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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24618
|
Storing unused portion of red onion
I like the red onions in my toss salads. Seldom do i use a whole one, because they are usually so large and i want to know how can i keep the already cut onion from going bad. I have tried just about everything, zip lock bags, wrapping in foil or plastic wrap, brown paper bags etc. But for some reason and sometimes the onion becomes slimy on the cut part, at which point i have to cut away a portion of the onion before i can use it.
Possible duplicate
If you stick it in the fridge/freezer (after covering it so that it's aroma doesn't affect other things), it should be fine. Onions stay for a long time in my fridge when covered up.
There is no reason to downvote it, the user is new after all.
Take a decent sized cling film, put the onion with the cut part down in the centre. Close the cling film over the round part and twist all the air out of the wrap.
The onion will stay good in the fridge for some days.
For fridge storage for a couple of days, the small amount of air in a re-usable plastic container will not hurt the onion. The container, or single use plastic wrap, is to stop onion gases contaminating the rest of the fridge
BaffedCook's answer responds to your question more directly. I'm suggesting a roundabout approach.
Slice the rest of the onion and pickle it. Try your salads with pickled onions instead of raw red onions. Try your other foods with the pickled onions. Salty foods tend to go well with acidic foods.
Pickling is an age-old technique used for preserving foods that still exists to this day because it adds novelty to foods. Anything pickled should last for at least a month more than its normal shelf life.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.158287
| 2012-06-21T22:33:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24618",
"authors": [
"Andriy Drozdyuk",
"BaffledCook",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9471"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27953
|
how do I get the salt out of my chinese take out
I bought some overly salted Chinese food ( I did not know it at time) and took most of it home.
Now I would like to get the salt out so i can it eat. Do you have any suggestions?
maybe not just salty, but also overmuch msg that you detect
While Erlenmeyer flasks and graduated cylinders and food-science may not be able to save your leftovers, adding some cooked rice with fried egg (basically any fried rice recipe) will likely crowd out the saltiness of the base dish as well as extend your leftovers.
you could add cooked rice and a fried egg to anything and i'd be happy!
You cannot remove salt once it is in your food, so you either mix it with something else as @mfg says, or throw it away. I'd just chuck it and never grace that restaurant with your presence again.
Depending on how salty the food really is, you could attenuate it with something that is acidic (i.e. vinegars, citrus) but if it is really too salty to eat alone then you my friend are SOL unless you want to make Chinese leftover soup and dilute it with water.
There are several things to try. My favorite is to add sugar to the food. Also, you can rinse with warm water if you don't mind losing other flavors too. Stir frying with rice or noodles works too.
We accidentally added too much mountain seasoning to fried rice. So, we rinsed it with boiling water and that took the excess saltiness out without losing the flavors.
Golden Mountain seasoning sauce, you mean?
How did you maintain the texture? Sauteed/fried things tend to get the unpleasant kind of greasy if water is added....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.158469
| 2012-10-23T12:23:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27953",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"David V",
"GerriZee",
"Jarek N",
"Jozie77",
"Keen baker",
"Thomas",
"William Reed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67128",
"rackandboneman",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25040
|
Spring rolls splitting when frozen
I was wondering if anyone knew why my spring rolls split when I freeze them? They are a larger spring roll, filled with veges, noodles & meat. I wrap them in 2 sheets of pastry and I put them in a container 3 spring rolls deep. It's not the weight of the spring rolls on top because the top layer are just as split as the bottom layer. They also get quite soggy when defrosting due to the condensation in the container melting.
Thanks
Water expands when it freezes. Veg, noodles and meat are full of water. 'Do the math' :)
Water expands when it freezes, so you probably have an excess of water in the spring rolls that is causing the skins to break when you freeze them. Try draining the filling as much as you can before freezing them, or leaving a bit of excess room when you wrap them.
In addition, you can try staging the freezing process by refrigerating first as the rapidity of expansion may be an issue. Also, adding some salt while draining will draw out water when in a colander
Like everybody said, water expands when it freezes - ice occupies 4% more volume than liquid water.
SO set out your fillings on a tray, separated into "sticks", and freeze that trayful of fillings first. Get your pastry and use it to wrap the frozen filling sticks. Freeze those, they won't split.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.158643
| 2012-07-14T12:12:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25040",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"RUTH WIEDERKEHR",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57330",
"mfg",
"mhawke",
"user433652",
"user57213",
"user57242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86292
|
How to replace booze in eggnog?
I have been relegated to bringing "drinks" for a work holiday potluck. Fair enough. I love eggnog and would like to bring some. However, my recipe includes two jiggers of bourbon or brandy. It might be tempting to carry on as-is and feign ignorance, but my conscience says otherwise.
So I resolve to making a virgin eggnog. While it's tempting to merely leave the booze out, the booze adds a lot of flavor and sweetness. Is there an accepted way to substitute a brown spirit without losing all the goodness it imparts (apart from the ethanol)?
Might be a better fit on https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/
@Paparazzi Interesting — I've asked if that's possible or not. However, I don't think it's off-topic here, since it's about adding a particular flavor.
Googling "alcohol free eggnog recipe" seems to yield a lot of results...
the short answer here is, "don't" :)
It’s kind of implied in the question … but: why does it have to be non-alcoholic eggnog? Is “‘drinks’” supposed to mean non-alcoholic drinks?
@KonradRudolph a potluck is an event where everyone brings something to eat/drink, these events can often be during lunch break or right after work, so not really time for alcoholic beverages yet. Next to that a lot of offices don't allow alcohol on the premises (some because of policies, others because of legal reasons.)
@JaneDoe1337 I know what a potluck is. But ours are always alcoholic. Regional differences I guess.
@konradrudolph I would normally be all in favor for a lax attitude toward alcohol in the work place. Regrettably it's grounds for immediate termination!
You could just buy non-alcoholic eggnog.
The easiest way is rum or brandy extract. The flavor is milder, but satisfactory enough. (Rum extract is far easier to find than brandy extract.)
Most brands still have some alcohol (significantly less than the real deal, but still present), so it's important to consider whether you're just avoiding the intoxicating effects or trying to completely eliminate the alcohol (e.g. for medical or religious reasons). If work rules mean it needs to be completely alcohol-free, you'll need to get more creative.
A side note inspired by a comment asking if eliminating alcohol increases Salmonella risk: Alcohol isn't guaranteed to kill harmful bacteria, so nog should either use pasteurized eggs or be (lightly) cooked for food safety... regardless of how much booze is or is not in your recipe.
I was going to say just drink the jiggers rather than dump them in. Might not test as good for everyone else but it will for you. I supposed though, that going with an extract is the more responsible and adult thing to do. Far less fun though.
OK, fair, drinking the booze yourself is definitely easier than finding an extract for flavoring ;)
Will removing the alcohol make salmonella more likely?
Alcohol isn't actually guaranteed to kill harmful bacteria, so nog should either use pasteurized eggs or be (lightly) cooked for food safety. I'll expand the answer to include this side note, it's a useful point.
Alcohol is actually CREATED by microorganisms, so expecting small amounts of it to kill germs is unrealistic. To work as a disinfectant the alcohol must be a very high concentration. It is really most effective as a surface disinfectant at concentrations of 70-90%. .
also, the amount of alcohol in an extract is going to be trivial, unless you're using huge quantities of extract.
@Erica Exactly this. If one is concerned about salmonella risk, purchase an immersion sous vide cooker or a sous vide "water overn", and just home-pastuerize the eggs at 134F for 2 hours, or buy pre-pasteurized eggs. Numerous chefs I've known do that to make homemade traditional caesar dressing, ice cream, mayo, etc; and several MMA/powerlifter types use it to pre-pasteurize eggs so you can drink 12-18 every morning (vary up the nutrient profile compared to just having whey powder shakes every morning).
