashed potatoes, fill with water until half the depth of potatoes in the pyrex-ware and also 6 minutes. See, no worries about mushiness. Increase of decrease amount of water if you desire more/less fluidity of the mashed potatoes.
Making mashed potatoes this way also allows you to put in dill, cumin, whatever curry/spice mixture, cilantro, dried sliced shitake mushrooms and none of the water is wasted.
And then pour in a quarter bag of frozen green peas after mashing potatoes to cool the mashed potatoes down for immediate consumption. Could also throw in shredded smoked salmon or roasted chicken into the mix. Sriracha and Vietnamese fried onions-garlic notwithstanding.
Get a bun, the type they use as chili bowl, scrape the cavity to pour your mashed potato mixture in.
Yum, yum - better than ramen noodles.
And no, don't throw away the residual bag of sour cream potato chips. Pour the residue into the mashed potatoes as flavouring, if you have run out of other stuffs to mix into your mashed potatoes.
+1 because it sounds disgusting but it also sounds like something we would have made in college. And liked.
Even lazier : use potato flakes. (I used to work with an irishman who swore by potato flakes ... and I assume that the Irish know their potatoes)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.106414
| 2013-01-12T00:22:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30001",
"authors": [
"Anna Rossetti",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cynthia",
"Hari Ramanathan",
"Jason_Eddy",
"Joe",
"Kylee",
"Paul Barbara",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TheHonRose",
"Tmklawr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"suckrates",
"user70108"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20735
|
Steak in a pot!
I'm in college so I have limited resources here. I have a pot (medium in size), one that you would boil water in to cook pasta etc. I have 1lb frozen sirloin, water, oil, onions etc. I would like to try to use the pot to cook the steak, but I really am not sure how to go about doing this.
If anyone has step by step instructions on heat, time to cook, when to flip steaks that would be greatly appreciated!
Link to a similar pot upon request - mine is a single though (not double):
http://www.walmart.com/ip/WearEver-Grip-Right-Double-Boiler/15819433
Can you provide more information on the pot. Everything is pretty much dependant on that and no one can really answer your question without knowing more. Can you provide in your question a link to the pot online? Or at the very least provide a picture?
http://www.walmart.com/ip/WearEver-Grip-Right-Double-Boiler/15819433
This is basically what I'm dealing with here, hehe - but note: it's not a double pot, I have a single.
so...you just have the grey pot on the bottom? Is it non-stick?
possible duplicate of How do you properly cook a steak?
No, this is not a non-stick pot.
@rumtscho This is not a duplicate. That question does not bring up how I can cook steak in this kind of pot that I am referring to. Completely different technique here.
@evan the only way to cook steak in the pot is to imagine that it is a pan with unusually high walls, cook it on the bottom the way you would in a pan, and disregard the walls. Unless you want to boil the meat for some reason, but then it won't taste near as well (and won't technically qualify as "steak").
@rumtscho so what I would want to do is put some oil to the "pan", add some garilic, peppers etc, possibly salt / spice the meat prior to adding it to the pot, then just cook for a few minutes on a medium/ high heat?
@Evan - follow the steps in the question that rumtscho link. Hot pan, then oil, wait a moment for oil to heat, then meat. While your meat is cooling after, you can do any of the garlic or peppers or such in the pot - but don't like the steak on a bed of peppers or such, you'll just steam the meat.
Attempting to cook a steak in that pot may cause it warp—its nowhere near as tough as a cast-iron pan (which, by the way, are under $20; the Lodge ones Walmart sells are fine). Your pot probably also doesn't have the heat capacity required to completely sear a steak (how heavy is it? If its not at least several pounds, it doesn't). If your pot has a non-stick coating, you probably don't want to do this—there is a risk of overheating it. (The cast iron won't care if you heat it to 600°F, but nonstick coating will)
If you have access to a grill, that's a much better bet.
If you have an oven with a broiler, that's a good bet, too. Get the broiler hot, put the steak very close to it, and keep an eye on it. Flip when browned. You may have to finish in the oven if you don't want rare or medium rare.
If you want to cook beef in a pot, I suggest a pot roast or stew. But those don't use sirloin.
The steak will probably stick to the bottom of your pot. Given what you have you can try this: coarsely chop onions (more is better since it will help keeping the meat raised), warm some oil, not too much, and begin caramelizing onions for about 5/10 minutes, low heat, covered. You should end up with a bed of onions: add more oil, raise heat, let it warm for a couple of minutes then add meat, cook uncovered. Don't let the whole thing stick, keep moving the pot, you should be able to keep un-sticking by just moving. If your meat is about 1 inch thick it'll need about 20 minutes to cook rare. If you have red wine, add some every couple of minutes to keep the bottom hydrated but don't add too much since the temperature will fall easily: otherwise, add water and if you have it, add some whiskey in the very end (watch out for flames!). Turn your meat after 10 minutes. I like(-d, since I don't eat it anymore :P) my meat very rare, if you like it that way too or you steak is half an inch thick, reduce cooking time to 5 + 5 minutes. Add pepper and salt in the last minutes on both sides. If you're unsure about cooking time, just cut it after 10 minutes, you'll easily guess how much more time you'll need. Good luck!
You've basically just steamed a steak on a bed of onions. Not as tasty as a properly crusted steak.
Replying with "buy a proper skillet" is not the answer to the user's question. I suggested directions about what @Evan was asking for. Anyway, I can't find in my answer where you can find the meat is steamed, since it's uncovered and with high temperature.. it's more fryied IMHO.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.106888
| 2012-01-24T13:38:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20735",
"authors": [
"Evan",
"Jay",
"Jon Custer",
"MintyRain",
"ccalboni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847",
"jeorfevre",
"nguyHomeImprov",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user45591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68331
|
How do you accompany other veggies with caramelized onions?
I assume that when you caramelize onions and would want your dish to also have caramelized carrots it would have to be more complex than just throw the carrots along the onions to the pot.
Any idea on how to pair carrots (or any other veggies) to a flavor base made of caramelized onions?
Carrots and onions have different cooking times, so no, you can't throw them together.
What I would do is cut the carrots as small as the onions (just for aesthetic purposes), start stewing the carrots in a closed pot first and season them as you like, and when they're nearly done, add the onions and caramelise them normally while they're stewing together with the carrots and you'll end up with caramelised carrot-onion stew.
Obviously, you can always cook them separately and then mix them just before serving, but that would take an additional pot and I don't like doing dishes... ;-)
To complement the answer, cooking time is key here, also if you're looking for texture you might want to consider cooking one ingredient at a time (without changing pot, rather by removing cooked ingredient and cook the other ingredient in the same pot, since we all hate doing dishes :P)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.107282
| 2016-04-17T07:34:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68331",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24447",
"maximegir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92611
|
Mondernist Green Tea Microwave Sponge Cake - Siphon charging
I just saw a recipe for microwave sponge cake. The mixture is strained before putting in a siphon and charging. However, there is no mention if that is a NO2 or a CO2 cartridge. Can someone confirm?
This type of "modernist" microwave sponge cake is usually charged with NO2.
One tip, since they can collapse rapidly after cooking: It is best to flip the cakes over when you remove them from the microwave, so that the cup is upside down. Let them cool a bit that way, then release them from their cup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.107413
| 2018-10-02T22:03:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92611",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90835
|
Tempering untempered chocolate
I would like to know how to temper chocolate without seeding it with already tempered chocolate.
Possibly this comes from a misunderstanding for the reason for tempering:
My understanding is that pretty much all shop bought chocolate (at least for cooking) is tempered already and melting it effectively un-tempers it. It is then re-tempered by slowly mixing in part of the original, unmelted chocolate.
What if I have melted the entire bar of chocolate? How would I then temper it?
I've seen in many videos and articles, which describe tempering, that "there are different ways to temper" but they all then go on to describe the "seeding" method. Which seems like cheating to me - or, at least, a chicken-and-egg situation; How does one make tempered chocolate without having tempered chocolate to begin with?!
Tempering chocolate is ensuring melted chocolate has a nice shine and there are a few methods to do that:
add grains of unmelted chocolate and stir (which is the seeding method you're referring to)
let it cool down while stirring
(which is the most labour-intensive method, but the easiest to do if you've never done this before)
which answers all of your questions as now you know what tempering is, how to get out of the chicken-and-egg situation, how to very first chocolate was ever tempered etc... :-)
As most chocolate recipes are made by professional Chocolatiers, they don't have time to perform the old tried-and-trusted granny method so they'll tend to use the seeding method...
This is what tempered chocolate should look like:
P.S. If this is the very first time you're making your own chocolates, drop this step entirely: it's just the look and feel that'll change as they will look very professional. (I never temper my chocolate as I only care about the taste and without tempering they'll look like they're "home-made") ;-)
P.P.S. There is never any chicken-and-egg situation: if you think any of those situations through till the end you'll realise the egg was first because dinosaurs laid eggs long before there were any chickens! :-)
Thank you! I was under the impression the main reason for tempering was to make chocolate hold its shape at room temperature, as well as the look (and avoiding that horrible milky effect on the surface). You're right about the egg situation, of course - I was using the common phrase for effect ;)
When in doubt, go to the source: In this case, a Belgian cooking article of a Belgian Chocolate producer... ;-) Favour returned, question upvoted!
All that, a developer and Babylon 5! Nice one :)
:D :D :D @MattW
I know there is already an accepted answer here, but I thought I would fill in some more precise details (although they might not be super-helpful for the casual, at-home chocolate maker). When chocolatiers need to temper chocolate and they don't have any already-tempered chocolate, the technique they use is a bit more specialized than to stir it while it cools. Specifically, they use a technique called "tabling," which is the most traditional method of tempering. Tabling is actually a pretty fast method, but requires some specialized equipment and skill, and it only works well for certain medium-sized batches of chocolate.
Tempering is all about temperature, agitation, and time. The general process is to: 1. melt all the crystals, 2. while agitating, cool the chocolate, 3. re-warm the chocolate to melt out unstable crystals, 4. keep the chocolate at the right temperature during use. It is the agitation at a particular temperature that creates the correct type of crystals to seed the chocolate.
With the seeding and incomplete melting methods, step two is basically accomplished by stirring in unmelted, tempered chocolate.
With tabling, you pour about half the melted chocolate onto a marble slab and then continually agitate it with a bench scrapper and palate knife (or similar tools). The marble will cool the chocolate down more quickly, and the agitation will cause crystals to form. When the tabled chocolate has thickened, it is returned to the bowl, where the warmer, untabled chocolate will melt out any of the incorrect crystals, and the remaining correct crystals serve as seed crystals to temper the entire batch of chocolate.
This is not always a very practical method for the casual chocolate maker, as it requires a very clean marble slab, some skill that you can only gain through practice, and the willingness to get chocolate all over everything in your kitchen.
While I don't agree that the only thing tempering gets you is a better look, I do agree that if you're a beginner and are making chocolates for yourself (or family and friends), it's okay to skip the tempering step. Your chocolates may look a little funky, or may not hold up well to being in very warm rooms, but tabling untempered chocolate is probably not worth it for small batches of home-made goodies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.107494
| 2018-07-06T07:50:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90835",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Matt W",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90848
|
Pickled onion cider instead of pickled onions
I have been making pickled onions for years with no problems. I have recently bought pre peeled onions and find that in the pickle, these onions fizz in the jar.
Why is this - the onions look fresh and healthy?
How do you make your pickled onions? What do you mean by "fizz"?
The situation you describe sounds like natural Lacto-fermentation.
There are many airborne yeast around us all the time. Every culture on earth (no pun intended) has a some tradition of fermentation for storage purposes. It would seem that you have just the right conditions for that to occur.
This can be a good thing. It creates a product with properties than many find healthful. A few resources are here:
Red Onions
More Red Onions
Same principle for white onions. If you submerged the onion goodness you have going on with a clean disc of some sort you can finish the fermentation and have a yummy condiment !
What you describe is "fermentation" and what you have accidentally created is indeed onion cider. ;-)
It'll be very hard to deduce the exact root cause for this particular batch with the information we have but maybe:
you baked bread while pickling your onions and one speck of yeast was caught in your brine after it was boiled.
the onions were stored near a broken pack of dry yeast in the shop and not washed/sterilized thoroughly before being put in their jars
one speck of yeast landed in just one jar as the window was open while you were cooling down the jars with their lids off and all the others are fine.
...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.107858
| 2018-07-06T21:11:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90848",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83312
|
Is there a name for the taste coming from alkaline food?
I know "acidic food" is described as "sour" but what do we call food that is "alkaline"?
It's often bitter, but I don't think that's a direct match, more of a coincidence.
Can you please explain what you mean by "basic"? It has the meaning of "simple" as well as being acid/base.
@ChrisH - even if it isn't a direct match, it may not be entirely a coincidence - I had heard that one of the reasons for bitter taste (and a relatively low tolerance thereof) was a signal for potentially dangerous alkaloids, which tend to be basic. Could be some kinds of basic foods are tagged as "bitter" on the tongue because of that association.
@Catija The term alkaline is commonly used as a synonym for for soluble bases. Although the terms, alkali and base (basic), are used interchangeably, their meanings are not the same. All alkaline solutions are basic, yet not all bases are alkaline. A common mistake is referring to the alkalinity of a substance, such as soil, when pH (a base) is the property of measurement. http://sciencing.com/alkaline-vs-basic-6132782.html
The question intrigued me, mostly because I was under the impression that foods just varied in the degree of acidity, and we don't eat alkali materials. So looking up on a couple of charts found randomly on the internet, ...
Approximate pH of Foods and Food products
pH Values of Common Foods and Ingredients
... and keeping in mind Mr. Janowski's statement from 10th grade that water has pH 7, and anything higher than that is a "base", I find that yes, we do eat alkali foods [he also taught that "alkali" was a fancy word for "base"], but not very many. Some of the ones that jumped out at me were:
corn, ripe olives, tofu, birds nest soup[??], clams, coconut, conch (pH of
7.52-8.40!!), graham crackers, grass jelly[??], hominy, lobster, soda crackers, cooked spinach. (Some of those were listed with a range of pH values extending from just below 7 to just above 7). So what taste do they have in common? In fact what do they have in common at all? Many have either been heavily processed maybe with alkaline chemicals (ripe olives, tofu, hominy), or come from the sea (conch, lobster, clams). Those examples seem to mostly have a salty component to their flavor. As for the land-origin, naturally occuring examples, i.e. corn and coconut, they aren't salty, and they don't seem to have any taste in common to each other or those other basic foods.
So my (disappointing) answer is, I don't think you can taste the "basic" quality itself, except that many foods which are basic are often salty because of processing or being borne of sea water (pH 8.1 - 8.2 per internet).
Don't forget pretzels!
Anything done with baking soda that isn't entirely consumed for leavening, too. Ramen noodles too. With corn and cocoa, there are also methods of processing it with alkali. BTW, there probably is a taste sensation you get from very alkaline foods: soapy. And such is certainly there, in a subtle manner, in tofu olives and coconut, BTW, grass jelly is an asian dessert.
There is no single word to describe that taste, and no single taste receptor for alkaline substances either (whereas there are taste receptors for acids).
The most recognizable taste to encounter would be "soapy". You can see it as a bit of a special case though, since it is not the taste of a pure alkaline substance, but the taste you get when the alkaline substance reacts with fats. Since most food contains fats, this is what you frequently get if you try to make alkaline food.
You are also likely to get descriptions like "chemically tasting", since it is not a flavor we frequently encounter in food, but it can remind us of the aroma of some inorganic substances in our daily lives. Try overdoing double-acting baking powder in a muffin, or making it with ammonium or potassium based leaveners instead of the widespread sodium ones, and you'll see what I mean.
Beyond that, we don't really have good descriptors. And I am not even sure pretzels count - the goal there is to have the lye react away with the gluten, so they might not be very alkaline in the end. Also, the salt on the surface and the unusual texture distracts us a lot from the subtler flavors there.
Alkaline in food does not impart any specific named "taste" to the food. So the food is just being described as alkaline or basic. Unless you are using food texture to describe alkaline foods, as foods treated with alkaline usually ends up with a different texture such as being firmer/denser.
On a related note:
Even though there is not much flavor from adding lots of alkaline to food, what it does do very well is it drastically changes the texture of food. Alkaline(Lye) treatment usually gives the food items a more slimy gelatinous texture before you cook it.
Lye water is used commonly in Asian cuisine, it makes food alkaline. Powdered Lye is also commonly used to make pretzels.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.108116
| 2017-07-27T13:37:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83312",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Megha",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92386
|
Beef stew disaster
I made some beef stew in my crock pot. I forgot to plug it in. It's been sitting for going on 5 hours. Is it dog food now or would the broth have saved it so I can still cook and eat it? Edit: I threw it out. Didn't want to chance it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.108515
| 2018-09-21T11:04:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92386",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92561
|
How do you split Chickpeas?
I'm currently reading a South-Indian cookbook which is adamant that you only use split chickpeas in the recipes, but I can only find the unsplit variety. What does it actually mean to split chickpeas and what is the method?
The cookbook gives the following advice.
Split Chickpeas--Chana Dal Similar to Moong dal and Urad dal, chana dal is obtained when Chickpeas are split and the skin removed.
This dal is orange in color.
But the chickpeas I can get have no indication of being split.
Could you post a quote? I assume the recipe expects you to obtain split dried chickpeas and then soak them. I've got an Indian/Bangladeshi supermarket near me where I've seen them, but I've never seen them in a typical UK supermarket.
@ChrisH Ok I have tried to improve the question.
A little related information on pulses and dal here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/90343/25059 Following the advice of a couple answers already posted, you're likely to have more luck searching for the actual term "chana dal" as this refers to a specific means of preparing chickpeas.
Chickpeas are whole legumes commonly known as garbanzo beans. When these beans are split and husked you get split chickpeas or Chana Dal. Not really orange in color, but more like yellowish. Considered a lentil, Chana dal(Split chickpeas) is commonly used in Indian cuisine and usually sold in Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi food stores. Most supermarkets located in areas with asian population often sell this, may also be available online for example here or here.
The recipe calls for chana dal or Split Desi Chickpeas.
Those are the ones you buy dry at every indiand/Asian food shop. They could be rather in section with flour and moong dal rather than with the whole grains like chickpeas or rice.
You can split the dry ones in a corn grinder, usually used to make Masa. You'll have to set the gap between plates to nearly the size of your beans, and take it easy. Dry garbanzos are hard enough that they can break your grinder plates if you set the gap too small, or push the beans through too quickly. Once cracked, the skins fall off easily. You can blow them out with air, or use an inclined plane: Even busted beans roll down better than papery sheets.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.108576
| 2018-10-01T07:45:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92561",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Neil Meyer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94079
|
What are things like Bread, Rice and Cereal collectively known as?