I'm no eggnog expert, but when I need to substitute bourbon in a recipe that calls for both bourbon and sugar, I have substituted bourbon for a mixture of maple syrup and molasses. This will be a little bit thicker than using the rum or brandy extract, but you use much less of it. It gives that nice bitter & sweet depth of flavor similar to a bourbon, but it definitely won't taste the exact same. You may need to cut back on the sugar a little as well.
It's up to you whether you'd rather use extract or substitute with something completely different. It's sort of like the difference between veggie burgers made of tofu that try to taste like meat or veggie burgers that are just a black-bean & veggie patty. It's a matter of preference.
Do you mean to say that you substituted the bourbon BY the other sweeteners? Because what you said is that you replace maple syrup and molasses by adding bourbon.
I'm no expert either, but my mother simply never added it. She used a 50/50 milk/eggnog ratio. And to this day, I like it better than adding alcohol.
I'm pretty sure the milk/eggnog mix is pretty darn common. I'm surprised no one else mentioned this. +1
You lost me: you're talking as if eggnog were some sort of standard ingredient, like milk or eggs. Are you talking about the seasonally-available cartons of eggnog from the supermarket? I love that stuff, but (1) diluting it 50/50 with milk will result in a vaguely eggnog-flavored beverage that wouldn't be satisfactory as either milk or as eggnog, and more importantly (2) I'm reasonably certain that someone who is talking about making egg nog is doing so from scratch and would be horrified to be offered the store-bought stuff.
Assuming he is indeed talking about the seasonally available cartons, I'm with Jeff. I've been doing this for quite a few years to spread it out further... and because I find the richness/thickness of the supermarket variety to be much higher than the eggnog recipe we used when I was younger. Certainly opinions will vary, but I dispute the "wouldn't be as satisfactory as either" phrase. But I also do harmonize with the idea that store-bought stuff isn't nearly as good as doing it from scratch.
eggnog = milk + eggnog is an infinite loop...
Regarding the store-bought eggnog; quality thereof. The good quality brands (while very expensive) are very good indeed. This is unsurprising. 99.99% of eggs sold in the USA in supermarket are utter filth on many levels; I would die rather than put them inside my body. So there's no point de-facto asserting that "store bought" eggnog is rubbish. one might as well assert that the hand-made eggnog will be rubbish, because it's made with the comic cream, eggs, etc available in supermarkets (sadly).
Regarding store-bought eggnog; adding milk. You're supposed to add milk, it's deliberately sold over-thick (like, i guess, some washing up liquids), and you add some milk to taste. In our household it's 50/50.
Regarding store-bought eggnog; alcohol therein. Some of the better brands of store-bought eggnog indeed have an alcohol content.
@PeterCordes actually, I think that'd be infinite recursion, leading of course to Stack Overflow
@AC: I did consider writing "recursion", but any good compiler (or human following a procedure) will turn simple recursion into a loop (gcc output for int nog(void) { return milk + nog(); } is just an empty infinite loop :P. OTOH, I think you're right: if you want a finite quantity of eggnog you start by thinking through the steps, and get stuck in infinite recursion until your mind Stack Overflows. (Then you just make extremely dilute eggnog and give it to a homeopath for Christmas.)
7-up or Gingerale gives eggnog kind of a nice flavor and great mouth feel, I prefer to add Gingerale regardless of whether I add liquor or not. Happy Holidays!
The question was not "what could be added to eggnogg", but very straightforward about how to adjust recipes that list alcohol in a no-alcohol environement.
Looks to me like the question is; "How to replace booze in eggnog?" and for the past 50+ years that I am aware of, 7-up and eggnog is a good simple alternative for people who prefer nonalcoholic beverages. Gingerale is my personal preference.
I guess another option, for those who want the eggnog to taste like it contains rum or bourbon; Alcohol boils at 80f, so you could bring a pint of whisky or rum to 90-100f in a sauce pan for about 20 mins and then use the resulting non alcoholic booze. But IME most people drink eggnog and booze to kill the booze flavor, and Ive not met anyone who did not enjoy a little bubbly eggnog and 7-up lightly sprinkled with nutmeg. Be sure and gently add the eggnog to the soda, then gently stir to create a thick froth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.158825
| 2017-12-12T15:27:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86292",
"authors": [
"A C",
"AdamO",
"Beanluc",
"BlackThorn",
"Cloud",
"Erica",
"Fattie",
"Hannover Fist",
"JeopardyTempest",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Marti",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Mr.x",
"Peter Cordes",
"Stephie",
"Summer",
"barbecue",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63681",
"paparazzo",
"sirjonsnow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44719
|
Why Do We 'Simmer' Fudge Instead of 'Boiling' it?
I've noticed that many candy recipes (specifically fudge recipes) instruct you to boil the mixture, then reduce to simmer, until you reach a specific temperature. My limited understanding of physics is that as the mixture simmers, water evaporates, and the more concentrated mixture has a higher boiling point.
So it makes sense that we stop at a certain temperature and that will be the desired consistency. But it takes a long time!
Is there any reason why I can't continue to boil for longer? Is it just to make it easier to stop at the correct point, or is there a lot more going on that wouldn't happen correctly at a higher temperature?
(P.S. - I found this similar question: Why should a stock be simmered and not boiled? but I'm not sure the answer is applicable with fudge, but please correct me if I am wrong)
Candymaking is extremely sensitive to temperature. If the mixture heats higher than the point that produces the desired texture, you're basically out of luck. That makes it very critical that you reach and not exceed your target temperature.
This is particularly difficult when making candy because much of it starts as a sugar-and-water syrup. Water has an especially high heat capacity, meaning that it takes a relatively high amount of applied heat to raise its temperature. This is why a big pot of water takes a long time to boil. It also implies (because diffusivity is calculated from heat capacity and density) that it takes a while for applied heat to diffuse through the entire pot; that is, the bottom of the pot where heat is being applied will be significantly warmer than the top, absent more active circulation like stirring or the pumping action of an immersion circulator.
Anyway, "boiling" implies greater heat application than "simmering". The more heat you're applying to the bottom of your pot, the greater the difference between the top and bottom. If you're then measuring the temperature at or near the top, you may be getting a wildly inaccurate measurement of the "total" heat of your syrup. Once the heat diffuses completely, the mixture will be several degrees warmer than you measured, and that can completely ruin an entire batch of otherwise-delicious fudge.
Simmering is recommended because it gives the heat being applied to your syrup more time to diffuse, which means more even and consistent heating, which means you can reliably hit your target temperature without going over. If you became some kind of ninth-dan fudge guru, maybe you could boil and know exactly how much heat is enough to hit your target, but don't count on getting there.
The sensitivity of this process is part of the reason that candymaking is considered one of those semi-advanced cooking topics. If it was easy, we'd probably all overdose on fudge by the time we learned to safely operate a stove.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.159594
| 2014-06-08T20:05:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44719",
"authors": [
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106196",
"spam174172",
"spam174173"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117154
|
Beating egg white and whipping cream
Both egg white and cream can be beaten until they form a stiff foam. So I tried mixing them and beating the mixture. The mixture will not rise (foam) no matter how hard I try. What is the reason behind this?
I assume by 'rise' you mean 'can be beaten into a foam' (rather than increasing in volume like leavening bread or a cake in an oven).