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the English language stack exchange but here goes:
We have broad classifications like "Fruit" and "Vegetable" and "Meat"/"Protein". What do you collectively call bread, rice, pasta, cereal etc. My first guess was "Grains" but that feels like referring to the unprocessed thing rather than the food.
Are you looking for a term which includes potatoes or excludes them?
@TannerSwett You know what I'm confused on whether to include potatoes or not - Should it be considered a veggie?
Cooked cereal, or cereal grains? It makes a difference.
Also, "but that feels like referring to the unprocessed thing rather than the food*" ignores the fact that rice and wheat and oats exist in both the uncooked and cooked forms.
"carbs" or carbohydrates
There are several terms which you can use, depending on the context of writing (or speaking).
A very simple one is "the starch". It is mostly used in the context of meal planning, such as "What starch are we going to serve tonight" or "When planning a vegetarian meal, it is best to first decide on the starch and then select sides that complement it".
"Grains" or, mostly interchangeably, "cereals" is what academic specialists for nutrition and diets use in their jargon. If you read a textbook on nutrition, that's where you will find breads, etc. There, the context makes it clear that the word doesn't mean simply uncooked kernels. The nonacademic literature on dieting is more likely to use "carbs" - see Chris H's answer for more detail on that usage.
In legal language, for example rules and regulations about food product labelling, or import and export regulations, you will frequently find phrases like "grain products".
Since none of these terms is unambiguous, outside of these genres of writing you will probably have to go for something more descriptive, for example "foods made from grains" in a colloquial conversation.
It also depends on why you mean to collectively refer to these foods in any specific instance. For example, we might also call such foods "staples", if we mean to talk about their role as a primary source of calories in the diet, for example. This might also include non-cereal foods like sago, plantain, cassava, potatoes, etc. What the speaker means to convey is important.
@Carl - The OP has not clarified whether they want "grains" or "starches". That was the whole point of the "do you want to include potatoes" question in the comment, and the OP has replied "I don't know".
This is regionally specific - in Australia I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "starch" in a meal planning context.
@MartinBonner I was confused, but now thinking about it I do want to include those things. I think for my usage "Carbs" is the right one cause I wanted to classify it in terms of nutrition/meal-planning.
I would say that I would find “grains” at least as likely in colloquial speech as “carbs”—“grains” is more likely if we’re talking about cooking or flavor, “carbs” more likely if we’re talking about dieting (within my circles, the former is a much more likely topic of conversation than the latter!).
A broader category, including things like potatoes, would be carbs (carbohydrates). This is a common category when considering feeding for exercise, and tends to mean starchy foods. It's not a perfect term as "carbs" strictly includes sugars, but the carb component of a meal is the (usually fairly plain) bulk accompaniment to the tasty bits.
Good point - the term is part of the jargon of yet another group, I am not entirely sure how I would call them. Maybe "popular nutrition authors" as opposed to the "academic nutrition authors" who prefer to use "grains" and use the word "carbohydrates" for the macronutrient only, not for the food which delivers it.
@rumtscho that's probably part of it but also carbs is broader, unless you can think of a better term for (grains + starchy vegetables). It pairs with the "protein" in the question, and as we're not exactly sure how the OP intends to use it, it's worth including the option. I have seen "choose your carb" (yes, singular) in a build your own menu at the gym cafe, but the don't use it any more, probably because plenty of people eating in a gym cafe would have a meal of protein + salad rather than filling up on carbs
I think this is a very good answer. In a strictly culinary context however, I don't agree and "starches" would be better. The reason is, a culinary aspect considers meal parts rather than nutritional /dietary constituents. And "carbs" relates entirely to the dietary content, not to the meal or the culture of cooking or eating.
Since all of those, specifically (even the bread) are derived from cereal grains, they are generally referred to as "grains."
Any food made from wheat, rice, oats, cornmeal, barley or another cereal grain is a grain product. Bread, pasta, oatmeal, breakfast cereals, tortillas, and grits are examples of grain products.
Grains are divided into 2 subgroups, Whole Grains and Refined Grains. Whole grains contain the entire grain kernel ― the bran, germ, and endosperm. Examples of whole grains include whole-wheat flour, bulgur (cracked wheat), oatmeal, whole cornmeal, and brown rice. Refined grains have been milled, a process that removes the bran and germ. This is done to give grains a finer texture and improve their shelf life, but it also removes dietary fiber, iron, and many B vitamins. Some examples of refined grain products are white flour, de-germed cornmeal, white bread, and white rice.
US Department of Agriculture: What Foods Are In the Grains Group?
"Cereals" and "Grains" are common terms indeed, although I almost never hear "Bread" included - common food pyramids I'd see in school would have "Bread & Grain", breaking bread out on its own.
Starch
I've heard it called the Rule of Three - protein, starch, vegetable.
Doesn't this include potatoes?
@Darren Yes but I don't think that's a problem. The asker says "like bread, rice and cereal", suggesting that they're only examples of the phenomenon and the goal isn't to find a word that matches just those three things.
Where are you from? I've never heard this in Australia.
I'm UK. I can't remember whether I picked this up from my ex-partner [a chef] or actually from Gordon Ramsey on such as Hell's Kitchen]
The first thing that came to my mind is that these are "staple foods." In other words, and especially for what you specifically mention, these foods constitute the basis of diet for a group of people.
Of course, they're also starches, carbs, sugars, etc.
I would argue that the fact that they are usually also staple foods is accidental. It just happens that ___ foods (where ___ is the term the OP is looking for) are simply economically and physiologically suited to be eaten frequently. There are cultures whose staple foods wouldn't fall in the category of ___ foods, for example the Inuit eat mostly meat.
Disagree. Staples are necessary foundations for meals, and I would say they vary by culture and by taste. In the USA, staples would likely be milk, butter, bread, maybe peanut butter. In another country staples may be a sack of beans, rice, cooking oil, etc.
@DouglasHeld yes, that's why I said "these foods constitute the basis of diet for a group of people," not for every group of people. But I do agree the term isn't the best for the OP's purposes.
The term "grains" is commonly used to referred to the 'processed' food as well as the 'unprocessed thing'. People often refer to 'eating grains', and they very rarely mean the unprocessed seeds.
I've also seen 'grain foods' used where there might be confusion.
+1 for this -- my doctor chides me to eat "whole grains," meaning whole wheat bread etc.
The term "farinaceous" might be appropriate, especially when used as "farinaceous dishes" that include other ingredients. The corresponding noun "farina" isn't quite equivalent.
"Farinaceous" seems to be rare now but was more common in the 1800s.
The examples you've given are all from the grass family and they're examples of cereals. But if you included peas and beans, those are legumes or pulses.
But if you also included say potatoes then these are often called carbs.
It's unclear which way you want to categorise. If you want to reference the main bulk of some meal which a previous answer has called the carbs, I often call this the filler of a meal.
The term carbs can't really legitimately be used e.g. if your filler is a pulse such as kidney beans which has a high protein content so isn't just carbs. Again, bread is a filler but contains protein, carbs and a bit of fat. Or you have say dumplings which are another filler, this time often with a relatively high fat content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.108806
| 2018-11-20T10:56:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94079",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"ColonD",
"Darren",
"David Richerby",
"Douglas Held",
"Erica",
"Fattie",
"J...",
"KRyan",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"RonJohn",
"Sophie Swett",
"Tetsujin",
"curiousdannii",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70724",
"joe_hill",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103934
|
Lead residue on stainless steel skewer?
I recently purchased some stainless steel kabob skewers from Amazon, similar to the ones listed here at the Webstaurant Store.
They look and feel like stainless steel, however they appear to have some kind of coating. The surface of my skewers looks slightly more dull and grey than my stainless steel cookware.
Furthermore, I observed a dark grey residue coming off my skewers under the following circumstances:
Straight out of the box if I rub my fingers across the surface.
After putting them through the dishwasher if I rub my fingers across the surface.
After dishwasher if I rub a white tissue across the surface.
I noticed that there is also a Prop 65 warning listed in the Webstaurant link above, which states:
WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including lead, which are known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.p65warnings.ca.gov.
Is it likely that my skewers are indeed coated in something, and if so, what is this coating and why is it possible to contain lead?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75734/dark-grey-residue-from-newly-purchased-stainless-steel-kitchen-items
Related too… assuming you don't fall asleep reading it ;-) https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/guideme_ext/f?p=guideme:gd:0::::gd:lead_guidance_3_1
How about a photo of your actual skewers, since apparently you didn't purchase them at webrestaurantstore?
Also: I don't think the Prop 65 warning is meaningful. Looks like they put it on all of their metal utensil listings.
Any chance they're aluminum instead of steel? Because aluminum + dishwasher = ugly grey oxidation/coating that can rub off on your fingers.
That coating suggests that they might be zinc galvanized stainless. That'd account for the gray stuff, but lead is sometimes used to make melted zinc more fluid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-dip_galvanization
@FuzzyChef, I added a photo and the original purchase link.
@Marti, the material is SS according to the original listing, and I'm fairly its weight is that of SS.
@WayfaringStranger, thanks, good point. I think this zinc galvanization is a likely candidate, because I don't think it's normal for brand new stainless steel to give off dark grey dust even after washing it.
@N4v It's standard for third party sellers on Amazon to lie about their products. The fact that the listing says "stainless steel" does not mean that it's actually stainless steel. Based on the residue, I'm guessing galvanized or aluminized carbon steel.
Someone wanna put the "lied about metal" as an answer?
@Sneftel , are you aware of anything I can do to test whether my product is indeed stainless steel or some other galvanized or aluminized steel?
It's worth noting that California's Prop. 65 regulations are quite strict, which has led to many (sometimes unnecessary) warnings. For example, if these items were manufactured in a place that might also handle lead-based products, and it's possible that some lead dust might get on them, a manufacturer might slap on a warning like this just in case some test shows up positive. In that case, a simple wash might get rid of residue. I don't know about this specific case, but I'd just note the warning may or may not be meaningful (and may or may not have anything to do with the coating).
Simple enough if it is lead which I greatly doubt : Put the stainless on a grill ( outside) and heat to just dim red ( 1100 to 1200 F) . Any lead will have long since evaporated and the stainless will get a tight grey oxide coating (at most), depending on the time it is hot. Of course anything organic will also be gone.
Are there any alternatives if one doesn't own a grill? Would an oven suffice?
Some hardware stores sell lead test kits that should work on metal: https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-test-kits
Domestic ovens don't get much above 600 F, not enough to boil lead. Maybe the dark material is a lubricant from the metal forming .
I would think a steel wool scouring pad could take off anything other than electro plating and I never heard of electroplating SS ( with lead, zinc, aluminum, etc).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.109776
| 2019-12-05T17:57:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103934",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cindy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Marti",
"N4v",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69583",
"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
}
|
17840
|
Butter alternative for making breads
I'm interested in making dairy-free Banana nut bread. What can I use as an alternative to butter? I'm aware that there is soy and coconut milk as alternatives to cow's milk, but I'm not immediately sure that using those will work as a substitute, as cow's milk is to soy milk as (regular) butter is to soy butter (which is not the same concept, as I understand?). Basically I'm wondering what products exist which would provide the chemical properties of butter without being dairy.
Thanks!
Result, using rfusca's advice:
Butter flavored shortening and a touch of water (because butter has water in it too). The key thing here is that you have a have a solid fat because you're beating air bubbles into the butter during the creaming process. These bubbles are needed for the bread to properly rise during baking.
The browning process may be an issue though - shortening has no protein. You're after an umami flavor from the Malliard reaction ... it may be difficult to add that because of the lack of protein. A pinch of MSG maybe, for the umami?
We had to wait on the banana nut bread because there were only green (unripened) bananas at the store, but we made some dairy- and gluten- free cookies and it worked great! I made a batch of regular cookies too and compared them. There was a clear difference in taste between the two, but both were great—it didn't feel like "downgrading" from regular cookies at all, more just like another "style"! :)
@stoicfury - awesome! I've used butter flavored shortening for years in baking. Its easier for me to keep 'on hand', as real butter ends up getting consumed on bread or such too often. Alton Brown even recommends butter flavored shortening for cookies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.110142
| 2011-09-18T20:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17840",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7283",
"rfusca",
"stoicfury"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97639
|
How is my cast iron wok manufactured?
I recently purchased a cast iron wok made in China. It is manufactured in a way that is supposedly very common in China. However, I'm puzzled by the differences between this cast iron wok and other cast iron cookware I've seen.
My wok is not pre-seasoned, but it has a very black color in the interior. Further, I don't think the black material is just a coating, because I rubbed a spot with a green Scotch-Brite scouring pad and it didn't remove the black material. My wok is also much thinner than other cast iron cookware. (see below)
On the other hand, the cast iron that I'm used to always has a grey color when it is unseasoned. (see below)
Why is my cast iron wok black despite being unseasoned? And why does it have what resembles cracks and brush strokes?
Update: if it helps, here is a link to the exact product description.
I'm pretty sure that your wok does have a coating on it, because I've seen unseasoned cast-iron woks and they are iron-grey.
The top picture doesn't look like cast iron at all, it looks like pressed steel. How certain are you that it actually is cast iron? Does it flex at all if you squeeze the rim?
How heavy it is?
How is this related to cooking?
@Tetsujin The wok was marketed as having a cast iron interior and enamel exterior. But at one point, it was referred to as "black iron". It flexes slightly if I squeeze the rim.
@Alchimista it is 3 lbs.
@Johannes_B the same way knives are: it’s kitchen equipment and the user wants to understand what exactly they are dealing with here.
I'm wondering if maybe certain oxides of iron are added to this wok. Apparently, iron (II) oxide has a black color.
if it flexes at all, it's not cast iron - it's mild steel, or carbon steel. Most woks are. To protect it, it will have some sort of industrial grease [perhaps solidified] or a removable painted-type layer. From the photo, I cannot tell what that is coated with - almost looks like pale grey paint... or is that some odd trick of the light??
It certainly looks like wrought steel. And at 3# it must be . "Black Iron" is not specific , it could refer to steel or cast iron.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.110315
| 2019-04-22T23:59:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97639",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"FuzzyChef",
"Johannes_B",
"N4v",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69583",
"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
}
|
92777
|
What kind of cookie breaks easily into multiple pieces when dropped?
Background:
I'm going to be running a science workshop for kids, where kids build a "ballistic reentry vehicle" out of a cardstock paper, holding cookies inside it. The kids will be dropping the vehicle from a height of about 6ft. The kids will be designing the box in such a way as to keep the cookies from breaking.
I'm looking for a type of cookie that breaks easily when dropped from such a height. I'd prefer not to bake the cookies myself if I can avoid it. I just need to know what kind of cookies I can buy from a store that are most likely to break apart into multiple pieces when dropped. I imagine the cookies would have to be brittle, but I don't know what kinds of cookies tend to be the most brittle that would be readily/cheaply available in a store. I think most cookies are made to retain their shape rather well, but I'm sure some types are more breakable than others. I would prefer cookies that fracture and break apart into multiple pieces easily when dropped, not cookies that simply fracture or flake off the surface.
What kind of cookie breaks easily into multiple pieces when dropped? If I had to bake the cookies myself, what would I have to do to ensure that they come out brittle and easily breakable? Without buying and testing all kinds of cookies to find the the right kind, what properties of the cookie should I look for (e.g. ingredients, style of cookie, etc...) that increase the likelyhood of it being easily breakable?
Welcome, Paul! Can you tell us where in the world you are? What cookies are available to you in stores will be limited by where you are. :D
@Catija: North America.
Aren't these kinds of experiments usually done with eggs?
@moscafj: Yes, but i wanted to try it with something more edible.
Most commercial cookies are probably design (or packaged) for the exact opposite, robustness, since broken pieces are probably seen by most consumers as undesirable
A spritz cookie would probably work well for you. When made with a cookie press, the shapes have lines indented, which tend to break apart easily.
See if you can find a cookie that is both thin and crisp -- the thinner the better. Minor damage will be more destructive on a thin cookie, while on a thicker one it would just cause some crumbing.
A tuile came immediately to mind as one that gets relatively fragile once it cools. They come in wafers or rolled into cigars. (Pepperidge Farm sells a version, Pirouette, that are filled with chocolate -- but filling might buffer the cookie too much.)
A pizzele can also be pretty breakable, but when I've seen them in commercial packaging they are a softer version.
A fortune cookie might be too robust to break on a six foot drop, depending on the angle of impact.
If you decide to make your own, do the opposite of advice to prevent crumbly cookies: use a "softer" flour (cake flour rather than all-purpose, which has less protein), use too much flour, use not enough fat, overbake, and use a dark cookie sheet. These cookies aren't likely to taste quite as good, though, so if your secondary goal is a tasty treat it might not work out!
In principle, what should work best are shortbread cookies, that's cookies made out of pie dough. There is a reason that dough is known in German as Mürbeteig (brittle dough). This dough is made from just fat and flour, with very little water for binding, and it falls apart easily.
I am not entirely sure how well it will work with storebought cookies. I have had brands which are bound much more strongly than homemade dough, and keep together more. So you will have to try your way through them, getting different brands, or really bite the bullet and bake. They are not a difficult cookie to make, although a beginner won't be as efficient as an experienced baker.
For homemade cookies, my first choice would be snickerdoodles, and my second choice would be something very thin and crisp like Moravian wafers. The cakey texture of a proper snickerdoodle (made with cream of tartar) makes them prone to breakage, and the fragile, thin wafers break easily.
As you guessed, most commercial packaged cookies are manufactured with being breakage-resistant in mind. The one exception I can think of is Nabisco Famous Wafers, which are quite fragile, and certainly won't survive an unprotected 6ft fall. If anything, you may find the wafers too breakable.
note: I linked to some sample recipes, but have not actually tried those recipes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.110625
| 2018-10-09T18:21:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92777",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Paul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69751",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93225
|
What Can I Make in a Rice Cooker Besides Rice?
I received a rice cooker as a gift. I like to know if anything else I can done with it other than, cook rice. you have some ideas?
Mine has a timer; one of my favorite things is to put in some old-fashioned slow-cooking steel cut oats and water at night, set the timer, and wake up to hot oatmeal.
If you google things like "rice cooker recipes" or "things to cook in rice cooker," there's a wealth of other recipes that you can use besides the basic "rice, similar grains, or steamed foods." I've personally made mac and cheese and a frittata, and have a recipe for corn bread I'd like to try out.
Any grains that cook by absorption, such as bulgur, work well. You can use it for couscous but as that just needs to be soaked in boiling water there not much point.
Wetter foods can be cooked in it but the cutoff won't work, so you'll need to keep an eye on them - only worth it if for some reason you can't put a pan on a stove.
While it is rice-based, risotto is worth a mention: a single pot meal in the rice cooker. It's worth starting from a recipe. Other similar rice-based dishes can also be done.
It's worth getting a rice cooker recipe book if you're feeling adventurous.
Almost anything that can be cooked in a slow cooker (on low) can be done in a rice cooker.
Roger Ebert (the film critic) has a cookbook for rice cookers : The Pot and How to Use It
... but there's lots of other ones out there, too.
I've read that oatmeal works, and probably other types of grains as well. If yours comes with a little steamer insert like mine did, you can steam vegetables in them. There was a fad awhile back of people making cake in them, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.110965
| 2018-10-25T15:36:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93225",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91883
|
How much lemon extract to substitute anise extract?
I have a anise cookie recipe that I want to convert to a lemon biscotti recipe.
How much lemon extract should I use when I use 3 teaspoons of the anise extract?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! :-) Could you please [edit] your question and provide the ingredients of both? (it all depends on the oil and water contents)
I normally do one of two things : (1) look for a recipe online, as they might have other considerations; (2) replace 1:1 the first time, and make a note if it's too strong/weak on the recipe so I have guidelines to adjust for the next time
As I cook mostly only for two, I'll make a smaller batch than a recipe is intended. 3 tsp anise seems a lot, or the recipe will make a large number of cookies. Cut the recipe way down, make as small a batch as is resonable (even if you must mix by hand) taste then decide. Joe's suggestion to try 1:1 seems reasonable
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.111138
| 2018-08-24T14:18:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91883",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91485
|
Ramen Broth Varieties
I'm trying to gain some variety to my ramen by producing different types of broth. Mostly veggie based, however I'm open to other ideas. I have one type of ramen broth that we like but so far every variation from it has produced a failure.
Right now the broth itself involves:
Paprika
Crushed red pepper
salt
soy sauce
mushrooms
This is boiled on low heat for an hour. Sometime for myself I will add Locoto. After making the broth, I stir-fry on high heat in olive oil a mixture of :
ginger
garlic
soy sauce.
It works out well and we like it but so far every experimentation outside of this mixture makes a failure (even though this first recipe was itself an experimentation).
Can someone give a gentle nudge to another broth combination? Particularly I'd like to try to make a curry-based broth.
https://youtu.be/Wf0McesjcWo this guy has a whole bunch of ramen videos
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! :-) Translated the South American names into English, except Locoto which is something local. ;-) Could you [edit] your question as to what you do with the stir-fry and the ramen (just dump all three together? ¯\(ツ)/¯
Welcome to the site @VincentM. Recipe requests are off-topic here, unfortunately, if you have a specific problem you are trying to solve maybe we can help.
Just a suggestion to improve the flavor. Don't use high heat with olive oil as it causes the oil to denature. Either use a lower cooking temperature or a sturdier oil like canola.
My answer is similar to part of JestersKing, and to Douglas' -
I make a full on vegetarian "dashi" broth. I roast a pan of vegetables lightly tossed in oil - I'm looking for just a bit of browning and carmelization -
Carrots, celery, halved unpeeled onions, a whole unpeeled head of garlic.
That goes into a pot with a couple of pieces of kombu seaweed, a good-sized chunk of ginger cut into slices, parsley, a couple bay leaves, and some whole peppercorns. That gets brought to simmer for an hour or two, strained into the soup/broth pot, then I add some brown miso and adjust with just a touch of soy sauce, and salt and pepper. Soy sauce is definitely a good unami source, and Cook's Illustrated often finds that combining different unami sources (miso is also a good one) seems to give kind of a multiplicative effect.
That's a completely vegetarian miso "dashi" broth. I first stumbled on a variation of this, specifically, for use with ramen (along with spicy-seasoned grilled tofu and grilled baby bok choy). It's especially great if you have a pasta roller and make the ramen noodles yourself (use a recipe that calls for using baked baking soda - this adds the alkalinity similar to the lake water in the original Japanese region that gives ramen noodles their distinct characteristics). In terms of variety, if you set some aside and don't add miso, it's quite different (and more like the original recipe I started from).
oh hey, this is cool. I'm gonna have to try this at work because we have pounds upon pounds of kombu at the restaurant I'm at and a new chef who's not a fan of dashi.
I'll check this out. thanks for the idea.
Aromatics are your friend, especially in vegetarian cooking. Try loading your broths up with onion and shallot while simmering. instead of, or in addition to, sauteing your garlic, ginger and soy add them straight to your broth and they'll change up the flavor profiles immensely. Additionally, try sauteing the whole mixture in a small amount of oil before adding your water, cold, to the pot.
Option two, if you're okay with fish, is Dashi. Ramen being a traditional Japanese dish, you can try an Ichiban Dashi and adjust flavorings as needed.
Dashi is a light broth made from Kombu, which is kelp and Katsuobushi, which is dried shaved bonito (a fish, relative of the tuna) flakes. This broth is the traditional base for many Japanese soups, including the ubiquitous miso soup that you find in sushi restaurants. It's flavour is light and slightly fishy but it's packed with umami and is "relatively" vegetarian if you are okay with eating fish.
Mix it with miso paste, soy and a light amount of ginger for a miso ramen, or steam some clams in it with shallot, ginger and lemon before adding your noodles for a rich seafood broth and garnish with green onion and chili. Really, the limit is your imagination because the flavor is neutral enough that you can pair it with nearly anything.
here's a link for a basic dashi, if you like.
Dashi is a good suggestion, and can easily be made without fish (katsuobushi).
I'm not aware of any vegetarian Chinese soup stock. Typical ramen stock is "Superior stock" I think. See this link for a reference recipe: https://www.homemade-chinese-soups.com/soups-stocks.html
My advice would be, if you want to make something that is vegetarian, AND, DELICIOUS then you should throw away your idea of making something Chinese styled and instead stick with the French classic: Equal parts onions, celery and carrots. Simmer those and you will have an absolutely delicious stock. Add some light soy sauce to season, and then see how that fits to your ramen.
I would add a tablespoon of miso to each bowl and pour broth on top.
And for a veggie ramen broth I would also add onion (both spring onions and white, peeled), Dashi (made with Kombu seaweed and Shiitake mushrooms) and ginger.
A pressure cooker is your friend if you have one.
I like to add wakame, pickled ginger and shichimi togarashi (Japanese powdered spice) to the finished bowl too.
Why not make some steeped eggs to throw on top?
For British (large) room temperature eggs I do this:
Prick round end of egg with a pin
add to pan of already fast-boiling water
remove egg after 6 minutes and 20 seconds
Plunge boiled egg into ice bath to stop it cooking
when egg is cold, carefully peel
submerge peeled egg in steeping liquid made from light soy, mirin and water.
Ensure the egg is submerged by placing a kitchen towel on top while steeping overnight in fridge.
You could add curry spice (powdered coriander and/or powdered cumin) to the egg steeping liquid. I like to add star anise and some dried chilli.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.111255
| 2018-08-06T17:54:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91485",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"GdD",
"JestersKing",
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739",
"moscafj",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91854
|
Protein in cooked vs. raw chicken breast filet
I'm a bit confused by the label on an uncooked versus a cooked chicken breast. Both mention 23g of protein per 100 g of product:
If I cook the raw chicken myself, it loses a lot of water, so after cooking it only weighs 80% of what it used to weigh, and as none of the protein evaporated, my cooked chicken now contains 23g of protein per 80g, (28.75g / 100g) whereas the store-bought cooked chicken has 23g of protein per 100g
Where does this discrepancy come from?
A quick Google search yields a variety of answers, but 20 to 22.8g per 100g of raw and 31g per 100g cooked are a couple of answers. I'm confident there are others on different sites. The problem with the correct answer for cooked is that there is no standard for what constitutes 'cooked'. How much moisture remains after it has been cooked? I cook it to an internal temp of 165F(74C) My spouse prefers it much dryer, I never measured its internal temp though
@Cynetta then, the data on the ready-cooked package must be wrong.
I think the confusion is in interpretation of the label. If you cook a 100 g piece of chicken with 23 g of protein, you will end up with a piece of chicken with 23 g of protein. It will now be less than 100 g due to moisture loss. As Cynetta points out, the amount of moisture lost will depend on how much it is cooked. It stands to reason that if you have 100 g after cooking, the protein content will be higher, but how much is based on the starting amount.
Just to be absolutely sure: You just boiled the chicken on high heat?
@Fabby more like stewed, so it would be frying but I added small portions of water-chili-vinegar marinade all the time to provide enough moisture
I can't make out the label on the right very well. Are the other nutritional values the same?
Are you sure the cooked chicken is really just chicken meat, heated? Sometimes chicken is reconstituted meat - it is made into a paste with other stuff, then shaped and cooked. Popular brands in Germany are e.g. Herta's Finesse. Such meat can have fillers, which reduce the protein amount.
Rumtscho: I've tried it, it's meat.
Perhaps someone more versed in the actual usage of German cooking terms could comment (zubereiten=prepare, but the preparation guidelines include adding other ingredients), but it's not uncommon for foods that must be cooked to give nutrition information after cooking. Also adding water is common with cooked meats (especially ham) and whether/how that's declared will depend on the labelling regulations in force.
Salt and sugar content are completely different for chicken breat and processed meat called Wurst or Aufschnitt. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Proteins are complex chemical forms so it depends. Let me elaborate by giving 2 extreme examples:
If you boil an egg, the proteins unfold, hook into one another and therefore a liquid becomes a solid that doesn't melt again when you cool it down and there is no protein loss whatsoever.
if you burn a piece of chicken breast fillet to a crisp on a barbecue overnight, a lot of protein mass will be lost.
In your particular case, I see the following possibilities:
there is an error in the label of one of the products and they probably did not send off their product for actual testing, but took their ingredient list from a database.
the cooked chicken is encased in a batter and the end product just happens to have the same protein content as the uncooked chicken.
You should contact a local consumer protection program and have them send off both products for actual testing as these kinds of tests are quite expensive.
As your labels are German, I advise: https://www.test.de
sure is that protein loss; therefore is what I mean that cooked chicken-breast should be possibly referenced with about 30g, not 23 g.
Please edit your question and provide some more details as to the temperature, exact cooking method (you say you add water, but to what? Olive oil? Butter?) and time... :-)
I think the confusion is in interpretation of the label. If you cook a 100g piece of chicken with 23g of protein, you will end up with a piece of chicken with 23g of protein. It will now be less than 100g due to moisture loss.
As Cynetta points out, the amount of moisture lost will depend on how much it is cooked. It stands to reason that if you have 100g after cooking, the protein content will be higher, but how much is based on the starting amount.
So, using the numbers provided in the question, you started with 600g of chicken, containing 138g of protein. (6 x 23 = 138) After cooking you had 460g of chicken. So, per 100 grams of cooked chicken, there are 30g of protein. (138 / 4.6 = 30)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.111719
| 2018-08-23T10:52:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91854",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"Fabby",
"J. Doe",
"Johannes_B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91788
|
Should I keep the microwave turntable and plastic turntable support ring in the microwave oven when using convection mode?
I am trying to operate a microwave convection oven for the first time. It is a GE Profile convection/microwave oven. I am wondering if I am supposed to keep the glass microwave turntable and plastic microwave turntable support ring in the unit when I am operating in convection mode. I know the first thing people will say is to read the owners manual, but the owners manual is extremely unclear.
Here is a manual I found online, which is for a model very similar to the one I have.
On page 8 of this manual, as well as on page 8 of the manual that came with my model, they discussed that the metal shelves should not be in the unit when microwaving food, but they don’t mention anything about the glass turntable and plastic turntable support ring being used in convection mode. You might ask: why don’t I just remove these two items anyway when using convection mode just to be safe? The answer is that the support ring sits on a piece of plastic, and that piece of plastic seemingly can’t be removed, so I will still have to worry about plastic in the unit while using convection mode. So is that piece of plastic that’s part of the unit safe for the convection oven?
I guess no one knows.
GE has a help line you can call and an email service you can write. They will know more about your product than anyone here as one may have noticed.
If the plastic part is non-removable, then better leave the glass plate in place. Better some spots on glass, than grease. crumbs and other stuff dripping from the convection-cooked food jamming the mechanics and stopping the turntable permanently. In this case the glass plate acts as a protective cover. In convection mode, the inside is thermoregulated (the temperature never exceeding preset on the thermostat) so the plastic will never reach dangerous temperatures; in microwave mode it's entirely transparent to microwaves so unless it's seriously dirty, it won't heat up at all.
You may consider using a non-stick baking sheet (teflon foil) on the bottom to protect it from 'drips'. Otherwise, just keep it clean.
Are you advising from experience or inside GE knowledge? Just curious.
@Suse: Experience. I have a combo microwave/grill, and I get dripping/falling stuff from the grill grate whenever I use it; there's no reason convection oven would behave any better. (and unlike convection oven the grill is not thermoregulated).
I thought about what you said, scoured the manual ( didn't find much) and I see what you mean. I am going to try to keep the glass plate in place when using convection oven. Just will try to keep the glass plate clean!
I cannot vouch for your specific GE oven, but I've been using my combination oven with the turntable and turntable support in Microwave, Convection Bake, Convection Roast and Combination Fast Bake for the last >10 years with no ill effects.
As your oven has the same technical capabilities as mine:
Combination Fast Cooking
Your oven also offers the option of Combination Fast Cook, using microwave energy along with convection cooking. You cook with speed and accuracy, while browning and crisping to perfection.
I'm led to believe you're safe to use the turntable in convection only mode like I do as my round shelf fits perfectly on the glass turntable, so I never asked myself the question and have just used it like that since the first time I turned on the oven.
Interesting. I don’t have a round shelf. But as you can see from the manual I linked, it is extremely unclear.
@layman Item #7 on page 8 of your manual is the square variety only? My oven (Whirlpool) came with the round one only and that's why I never asked myself the question...
That’s right! It’s a rectangle that acts as a shelf.
Well, I'm sticking to my guns. ;-) However, you might want to wait at least 24h so the entire planet has had a chance to have a look and other's opinions might vary from mine. An upvote would be welcome while you wait! ;-)
I will definitely wait for the whole world to get in on the discussion. Thank you for your input!
Well, the whole world has had a look @layman so if my answer did help, don't forget to accept. ;-)
I hope your answer has helped someone, especially someone with the same model as you, but unfortunately, it did not help my situation as we seem to have different models. I would hate for someone to come across this question having my specific model, and for them to not read all posts carefully, and then believe that because your answer was accepted, that I somehow verified it. I have not verified it and am too scared to for fear of somehow breaking the machine.
I just saw this question and though I am 5 months late, I can definitely weigh in here on your question. I used a microwave-convection oven (GE profile) for many years and you are correct, that the wire shelves should be removed while microwaving. However, what no one tells you, is that the round glass turntable should be removed while in convection mode. The reason is that if there is any trace of any food particle on the glass, the glass will start to turn brown and no manner of cleaning or washing will ever get it clean because it will have baked into the glass. I don't know exactly how it happens, but it does. So, I just bought a new one (why, is another story) and I am trying to be very particular about removing the glass while in convection mode and the wire shelves while in microwave mode. Good luck!
Thank you for your input! What about the plastic component I described in the original post? It is worrisome that it is seemingly unremovable, yet I don't think plastic should be in the oven.
That's interesting. Most of the plastic rings ( called turntable support rings) are removable and that could be removed as well. The small plastic piece that is connected could be covered as stated previously with metal when baking to prevent overheating.
The plastic ring is definitely removable. But it and the turntable sit on a white piece of plastic that seems to be permanently attached to the center.
See the comment I posted below about my change of mind and keeping the glass plate in place. I think @SF has the right idea.
In the manual of my combi microwave/oven there is a very clear message that you have to leave in the plastic turn thingy and the glass or ceramic turning plate/dish has to stay in the machine while using it as an oven.
So go with your oven instructions and if no clear instructions are given you might search the actual brand and model on internet to find the actual instructions.
(And clean the dish before you use it as an oven if you are worried about burned food.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.112090
| 2018-08-19T20:07:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91788",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Rob",
"SF.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67321",
"layman",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96789
|
Does food cooked in firewood taste different than that which is cooked in gas?
Does this apply to food in general or just proteins or a few items? Also, does the taste vary depending on the type of wood you use i.e. using bamboo as firewood?
I would edit this to ask if cooking with wood makes food taste different than other methods, since we don't allow opinion-based answers or questions. Like personally, I wouldn't try cook, say pudding over a campfire compared to a sausage, but that's entirely an opinion; maybe some people like smokey pudding.
Sure. A second look and i can see why the word "better" would be a problem so I'll be editing it out. Thanks.
@Jorgomli Funny you should mention pudding. I like smoked food, a lot. But a restaurant opened with a fancy smokehouse in town. Went in and order their special. It included smoked corn which was little heavy but I still liked it. The dinner rolls was a little much, and then they served cobbler that was smoked. They were putting warm salt & pepper on the tables because they had that in the smoker too, and the menu included a smoked bread pudding. They did not stay in business long. Matter of taste, but it was too much for most people.
"Taste better" is entirely opinion based and unanswerable with anything but opinion.
As to does it taste different, absolute. How different depends on application and technique. Different woods taste and cook differently. Some have high resin, some a harsh smoke, some a more gentle smoke. They burn at different temperatures and different moisture. Some may have toxins in there smoke. One would not use a green oily wood and expect something palatable. Smoking food is its own artform and people spend a lot of time trying to match correct woods to specific applications and even that is largely opinion.
Left out non-proteins: Certainly the same rules apply and it remains a matter of taste. Some foods grab more of the potential flavors, some less. One is not even limited to solids as soups could be done too. As bob1 points out, there are ways to reduce the differences in taste, like making sure the wood is burned down to coals with no visible smoke. I would also say you would want heat to be indirect and you may still have issues with differences in humidity, but you can certainly get at least close to oven flavors or the flavor of a gas grill if that is your goal.
I would add that this also depends on how long you burn the wood for before cooking - it is entirely possible to cook over hot wood coals/embers that don't have burnt off the volatile smoke components, and come out with food that would be almost the same as cooking over gas or electric hobs. Indeed most of the "slow smoke" you get in Southern USA "BBQ" competitions is actually the application of controlled heat, the smoking component is usually only for an hour or so near the start of this process.
Regarding the BBQ competitions, do all competitors use the same kind of wood as per a rule or is it all personal preference?
Personal preference. Hickory, oak and mesquite are common, as are fruit trees such as cherry, peach, apple, etc. Combinations of woods are common too. The source of the charcoal also adds to the flavor. Gas is not allowed for the competitions.
Wow. (Fruit trees, combination of wood). Interesting. This is like a completely different topic/science on it's own that is all new to me. I though Wood is Wood when it comes to cooking but obviously not anymore. Im inclined to learn more about this. Thanks for the info.