Egg white and whipped cream both trap air bubbles when whipped, but the bubbles are supported by different structures. Egg white forms a network of protein, which even small amounts of fat will disrupt (as is often the problem when eggs are not properly separated before whipping). Whipped cream relies on fat for the structure that holds the air bubbles (so cream below a certain fat content will not whip).
When combined, these mechanisms disrupt each other so you should not expect to be able to whip a mixture of egg white and cream. Instead, you can whip them separately and fold the results together until they are just combined (if you mix them too much the foam will be ruined).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.159843
| 2021-09-10T21:06:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117154",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108751
|
How to "harden" sugar caramel?
Is there anything can be done such that the caramel becomes structurally strong. i.e. less brittle to external pressure without changing its shape?
Edit: I am building a dessert miniature, and need to use caramelized sugar as structural support, like a pillar.
.... I really don't understand this question. Could you provide some more background? Is there something specific you're trying to make that isn't working? What's your current procedure for making the caramel? What is your goal for the final product?
When you say 'fragile', do you mean brittle (as in, the product shatters/snaps under pressure), or malleable (the product compresses and deforms, more or less like clay)?
I'll take a shot at answering, but unfortunately I don't think you can just harden your caramel directly. The candy stages are what they are, as I'm sure you're aware. The soft crack stage, between 270-290 F is where your sugar will become solid, but still be a bit pliable. It will bend slightly before it breaks. Depending on the exact shape your making, and how much weight it will be supporting, how long you need it to last, etc, you may consider only cooking your sugar to soft crack, instead of to the hard crack or caramel stage.
Past 290F, you're approaching hard crack. The sugar will be even harder than before, but will become more brittle. You know that toffee is cooked to 300 F. As you get past 300 F and actually caramelize the sugar it will become increasingly brittle.
If you want less fragility, but still want the color and flavor of caramelized sugar, you could caramelize the sugar initially, add water (carefully. Use a big pan and make sure you stand back) then cook again until it's only at soft crack or the earlier stages of hard crack.
I tried looking into different sugar substitutes to see if they have different properties when melted and re crystallized, but unfortunately I couldn't find anything. I've seen isomalt used to make edible hair, but I haven't worked with it personally, so I can't say if that's an avenue worth exploring.
The only other option I can really think of is to change the material. Does it have to be pure caramel? Could you use chocolate or make some kind of nut flour based candy? Or even using toffee instead of pure caramel? I acknowledge those suggestions are basically ways to make an inherently thicker substance, which would not set clear, or allow for fine details or delicate strands of sugar magic.
Lace cookies (basically toffee with nut flour) come to mind as being thin and pretty/delicate, but having enough strength to make a small cookie sandwich with.
Hopefully, this is some help.
The hotter you cook sugar, the more brittle the end product. Referring to the stages of cooked sugar, we see that only from "hard crack" stage onwards (146+ °C) the sugar turns brittle.
That said, many recipes for croquembouche do call for the sugar to be cooked to caramel stage at 160 °C. The caramel in these recipes is thus expected to be brittle. You will find that croquembouche recipes often tell you to dunk your pan in cold water as soon as you reach the desired temperature, to avoid overcooking the sugar.
If you are making something other than a croquembouche, you can try cooking the sugar to a lower temperature (which means you will have to forego the color and flavor of caramel). You could also experiment with adding small amounts of butter and/or cream to the caramel, effectively making a much thicker variant of caramel sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.159958
| 2020-05-30T23:06:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108751",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119375
|
troubleshooting katsu(Japanese schnitzel) breading falling off
I tried to make pork/beef katsu.
My recipe is
pork loin/shoulder/steak pat dry
season & hammer
dredge into flour
dip into egg + cream/milk mixture
dredge into panko
let it rest in fridge to absorb the coating
fry
rest and cut into slices
When I cut at step 8 the bread always come off as I cut. I tried both cutting with a cleaver, or slicing with a french knife. neither helped.
What am I missing here?
Are you shaking off excess flour and egg before moving onto the next stage? If not, that could be the problem. You might want to check out some of the questions under the tag ‘breading’, such as https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13721/67
"Rest in fright" sounds scary;) Rest in fridge perhaps?
be sure to shake off as much flour as possible. loose the cream from the egg-wash, just use egg and milk, and be mindful of the ratio because too much milk means not much egg to bind the crumbs to the meat. personally i find freshly made breadcrumbs (from 2 day old white bread without the crust, and not too fine of course) give a superior finish and sticks much better than panko.
Without someone watching your exact procedure, it’s difficult to diagnose. You might be able to pick up what might have gone wrong by watching videos where chefs explain the procedure well. For Japanese cooking, I recommend ‘Dining with the Chef’, where they have an experienced chef paired with someone who asks them questions about why they’re doing things. Unfortunately, the posts on YouTube are the 2-minute summaries, not the full episodes, which are only online for a limited time. But Chef Saito made katsu in an episode in July: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/2019266/
@Joe good video, key points i took away from it was 1. the use of beaten eggs without milk, 2. double frying to ensure cooked through, and 3. not sawing through.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.160244
| 2021-12-31T01:29:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119375",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mr Shane",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9376
|
Cebiche dinner considered harmful
I've been in Peru recently and enjoyed a lot of very good meals. Cebiches and tiraditos were among the best.
However, as it was a short business trip, luncheons were usually short and quick, so we tried with little luck to ask cebiche (or ceviche) for dinner.
We found out that Peruvians consider cebiche harmful at night, to the point that (most) cebicherías (restaurants serving only cebiche) are closed for dinner.
I tend to think that, being ceviche mainly raw seafood, this is just a myth coming from times when fridges were not available, but locals were very assertive about the inconveniences of eating raw seafood for dinner. They referred sleeping disorders, and the such.
So two questions:
Anybody knows if the Peruvian massive opinion is shared with other people on the Pacific Rim? Is it really a myth?
If the previous was affirmative ... Is it reasonable to store the day's catch outside a fridge (but in a shadowy and fresh place) to be eaten raw at dinner? (I like fishing, and I'm considering preparing cebiche with my catches).
PS: Look the size of those corn kernels!
As always, thanks to the community for your effort in trying to get my English legible.
remember, we're a cooking community, not a community of dietitians, nutritionists, or health professionals. While you may get lots of anecdotal evidence and even cited sources, I don't think we have any public health people to give you a definitive answer.
@justk As per the faq Food handling and storage is on-topic, and cooking-myth is a tag. Also, if you re-read my question with a benevolent mood, you'll note that I'm not asking for a health professional opinion, but about how reasonable is hoping that fish meat will be good for eating raw after a day in a shadowy place. Also: now you know that cebicherias in Peru are closed at night and in Fiji they eat Kokoda anytime. I think these small pieces of knowledge are all about the JOY of cooking.
I'm not voting to close or anything, just posting a note to any who read.
In the South Pacific it's breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I could have Fijian Kokoda for every meal for a week, yuuuum!
Pacific style is with lime and coconut, it is still very acidic and fatty so not to everyone's taste
Could be specific fish types? But I have never had a problem
Once you add the lime juice to the fish it will keep longer without refrigeration
In Peru I suspect education is still lacking in food hygiene etc, so it may be a good move! (based on commentary from friends and relatives in Peru). Peru also has very traditions based cultures
@TFD Thanks for your answer! Very informative. Do you know for how long they keep the fish into the lemon juice? A side note: Peruvian cooking is very elaborate with dishes usually comprising four or more garments/side-dishes. And there are restaurants that envy none, like this one: http://www.larosanautica.com/rn_intro_en.html
@belisarius Yes, Peru has an amazing depth or cultural foods. Many different cultures escaped Europe to Peru in the late 1930's and have influenced it greatly. Fijian Kokoda is typically "cooking" for six to twelve hours, but I have had it more than a day, and less than five minutes (while still on the boat catching the fish :-) ). All good
@TFD Do they also make in Fiji that food cooked into a hole (dug up on the soil), over the embers and covered by earth and leaves. Its name is "curanto" in the Andean region. A really slow cooking technique!