@HamidSabir Fruit and Nut trees tend to be the most popular, and almost always hardwood. Softwood tends to much higher resin and sap levels which results in "Not Good Eats." It is a whole area that goes into ranges from milder/sweeter for fish like alder and apple, to stronger stuff for beef that can hold up to it like Oak or even grape vines soaked in bourbon. Hickory is the long time classic for hams for instance, and in part it depends on how much you want to actually flavor the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.112598
| 2019-03-07T20:13:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96789",
"authors": [
"Hamid Sabir",
"Jorgomli",
"bob1",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73283"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23892
|
Exact proportions of sugar to water in sorbet
I am planning to make a sorbet from a cordial which I'm going to make (essentially a flavoured syrup). What proportion of sugar to water to I need to create a smooth, small-crystalled sorbet? Please take in mind I do not own or intend in buying a 'Baum meter' or many other kitchen gadgets although I do own a thermometer. The cordial does contain acid if that should change things.
It pretty much entirely depends on how much sugar there already is in the cordial. (And how much other flavor - if it's strong, you'll dilute it with sugar water, and if it's weak, you'll use more of the cordial.)
@Jefromi apologies, I'm going to make the cordial, I should have made clear... Will change the question
Okay, so... what are your starting ingredients besides sugar and water? Since you're making it all yourself, how is this different from just looking for a recipe using fruit juice of the given type? (And do you not have fresh fruit to start from?) Fruits have different amounts of sugar, so if you're trying to just measure quantities, no one can really hope to give you a good answer without knowing more.
Also... are you planning to make a cordial by reducing/concentrating fruit juice, then add water back into it to make sorbet?
Gosh! I have been vague haven't I! It's going to be made from blossom like elderflower cordial! Sorry
So if I understood right, there's not going to be any sugar in this except for what you add yourself. If that's the case, you might want to edit your question one more time. If not, my answer needs amending.
I don't have a recipe for a sorbet without any fruit contributing sugar, but I do have something very close: the lemon sorbet from The Perfect Scoop. It uses a cup of lemon juice, which contains only 6 g of sugar, along with 2.5 cups of water and 1 cup of sugar.
So 3.5 cups (828 mL) of water with 1 cup (200 g) of sugar should be good, or a ratio of 4:1 by weight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.113026
| 2012-05-21T18:55:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23892",
"authors": [
"Alvyn",
"Cascabel",
"Fruitspunchsamurai",
"Mark Gardner",
"Patrick Doe",
"Sebiddychef",
"amirKabir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29963
|
Techniques for making sourdough starter in cold/altitude
I want to try my hand at making sourdough starter but live in high altitude and cold weather. I'm not sure if the altitude is an issue but I don't think my house is warm enough on its own to allow a starter to properly rise and ferment. Aside from I'm wondering if there are any other ways to create a warm, moist environment in which a starter could be successful.
If your house is warm enough for a person to live in, it will be warm enough for yeasts and bacteria. Maybe not in their optimal temperature, but they will survive and reproduce.
You might want to try a desem starter. Have a look at the desem primer, which is also linked on the Wikipedia page. Starter instructions are given toward the end. Common lore says that desem starter should never get above 65F, which sounds perfect for your situation. (It's actually fine if it gets warmer than that, though.) Traditional conditions for creating a starter are 50-65F, and I imagine you must have an area at least in that temperature range. I don't think the high altitude should be an issue in getting a starter going, and it might actually help in the case of desem starter by allowing the internal sponge to grow slightly easier.
Basically, it's a dry dough sourdough starter -- different from the typical goupy or soupy sourdough starter most people work with. You begin a starter by essentially taking a little water and kneading in about as much whole grain flour as is reasonable to make a very dry little dough ball. (Whole wheat is traditional, but you can use other grains -- rye would probably be effective, but it's not traditional "desem.") Then bury it in flour. Standard practice is to throw half away every 24 hours and then add water and flour to repeat. You can also start with a very small amount and gradually enlarge the ball.
Eventually, you'll pull the ball out one day and it will be very soft and spongy inside. This will probably happen in about a week at low temperatures, but it could take more or less. At this point, I would usually do a few feedings 12 hours apart before using it to bake bread. If you want to ensure the strongest starter, I'd also do regular feedings for a few more days to really get the culture established.
You can easily convert a desem starter to a wetter version once it is established. Just add water to get the texture you want, and feed according to whatever starter recipe you want to follow.
And, of course, you can use to bake other kinds of bread. You can also convert it to another type of flour once established.
Why does this work better at lower temperatures? I've never actually tried it at very low temperatures (I've had success with a temp of 65F or so), but lots of people have. I think you might be able to get a more standard wet sourdough culture going with at least 50F temperatures -- I only recommend the desem method because anecdotally it's what a lot of people use at lower temperatures.
If it does work better, I assume it might have something to do with the way yeast and bacteria growth rates change at lower temperatures. Both are integral to a sourdough culture, but too much of one and not enough of the other, and the starter can fail. Early on in the creation of a starter, bacteria are much more active than yeast, and they produce a lot of byproducts, including acids which provide souring. In the first few days, you often end up with an excess of acetic acid (partly from bacteria that are undesirable and ultimately die off in the starter process), whereas a mature starter should produce more lactic acid. Excess acetic acid is known to be a significant inhibitor of yeast growth. So, at lower temperatures, the yeast may grow too slow and not have a chance to get established at all if there's too much acetic acid around. The high flour proportion in the desem starter could dilute the effect of all that acetic acid early on more effectively than in a wet starter. At least, that's what I'd theorize.
Regardless of the science, lots of people have success with the desem starter technique at lower temperatures. If you don't like maintaining that type of starter (which I personally have grown to like, because it seems to stay fresh longer with fewer feedings in the fridge once established), you can add more water once the starter is established.
As for allowing your dough to rise once you start baking, there are lots of ways to make a temporary humid warm space. If you have some small enclosed space that doesn't allow a lot of air circulation outside (microwave, small oven, etc.), put the dough in there along with a cup of hot water. Refresh the hot water as necessary to keep the desired temperature. If you don't have such a space, you can even take a large wider-than-tall cardboard box, cut off the top flaps, seal the bottom with packing tape, and invert it over your dough along with the cup of hot water. I used such makeshift proofing boxes for years until I actually was given a proofing box as a gift.
Frankly, you can let sourdough bread rise at lower temperatures, too, which will increase certain flavor elements. It will just take longer, and sometimes you might need to use a different amount of starter in the recipe so as not to end up with a loaf that's too sour in the end. But that will depend on the recipe and the specific characteristics of your mature starter.
Do you have a hot water heater? The room or the closet that houses it should be warm enough. That's where I grow my starter. (That's also where I bulk ferment and proof my loaves).
The altitude is not an issue. There are yeasts and bacteria on top of Mt. Everest.
Here's a schedule for you:
DAY 1 8:00 AM Sterilize container, add 190 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 94 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in warm place (I store it in
my hot water heater closet).
.
DAY 2 DO NOTHING. DON'T SHAKE. DON'T STIR. DON'T UNCOVER. DON'T EVEN PEEK.
.
DAY 3 DO NOTHING
.
DAY 4 8:00 AM _ Add 47 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 25 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in warm place.
.
DAY 5 DO NOTHING
.
DAY 6 DO NOTHING
.
DAY 7 DO NOTHING
.
DAY 8 DO NOTHING
.
DAY 9 DO NOTHING
.
DAY 10 8:00 AM Pour off all but 100 g starter, add 47 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 31 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm
place.
DAY 10 2:00 PM Add 94 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 63 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
DAY 10 8:00 PM Add 190 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 125 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
.
DAY 11 8:00 AM Pour off all but 100 g starter, add 47 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 31 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm
place.
DAY 11 2:00 PM Add 94 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 63 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
DAY 11 8:00 PM Add 190 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 125 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
.
DAY 12 8:00 AM Pour off all but 100 g starter, add 47 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 31 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm
place.
DAY 12 2:00 PM Add 94 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 63 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
DAY 12 8:00 PM Add 190 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 125 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
.
DAY 13 8:00 AM Pour off all but 100 g starter, add 47 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 31 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm
place.
DAY 13 2:00 PM Add 94 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 63 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
DAY 13 8:00 PM Add 190 g water @ 78 F (26 C), 125 g bread flour, stir, cover, store in a warm place.
.
DAY 14 STARTER IS NOW STRONG ENOUGH TO BAKE
.
DAY 15+ CONTINUING STARTER MAINTAINENCE as equal parts starter, bread flour, water (1:1:1), but much smaller quantities of each 2x per
day, such as 30 g starter, 30 g bread flour, 30 g water. If not baking
for an extended period, put starter in the refrigerator to lie dormant
until needed. To wake starter from dormancy, feed equal parts starter,
bread flour, water (1:1:1) in whatever quantities needed 3x per day
for 1-2 days, then adjust starter feeding/hydration to suit recipe.
Interesting idea. I wonder if starting a starter in a dusty closet would help it go faster or if it would introduce an abundance of undesirable microbes.
The starter container must be sterilized at the beginning of the process and then covered throughout. You don't need to capture microorganisms from the air. All the ones you need are already in the flour.
All starter instructions I have ever seen call for covering the starter with a mesh for at least the first few days to collect microbes from the air. It seems likely that there is enough on the flour but that is not how it is typically done.
@Sobachatina That information is not correct. Microbiology has come a long way in the past few decades. We now know a lot more about the process of culture creation, stabilization, maintenance, dormancy, safety and much else related to the culturing of food microorganisms. We also know much that was written in the past is completely wrong if not downright silly, such as the notion of using mesh to allow microorganisms to inoculate the starter. That's completely unnecessary.
Peter Reinhart, in the Bread Bakers Apprentice, recommends covering, saying that plenty of local yeast will get in off your hands and the air while stirring. Shirley Corriher, in Cookwise, recommends covering with cheese cloth outside to maximize local microbe growth.
@Sobachatina, the "catching wild yeasts from the air" thing is commonly repeated by all sorts of culinary experts. But the concentration of microbes on flour is higher by so many orders of magnitude compared to the amount of yeast floating around in the air that you'd have to be a wizard to get a starter going from the air alone. And there are plenty of things in the air, while the stuff naturally growing on flour tends to like growing on flour. In fact, you'll find that the only surefire way to consistently produce starter failures is to sterilize the flour.
Sounds plausible enough. Do you know of any resources that I can take a look at that say that because my normal standbys obviously don't.
Athansius, Thomas: if sourdough doesn't get any yeast/bacteria from the air, then why do San Francisco and Seattle sourdoughs have a distinct flavor which can't be reproduced reliably elsewhere?
@FuzzyChef, I didn't say that sourdough cultures don't get anything from the air, but the standard sourdough yeast and bacteria are found in abundance on flour, so that's almost certainly the source for getting cultures going. In mature cultures, I've read that there is evidence of regional strains of various microbes, which may come from the air or water or may come from regional flour production. However, the type of starter ingredients and the feeding regimen/conditions have been shown to have a much greater impact on which microbes are in the starter compared to geography of the starter.
@Sobachatina, if I remember correctly, the classic experiment was performed by Dr. Ed Wood, author of World Sourdoughs from Antiquity. Basically, he wanted to produce an authentic sourdough from Egypt, using the microbes from there, so he sterilized all his equipment and ingredients, including irradiating the flour. When he went to Egypt, he set out mixtures of sterile flour and water to capture local organisms, and the vast majority did nothing or rotted. You can find other accounts on the net of people with other sterilization methods--if the flour is sterile, it almost always fails.
@Sobachatina - I ran out of space, but just to clarify: I absolutely think that local organisms play a role in mature cultures. I think the evidence suggests that ingredients and starter regimen/conditions also play a huge role in determining the exact composition of a mature starter. But I also think the evidence shows that most starters get their first microbes primarily from the flour. A very small percentage of Wood's cultures were successful, so it seems possible to get stuff "from the air." It's just not what happens when most starters first get going.
@FuzzyChef It's more likely that L. sanfranciscensi comes from the water and local flours. Not sure about Seattle sourdough being distinctive. I lived there for more than a decade and baked sourdough-leavened loaves often, but can't say there was anything distinctive about them. We'd joke that if you'd buy a sour sourdough in Seattle, the sour was from doped dough (added acidity).
Re: catching wild yeasts. Nancy Silverton was one of the early pioneers of the artisan bread movement in the United States (along with Steve Sullivan of Acme and many others). She made the mistake of mentioned the "capturing of wild yeasts" concept in her book (I think her advice was from organic grapes) and has never been forgiven for it. People still dismiss her book (The Breads of the La Brea Bakery) because of that advice (and the crazy large proportions for starting a starter), but some of the breads in that book are second-to-none.
I know this question is rather old, but given the large amount of inaccurate or downright wrong information, I'll provide another answer anyway. I've been working with sourdough for years now and went through a lot of testing and analyzing the results to get where I am now. First off, some general facts about sourdough:
Sourdough consists of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts for the most part.
Depending on what kind of lactic acid bacteria you have in your dough, they can be pretty tolerant to heat. However, the yeasts are not, especially in regions with cooler climate. Starting at 40°C your yeasts in the sourdough will start to die. Generally, do not heat the sourdough above 35°C and do not use any ingredients any warmer than this.
Also keep in mind that the sourdough can be 1-2°C warmer than the environment, due to microbial activity.
Lactic acid bacteria produces lactic acid (duh!) and a bit of acetic acid. How much of the latter depends, again, on your culture and the temperature (colder = more acetic acid, warmer = more lactic acid)
Yeasts like it warm. Around 25°C is a good temperature. Less than 15°C should be avoided if you want well developed yeasts.
If you have cool temperatures, you can alleviate the problem of having weak yeast and very sour dough a bit if you use more water than flour (about 1:1.5 flour/water instead if 1:1 like you normally would use).
Ok so here is how you make a starter from scratch:
Preparation:
Clean your bowl thoroughly!
Use natural flour, bleached or otherwise treated flour will increase the chance of failure a lot.
If you have chloride in your tap water, boil it before use (depending on where you live, this might be a good idea either way). Let it cool down below 40°C before you use it, tho.
The starter
You'll get the best results if you can keep temperatures somewhere around 25°C-30°C, but I've also succeeded in making a starter at about 15°C (I don't have experience with temperatures below this).
Note: Use 50% more water if you have temperatures around 15°C.
I found this works best with type 1050 rye flour initially (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour#Flour_type_numbers for a rough conversion of my german type numbers), but you can start using pretty much any type of flour after that (I've tested rice, buckwheat, wheat, rye, spelt, barley, millet, oat and corn). Wholemeal can work fine, too. Just don't use the all-purpose flour (the completely white one), as this doesn't really contain all that much microbes anymore.
The process is rather simple: After you add 100g flour and water initially, you simply stir every 12 hours and add another 100g flour and water every 24 hours (every other time you stir the dough, you add flour and water). Do this for 4-5 days.
During these 5 days, the following can happen and is perfectly normal:
The dough can smell bad. The smell should go away after a day or two.
The dough may get light brown or white spots on top. This can happen after day 2-3 and is the yeast.
The dough may have bubbles at first and then go completely "silent" again. This is because several microbes are fighting to become dominant. Usually the lactic acid bacteria will win here (which is what we want) and "overwhelm" the other bacteria, making them stop producing gases. After the lactic acid bacteria settled, the wild yeasts will start to grow, forming a stable culture with the lactic acid bacteria.
If one of the following happens, the sourdough went bad and you have to start over (maybe try a different flour):
There are red, black, blue, green or "hairy" spots on the dough. This is mold. Don't try to rescue anything, it's spoiled and should be thrown away.
It smells very extremely like vinegar. It's okay to smell sour, but it normally won't smell so sour that it's repelling.
Now you should have a good bunch of sourdough, which you can use to bake.
A final note: I wouldn't let sourdough bread raise twice. You should only do it if you have strong yeast in your sourdough and even then it often doesn't work as well as you may hope, since apart from the yeast, the lactic acid bacteria is also "eating" the starch in the dough, quickly diminishing the food supply for the yeasts. I had my best results with only letting the dough raise once.
Adding to some of the advice above:
There are only two critical times when you need a warm (as in above 65F) atmosphere for your starter: when you're first starting it, and during the 2nd rising of bread. At other times, sourdough is very tolerant of cold, it just slows down. I keep mine in the fridge so that I get 3 weeks between batches. It's 5 years old now and still going strong.
It seems that you could fairly easily use any number of techniques to keep the sourdough warm during startup and during 2nd rising for bread. One easy one is a damp or waterproof covering and a cliplight with a 100W incandesent light bulb (old-style, so it makes heat).
Why just second rise? I need warm temperatures for bulk fermentation and proofing when using leavening with wild yeast.
I live in Richmond Hill just north of Toronto, Canada. The temperature in my house is kept at 18C (65F), and this is my 3rd attempt at making a sourdough starter with just water and flour. Two previous attempts failed probably because I was using just All Purpose White Flour and there was just not enough wild yeast in there. This time I used a 50/50 mixture of Whole Wheat with AP and I believe the wild yeast in the less processed WW made the attempt successful.
If you don't want to read the rest of the detailed post just remember the most important point is that in a cold room you need to put the starter in a warm 25C/75F water bath and re-heat the bath every 8-12 hours for the yeast to establish itself.
Day 1:
50g WW + 50g AP + 100g cold water that has been boiled.
Day 2:
I see just a few bubbles, with a bit of sour smell.
Added 50g WW + 50g AP + 100g cold water that has been boiled
(Nothing discarded, just double the weight)
Day 3:
A lot more bubbles on the top but not on the side, very little rise in volume, with a very strong vinegar smell.
At this point I though that the smell is not right so I googled and found My sourdough starter is bubbling but not rising, suggestions?. I realized that my room is so cold that it may take 11-18 days for the starter to form. I also read that different micro organisms in the starter thrives at different temperatures. Lower temperature encourages the growth of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) which produce acetic acid, which explains the strong acidic smell of my starter right now. What I want is more lactobacilli (which produce the milder, more pleasant yogurt like smell) and wild yeast. Lactobacilli thrives at higher (25C+) while yeast likes 21-25C.
So I split my starter into two jars. Added 100g AP + 100g cold water that has been boiled to each jar (nothing thrown away, and I stopped adding WW). I then filled a big stainless steel pot with hot tap water and added some cold tap water to bring the temperature to about 25C (I used a candy thermometer). I put the the jars in the water bath and left them in a cold oven. Before I went to sleep I re-heated the water bath to 25C again.
Day 4:
Checked at noon and found that my starter is bubbling like crazy, success at last! The vinegar smell is now replaced with a milder, more pleasant sour smell. I added 200g AP + 200g cold boiled water to each jar, and re-heated the water bath to 25C.
Day 5:
The starter is bubbling so vigorous that it has more than doubled in volume and oozed out of the jars. I am not ready to bake bread yet, so I stirred the jars down, took out a cup of the starter to make a very nice sourdough chocolate cake https://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/sourdough-chocolate-cake-recipe and put the two jars into the fridge for future experimentation.
Addendum:
Today I baked my firsts sourdough loaves. Turned out pretty well. Not much sourness, which is good. I tried using the https://www.karenskitchenstories.com/2016/08/sourdough-hokkaido-milk-bread-with.html recipe, using only about 60g of starter from the fridge mixed with 60g of water and 60g of flour to triple it. But after a few hours there was not much activity. Tried putting it into the oven but I may have turn the heat up too much and since there is not much flour/water mixture there I may have killed the yeast. So I abandoned the recipe, took out another 100g of starter from the fridge and added 100g of water + 100g of flour and left it overnight. The next morning I can see bubbles so the yeast is alive but not vigorous. So I took the pot to my room where it is sunny today and left is sit there for about 4 or 5 hours. It became very bubbly (I have 600g starter, so othat is 300g flour + 300g water) and I mixed in with 5 cups of flour along with my tangzhong made with 1/3 cup flour + 2/3 cup water. I also added 1/4 cup Crisco oil with 6 TBSP of sugar. I kneaded it and added just enough water to make a smooth dough. I let it ferment for about 10 hours for the volume to double. Then I gently shaped the dough into 3 loaves, and left them in the cold oven overnight. The loaves have double in volume in the morning and I baked them straight away. The crust was not bad and the texture is quite nice. So sourdough starter can definitely rise the dough twice.
So the lesson here is that you need to make sure the starter is tripled under warm conditions (21-25C). The best way to do that is by using a water bath (hot water from faucet mixed with some cold water) and then leave it in the oven (without turning on the oven, of course). Maybe a good idea for you to get a cheap candy thermometer to make sure the water is not too hot. You also need to give the starter enough time to ferment. The final dough also needs at least 12 hours to rise properly.
I feel like these answers are overcomplicating the issue.
If your house is cool but livable (say 60F or higher) you will get starter activity but it will be diminished.
The two easy ways to mitigate this are to keep your starter at a higher temp (say 80-90F) or to ferment the dough longer (12-18+ hours).
There are many ways to keep the starter at a higher temp, you can find a warm spot behind an appliance or refrigerator or up in the rafters, keep it in a warm water bath that you replenish, buy a small heater intended for terrariums or aquariums, or a yogurt maker. You could even keep it on your person.
If you add even a relatively weak and cool starter to dough and let it ferment for 12-18+ hours you will get good rising activity and good bread even if it is at a cooler temperature. This is another way to mitigate the weak starter.
As long as your home is above 50F the bacteria and yeast in your starter will still be reasonably active- it will just take longer for them to work. When fermenting bread longer almost always means tastier.
That said- starting a starter from scratch already takes a long time so I understand your desire to speed it along a bit.
First of all- creating a moist environment is not going to be as important as the starter will be regularly recharged with flour and water- it won't get a chance to dry out.
As for temperature, my suggestions would be similar as for making yogurt-
in a turned off (or very very low) oven
covered and on a heating pad
This is incorrect advice. You will not be able to make a viable starter at 50 F, at least not in any reasonable amount of time (and reasonable for a sourdough starter is 2 weeks). At 50 F, it'll take much longer than that, if it works at all, which I doubt. It should be at least 74 F or warmer, but not too warm, and certainly not the 105 to 122 F used for yogurt making.
I believe that is exactly what I just said. It will work but it will take a long time. Flour and water in the fridge will eventually ferment at 40F. The microbes won't start dying until 130F. A heating pad or oven could produce 80-100 and would work nicely.
When I finally get my cheese fridge project done and can create a 50F environment I'll have to see how long it will actually take.
@Thomas - where do you get your minimum 74F temp from?
@Athanasius From experience. You can create a viable one below that, but it just takes so long to establish a viable one than most give up thinking they've failed. Like FuzzyChef says above (and I said re:Day 15 in the posted schedule), once a stable culture is established, it's very tolerant of cold (i.e. you won't kill it), but to make bread with it and to grow it at a rate reasonable enough for regular baking, you need warm temperature.
@Athanasius Have not tried a desem starter, but you've peaked my interest. Not sure where I'd find 50-65F, as is too cold for room temperature and not cold enough for the refrigerator (and outside is 10 F).
@Thomas - you can actually use the desem method at higher temps as well, though it may change the flavor profile. I think most people store their desem starters in a basement or cellar space where they also put things like potatoes and onions. Once a desem starter is established, you can just refrigerate it like any other starter for storage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.113241
| 2013-01-10T23:04:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29963",
"authors": [
"Allan Anderson",
"Athanasius",
"BetterSafeThanSorry",
"Chris Adelstein",
"Edo",
"Eric Franks",
"FuzzyChef",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Kerry Nitz",
"Navarr",
"RayInNoIL",
"RayWright",
"Ronald McLaren",
"Sobachatina",
"Thomas",
"Troy Turley",
"Wen Chuang",
"hawad hamim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85210"
],
"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
}
|
24020
|
Pizza in Oven : Bottom/Mid/Top
I make pizza in a baking tray in my oven. My question is where do I place my baking tray in the oven, the bottom top or middle?
The resources I have seen so far on the internet are far too ambiguous. For instance, Yahoo Answers have given many different answers to the same question.
What kind of oven do you have?
Pretty Basic one. I can't find a specimen so I'll just give you details : 3 racks (top/mid/bottom), 250C max temperature and about 20 inches x 20inches.
I'd generally say bottom, because the dough should become slightly or moderately crusty while the cheese only melts and doesn't dry out. But, as others have said, it depends on the type of oven you use (gas, electric, with convection, without convection etc etc)
Is it regular or convection/fan?
Related: For Pizza cooking at home. What is the best alternative to the pizza stone?
Another consideration is what you're cooking the pizza on ... a stone's going to release more heat to the pizza, but shouldn't be near a broiler; a dark sheet pan is going to absorb more energy than a shiny light-colored sheet pan so you want to place it closer to the top of the oven; I've never tried the 'baking screens' so I don't where to put one of those relative to other options.
Ideally, of course, you'd be baking your pizza on a baking stone, which you would heat to 500F for 1/2 hour before putting the pizza in the oven. However, you asked about baking a pizza in a metal pan.
In general, you want to get as much radiant heat into the bottom crust as possible in order to make sure the crust is fully cooked and not soggy. This means that in an oven with a bottom baking element (whether gas or electric) you want your oven rack in the bottom position. Again, make sure the oven is thouroughly heated to 500F (250C) (or more, if it'll go higher) before you put the pizza in.
If you have a top-heating oven, things get a bit more complicated. You'll need to somehow ensure that the bottom of the crust gets cooked, which won't happen if you just put the pizza in the oven, regardless of position. There's a couple of different ways to take care of this:
Blind-bake the crust until halfway done, flip it, put the toppings on top and finish it,
Do the pizza in a cast-iron pan first on the stove top, finishing in the oven.
In either case, with a top-heating oven, you want to put the rack close to the element ... in the middle or top position, so that the pizza is only about 2-3 inches (5-8cm) away from the element.
I've never heard of ovens with only one heating element. All the ones I have seen have both top and bottom elements, and they can be turned on and off separately. Are single-element ovens popular where you live? Also, wouldn't the top also risk to become soggy, seeing that there is wet sauce on it? I would bake it in the middle, at highest heat from both sides.
For gas ovens, bottom-burner only is quite common. Generally, though, there's also a separate broiler. The top-element only thing is actually new to me, but there were a couple questions on SA about cooking in them, from which I presume that top-element-only ovens are a common thing in cheap apartment ovens in some parts of the world. As are, apparently, ovens with no thermostat. If your oven does have a bottom element, that's what you want to use for pizza, even if there is a top element available as well.
Oh, I see what you're asking. No, you want the bottom of the crust to cook first. In general, pizza toppings tend to give off moisture as they cook, so you want the crust to be already rising before that happens. Hence, cooking from the bottom.
OK - I have seen gas stoves, but never gas ovens. I've never seen a real oven with a top element only (although I have seen a toasting/grilling mini-oven of this type, but it is too low to replace a real oven, it is meant to replace a broiler). I don't remember a question about an oven with a top element only, but maybe I have forgotten it.
Gas ovens are bad for baking anyways sinc burning the gas introduces loads of water into the oven which wont't make a great pizza regardless where you place it.
eckes: you have a very strange oven. Burning gas doesn't create moisture unless it's hydrogen. On the contrary, gas ovens are dry (because of the required airflow to burn) and electric ovens are wet unless they have convection or other airflow.
Serious Eats compared the results of cooking six of the same pizza crusts on different racks of the oven. The oven was set to 560F, with the heating element on the bottom. The pizza stone was preheated for 45 mins, and other precautions were taken to make sure that the results were not biased (ie: the stone was taken out of the oven between testings for 30 mins, to allow for temp differences between the different racks).
The results showed that:
-Pizza's cooked on the highest rack will have over-cooked toppings- no good.
-Pizza's cooked on the middle rack will have over-cooked bottoms- no good.
-Pizza's cooked on the bottom rack will have burnt bottoms- very bad.
Generally, they concluded that the rack in-between the middle and top (known as the 'upper rack') will produce the best results.
This is an old answer, but pizza is always relevant. The methods section of the Serious Eats post says "The oven will be set to the "broiler" setting ...", so the heating element was on the top.
Cook pizza on bottom rack, then check half-way before it is done. If it looks like the pizza crust is very close to being done, but the toppings are not, then move the pizza up a rack or two or more, so the crust will stop cooking and to allow more time for the toppings to finish cooking. You might even need to reduce your oven temp at this time too. For an example: If you have it set to 550F, reduce it to 450F until toppings are done.
Please note the question...You shouldn't have to be moving your pizza around in the oven or play with the heat! That's why people are asking this question, so they don't have to do this. Set oven to highest setting. Place on top rack and depending on fresh or par baked crust and amount of toppings, see how this works. At most, you might have to drop the next pizza down to the upper rack.(just below the top rack) Variables.....Amount of toppings, thickness of crust, type and style of oven. In short: Highest heat, start at top and work your way down till your pizza comes out to your liking.
It depends on your type of oven and your used setting. Your goal is to have the highest possible temperature to bake your pizza.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.115236
| 2012-05-26T14:39:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24020",
"authors": [
"Callithumpian",
"Dany S",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FuzzyChef",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"Joe",
"JuniorIncanter",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Pedro A",
"SpinUp __ A Davis",
"catch22",
"eckes",
"french_fries",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95168",
"kmiklas",
"rumtscho",
"smaslennikov"
],
"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
}
|
17130
|
What's the difference between a French oven and a Dutch oven?
I've been haunting the discount cookware sites looking for Le Creuset pieces that won't put me in the poorhouse. I found two pieces that are similar size and price - one is a French oven and the other is a Dutch oven. There's nothing in the descriptions of them that tell me what the difference is between the two. Can anyone clarify?
Edited to add specific pieces
2 quart French oven
2.5 quart Dutch oven
Amazing! The Dutch have managed to get 25% more space in a pot that's barely half the size!
The Dutch oven self-shrinks when it is not used.
Ok, so the "Smart XXX Alec" in me wanted to start out by saying: "The French oven is more arrogant and less useful." But I refrained until I learned I was right.
Looking at these two similar products Dutch Oven vs. French Oven I notice that there is not much difference except that the "French Oven" is 4 times the price & only good to 350 degrees in the oven where the Dutch Oven is rated for 400 degrees (F).
So I think I have to stand by my original thought.
Well, there's one big difference - the brand. Lodge is known for low-priced cookware; Le Creuset is a status brand. I'll take a look at the Lodge one, though - I have some of their cast iron pans and really like them. I probably don't cook enough to notice a difference in quality.
@EmmyS - see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9903/le-creuset-vs-lodge-enamel
My Lodge brand cast iron has never failed me. I wouldn't call them cheap, just 'right priced'.
@rfusca - thanks for that link. It confirms Cos Callis's endorsement of Lodge.
Just an update; I ordered the Lodge dutch oven, as well as a grill pan. They came Friday, and I used both over the weekend. They were great! Thanks again for the recommendation.
I own both Le Creuset and Lodge, although I don't have any Lodge enameled pots. Note that while Lodge cast iron is still made in the US, it outsourced its enamel line to a foundry in China. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; just be aware that the quality of Lodge's original cast iron line may be different than the quality of its enamel line. Nonetheless, I have heard good things about them.
Also, the reason why the French oven has a lower maximum temperature is because of the standard knob, which is some sort of composite that is cooler to the touch when heated, but can't withstand very high heat. You can buy a replacement stainless steel knob that is good up to 425°F. The only reason I can think of why you'd need that is if you were baking bread. I have two vintage Le Creuset pots that I inherited from my grandmother (who received them as wedding gifts), and they appear to have cast iron handles.
I've Gooooogled it and found there is no difference. According to these opinions the cookware is the same. The name 'dutch oven' is because of the dutch cookware in early US history. The French just named it French oven for marketing purposes.
This is confirmed by the Wikipedia.
This is pretty much it. All french ovens are really just enameled dutch ovens, so they are considered higher-end. The Kitchn covered this recently, actually: http://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-dutch-oven-and-a-french-oven-word-of-mouth-218572
It is really just marketing by Le Creuset and Le Chasseur (who has been known to do it also) - they're just trying to capitalize on the positive association between 'French' and 'cookery'.
There is no difference in the actual product (in terms of the name, I don't know about the particular pieces you're looking at).
Thanks. If it makes a difference, I'm updating the original post with the specific pieces.
@EmmyS - Apart from the shape and size difference, they should be functionally the same (the two pieces you linked). If you look, there's two different marketing strategies there to try to capture different market segments with similar products. One is supposed to be a throwback to 'earlier' times, and the other is a more modern take. Its just all marketing differences really.
I'm a Lodge fan myself.
I like the lid better on the larger 'Dutch' oven though.
I think the French oven might be enamel coated, while the Dutch oven isn't.
I changed it to a statement instead of a question, else I'd have had to delete it. I still don't think it's true though - just because the average Le Creuset cast iron pot is enamel coated and the average Lodge cast iron pot sold under a "Dutch oven" label isn't, this does not mean that all enameled ones are called French and all unenameled ones are called Dutch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.116138
| 2011-08-25T16:38:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17130",
"authors": [
"Alexey Alexandrov",
"Bport",
"Carol Cioppa",
"Cos Callis",
"ESultanik",
"EmmyS",
"JYelton",
"Shawn Wang",
"Spacegirl",
"Ted Hall",
"TomBrooklyn",
"avpaderno",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"sheri gunter",
"user36778"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42055
|
Create my own high-gluten flour by mixing vital wheat gluten and bread/AP flour?
Has anyone had success with giving their bread or all-purpose flour an extra gluten kick by adding vital wheat gluten? I would like to know what ratio to mix the the two ingredients with, or perhaps some hints at a formula that can help me accomplish this, assuming it is feasible (i.e. mixing will produce a close substitute for high-gluten flour). I'm also interested in any quality differences with this mixed approach vs. just using high-gluten flour in recipes.
You can assume I'm using King Arthur bread flour and King Arthur vital wheat gluten (or analogously King Arthur AP flour and vital wheat gluten), and that I'll be baking bread with the flours.
Note: this related question (When adding vital wheat gluten to a bread recipe, should one reduce the amount of flour equal to it?) mentions mixing, but doesn't go into details on ratios, etc.
Not really what you're asking, but I recently discovered "making gluten (aka seitan) from flour directly by kneading, soaking, waiting and washing" which is a method to get concentrated gluten direct from ordinary flour without needing to buy rather expensive vital wheat gluten. I could envision taking that only partway, or combining the end-product with regular dough to punch it up; it would be easy to do, but difficult to hit a specific target protein content.
Yes, and it is very easy. I do it all the time.
You only need a very simple calculation. You don't even have to be precise.
If you do want precision, you will have to find out 1) how much of your flour protein is gluten, 2) how much of your "vital wheat gluten" is gluten, and 3) how much gluten content you need for your recipe. Then use a simple rule-of-three calculation to get the amount needed to add.
I usually don't bother, because 1) and 2) is information which is very hard to find, and due to the large difference in gluten weight and complete weight, imprecision from not using true proportions is minimal. What I do is:
Look up the protein content of your flour (usually printed on the package), for example 9.6 grams per 100 grams
Look up the gluten content needed for your bread recipe. If it is not specified, 12.5% is usual for bread flour.
Add the difference in vital wheat gluten. In the example above, add 2.9 g of vital wheat gluten per 100 g of flour.
This doesn't produce exactly 12.5% gluten content, but I think that it is within the tolerance of most recipes; indeed, not all commercial flours are exactly 12.5%, they vary with brand and season.
I add the powder to the flour and mix it well before making the bread. If I am using a preferment, I add all the gluten to the preferment and make the non-fermenting part with AP flour only, so my gluten can benefit from longer autolysis.
I have no direct comparison with "true" bread flour, as I have never used it. But my breads requiring bread flour turn out good for my standards. There is no problem with bad distribution, the dough turns out very smooth and evenly elastic. There is a pronounced difference to using AP flour only.
Thanks rumtscho, great answer. I found this thefreshloaf.com post with similar info, along with a list of many flours' protein levels, so might be worth adding to your answer: http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/22310/high-gluten-wheat-flours-amp-gluten-percentage-table
Thanks to rumtscho for pointing me in the right direction, I came up with a formula that'll accomplish the math described by rumtscho and cranbo on thefreshloaf.com:
targetPercentProtein = (flourPercentProtein * x) + (vitalGlutenPercentProtein * y)
(100 - targetPercentProtein) = ((100 - flourPercentProtein) * x) +
((100 - vitalGlutenPercentProtein) * y)
In the equations, x represents the percent of your flour to mix with y percent of your vital gluten.
Example: KA Bread -> KA Sir Lancelot Flour
Here's we'll convert KA Bread Flour (12.7% protein) and KA Vital Wheat Gluten (77.8% protein) into KA Sir Lancelot Flour (14.2% protein):
14.2 = 12.7x + 77.8y
(100 - 14.2) = (100 - 12.7)x + (100 - 77.8)y
To solve this math, we can simply copy and paste the equations into WolframAlpha.com, equations separated by a comma (example):
This tells us we use 97.7% KA Bread Flour with 2.3% KA Vital Wheat Gluten
(e.g. 977g KA Bread with 23g KA Vital Wheat Gluten gives us 1000g KA Sir Lancelot)
Example: KA All-Purpose -> KA Sir Lancelot Flour
=====
Here's we'll convert KA All-Purpose Flour (11.7% protein) and KA Vital Wheat Gluten (77.8% protein) into KA Sir Lancelot Flour (14.2% protein):
14.2 = 11.7x + 77.8y
(100 - 14.2) = (100 - 11.7)x + (100 - 77.8)y
Again, we can simply copy and paste the equations into WolframAlpha.com, equations separated by a comma (example):
This tells us we use 96.2% KA All-Purpose Flour with 3.8% KA Vital Wheat Gluten
(e.g. 962g KA All-Purpose with 38g KA Vital Wheat Gluten gives us 1000g KA Sir Lancelot)
I don't measure flour by the cup anymore - too many cooking shows and online forums have changed that method. I weigh my flour on a reasonably priced dial kitchen scale, because measuring by the cup is so dependent on how packed the flour is in the cup.