@belisarius In Fiji they do the Lomo, which is banana or palm leave wrapped food parcels, hot rocks in a hole in the sand, covered with more sand. The Maori of New Zealand do the earth hole with hot rocks (or old train track segments :-) ), and woven flax food baskets. Covered with more soil. Both are really nice, but have a very earthy taste, so many people are not used to it. A bit like having wild Goat for the first time
@TFD This is Chilean delicious curanto http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGLL_enAR381AR381&biw=1440&bih=706&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=curanto+al+hoyo&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= very similar, but tastes smokey and they don't wrap the food, just cover it with leaves. Almost the same thing, they put in vegetables, poultry, seafood, sausages, pork, .... Sometimes I regret SE not having a forum.
I am accepting your answer because it's based upon the experience of a whole society, instead of on a personal contact with the dish, so it seems more solid. Nevertheless, all the answers posted are very interesting and all of them point in the same direction.
@belisarius Yes the Southern pacific area has many variations on the hole in the ground oven. The Hangi is very similar to the Curanto. New Zealand does not have suitable large leaves to cover with, so woven flax baskets became popular. The Pacific peoples are know to have sailed to South America and back so various cultural exchanges have occurred
@TFD Take a look here http://eatingchile.blogspot.com/2010/08/curanto-chiloes-ancient-clambake.html
If I read the wikipedia entry on this properly (which I looked-up to verify my hunch), it seems this is nominally equivalent to Japan's sushi/sashimi (sashimi being just the raw fish and sushi being the [generally] raw stuff inside rice and seaweed rolls).
If care is taken, I wouldn't see a reason why it couldn't be eaten later in the day. However, if you don't have a "good" place to store it, then I'd follow the local custom and skip it at the end of the day.
Thanks for your answer. There is a slight difference that could save my day: while japanese use is to eat the fish really raw, the cebiche is immersed in acid (lemon juice) for several minutes.
Also, be careful with the curation process of Wikipedia. Sometimes the content is way off the mark. In this case it cites the coastal zones of Argentina as a place to eat distinctly unique styles of cebiche. Being an Argentinian myself, I am pretty sure that the only places where you may eat (bad) cebiche here is in Peruvian restaurants.
@belisarius - I am quite aware of the curation process (or, rather, lack thereof) of wikipedia... but it certainly a good place to start :)
Of course! I was just trying to suggest a double check on important issues.
I was in Lima for two nights and ate ceviche both evenings - once at a local place owned, oddly enough, by Argentines (but the ceviche was prepared by a Peruvian cook), and once as one small course in the tasting menu at the very nice and very patriotically-Peruvian restaurtant Astrid y Gastón. Nothing bad happened to me either time, unless you count acquiring a lifetime craving for ceviche.
I was at Astrid y Gastón too. Very nice restaurant, except for the fact that we were enjoying the first course and the waiter came to say "the kitchen is closing" ... Ha! In those kind of touristic/upper class restaurants I saw no distinction between day and night menu. But here you have an article I found today (in Spanish) mentioning cebiche as a "taboo" (sic) for dinner. http://elcomercio.pe/gastronomia/416881/noticia-comiendo-mito-cebiche-noche Next time you go to Lima, go to "Pescados capitales" http://www.pescadoscapitales.com/index.htm Better place to eat fish in Lima IMHO.
I mean "Best place to eat fish in Lima IMHO"
Yeah, that "lifetime craving for ceviche" is a common problem
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.160443
| 2010-11-23T02:40:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9376",
"authors": [
"Bentley4",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Katy",
"TFD",
"Viswa",
"crissy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"justkt",
"user19183",
"user19185",
"user81568",
"warren"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115878
|
Using Instant Pot Duo Crisp to mimic smoker-cooked pork shoulder
I have once prepared pulled pork on our basic charcoal kettle grill with fabulous success: the end result is succulent meat well permeated by the rendered fat and smoke, and there is a crisp crust from the fat cap with concentrated seasonings and umami goodness. The downside? It takes forever and needs more oversight and caution than I want to deal with. I almost never have an entire day to keep an eye on our grill from prep to the-embers-are-definitely-not-going-to-start-a-fire. But making it in a crock pot, my usual low-maintenance MO, just isn't the same. (Nor is liquid smoke.)
Now I have an Instant Pot Duo Crisp (8 qt), which is a pressure cooker with an alternate air fryer lid that can handle more oven-like tasks such as roasting, baking, and air frying.
How can I take advantage of this appliance to most closely but safely mimic the effects of a grill or smoker for pulled pork?
Some considerations:
Flavor and texture are more important than run time, since (assuming my recipe is sound) I can trust the Instant Pot not to catch my house on fire and focus on other things.
The device is designed so that I can switch between cooking techniques with ease, so, e.g., I could slow-cook for a while and then roast, though I need to be cognizant of the amount of liquid present.
I am willing to let it run on the porch if using the air fryer lid for an extended time.
The Instant Pot company advises against adding flammable things like wood or charcoal, but... if it's soaked first and not lit on fire and not protruding significantly around the meat, is it actually a problem? Will it actually do anything for the flavor?
I just experimented and got a very good crust after 3.5 hours slow-cooking on HI, removing most of the liquid, roasting at 325 for about an hour, and broiling until everything was crispy (exact times are difficult to calculate on this because it was interrupted). Great textures, but zero smoke flavor, although I used a rub with mesquite.
Please feel free to self-answer your question, that’s perfectly acceptable here. Answers in comments will be deleted according to the site’s rules.
@Stephie, thanks for the tip! It's a comment because I didn't think it was a complete answer-- I'm also looking for advice about developing the flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.161003
| 2021-05-29T18:55:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115878",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77121",
"wordsworth"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78286
|
Flavour Enhancer 635 and Vegetarian
The flavour enhancer E635 is a combination of E627 (disodium guanylate) and E631 (disodium inosinate) and is in Fantastic Noodles (Chicken).
If I am correct, the flavour enhancer 627 is isolated from sardines and/or yeast extract and 631 can be prepared from meat extract and/or dried sardines. If 635 is made out of 627 and 631, is it considered vegetarian as 627 and 631 contain sardines and/or meat extract?
If not, does this make the noodles non-vegetarian?
What is your question? At first I thought you wanted to know how these additives are produced. But it seems that you know it and are asking us if their production method makes them "vegetarian". That would be unanswerable, because there are as many definitions of "vegetarian" as there are people who eat vegetarian.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
@Niall I am not looking forward to a long discussion with you either, I tried to move the whole thing into chat (as the system suggested) because this thread has no place here. I didn't notice the comments don't go away automatically. I am now removing them from here, you can come into the chatroom or not as you wish.
E627 can be produced from seaweed, and 631 may be produced from tapioca starch.
Thus, both may be properly vegan. Or not. What does it make the food? With all honesty, it makes food don't know category. You can't assert it's vegan, and you can't be sure it isn't. If you are going to feed your vegan friends, buy ingredients with guaranteed vegan origin. If you don't know, be sensible to inform your friends you don't know.
If you are vegan yourself, only you can tell if you are willing to risk eating non-vegan ingredients when source wasn't stated explicitly.
Being absolutely vegan or being honest is the only way to go. If you don't know say so. Great answer.
In addition to the production method you describe, there are biotechnical ways to manufacture these, some of them vegetarian/vegan, some not.