A cup of flour is generally 125 grams (500 grams, or 4 cups of flour is an almost standard recipe proportion).
A teaspoon per cup (or per 125 grams) of flour is the generally accepted proportion. The increased percentage of gluten is still a somewhat vague creature, as no two batches of flour are exactly the same, although 'standard averages' are available, but the overall increase within those variances, is sufficient to provide better stretchability and tooth to baked goods.
I especially like it for homemade pizza and pretzels!
This simple answer is the best of all — it's precise, and tells me exactly what I wanted to know!
Check out this web page that does the math for you!
http://flourmath.bradfordrobertson.com
I set this page up because I got tired of taking the time to reference the formulas and figure it out each time. Now I just go to this page, plug in my numbers and target gluten goal, and it gives me the recipe for the flour I want. Hope this helps others as much as it helps me.
I use 1 tsp wheat gluton per 1 cup of all purpose flour, for my white breads and sweet doughs. In whole wheat bread I use 2 tsp per cup of wheat or rye flour, Sure does make things raise nicely.
I use Baker’s Percentage. Only need minor recipe tweaks related to temp/humidity.
I am single and bake all my bread. I stopped buying Bread Flour. Thus far, I have found Bob’s Vital Gluten powder available at the local Grocer’s. The ‘Analysis” is 70-80% protein. Prior to C-19 panic flour buying, I used King Arthur A-P, at 11.7%. I had to switched to Gold Medal Unbleached AP flour. It states protein is 10gms/100, 10%.
I have worked out a conversion factor for various percentages, but recently I encountered a “calculator.”
https://foodgeek.dk/en/vital-wheat-gluten-calculator/
This will help any and all to standardize gluten for your (AP) flour
Tonight I'm going to add vital wheat gluten to my all purpose flour to bring it up to the same protein content of the bread flour (BF) I've been using (13%). It's an experiment to see if the resulting bread is similar to what I get with bread flour.
VWG: Bobs Red Mill, 75% to 80% protein, I'll use 77%.
APF: Robin Hood, 12% protein
BF: Robin Hood Best for Bread, 13% protein
We have two unknowns:
Y = the grams of vital wheat gluten
X = the grams of all purpose flour
The protein content of 500 grams of mixed APF/VWG must equal the protein content of 500 grams of bread flour
Therefore:
12X+77Y=13(X+Y)
Expanding the right hand side:
12X+77Y=13X+13Y
Rearrange this to:
77Y-13Y=13X-12X
Simplify this to:
64Y=X
We also know that
X+Y=500 (the total amount of flour is 500 grams)
Rearrange this to
X=500-Y
Plug this in our first equation:
64Y=500-Y
or:
65Y=500
or
y=500/65 = 7.7
So I need to add 7.7 grams of VWG to 492.3 grams of my 12% APF to end up with 500 grams of flour with a 13% protein content. According to my kitchen scale, 1 tablespoon of VWG weighs 7.9 grams. My 500 grams of RH APF works out to about 3 3/4 cups. So, yes it can be simplified as a bit less than a teaspoon of VWG for every cup of white AP flour.
Here is the generalized formula:
Four parameters:
n=total grams of flour
t=target %protein
a=APF %protein
v=VWG %protein
Y=n*(t-a)/(v-a)
So, it's a simple formula where you multiply the total grams of flour by a factor that is calculated as the ratio of the spread in protein content.
Now what I need is an equation for reducing the calories in all the delicious bread I've been eating!
I haven't been making bread long, but have added pure gluten protein to my favorite challah recipe..I am also not enthused by all the calculations..I just want more protein in my bread. The recipe makes 2 huge challah loaves using 7 cups flour..I can add NO MORE than 1/3 cup of gluten to this recipe, taking away about 1/4 cup flour. If you add too much, it is way too elastic and I can't make the braided loaves. I also add barley extract which gives excellent rises
Using Gaussian elimination
Example: KA Bread -> KA Sir Lancelot Flour
Here's we'll convert KA Bread Flour (12.7% protein) and KA Vital Wheat Gluten (77.8% protein) into KA Sir Lancelot Flour (14.2% protein):
14.2 = 12.7x + 77.8y
(100 - 14.2) = (100 - 12.7)x + (100 - 77.8)y
Equ 1. 14.2=12.7x+77.8y
Equ 2. 85.8=88.3x+22.2y
Step1 – Get rid of the scalar value for x in Equ 1. Divide equ1 by 12.7.
Equ 3. 1.12=x+6.13y
Equ 2. 85.8=88.3x+22.2y
Step 2 – Get rid of scalar value for x in equ2. Multiply Equ3 by 88.3.
Equ 4. 98.90=88.3x+541.28y
Equ 2. 85.8 =88.3x+22.2y
Step 3 – Subtract equ4 from equ2.
Equ 5. -13.1 =-519.08y
y= (-13.1)/(-519.08)=0.025=2.5%
Step 4 – Substitute the result of equ5 into equ1
Equ 1. 14.2=12.7x+77.8y
14.2=12.7x+77.8(0.025)
14.2=12.7x+1.95
14.2-1.95=12.7x
12.25=12.7x
12.25/12.27=x
x=0.965=96.5%
Therefore you should use ~ 97% flour and ~3% Vital Gluten to raise the protein level from 12.7% to 14.2%.
I find the addition of VWG improves the gluten formation in both bread and pizza dough, especially those made utilising no-knead, little yeast and a long ferment time.
When I make Seitan, or wheat-meat, from white flour I simply make regular dough then knead it underwater in a bowl, in the sink. The starch washes out as you reduce the dough to gluten-only protein. It takes a while, maybe 10 minutes and 20 changes of the water to reduce it down. What if this process was done just briefly to remove only some of the starch? - would the dough be 'stronger' and suitable for bread? - I can't see why not!
Hello Superbugg, this is an interesting idea, but I don't know if it is practical. How long should this "just briefly" thing be done to get to the desired strength? And how would one control the hydration of the dough after such a procedure?
@rumtscho Isn't this post another question rather than an answer?
@cindy that's open to interpretation. Since the author suggests a new method, I'm inclined to see it as an answer and interpret the question form of the sentences as a rhetoric device or maybe an expression of the fact that the author is speculating and did not try it out. But it's hard to tell for sure.
I prefer the simplest version: a teaspoon or two of vital wheat gluten added to each cup of flour (one tsp for white flour, and two for denser flours).
I bake bread using my own Kamut flour. When baking 2 loaves, I use 1/3 cup gluten flour. My bread includes a cup of sunflower seeds, a cup of pumpkin seeds, a cup of flaxseed meal and 1/3 cup caraway seeds. The gluten flour helps hold the bread up with the weight of all those heavy seeds so the texture is light and fluffy but the bread is packed with seeds. We use a total of about 5 1/2 cups Kamut flour. 1/3 cup orange or lemon juice with zest adds flavor and is a texturizer.
What is "Kamut" flour?
@elbrant an old kind of wheat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khorasan_wheat
That sounds good Jimmy! Do you have any pictures of the baked bread? Sourdough?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.116597
| 2014-02-16T14:16:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42055",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Ecnerwal",
"ElmerCat",
"Jgrimes",
"John Waites",
"Lab AFISB",
"Patricia Drews",
"Rasheed ",
"Stephie",
"WPS Office spam",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98430",
"kaplan",
"roma joker spam",
"rumtscho",
"sid"
],
"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
}
|
123084
|
What happens if chefs don't want to eat something or have dietary restrictions?
What happens if a chef develops an allergy or an intolerance?
I try to avoid gluten because it makes me feel unwell. If I was a chef, I'd have to be careful with something like pasta or cake or beer.
And I really can't have dairy. Certainly not fresh milk or cream or a bechamel. I could maybe have cheese or chocolate but not a lot.
And then I don't eat lamb (or venison or rabbit...) for personal reasons.
What happens to chefs who have these problems, or perhaps develop them after they have trained and worked as a chef?
Do they have to work in specialty sectors (weirdly I can eat almost all Chinese food, it seems to avoid all of the things I don't eat) like vegetarian or vegan? Would they retrain as a bartender? Do restaurants have to make allowances for them? Since almost everyone has something that they just don't like (coriander (cilantro) comes to mind). If not, surely some things are protected because of religion? Hard to imagine a chef is fired because they now can't eat pork after converting to another religion.
EDIT: To clarify, I am interested in experiences of people in the industry and what happened in real life cases. This is not an opinion based question and it barely was before someone decided to block this question. Geez
Welcome to SA! While this feels like an interesting discussion question, it doesn't feel answerable. Each chef's circumstances are going to be different, and there's no general rule, particularly when you think of this as a worldwide question.
(for example, a chef with gluten allergy in Vietnam would hardly be inhibited at all)
I recall there being a vegan chef in one season of Gordon Ramsey's Hell's Kitchen. She didn't win, but as she couldn't taste half the food, that doesn't really surprise me. She had to make everything by look & feel.
@FuzzyChef I am just interested in some examples of when a chef couldn't eat something. I only listed a few things to show that there was an interesting spread of reasons, some better than others, for why someone, including chefs, couldn't eat something. Please reverse the block on this question. It's very reasonable and of interest to lots of people.
@LeonhardEuler as everywhere on the network, we only accept questions which will have one objectively correct answer. "A list of examples" is not the kind of thing you can ask for. See also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask, your question fits the first four of the five criteria for question we don't answer.
Yeah, this is not a discussion forum. I suggest joining eGullet and asking there.
Now, if you wanted to ask: "I have a severe dairy intolerance, how could I still become a chef in Location" then that's a question that potentially has a verifiable answer.
I always thought a goalpost for being a true cook vs. someone-who-cooks is being able to cook things very well that you don't eat/like. For me it's mushrooms. True dietary restrictions like religious or allergy-based ones would be real tough though, I'd think. Unless you're the Beethoven of chefs you HAVE to be able to taste things, at least the first few times, to know if they'll be any good.
The same thing that happens to anyone who finds themself unable to effectively do their job: They find a new job.
You don’t need to chow down on massive amounts of food to be a chef, but you do need to taste things. So something like a dairy intolerance would probably be okay. But if someone’s allergic, or morally opposed, to tasting ingredients in food they have to taste, they won’t be able to cook them anymore.
Any legal aspects are off-topic for this site.
It would become quite interesting if they couldn't have something because of a protected characteristic like religion or disability - while protections aren't absolute it's not simply a matter of forcing them out either. I'm not sure we can separate the legal aspects.
We can't comment on the legal aspects in SA; we're not lawyers, let alone lawyers with expertise in many employment jurisdictions.
Perhaps the chef could collect disability since his primary profession is made unavailable due to medical concerns...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.117446
| 2023-01-20T15:56:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123084",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Leonhard Euler",
"Peter Moore",
"Tetsujin",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64146",
"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
}
|
123784
|
How effective are thermophilic cultures at preserving milk at room temperature?
The thermophilic kind that you seed with plain yogurt from the store. I use Fage usually as a seed. I usually make it the "warm oven" method, where I get the oven to 150 or so, turn it off, and let it sit overnight. Makes a nice thick yogurt, and after 8 hours it's still a little warm, but it's pretty close to room temp.
Note that store-bought items may or may not contain live and active bacterial cultures, or have flavorings, or other various adulterations that affect shelf life. Thus, various sources suggest extremely short times that yogurt is viable when left out. This article, for example, suggests that yogurt left at 90° for over an hour should be tossed out. Clearly, however, this advice cannot be relevant to freshly-cultured yogurt, because leaving it at more than 90° for several hours is essential to the culturing process! Indeed, souring is a traditional method of preserving milk.
How effective is thermophilic bacteria at preserving milk at room temperature? I.e. How much longer might I expect my yogurt to resist growing potentially dangerous bacteria than the pasteurized milk I made it from? Does straining it affect the room-temp lifespan?
The duped question assumes that food is being preserved exclusively through refrigeration. There exist other methods of food preservation (for example, milk can be preserved by souring), and the duped question does not address these methods at all. My question is about how a specific preservation method that is not refrigeration affects the shelf life of food.
the FDA does not recognize "preserving milk by souring". Yogurt is considered a needs-refrigeration product, just like any other dairy. Note that when you ask on the site about food safety, this means an application of official food safety regulations, and not personal opinions on how long something would last. See also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info
@rumtscho a quick google search finds this publication by the FDA: " Increasing the acidity of foods, either through fermentation or the addition of weak acids, has been used as a preservation method since ancient times... It is well known that groups of microorganisms have a pH optimum, minimum, and maximum for growth in foods. The pH can interact with other factors such as aw, salt, temperature, redox potential, and preservatives to inhibit growth of pathogens and other organisms...."
@rumtscho also, is it the case that Seasoned Advice Stackexchange is only allowed to offer food advice that is sactioned by the FDA, and is not able to discuss traditional methods of food preparation? Acidification via Thermo and Mesophilic bacteria is handed down to us from, literally, prehistoric times. Is the history of the subject on topic, at least?
@rumtscho started a discussion on meta if you'd like to discuss there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.117897
| 2023-03-30T14:32:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123784",
"authors": [
"Him",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64271",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6444
|
Really good quality Cooks Knifes
Possible Duplicate:
What should I look for in a good, multi-purpose chef's knife?
Hi guys
Just wondering what people consider to be the best Cooks knifes you can get?
I've been to a couple of shops and a lot of people are saying that you can't go past the Japanese Knifes... Specifically Kikuichi. The one I have had 3 different places try and sell me is the Kikuichi Gold Elite Damascus Gyuto 210mm - http://www.chefknivestogo.com/kigoelsugy21.html
So what do people think? Is this a good knife? For the money is there better out there?
Cheers
Anthony
what criteria are you using to judge "best," or are you looking for a list of criteria that define "best?" Also, by cook's knife do you mean chef's knife?
Right; I think there are several interesting, objective, non-duplicate questions in here waiting to be asked. Looking forward to an updated version.
Hi vdh_ant. We have an existing topic that with objective criteria and answers that covers how to choose a Chef's Knife. The questions asked in your question "What is the best?", "Is this good?", and "Is there better?" are all subjective questions which don't have objective answers. Well, "Is this good?" is an exception, but the answer is yes.
There is a relevant meta discussion taking place here: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/138/are-questions-about-equipment-off-topic Your question does seem to fall into the category of "which is better X or Y?" (your Y is every other knife in existence).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.118154
| 2010-08-31T19:04:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6444",
"authors": [
"Jon Hanna",
"Madeline Osborne",
"Michael Natkin",
"bretddog",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14564
|
What is the conversion rate between plum tomatoes and "regular" tomatoes?
I have a recipe that calls for 12 plum tomatoes (seeded, skinned, and pureed). Can I substitute regular tomatoes, and if so, in what ratio should I substitute them?
Here is a picture of what I mean by "regular" tomatoes:
The tomatoes pictured are known as slicing or globe tomatoes. The conversion rate is going to depend significantly on the size of your slicing tomatoes.
While plum tomatoes tend to be rather uniform in size, a slicing tomato can range anywhere from 1.5 to 3x the size of a plum. If they're close to the size of a baseball, that would be about the 1.5x end of the range. If they're closer to the size of a softball that is the 3x end of the range.
I'm not sure what your recipe is, but you should be aware of two properties of plum tomatoes. First, they have a much lower water content than slicing tomatoes. This makes them great for stews and sauces. Second, their seeds are rather bitter; this is likely why your recipe calls for them to be seeded.
If you're using slicing tomatoes you can omit seeding them if you desire. You'll also want to cook them longer to address the higher water content.
What would honestly be a better option is to simply use canned San Marzano tomatoes. These are widely considered to be the best tomatoes for sauces. Plus they are canned at the peak of freshness, allowing you to have ripe tomatoes year round. Fresh tomatoes bought outside of summer are often lacking in flavor.
Thank you for the detailed and informative answer. You've given me everything I need. And yes, I'm making a sauce, and I'll probably used canned tomatoes.
Agreed on the canned tomatoes for sauces (although, I've never gotten obsessive about variety); unless you're growing your own, or buying from a local farm, it's often the better choice, as they can them when ripe, rather than having to pick them early so they'll survive shipping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.118312
| 2011-05-08T00:30:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14564",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Ryan C. Thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17666
|
Can you identify these chiles on sale in Serbia and Macedonia?
In the market in Niš, Serbia yesterday there were the most beautiful capsicums (bell peppers, red peppers) and chiles on display that I've ever seen.
But also on sale were these "ugly" ones that I first thought were some kind of root vegetable due to their characteristic dull finish. Note also the characteristic "etched" concentric rings going around them:
My Serbian host has little English and after much effort and phone calls was proud to tell me they are called "hot chille peppers", but hopefully the culinary experts here can find a much more specific name or description.
I don't mind if the only names you can find are in Serbian or some other language, but I am interested to know why they look so different to the shiny chiles and how they are put to use in this part of the world, especially uses which differ to the more familiar looking varieties.
hippietrail certainly seems to be living up to his/her user name!
Jalapeños, if left to fully ripen on the plant, will develop little white lines on it ... not as dense as that, and they tend to be along the axis of the stem, but they're not the shiny things you get in the supermarkets. I'm not sure if it's an issue with humidity & temperature where they're grown (I'm in a moderate, moist area, while much of our peppers in the U.S. are grown in hotter, dryer places.)
I've spent a lot of time in Mexico, where I learned to love hot food, and saw all kinds of chiles - but never anything like these. I was given the impression that these ones are the really hot ones by local standards.
I've now found them on sale in a posh supermarket in Skopje, Macedonia. This time labelled:
потекло
скопско
пиперки везени
благи / кг
Which Google Translate massages into:
origin
Skopje
peppers embroidered
mild / kg
So an answer is "пиперки везени" or "embroidered peppers", for at least one name used in at least one country. Here is a close-up photo giving a better look at the striations:
User Martin Tapankov knows these from Bulgaria but does not know of a special name other than "люти чушки" (lyuti chushki), which is the normal name for chili peppers in Bulgaria, not just these ones with striations.
The peppers you have on the picture are called Vezena Peppers. I'm in the USA and I am unable to find seeds for these.
Here's a video called Macedonian Embroidered Peppers - Makedonski Vezeni Piperki It apparently shows that both of the names Vezena and Embroidered are correct.
@jolenealaska Embroidered is just a literal translation of vezena, so no wonder that they are both considered "correct". Vezena is also the transliteration of везена, which is the word from the accepted answer.
@rumtscho I figured that might be the case.
This pepper is called "Vezanka". It is a very old, heirloom variety, a favorite around these parts, great fordrying and making hot paprika. There's a long and short version of it. Buy it and save the seeds, they are precious and have become rare!
this is the oldest chili from Serbia (from the year 1300), they are called embroidery chili, they are either very hot or not, when dry, they are chopped and crushed, they are amazing tasting.
Can you tell us their name in Serbian too? Cyrillic or Latin is fine.
1300? Are you sure? Chillies originated in the Americas and by definition would only have reached Europe after 1492 and most likely would have taken longer to make it to the Balkans.
@Stefano http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/158/329/9189283.jpg
These are Macedonian fringed chillies (Capsicum annuum longum group 'Macedonian fringed'.)
I have grown these and know them as Macedonian Grilling Peppers "Vesena". I got the seeds from working at Roughwood Seed Collection in Pennsylvania, USA, and before that they came from Arche Noah in Austria.
Welcome! I've removed the non-answer part of your answer -- answers aren't meant for personal communications. You should know, though, that you've already got permission to use the image: all content on this site is released under the Creative Commons' Attribution-ShareAlike license, which allows you to use it in your own work as long as you attribute the source and allow others the same freedom of reuse.
Rezha Macedonian Pepper/Vezeni Piperki. Seeds available at www.rareseeds.com. Here's the company's description: 80 days. The name means “engraved;” another local name, Vezeni Piperki, means “embroidered”. Both names refer to the curious lines on the skins of tapering, long, thin peppers. The fruits, which range from mild to sometimes very pungent, are to be seen hanging in great clusters, drying in Macedonian warm late autumn sun. The traditional farmers save seed from the hot fruits which also show the most pronounced striations. Our foundation Seed was donated by schoolchildren from the villages of Kalugeritsa and Zleovo. (I have no connection w/this company.)
Hey Larry! We have a rule about using the site to advertise products/companies. You're completely allowed to say "Oh, and here's a place that I found that sells them on the web" but it's important to clarify that you're not connected to the seller as self-promotion isn't allowed. Also, to improve your answer, if you could include an image of those peppers and explain why you think they're a match, that would be much more helpful, particularly if the site you list stops selling them.
(Almost) all of the peppers and chilies in the US are covered w/ a food grade wax. I, for the life of me, couldn't find any pictures of chili peppers without the paraffin. But that's what I think that is. Hot chilis that have not been treated w/ wax.
I agree; you can even see a few at the bottom left of the photo that look cleaner, and those look like plain ordinary red chilies.
No, I have seen this, but never in this amount. This is plant matter, a kind of wood rind-like cells. People I know just don't pay attention to it and use them as any other peppers, depending on hotness and shape.
I regularly grow a variety of chilies and peppers. Aside from the occasional white scoring that Joe mentions in another comment, I've never seen anything like this on mine. As an aside, the appearance of un-waxed chillies is almost identical to the waxed ones; maybe a little less shiny.
I doubt paraffin is used in Serbia especially in local markets. It's a poor country with fantastic produce. Everybody seems to grow their own peppers in their gardens. I was given one freshly picked and it was shiny but my friends didn't grow this kind. Also in the same market were lots of candles made of real beeswax where the same stalls also sold honey. But I'll wait and see what more experts have to say.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.118530
| 2011-09-12T10:26:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17666",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdrienNK",
"Andrew",
"Aviv Profesorsky",
"CandiedMango",
"Catija",
"Doug",
"Farmer Lisa",
"Fiksdal",
"Fred Sykes",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lene' Walters",
"Severus Snape",
"Sneftel",
"Stefano",
"Tracey Paige",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95516",
"naina",
"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
}
|
16500
|
Identify this seafood from the Black Sea known in Romanian as "rapane"?
Here on the Black Sea in Romania people are eating a shellfish called in Romanian "rapane" which they translate as "oyster" when I ask.
But they are elongated spiral shells which to me look nothing like the chunky flattish oyster shells in Australia. Besides which there is another Romanian word "stridie" for oyster and I can't find "rapane" in my print dictionary or any online dictionary. One person told me these are "sea oysters" as opposed to "ocean oysters". I've also been told they're not a native local species.
Here is a photo of a dead rapane shell on the beach and another of raw rapane waiting to be cooked:
This is definitely a rapa whelk. These are indigenous to the seas in the far East, but got somehow imported into the Black Sea and overtook the ecosystem.
First, people around the Black sea didn't have much use for them. The waves washed the shells of dead whelks ashore and these got crafted into souvenirs for tourists. Then, people started fishing them and selling them to the Japanese, who ate them. At last, around the summer season of 2000 or 2001, restaurants along the western shores of the Black sea started offering them as food to their guests. Still, I think that much more of the catch is exported than consumed locally (but have no hard numbers for this).
Since the only people who eat them seem to be Japanese and recently also Bulgarians and Romanians, I highly doubt that they have a kitchen-specific name in English, or that you can buy them at all outside of the above locations.
Biologically, they're not related to oysters. My speculation is that innovative restaurant managers who wanted to serve them had to come up with a name which sounded like something posh (sea oyster) as opposed to one which is both common and associated with kitschy ashtrays (rapane).
They look like a species of whelk, which is a catch-all term for sea-snails. See the Wikipedia article here.
Thanks. I did try following articles on Wikipedia starting at "sea snail" and whelk did look the closest but Google searches for "whelk rapane" didn't give me much insight and I'm not familiar with whelk.
That's correct. It's a genus of sea snails called "rapana" in English.
It specifically looks like a veined rapa whelk (rapana venosa), which are common in the Black Sea.
It turns out "rapane" is the plural in Romanian of "rapana" which may have been a stumbling block for Google.
The following method works better than a dictionary most of the time when you have to identify plants or animals.
Open the Wikipedia home page, and search for "rapane" in Romanian.
Result #1 is rapană (I don't speak Romanian, but I guess it's the singular), and a cursory look at the pictures confirms that it's the same shell.
On the left sidebar, look for the section "in other languages", and click on "English"
You are redirected to the English page for Veined Rapa Whelk.
That's a bingo! Even a non-expert, non-Romanian like me could identify this species with no effort.
It's a conch, the common name for an edible marine snail. Not an oyster for sure. :)
Honestly, reading this post was the first time that I had ever heard of a 'whelk', and thought it looked like a conch, too. It seems that they're different, though : http://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/blog/2015/03/02/whats-in-a-name-conch-vs-whelk/
In Ukraine these are sold preserved in jars with oil and spices, one of their kinds is called "Antalya". If they are popular in Turkey too, or this is just a marketing name - I don't know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.119145
| 2011-07-30T09:59:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16500",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Monica",
"Rebecca Chadaris",
"WannaBeGeek",
"atm",
"dahsinmar",
"ermanen",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"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
}
|
113158
|
Fudge already set, can you soften and re-set it?
I have plans to make fudge this year for the holidays but wanted to try a new method for making it. I want to use silicone molds to put the fudge in so that once it sets it is pre-shaped. My only concern is that the molds I have don't hold a full batch of fudge. If the excess sets before I put it in the molds, is there a way to resoften it and then put it in the molds and have it set again?
Would making a smaller batch of fudge (that will fit in your molds without any leftovers) be feasible? I assume you don't want to buy another set of molds?
The problem is that I am not sure how much of the batch will fit and how much wont. I haven't looked at the amount for trying to make a smaller batch yet as I use one that is based on sweetened condensed milk and didn't think about the fact that I can use less than a full can
Where did you buy the molds? If you bought them online or can find the same ones for sale online, see if the product description or Q&A tell you what volume they hold. Or fill them with water, then measure the volume of the water.
My understanding of the fudge process is that you are aiming to make a supersaturated solution of sugars at heat, which, when cooled, will cause the sugars to crash out of solution all at onece into the fine crystals characteristic of fudge. This is the reason you need to remove sugar crystals from the sides of the pan - so that they don't act as nucleation points, allowing bigger crystals to form.
There are a few different sorts of fudge, some of which will be easier to fix than others. Traditional fudge is the fussiest to get right, but also the easiest to fix if necessary. So called "quick" fudge made with condensed milk or marshmallow fluff is easier to get right, but not as easy to fix, and does not rely on so heavily on sugar crystallization, but rather on protein precipitation acting as .
In principle for traditional fudge you could re-heat it by adding more liquid so that the sugars dissolve. You would then need to evaporate the excess liquid (but don't exceed the soft-ball stage at 237 F/114 C) to recreate your supersaturated solution. Whether this will work or not will likely depend on your skill at maintaining the temperature below the point above, so as to neither burn the fudge, nor turn it into toffee.
For quick fudges, there is some protein content in there from the milk or the gelatin in the fluff, which affect these. You can't really re-dissolve proteins that have precipitated and aggregated, so you will not be able to melt these ones effectively.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.119481
| 2020-12-14T18:55:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113158",
"authors": [
"DVanCamp",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90155",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121431
|
How to adequately secure a liquid filling in a piece of pastry?
I mixed peanut butter, chocolate, heavy cream, honey and froze it in an ice cube mold. Then I put those cubes into dough and baked at 180°C for 15 minutes. The dough is great, the filling is good, but all of them leaked:
How can I adequately secure a liquid filling in a piece of pastry? What are the techniques I need to adopt? I don't think there was too much filling.
How much do you want them to be in the shape of a roll? I’ve baked similar items in muffin tins so I had better containmentbut they’ll end up muffin shaped. (I also made sure the seams were at the top, as quarague mentioned
I would thicken the mix into a paste with glutinous rice flour. Maybe use extra butter in the pastry instead of heavy cream in the filling.
Upvote for the jump off the page deliciousness looking sticky buns! I would do nothing difference. The leakage is good advertising for what is in the there.
Liquid fillings are typically piped into pastries after baking, like with donuts, eclairs, and cream puffs.
The method you used relies on crimping and sealing the dough with a long seam in contrast to a single hole, giving the potential for leakage from a seam failure along the entire length of pastry.
The filling itself is rich in fats from the peanut butter and cream, which can also interfere with the dough bonding to itself if smudged along the seam. Additionally, heating from baking reduces the filling's viscosity, making it runnier and able to more easily seep through any small gaps present in the seams.
Chill your filling just enough to thicken it for piping, fill by piping into cooled baked pastries, and if it still leaks out try capping the hole with melted chocolate. If you don't have a piping set, you can improvise with straws and plastic food bags with cut corners.
Copied from comments discussion below:
Sergey Zolotarev: What's wrong with the freezing method? Had I sealed the dough better, would it have worked?
Answer:
The sealing method would have worked for other types of fillings with lower fat contents like jellies, or using only baking chocolate, some varieties of which have stabilisers added to prevent them from becoming runny when heated. The filling you used has mainly oils and fats with the only water coming from the cream and honey - the fats and oils don't truly 'freeze', and melt and become much more runny at a lower temperature. The dough sealing method does work, just not very well with this specific filling.
Sergey Zolotarev: Isn't it even worse with watery filings? Won't they largely become steam and force their way out, as bob1 pointed out?
Answer:
For your dough, this would be unlikely. This depends on the composition of the fillings and pastry, broken down into 3 general groups:
water
fats and oils
non-fat solids, i.e. cocoa, milk sugars and proteins, starch
Based on the crumb structure in your pictures, your dough appears to be a leavened high-moisture dough with low fat/oil content. Your filling is a majority non-fat solids (peanut pulp, cocoa solids, and sugars from honey and cream) and fats/oils (peanut oil, cocoa butter, milk fat) with a lesser component of water.
Pastries baked with liquid fillings typically rely on the insolubility of oils and water to keep the fillings from leaking through. This is usually done with high fat/oil content in the pastry and high water content, low fat/oil content in the filling:
fruit pies, strudels, and tarts with puff pastry made of mostly starch and fat
cheesecakes with graham crackers bound in fat
various applications of Greek phyllo pastry
As @bob1 mentioned, steam generated as the filling heats up is an issue, and these types of pastries rely on slits or openings to allow steam to escape since the water is not readily absorbed into the dough. Openings are not an option for your filling, since it is made up predominantly of non-fat solids and oils and fats that do not evaporate, and as stated above, become runnier and flow more easily when heated.
If a primarily water-based, low fat/oil filling were used with your dough, you would have completely different interactions depending on the ratio of non-fat solids to water, and temperature and state of the water present in the filling:
High solids, low water: similar to a calzone, pierogi, or buchty with proper povidla mentioned by @Colombo, where the free water remains bound in the filling or partially absorbed by the mainly water-based dough.
Low solids, high water: the use of jam by @Colombo instead of povidla, where the filling will leak as steam as generated. This can be adjusted for in the case of Chinese soup dumplings, as @quarague mentioned, where the water is bound by gelatin.
Freezing a high water content filling: Additional energy is needed to go from 0C solid ice to 0C liquid before the temperature rises, about the same amount as the energy required to go from 20C to 100C - this is called 'latent heat' required in a phase change. The downside to this approach is that the solid chunk of ice acts as a heat sink in the centre, which may inhibit the dough from generating steam and rising during baking. Your filling is primarily fats/oils and non-fat solids, which do not have the same latent heat capacity as water - coconut oil, with one of the highest latent heat capacities for edible oils at approx. 105 J/g, is 4000x lower than that of water.
Image from "Specific Heat and Latent Heat Capacity of Water." https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Oceanography/Oceanography_101_(Miracosta)/07%3A_Properties_of_Seawater/7.02%3A_Specific_Heat_and_Latent_Heat_Capacity_of_Water
Further reading:
Edible Oils as Practical Phase Change Materials for Thermal Energy Storage. Samer Kahwaji, Mary Anne White. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9081627
How do you make your pastry hollow?
@SergeyZolotarev you start with a recipe which creates a hollow pastry, such as choux pastry. But indeed, borky's method is not the only one.
Filled donuts can use any dough ranging from soft cake to stronger, near-bagel chewy. As long as the outside has set firmly from baking and the inside crumb is springy, you can use a straw or skewer to poke a hole and compress the inside crumb - many donut bakeries will just rely on the pressure exerted from forcing the filling in to widen a pocket inside. Your photos show that your crumb has enough trapped air pockets and gluten strength to do this.
conventional fried donut, chopstick to open hole: https://youtu.be/45_wmB2yrzc?t=387 ; baked donut using only long-stem pipe: https://youtu.be/17jL5nZrgPw?t=713 ; knife slit, short tip pastry bag fill: https://youtu.be/JTnic4_LEEs?t=194
What's wrong with the freezing method? Had I sealed the dough better, would it have worked?
The sealing method would have worked for other types of fillings with lower fat contents like jellies, or using only baking chocolate, some varieties of which have stabilisers added to prevent them from becoming runny when heated. The filling you used has mainly oils and fats with the only water coming from the cream and honey - the fats and oils don't truly 'freeze', and melt and become much more runny at a lower temperature. The dough sealing method does work, just not very well with this specific filling.
I'd add that steam from any water in a sealed environment might well create some pressure that would add to any minor defects in sealing by forcing its way out.
I once had a commercial bakery customer (I did all their computer programming and networking). They had a lot of automated equipment, but not for jelly donuts. When it was time for a run of jelly donuts, two people would stand on the sides of the conveyor belt with the donuts zipping by and pick them up one at a time and inject the jelly. (FYI, there is absolutely nothing like eating all the fresh donuts you want fresh off the conveyor belt. Those were the days.)
Isn't it even worse with watery filings? Won't they largely become steam and force their way out, as bob1 pointed out?
You didn't specify what pastry you are making. If you are using a dough which is suitable for filling, such as choux pastry, then indeed piping is the best way to go.
There are however recipes which don't require that. They are made by simply using a small enough amount of filling, and the filling shouldn't be exactly "liquid", more like a thin paste. Fruit preserves are popular, but I think your mixture should work for it too.
A typical shape for this type of pastry is the cornette - I won't call it a croissant here, because people tend to associate croissant with laminated dough. It is the same shape, but made from simpler doughs, frequently a soft yeast dough or the type of dough that is otherwise used for cookielike salty fingerfood (I don't think it has an English name). You may need to find a recipe intended especially for more liquid fillings.
To bake your pastry, you roll your dough into 20 to 25 cm large circles, and cut each one in triangles, like a birthday cake. You then place a teaspoon of filling close to the wide side, and roll it into a cylinder with thick middle, then tuck in the two ends to form the typical cornette shape. Then you bake them. The leakage should be minimal, although frequently not zero, and it is from the existing opening, not splitting your pastry somewhere unsightly.
I would add another strategy inspired by Chinese soup dumplings. The idea is very simple. Your filling leaked through the seams and liquid only flows downwards. Hence you need to ensure that all the seems are at the top.
Start with a flat round piece of dough. Put your frozen (implying solid) filling in the center. Pull up the dough all around it and then twist it closed at the top. Putting 'Chinese soup dumplings' into your favorite search engine will give you some pictures on how this will look like.
Note that the dumplings are steamed not baked but the general idea works with baking as well. You would need a dough that is suitable for that. Filo dough works, I haven't tried other types.
Another food to look at is polish Pierogi, they have a pronounced seam, pressed hard together, and they’re boiled not baked so the outer layer has a chance to harden together first. (Some tend to end leaking the filling nevertheless.)
The minor issue with baking vs steaming is that you might end up heating up the filling enough that it would evaporate; if so, the pressure could cause the dough to split, so it might be worth intentionally leaving a small vent on top to control where it happens.
Czech baking is full of filled dough buns. I have found out the hard way the same problem as you have.
Traditional Czech filled buns called buchty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchteln are filled with poppy seed, quark, nut or povidla filling.
Nut and poppy seed filling is a paste. So it won't "run away". Quark is curd cheese, mixed with some sugar, egg and butter, it is still quite solid.
Povidla is often translated as plum jam, but nothing can be further from the truth. Jam, that you normally buy in shops, is high liquid, sugar and what keeps it together is pectin. Pectin is a polysaccharide that jellyfies the jam after heating and being dissolved in it. But this reaction is thermo-reversible, you can liquify your jam again by heating it. Most jams are just thickened fruit juice.
Povidla is not thickened fruit juice. It is prepared cooking the shit out of very ripe plums (or pears). What keeps it together is the pulp, the flesh of the fruit, all the fibres, and a low amount of water compared to jam, not pectin. That means it is stable under higher heat and behaves basically the same whether cold or hot. It is obvious when you are cooking it, because it doesn't boil, it doesn't create bubbles. There is no (or very little) of hot steam that would try to escape. At least that is my interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powidl
Coz I can't get Povidla in NZ, and plums are a bit more pricey nowadays, I was able to make tasty version from apples following essentially the same cooking method. Supposedly, the principle is the same as making an apple sauce. Traditionally, a bit of vinegar is used during cooking for preservation. This makes the final product smell a little bit vinegary, but that goes away when used during baking.