If they are made by the described method from fish, they are definitely unsuitable to be called a vegetarian food, and the same applies to any food these have been intentionally added to.
If made from fish only, they and the food containing them could still perfectly be called a pescetarian food.
If the food isn't labelled as suitable/unsuitable for vegetarians, only the manufacturer can tell you who makes the additives they use, and how they are made. Unless somebody asked them already and put the answer online. Some manufacturers will refuse to disclose what they source, OR will refer you to the manufacturer of their additives, OR will tell you they are using product XY now but will not guarantee that they will not use another product manufactured in a different way in the future.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.161460
| 2017-02-10T10:49:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78286",
"authors": [
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85590
|
Can I add cocoa butter to 100% chocolate
I have several kilos of 100% Grenadian chocolate bars that are old. I enjoyed them when they were fresh but now they are dry and, although they still 'snap', somewhat crumbly. I would like to temper them and add cocoa butter to increase the creamy taste. Is there a limit to how much I can add? Will just tempering them restore to original consistency?
I'm confused. You say 100% chocolate but you also say that you enjoyed them... In general, 100% chocolate is too bitter for eating out of hand as it has no sweetening (sugars). What do you mean by 100% chocolate? Can you post a link to the product or a photo of them?
Edited out the "let the grand experiment begin!" at the end, because such mottos tend to have an insufferably foral scent to some here, which might downvote.
@Catija I don't find it confusing. It is bitter, but people enjoy eating it nevertheless. So without any evidence to the contrary, I assume that the OP means exactly that, a chocolate bar made from 100% cocoa liquor, without any sugar added.
OP may meant “100% Granadian” chocolate-bars. Clarification would be warranted.
Chocolate can age in different ways. The most common, and probably what happened to yours, is that it 'untempered' (blooming?). I believe simply melting in and properly tempering again will recover the brightness, texture, and flavor. If it doesn't, it might have oxidized and got rancid. This is very uncommon though since the cocoa fat is very stable and rich in antioxidants. It lasts more than two years usually.
Cocoa butter can surely be added to create a silkier and smoother texture. It is solid and stable at room temperature so in principle I don't see why there should be a limit. The science behind tempering is that of crystallization. Cocoa butter can crystallize in six different forms, each having very different physical properties (melting point, resistance to shear, etc). For this reason, it is good to keep in mind that the more butter you add, the trickier it can be to temper properly.
Personally, I find it easier to temper mixing with some already tempered chocolate, a method known as seeding. But in your case I don't know if it is worth it if this means mixing your 100% Grenadian (good stuff!) with some other commercial chocolate.
Yes, it is 100% chocolate and actually tastes quite sweet! I am quite sensitive to rancidity and it is not. There is a slight bloom on it. I will temper it once I get my molds in. Thanks one and all for your responses.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.161696
| 2017-11-12T14:20:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85590",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"HappyMedicine",
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62793",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79476
|
How to find out if the coconut oil that I will buy from a supermarket is food and/or allergy safe
I want to buy some coconut oil, but I have not tried any coconut oil before, so I don't know which coconut oil can cause food poisoning if used for cooking. I am not a doctor, so I am wondering how it's possible for me to find out if the coconut oil (that I am going to buy) from a supermarket is harmful to me (I have some concerns about allergies control)?
kitty, welcome here at Seasoned Advice! You know the network, but it's always a good idea to check the [help] about what is on topic and what not. For here, health and nutrition are clearly off-topic. I have also seen your post on Lifehack, btw, and I still don't fully understand your question. Food safety and food poisoning (probably on topic) are something ery different from allergies (usually off-topic). Would you clarify, please?
Are you or anyone you know allergic to coconut in any way? Or are you asking if there's a food-grade kind of coconut oil and a non food-grade kind and how to distinguish them?
If a question is off-topic, that's fine - we just put it on hold, that's it. We certainly don't suspend the OP! In this case, I think it's a bit unclear, as Stephie mentioned - if there's a substance you know you're allergic to, discussing what it will/won't be in is generally on-topic, but if you're worried about general health it's not.
EDITED, "bad for me" reeks of a health question. Food safety, or what nutrients, impurities or additives a food can contain, are on topic. The only on topic EFFECTS on you are that you'll like the taste, dislike the taste, or keel over dead or sick.
I doubt that anything off the shelf could cause food poisoning and still be sold. Of course, if treated improperly, anything can cause food poisoning. If it's about allergies, check with your doctor. Do not rely on some random people on the internet.
Since the question is off-topic, I'm not sure if I should be answering this. If not, I'll rely on those more experienced to edit or remove it.
If you have no known allergies to other nuts or seeds, coconut oil sold in the FOOD section of a supermarket is safe. If you have allergies to any nuts or seeds, then you'd need to check for labeling saying if it was processed and packed in a nut/seed-free facility to be safe.
On the other hand, if you're wondering if you might be allergic to coconut itself and you don't know, think back to other foods you're eaten. Coconut is in many foods and I'd be surprised if you haven't eaten it before. It's found in a host of different candies (even as small bits of crunchy toasted coconut), puddings, cookies, cakes and other baked goods. It's included in different curries; sometimes finely ground like flour or as coconut milk. I'm sure there are other foods but this gives you an idea.
If you simply don't know, you might try a very small amount of dried shredded coconut and wait 24 hours. Initially, allergic reactions are generally mild as a full allergic response normally takes 2, 3 or more exposures to cause a full allergic reaction. Perhaps keep something like Benadryl on hand. Mind you, this is what I'd do but please use caution. You may not feel like trying this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.162031
| 2017-03-28T19:19:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79476",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Kareen",
"Robert",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79275
|
How can I improve a dish with badly cooked spices without recooking?
I am living in a place where the food (namely curries) served is so bad I lose my appetite by just smelling it. I've tried making it taste better by adding some chilli powder, salt, and onions but it hasn't helped. I don't understand why it still tastes bad may be I am mixing in wrong quantity or wrong ingredients.
I asked my friend why is the food tastes bad, and he said that spices need to be cooked to release the flavours and the person making the dish is not cooking them properly so the raw spices are causing a bad taste.
So is cooking necessary for all spices to release flavour? How can I tell whether that's the problem, and how can I improve a dish with badly cooked spices without recooking?
What kind of food ?
simple curry recipes
Is it food other people are preparing ("where the food served is too bad") or food that you're preparing yourself ("maybe I am mixing in wrong quantity or wrong ingredients")? If you are preparing food yourself, are the meat/vegetables that you're used to available in the area you are now? (Is the quality of the raw produce the same?) If not, are you having to improvise with ingredients that you haven't used before? Are you following a recipe at all, or just making it up? What are the tastes that you like/dislike, bitter/spicy etc? — There's a lot more detail you'd need to add to the question.
food is not prepared by me i am mixing the ingredients in cooked dish to improve its flavour i am not specific about flavours i just want to make it little balanced
OK. So what's wrong with the dish — undercooked? Burnt? Too bland/spicy? Long time between being prepared & eaten? & what scenario are you 'fixing' the dish in? At the office/at home? The fact that you've tried adding onions makes it sound like you can do more than, for example, simple reheating & seasoning. To be honest though, it sounds like a losing battle though if you can't improve the base quality of the dishes themselves
Welcome to the site @JeevansaiJinne, unfortunately your question is not something we can answer in its current form. You are asking how you can make food taste better which has too many answers. There are entire books about that. Also, we don't understand the question as there are many things that are not clear.
May be the reason for bad taste could help i asked my friend why is the food tasting bad he said that spices need to be cooked to release the flavours and the person making the dish is not cooking them properly so the raw spices are making bad taste
Order/eat some other type of food, no ?
sorry if i annoyed everyone with improper question edited it
Thanks for editing! I don't think anyone's annoyed. I edited a bit more to try to clarify and focus the question - I think it's a reasonable thing to ask, though unfortunately I'm not sure if I know of a good answer.
NOTE: The way of handling spices that is described in the question will be rather confusing to westerners not knowing the methods of indian cuisine. The problem OP describes IS a valid issue in making indian dishes.
@rackandboneman True, but if you haven't tempered the whole spices long enough, or you haven't properly cooked something like turmeric while still at a frying stage, I'm not sure that it's something you can adjust after the fact. If it's something like "too much chilli was added", you could suggest adjusting salt to try & compensate. Agree that the concern is valid, though the only answer I can think of (with the level of detail we have from the question) is "Sorry, there's nothing you can do".
IMO, it would be easier to answer if the question was much more focused, e.g. — "When khichdi is made to my tastes, it has a really good balance between the spice from green chillis and cloves, with salt and a little sweetness from peas. Here is a sample recipe for khichdi that I like. When I get served it in the college canteen though, it tastes far too sweet (too many peas), the cloves are missing and the turmeric tastes raw. How could I adjust this dish, to make it taste better? I've a microwave available, but no other cooking equipment, and can season with salt/pepper/chilli powder".
What I meant is that the whole question is puzzling to anyone who doesn't know anything about indian or indian influenced cuisine.
If there are truly offensive aromas (eg burnt smell) in there that you cannot mask with other aromas, or if there are serious textural flaws (brutally adstringent mouthfeel, unpalatably hard pieces...) the dish is beyond help.
If there are aromas missing - add aromatic seasonings, herbs, spices (probably in oil).
If the dish is too diluted (tastes watery, does not stick well to grains or bread...), try reducing it (cooking it down) or thickening it.
If aromas seem to be present but subdued, try adding fat (eg butter or coconut oil) or acid (vinegar, lemon) or sugar.
If there is too much bitter/metallic/strawy taste, it could be missing salt. Or be oversalted, ironically.
If too salty: try diluting it.
If it is too sour, add sugar; if cloyingly sweet, add an acid.
If it somehow isn't fun to eat even if all the elements are there, try adding umami (MSG, nutritional yeast, soy sauce...).
OK, undecided whether to leave this answer on (which is well fit to the original wording, but confusing once the question was clarified...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.162295
| 2017-03-20T14:57:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79275",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Jeevansai Jinne",
"Max",
"anotherdave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55424",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58511
|
Cooking qualities between Glass and metal pans
I have this recipe that is of the cake family. The base is canola oil and sugar. Whenever I cook this pan in a square glass pan it cooks perfectly. However, when I use metal pan it doesn't cook properly. I don't fully understand why this is.
Could you clarify your question? Do you mean the cake comes out of the glass pan but sticks to the metal or the cake bakes properly in glass but not in the metal (under done, over done etc.)
So with 45 minute cook time @ 425 the glass pan has a "done" middle and the top is golden brown. With the metal pan the middle is still goop and the top is pretty close to golden brown. I've tried lower heats in the metal pan with the same result.
This is strange. I would have expected that the cake in the glass pan was less done. Did you preheat the glass pan before putting the dough into it? This could explain why the dough in the metal pan wasn't done. A glass pan also stays longer hot after removing it from the oven so that the cake is still cooking. Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/28194/23376
This is completely normal. The pan stands between the heat source and the cake. It lets through radiation and also conducts heat at different speeds. Also the convection patterns in the oven are changed by the shape of the pan. You cannot predict which pan will speed up or slow down the baking by comparing it to another pan, because the relationships are complex. But you can simply bake a cake and observe both.
As to how to avoid it: baking by time simply makes no sense. It is a coincidence that you have a combination of oven and pan which bakes the cake in exactly the time the author suggested. As you found out, as soon as you change the pan, the time directive doesn't work.
Bake your cakes until they are done. This way they will work in any pan as long as the general height/area ratio is right.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.162711
| 2015-06-24T20:34:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58511",
"authors": [
"Ching Chong",
"Debbie M.",
"Duane Olson",
"Mark Pettifer",
"RAmjan aLI",
"Robert Gallie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36065",
"lilott8",
"philip owen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25476
|
How to mimic Giordano's Pizza SAUCE? (Part 2)
I am trying to mimic Giordano's pizza at home, as stated in part 1 I need to learn how to make both the crust and the SAUCE. I think I can manage the rest...
I am looking for advice on how to make a pizza sauce to mimic Giordano's.
I can make a 'pretty good' pizza sauce, but I can't seem to get the seasoning quite right to match Giordano's. I would call garlic the most pronounce flavor, but I can't seem to meter the seasonings 'just right'. In my attempts the garlic either overwhelms the flavor or is not as pronounced as I think it should be.
If your grocer doesn't have Pastorelli Pizza Sauce in stock, have him order some for you. They supply the pizza industry and will allow you to make an authentic Chicago style pizza.
This answer seems like spam at first glance but I totally agree - I have not found a better pizza sauce available to the public (I'm in the Chicago area) that comes close to being as good as Pastorelli's. I ship it to my brother who lives out of state.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.162919
| 2012-08-04T19:56:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25476",
"authors": [
"Abhinav",
"Briana",
"Carol Weldon",
"Chris Down",
"Kristina Lopez",
"NDGuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70559",
"user1420303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102444
|
Relation between concentration of sugar in syrup VS its spoil rate
My mother recently created a Centella asiatica vegetable juice.
She states that we should add some sugar (e.g. 2 tea-spoons for 1.5 liter of vegetable water) to reduce the spoil rate of the juice.
I disagree because I feel that the concentration rate is too low for that - it would increase the spoil rate instead. However, it bases on just my feeling.
My assumption :-
I believe water, sugar and honey can be stored almost forever, but syrup has relatively short storage time.
There has to be some figures of sugar concentration (e.g. X gram of sugar per 1 liter of water) that make the spoilage rate maximum (parabola?), right?
Question :-
How is the relation between sugar concentration and spoil rate?
How much it can be applied to vegetable juice?
Please also provide some graph/reference/research to support your answer because the belief will impact the rest of my life.
Edit:
Here is what I interpret Juliana Karasawa Souza's answer :-
For a clear direct response for your question: yes, there is a correlation between sugar concentration and spoil rate. The correlation is actually between any kind of solute and spoil rate, so that's the reason for using salt and sugar as agents for preserving foods.
The technical name is "water availability" and the maths behind that is "free water equivalent". That's because bacteria and other microorganisms need what we call "free water" to grow and reproduce - if the water is "bound" to other components like sugar or salt, they cannot be used for growing.
The minimal concentration of sugar is 65% weight by weight if it is a simple solution of sugar in water (a.k.a. simple syrup)
If you want to use less sugar, you have to include other chemicals (called preservative agents) to prevent spoilage and bacterial growth.
Here is the easiest to digest information I could find for how to do the calculation, without getting into many technical details on the chemical properties
Thank (+1) for the figure that minimizes spoil rate, but I still want to know the one that maximizes spoil rate. I believe spoil rate is not a monotonically decreasing function of sugar concentration. i.e. I don't think increasing %sugar always mean decreasing spoil rate. Do you happen to know more detail about it?
Or do you mean adding sugar generally increases spoil rate until it reaches 65%. Then, at 65% and more, adding sugar decreases the spoil rate abruptly ?
I edited the question (add the graph related to your answer). Is it correct?