I used it to make Koláče, something that was hard to do with jam, as it tended to run away: https://www.cooklikeczechs.com/ceske-kolace-authentic-recipe-for-czech-kolache/
Unfortunately, I don't have an image of the apple-filled ones. But you can see that I had a similar problem with jam like you did with your filling. Fortunately, since jam wasn't the main filling, just something on top, it wasn't a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.119727
| 2022-08-22T15:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121431",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kingsley",
"Sergey Zolotarev",
"Willk",
"bob1",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact",
"mirabilos",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90952
|
Egg pasta vs. water+semolina pasta texture
I recently started experimenting with making pasta from semolina flour and water. I noticed it has a slightly "slimy" texture after cooking, compared to that made with eggs.
Is it supposed to be like that? If not, should I knead it more? Or add more flour?
Was the dough slimy only after the initial mixing, or was it still slimy after kneading/resting/rolling out?
My inclination would be "too much water", but I can't say I've ever had it be "slimy".
@sneftel I was referring to the cooked pasta, sorry for the confusion!
@FuzzyChef that was my gut feeling too, although the dough was pretty hard when I was kneading it. I'll try to add some more flour next time and see when it starts breaking :-)
Oh, after cooking? That's a different matter. What's the grind on your semolina flour? Semolina for pasta should be coarse-ground, like almost cornmeal-sized.
What grain is your semolina made from?
@FuzzyChef yes, it's exactly this coarse, and it's durum wheat. It actually says on the package that it's a pasta flour. Adding more flour to the dough improved the texture a bit, but my main question I guess is should there even be a discernible difference between an egg pasta and plain wheat pasta?
@rumtscho see above ^
There should be, but not the difference you're getting. Egg pasta should be a bit stretchier and more flexible, and pure semolina pasta should be dry and brittle (when uncooked). That's why folks don't tend to make semolina+water pasta at home that much.
@FuzzyChef ah, that's a clue! I was afraid to add even more flour exactly because it was getting brittle, especially around the edges when being run through a pasta machine. Looks like that's exactly what I need?
You could also try mixing in a little bread flour, just to give it more flexibility.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.120734
| 2018-07-11T03:52:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90952",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"isagalaev",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121388
|
Can I save my vinegar soaked caraway seeds?
I prepared some quick-pickled onions (the variety that you only keep in the fridge for a few days) and used a "boil the vinegar then pour it over" method. I accidentally dropped about 40g of black caraway seeds into the brine due to my spice container malfunctioning. Due to the pour-over method, I managed to separate most of them. Unfortunately, the seeds are now soaked. Is there a safe way to dry and use them, or will I need to use them quickly?
Rinse them in a few changes of water and then dry them throughly in a warm/dry location; they should be fine. If you happen to have a standing pilot oven (old-fashioned these days) that works well for drying things.
You can blot most of the water out with a towel. The main issue is to get them throughly dry, so they don't grow mold.
An alternative would be to jar them in vinegar and put them in the fridge for future use in other pickled foods.
… or freeze them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.120908
| 2022-08-17T16:18:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121388",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125886
|
Is there a device for separating the sediment from home made wine?
I'm thinking of a device that will probably look something like the image in this answer, a tube with a valve at the bottom. Then we could let the bottom sediment out, then collect the clean wine, and stop collecting before the top powder. (I don't know what the device in the sketch there is called.)
Or perhaps with a valve on the side slightly higher than the tube's bottom so it's naturally over the bottom sediment.
So, does such a device exist? If so, what's its name? If not, what are some other ways of achieving this goal of separating the sediment from the wine?
You may also be interested in https://homebrew.stackexchange.com/
@ChrisH Thanks. I wasn't aware there was such a site.
The term is "sediment" rather than "powder". If you use that term, your internet searches will turn up a lot more things.
@FuzzyChef Thanks.
The conventional way to do this is Racking (Wikipedia) in which the wine is slowly syphoned from one vessel to another, leaving the sediment undisturbed.
This is better than trying to wash out the sediment with good wine.
In the case of wine, the sediment is called lees (Wikipedia again) , and it's mainly made up of dead yeast. In the early stages of making a batch of wine, there will be fruit residue in there too (I've just been making grape juice, and the fruit sediment looks a lot like lees).
The syphon has a spacer of some form at the bottom, to draw the wine off above the lees.
Most of my brewing stuff is in the loft, but one syphon was accessible, so I mocked it up with glasses taking the place of your demijohns or brewing bucket
Commercially, racking is also done by drawing off the wine just above the sediment, which is shown in two pictures in the Wikipedia article I linked (the first picture might show racking by syphoning, but it's not clear)
It is possible, at the final racking, to pass the wine through a filter paper in a dedicated holder. This is one method of clarifying wine which can also use additives to encourage suspended particles to settle out.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the trouble you went into for this answer! I did in fact do in the past something similar to what you're showing, though more primitive, by simply pushing a plastic pipe (similar to the one you're using but without any valve etc.). However, even the careful insertion of the pipe into the wine disturbed the lees etc. (It was quite a small amount, which fit into one bottle.)
@ispiro my other syphon would be easier to copy with more basic materials. The tube has a stopper in the end, and a hole drilled across it about 2cm (1") up from the end. The valve is optional, but handy of you're filling bottles. Last time I used it was when I made a few bottles of red from home-grown grapes.
You are asking for a conical fermenter, e.g.,
[picture from Amazon]
They are available in plastic or stainless steel, in a variety of shapes and sizes. They are advertised for brewing beer. I have no idea how effective they are for wine; I use the regular siphoning racking procedure. Because of oak chips and fruit skins, etc., (to say nothing of trying to stir in sulphites and sorbates) I suspect they would clog easily, although plain lees should go through all right.
Thank you. This is the closest to what I was expecting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.121045
| 2023-11-21T20:28:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125886",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89884",
"ispiro"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87483
|
Why can't I put food on the pan while the stove is heating up?
I see a lot of cooks and chefs heat up the pan first, then add oil/butter, then add the ingredients into the pan. Is there a particular reason why they don't put stuff on the pan and then turn on the stove?
I find it particularly more convenient to put it on the pan so that I have more room on my cutting board and it's one less dish I have to clean up.
There is a simple fact which many intermediate cooks don't seem to realize:
The rate at which you pump heat into your food has a huge influence on what the end result tastes like.
So, if you put food into a cold pan, and it gets heated slowly, you end up with a different result than if you throw it into a hot pan that transmits a lot of heat into the food at once.
Both techniques have their place in the kitchen, but the "heat quickly" one usually produces results which the majority of people like - vegetables stay firmer, doughy foods get a nice crust, sticky things release easily, etc. So it is used more often. And if you want good results, I'd suggest to stick with your recipe and use a heated or cold pan as it directs you.
Examples where you WANT slow heating: Sweating. Cooking bulky pieces through.
There are many reasons for this and some apply only in some cases, but a few off the top of the head:
Very few applications would find it appropriate to put anything into cold oils if the item is in any way porous as it will absorb some oil and result in a greasy product while hot oil helps to seal the cooking item and reduce this tendency.
Oils that solidify are not likely to coat the pan and a good coating and hot searing are main sources for the non-stick quality, one of the points of oil in the pan for many applications.
Most cooks, even when using temperature as a guide have a general sense of how long to cook and item, and this almost always is from starting form a hot medium, not a cold one and adding the warm up time for the pan and other items as an unknown.
Often, slow cooking during a warm-up phase has very different cooking results than cooking in a medium which is already at temperature. This includes the lower temp environment has less ability to penetrate the item, so only the outside will initially start to cook, leaving that area done and likely over done too long before the interior.
With many items, especially those cooked in oil, low temperature will result in soggy items while oil cooking is usually meant for crisp results. An item that was allowed to become soggy and oil soaked by early low temps will seldom be salvaged by the temps rising later in the cooking.
Oils like olive oil and butter have low smoke and/or scorch points, so adding them before the pan is hot will often result in burned butter, smoked oil, etc. and bitter to ruined results, so the pan is brought to temp, the fat is added and given a briefer time to heat, then the ingredients go into the heat to sear, saute, fry or whatever the technique in use.
Techniques such as confi are a different process and one exception, and many other reasons may also apply, but that is a quick set off the cuff.
Cooking on low heat is more even cooking not less even cooking. Most foods will not absorb oil.
One reason is to get a sear on the item being cooked. You don't add the oil to a cold pan because its easier to judge the temperature if the pan is empty (you can spritz water on it to see if its hot). After the oil is added, its given a few seconds to heat up (rippling means its hot) and then the food items are added. Its much more consistent if the pan is already at temperature and you'll be able to get a nice sear.
A lot of food you can cook from cold. Most if not all vegetables. I even cook a steak from cold (most people would not).
Brown ground meat for like spaghetti I like to start cold as I can better break it up as the fat begins to melt.
Some stuff will stick at lower temperatures. For me a low fat turkey burger will stick if I start cold.
Some times you want to brown and not cook the center much. I like this for asparagus. For that the pan and oil needs to be hot.
A pancake you need to cook hot.
Browning meat for slow cooking should be hot.
By heating first you can better set the temperature. If it is too hot you can cool it down before adding the food. If you cook from cold and it gets to hot you burn it. Cook from cold you need to know the stove setting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.121373
| 2018-02-02T22:24:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87483",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87567
|
Yellow bell pepper with brown spots inside
I bought an organic yellow bell pepper today. When I cut it open I found small brown spots inside. The outside looks fine. Is it safe to eat?
Welcome to the site @Rey. It's really hard to tell without a picture in this case, any chance you could add one to your question?
Thank you. I previously tried to add a pic but wouldn’t upload because it was too big. I’ll resize and see if that works.
Same texture as the rest of the pepper? ie not raised slimy etc? My guess is sunburn from it's earliest stages of development if from desert or frost if from temperate climes.
At any rate, I have eaten imperfect peppers all my life.
Yup same texture. Doesn’t appear to be raised or slimy. Thanks for the feedback.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.121752
| 2018-02-06T02:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87567",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Rey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64957"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16125
|
Does a Romanian omletă ţărănească (peasant omelette) have standard ingredients?
I am currently travelling in Romania and have been enjoying a breakfast each morning of "omletă ţărănească", which can be translated to English as "peasant omelette".
What I'm wondering is whether it has a standard fixed list of ingredients or is it one of those dishes where you throw in "whatever is laying about" (or at least typical Romanian ingredients laying about).
The one I just ate seemed to contain at least tomato, mushroom, bits of bacon, and those pale green bell peppers common in the Balkans.
There doesn't seem to be an article on it in Wikipedia and I've seen it on the menu of two restaurants in the same small town which makes me think it should be a typical dish.
Judging from search results and the handy firefox babelfish addon, the peasant (or country-style) omelette seems to be, as you suspected, one of those dishes where anything handy is thrown in.
EDIT: the firefox addon is actually unnecessary as google provides an option on the search results page for translated versions of the search results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.121845
| 2011-07-13T08:41:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16125",
"authors": [
"GotGrease",
"Susanne Oberhauser",
"Voleak",
"absynce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34794",
"pjshap",
"themerice"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36571
|
Where does the Asian dish "sang choi bow" come from?
I'm currently travelling in Laos where my favourite local dish is called "larb" or "laap" (ລາບ in Lao, ลาบ in Thai).
When I described it to my Australian friend he said it sounded like a dish that was one of his favourites called "San Choi Bow" and described it as "either a southern Chinese or Vietnamese word for the spicy mince in a lettuce leaf".
I've been hunting on Wikipedia and there appears to be no English article though I have now found a Chinese Wikipedia article and the term does show up in a couple of articles on the English Wikipedia. There is lots of information on the Internet, I noticed especially from Australia. But the information is contradictory. Two Yahoo Answers questions about its origins give different answers with no further details: China, Thailand.
There's at least seven other spellings I could find, all combinations of "san" vs. "sang", "choi" vs. "choy", and "bau" vs. "bow".
To me this looks like Chinese but I couldn't find the Chinese characters and even if the dish has a Chinese name that doesn't mean it wasn't originally from a neighbouring country.
Could it be that "larb" is a Southeast Asian version of "sang choi bow" or is "sang choi bow" a Chinese name for their version of "larb"?
Sang choi bow, from the Chinese Wikipedia:
Squid larb in Thailand:
Pork laap in Laos:
I've just arrived in southern Yunnan province from Laos and though I'm having terrible internet problems preventing me from further research, I have found that doing an image search for "Yunnan cuisine" reveals numerous images that look like either or both of larb and/or sang choi bow!
@SusanHillyard: It doesn't seem to be ม้าห้อ from the pictures I can find on Google Images, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article or such and I've never encountered it myself.
Probably Hong Kong.
It is written in Chinese as "生菜包", which in Pinyin is "shēngcài bāo", noticeably different to any of its usual spellings in English.
However, in Cantonese it is saang1 coi3 baau1. Much closer to the English spellings and pronunciation. Cantonese is mainly spoken in Hong Kong, a great culinary exporter and major influence on "Chinese food" in the west.
生菜 means "lettuce" and 包 means "wrap", etc.
It does in fact have a Wikipedia article, but only on the Chinese Wikipedia. The article is very short and Google Translate does not handle it well. I will include the Chinese text here in case any readers who can read Chinese can find something of the dish's origin or history:
生菜包
维基百科，自由的百科全书
生菜包是一种食品，寓意“生财”。
起源
生菜包源自广州市芳村的坑口生菜会，该活动举办的时间为从农历廿四至廿九一连六日（旧称前三日后三日），这里会设有戏台和比武台，唱粤曲的，舞狮的和比武的登台。为供村民观赏之余家人朋友共聚用餐，小贩便推出生菜包。
材料
生菜菜叶包着特制的饭菜（通常有蚬肉碱菜等馅料）。
這是與食物相關的小作品。你可以通过编辑或修订扩充其内容。
Of course it's still possible the dish originated outside Hong Kong, the name is very literal and isn't necessarily the original name of the dish. But it is clear it came to the English speaking world by way of Hong Kong.
This is an old question which just got pushed onto the front page for some reason. However, the Chinese text says that it was invented in Guangdong/Canton, which is not far from Hong Kong :)
I can't give you exact origin of sang choi bow but it is certainly not from Thailand or any of its neighbouring countries. I found an article, the author has Chinese/Cantonese Singapore origin and she said she never taste similar dish back in her home country either.
In Australia sang choi bow usually made from minced pork or chicken, stir fried with onion, shallot and various other vegetables, seasoned with soy sauce, oyster sauce and served with lettuce leaves. It is a common option for entrée (appetizer) in Thai, Veitnamese or Chinese restaurants. The dish also served as a second course for pecking duck (made from left-over meat). Different restaurant would have different variation of the dish. The only thing they have in common is, it will always come with lettuce.
I could remember having similar dish from Chinese restaurants in Bangkok. It was also prepared out of left-over meat from peking duck but they never served it with lettuce.
Sang choi bow is waaaaaay different to larb though. Larb is more or less a salad. In fact larb beef in Australia is usually called Thai beef salad, although restaurants normally use sliced grilled beef instead of cooked minced meat.
Larb also seasoned with fish sauce, chilli, and lime juice, never with soy or oyster sauce.
Laab in Thai language is Verb mean to chop meat. We have Northern Laab and North-eastern Laab which the way to seasoning and taste are difference. From your picture Squid larb is north-eastern style seasoning with dried chili, lime juice, roasted sticky rice, fish sauce, sugar. It's taste is sour come first then salty with a little sweet. It's normally spicy because Thai people put a lot of dried chili in it and they also add herbs: culantro, shallot, spring onion, mint leaf.
Sang Choi Bow was originated from Guangzhou, China. As Sangchoi is lettuce in Chinese, and it pronounced similar like "To get rich" in Chinese.
Sounds similar in Chinese? Just in Cantonese you mean, or also in Mandarin? (Or in both?)
sounds similar in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
Ah it must just be the western ear that makes the English name not sound like the Mandarin pronunciation to us then ...
Maybe it is an influence that made by Hong Kong people. Words like Fungshui, chowmain... the very first people who contacted with English were Cantonese people.
Yes it's very usual (but not universal) for Chinese food terms in English to come from Hong Kong / Cantonese.
This occurred quite bit in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, as people from Southern China (where the dialects are more similar to or is Cantonese). The new immigrants brought their local foods with them and over time it blends in or adapts to their new environment as if it were always there - and to tourists it is even harder to see the difference.
I was also led to believe it originated in Guangzhou. I moved to Guangzhou in 2019 and to my surprise I could not find it anywhere. I've been to many restaurants here and it is never on the menu. I asked my Cantonese Ayi to make it and she had no idea what it was, she'd never heard of it! I showed her photos and she declared it was not a Cantonese dish. Could it be a uniquely Chinese Australian dish? it's very popular there, is it possible early Cantonese immigrants invented it in Australia?
I have to disagree with all the answers above which say that it doesn't originate in Canton/Guangzhou, or anywhere in Guangdong Province. As a matter of fact, it very likely did. At least I have ordered it in many Cantonese restaurants in Guangdong, but usually not under the name sang choi bowl.
If I recall correctly, usually it's called something like 小炒皇 siu chow wong, which translates to something like "emperor stir-fry". It might be served with or without lettuce wraps, with the lettuce being perhaps a more recent addition. So it't probably unsurprising that more elderly Cantonese people have not seen this dish.
Moreover, traditional Cantonese siu chow don't really look like South East Asian larb. The famous Hoishan (Taishan) siu chow, for example, usually contains dried shrimp/Mantis shrimp, cauliflower, Cantonese sausage, leeks etc., so it really looks nothing like the minced meat-based SE Asian larb. This might be another source of confusion.
Source: I'm Cantonese.
Mrs.Mok commented that "As Sangchoi is lettuce in Chinese, and it pronounced similar like "To get rich" in Chinese." Sometimes the last word of the name of the dish is spelled "bao", which I read means "bun". That made me wonder if the name sangchoi bao might mean lettuce bun, ie using a lettuce leaf to make a bun to enclose the meat or other mixture.
包 basically means package/packet/wrap/bundle etc and the classic Chinese bun is the baozi steamed bun, typically with pork inside, 包子. So it's more that 'bun' is one kind of packaged or wrapped thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.122257
| 2013-09-06T09:35:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36571",
"authors": [
"Christine DeNorio DeCastro",
"Deb",
"GregL",
"J Crosby",
"Linda",
"Madison",
"Mrs.Mok",
"Punky",
"RedFox",
"Shawn Childs",
"TMCinSF",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99943",
"interlinguex",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.