@javaLover microorganisms need nutrients to grow, but biology is not exact science, as the different populations of organisms have tolerance to different electrolyte, pH and carbon source (e.g. glucose / sucrose) levels, and they also start to out-compete each other at different paces. The graph looks more like a ramp-up, then it goes sort of flat-ish and then it plunges down, but that's very over-simplified.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.163041
| 2019-09-22T10:09:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102444",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78650",
"javaLover"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102554
|
Why is my vegetable stock bitter, but the chicken stock not?
I have exactly the same procedure and ingredients for cooking vegetable and chicken stock - of course, the latter contains chicken meat, which is the only difference.
The ingredients I put into my stock are:
onion,
a few garlic cloves,
two carrots,
celeriac,
parsley root,
leek,
spices: bay leaf, allspice and peppercorns.
Simmer time - about 2 hours.
It quite often happens that my vegetable stock is bitter, but it never happened with a chicken stock. I read here and there that vegetable stock shouldn't be cooked for long - even 45 minutes should be enough, and if simmered for too long it may become bitter. However, chicken or any other meat stock recipes call for a much longer time, and bitterness should not be a problem.
Thus, why is there a risk of vegetable stock becoming bitter, while it is not that much of a problem for a meat stock?
I notice that your recipe doesn't include any salt. That's important, because salt decreases the sensation of bitterness. Chicken contains a certain amount of salt, and I suspect that's making the difference. (The "umami" -- brothy -- taste of chicken may also decrease the sensation of bitterness, though as I understand it there's still some disagreement about that.)
Try mixing 1/8 tsp of salt into one cup of your vegetable stock as a test. I suspect that'll decrease the bitterness to a comparable level.
Oh, and if you want to make your stock less bitter without making it more salty, use parsley stems and leaves instead of parsley root, and celery (including leaves) instead of celeriac. Those two roots will be the primary sources of bitterness.
Incidentally, I very much approve of you not salting your original stock, and instead salting whatever you use it in. Unsalted stock is more flexible, and is more forgiving if you decide you need to concentrate it.
Would blanching the veggies help in any way, or does it have no impact on a broth?
@Jeffrey Blanching can reduce bitterness in some vegetables by denaturing bitter compounds they contain. But since a broth is simmered anyway, it's not necessary there. (Blanching does not "rinse out" bitter flavors.)
That sounds right. I used my stock (the one that made me ask the question) for tomato soup and beef stew later on. I couldn't taste bitterness in any of those. My theory is that my vegetable stock is in general not flavorful, so if there's some bitterness in it, it really stands out.
If vegetable stock is not flavorful, why bother?
I make veg stock overnight in a slow cooker on high with similar ingredients to you: onion, garlic, carrot, bay, peppercorns. But: celery instead of celeriac (I grow celery and often have some old tough stems and leaves which are perfect for stock), rarely parsnip or leek, and often some other herbs or veg I've got to hand. I don't add salt, and my quantities are a bit random, but I don't have problems with bitterness. The slow cooker maintains a very gentle simmer.
I also don't brown the ingredients first, but the bits that stick out start to caramelise by the end. I've never had trouble with bitterness, and wonder if your garlic, onion or leek may be catching a little, if you fry them first or if they end up stuck to the bottom of the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.163280
| 2019-09-26T10:33:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102554",
"authors": [
"Jeffrey",
"John Gordon",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78718",
"krp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105390
|
Can I make a sourdough boule, freeze it then thaw it and bake it?
I think sourdough yeasts don’t do well with being frozen normally, but if I’ve let the dough go through all of its rises and shaped it into the final loaf can I freeze it before baking since the air bubbles that will provide the rise in the finished loaf have already formed?
Alternatively, are there any good ways to create a sourdough bread dough that I can take and throw into the oven without having to go through the long process of bulk rising, shaping, etc... immediately before baking? Ideally I’d like to make a lot of loaves all at once and have them on hand so I can have freshly baked bread whenever I want.
I think the closest solution you will find to this is baking the loaves, slicing, and then freezing the slices.
This is pretty convenient. You can throw frozen bread slices directly into the toaster, defrost in the microwave, or just let them sit on the counter for a while.
You don't have to slice it, you can freeze the whole loaf. Defrost at room temperature for a few hours, then wet the crust a little bit and bake for 5-10 min to restore a crispy crust.
Thanks-- that's what I do currently, sometimes it's nicer to have a whole loaf though, like if you're giving it away as a present.
@Tinuviel Thanks, I'll have to try that-- what oven temp do you use?
@Dugan I usually use 160-180°C in a convection oven
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.163539
| 2020-02-18T22:13:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105390",
"authors": [
"Dugan ",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103071
|
Why can't chocolate be made caffeine free?
I recently read this article which suggests that it's impossible to make caffeine free chocolate. Why would this be the case? If we can make caffeine free teas and coffees why can't we strip the caffeine out of chocolate too?
Is it possible to make caffeine-free coffee? Decaf generally has less caffeine, but it's nowhere near zero. Tea without caffeine tends to be a different type than tea with caffeine.
When taken literally, the article you cite is simply wrong. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5302282/ -that's scientific proof that decaffeinated cocoa does exist. I have no idea if someone is actually making chocolate bars out of it, but there seems to be no theoretical hurdle for it. There is some remote possibility that the decaffeination may change the physical qualities of the cocoa powder, or that it is not well suited to other cocoa intermediate products such as cocoa butter, which could make producing a decaffeintated chocolate bar challenging - but even if that's the case, I would expect professional food technologists to be able to work around that.
I won't speculate on why the site supplied incorrect information. My personal opinion is that I don't trust sites that feel comfortable making broad health claims, and the site you cite is very much focused on doing exactly that.
As a chemist I'd agree that characterization of the extraction as impossible is an overstatement. I think the real characterization of the extraction would be to define it as impractical.
In theory the process of extracting caffeine (as in coffee beans) can be applied to cocoa as well.
I think the amount of caffeine is so low with regards to the consumed amounts, so decaf chocolate is probably not economically viable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.163681
| 2019-10-25T16:12:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103071",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"MaxW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81776
|
Other than US FDA definition, are there other standards for vanilla extracts?
Is there a European standard for example for what could be sold as vanilla extracts? The only definition of concentration and ingredients appears to be in US Code 21 CFR 169.175.
On the other hand it is exceptionally easy to make excellent vanilla extract. I put about 20 vanilla beans in a liter of vodka ( after several months) , the result smells as strong or stronger than any commercial product . And lasts a long time.
There's not really a European equivalent for the FDA's definition of extract (by ethanol percentage). Instead, the EU specifies what constitutes natural vs 'vanilla flavouring' (euphemism for 'artificial').
See the EU's white paper on it here (notably page 15):
AUTHENTICITY OF VANILLA AND VANILLA EXTRACTS
Also, in plainer speak, info on vanilla industry standards between the US and EU here.
Additional reading: the EU directive ISO 9235 specifies what can be listed as artificial/natural and covers vanilla/vanillin.
So only the US prescribes a minimum amount of effectively dry-basis beans in a given quantity of solvents. Then does it necessarily mean that "strength" can vary massively between brands/manufacturers? Interesting to see a paper from Sigma Aldrich - is there a voluntary industry code or standard?
AFAIK there's no standard on strength/percentage, though technically it's required in EU labelling (so you're not likely to see 'Vanilla 2%). Keep in mind this is only EU we're talking about - that's not to say there aren't regulation within a given country. For example, here in Ireland there are laws dictating various types of beer labelling (lager, ale, stout, etc) which differ from UK and German law but all fall safely under EU food and drug regulation. A bit more detailed research into specific national food regulations could be useful here - if you care that is :D
I have been digging around for a while but so far only the FDA has anything close to stipulating "strength", even that has so much wriggle room. Thanks for the input!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.163842
| 2017-05-18T13:45:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81776",
"authors": [
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"kettultim",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43912
|
How to make beans more neutral tasting?
I am looking for a way to process beans, or a variety of bean that is as flavourless as possible, to get a "clean slate" for making vegetarian cutlets
I would suggest using something fairly non-aggressive like a cannelini.
In most beans, heat around ~104°C to ~110°C will destroy many of the flavour compounds (a slightly different but precise heat is used for different bean varieties)
Commercially beans are steamed in that temperature range to neutralise them before being processed (e.g. making bean derivatives, or milks)
For domestic processing you could try steaming them in a home pressure cooker to achieve the same effect
Also, many beans are soaked at ~60°C for some hours prior to processing to reduce the "fart" sugars
Wouldn't this apply to essentially all cooked beans then?
@sourd'oh Yes, it should do. Starting with the most flavourless would help, but what one that is might be a poll
But... we're talking about beans that you don't eat without cooking. Are you saying that they just all taste the same already?
@Jefromi ? I don't understand what you are asking?
Commercial canning is generally pressure canning, and people tend to use canned beans to avoid the long cooking times, so everyone's already eating beans that have been cooked above 100C. I'm asking if you think that all of those beans taste the same. (Along with that, I'm a bit skeptical of the implication here that 100C coincidentally is both the boiling point of water and the temperature at which the flavor compounds in beans break down - presumably boiling them at 100C would also destroy flavor.)
@Jefromi factory canning if fast, but either way, yes canned beans do mostly taste the same. They are usually heavily salted and/or flavoured to fix this issue. I don't know what the "magic" temperature is, but I assume it must be above 100°C as the factory I have seen went to great trouble to do it. Even home cooks do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pyTS8rvG0
Ah, I see. I guess your canned beans must be different; pretty sure I can taste plenty of difference between various canned beans I've had. (And I don't just mean variations in salt, and they don't list other flavoring ingredients.)
While this answer has been modded down, it's largely correct (despite the debate about TFD's taste buds and canned beans). In commercial situations where it is desirable to remove flavor (and particular "beany" flavor) -- like soymilk production or red bean paste for sweets -- the most common processing steps are long boiling or steaming at high temperatures and/or multiple soaks followed by discarding the soaking liquid. While all canned beans don't "taste the same," their flavors are often significantly muted compared to slow-simmered beans which have retained all soaking liquids.
@Athanasius thanks. On SA, when a mod or pop. poster jumps in with their opinion, facts don't stand a chance. Had this a few times on SA. I just ignore it now. 100 C+ for beans is just coincidental to 100 C water boiling. AIUI each bean has a 'magic' temp of maximum flavor loss. Can't find a graph of any, but it will be in some factory manual!
Canellini beans seem really neutral to me. Pinto beans might also work, or black eyed peas.
In my opinion, butter beans(Lima beans in the US?) are very neutral and sound suitable for what you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.164149
| 2014-05-05T20:19:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43912",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Baheana Safi",
"Cascabel",
"Exterminators",
"Geo",
"James",
"Lioco wine",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"VenomKS",
"Victoria",
"fumiofukamachiyahoocom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"nelsonic",
"zrfrank"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65465
|
Mastrad Orka pancake spatula
Where can I purchase the
Mastrad Orka pancake spatula? It has a curved silicone blade about 8" long and 1" to 1 1/2" wide with a nice silicone handle. Some websites indicate this item is discontinued. Does anyone know why that might be?
You could rephrase that question as "Is there a reason for the XYZ megaspatula to be discontinued, and that a cook has to care about, for example that item being defective, unsafe or unreliable?" ... otherwise, there is a risk of the "shopping" or "too-localized" off-topic criteria matching it.
Search google for this term and you'll find lots of suppliers.
ob210101
Buy several so you have a supply if and when they finally run out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.164455
| 2016-01-15T18:55:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65465",
"authors": [
"Akram Ansari",
"Paul Murphy",
"cristihendrix",
"herbie graham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman",
"steve adamson",
"tam mccann"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51513
|
Baking granbarksost (spruce bark cheese) (Brie) with little mould
We have this amazing cheese from Sweden just like Brie cheese but surrounded by tree bark and meant for baking. Should I remove the little bits of green mould from the outside of the cheese before baking for 10 mins - or will the heat kill any nasties in the mold? Temperature recommended is 150 degrees C for 10 mins.
Some mold spores can withstand high temps and the toxins produced by "bad" mold don't break down into something safe because they are heated. Brie and brie-like cheeses are supposed to have white mold, but green is a different mold, and unless you know that particular green mold is safe to eat, I'd cut it off.
Apparently the mould is fine (ie. relatively normal) for (unpasteurized) Brie cheeses of that nature. However, should the mould develop fur (white hairs) then discard the cheese. Or at least chop away the mouldy parts and a generous excess bordering the mould also.
Where did you read this? Normal brie is very moldy. It's a puff ball of mold that gets smashed when packed to form the rind. Is the mold you are seeing different than the mold that made the brie what it is?
I asked the shop attendant who buys the cheese directly from the Dairy. This Brie only has the white mouldy casing as the circular tube it sits in (So around the outside of the circle of cheese). The top and bottom are basically mold free (No white layer). This top area was starting to get mould - which prompted my question here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.164568
| 2014-12-11T17:44:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51513",
"authors": [
"Brandon Frazer",
"Grantly",
"Mary Miller",
"Mike Wyatt",
"Priya Shah",
"Samantha Rigg",
"Sobachatina",
"elizabeth slivka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30874",
"sue hall suehall23hotmailcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102902
|
Why did my poached egg sink?
I tried boiling some water and dropping an egg in, as said in a guide I was watching. But my issue is it immediately sank to the bottom instead? How can I keep the eggs floating at the surface the whole time?
Thanks!
Did you put enough salt in the water?
Egg itself may be another factor too.
THi Dr Bracket, and welcome. To clarify, did you drop in a raw egg, intending to poach it, or did you drop an already poached egg again into water? I suspect it is the first, but the first sentence literally states the second. There is a small grey "edit" button under your post, you can use it to clarify the situation directly into the text.
I cooked thousands of poached eggs during my culinary career, and have never seen one float. And it really does not need to anyway. What is the point? If you want to keep all the whites together, try adding a tsp of so of vinegar and using the freshest eggs you can buy. To keep them from sticking to the bottom of the pas, I use a rubber spatula and lift them off the bottom after a minute of cooking. As with all egg cooking, keep the temperature low. For poached eggs this means just a few tiny bubbles in the water.
You can cheat by using those silicon poaching cups too. I was pleasantly surprised at how well they worked when I first got mine. I always had trouble getting the poached egg out of the pot without breaking the whites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.164749
| 2019-10-16T00:56:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102902",
"authors": [
"Conifers",
"Ray Butterworth",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103119
|
Why blend soup in blender if you can use a stick blender?
if a recipe calls for soup to be put in a blender can I just use a stick blender? Or Is there some difference that makes it better in a regular blender?
Hi, Menachem! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Can you clarify what you intend to get out of this question? Do you want to understand what are the different types of blender and when should you use them? Or do you want to know if a recipe that calls for a stand blender can be done with a hand blender? Right now your question is both not clear and looking like a rant - which is against the community guidelines. Can you edit your question?
Hi ok to clarify, definitely not a rant; I simply wanted to know if the methods are interchangeable as I do not want to be pouring hot pots of soup into blenders if there is no reason to be was curious why people would do so if that is the case. PS I edited the post
Another alternative if you do make a lot of soup, is a dedicated soup maker. I have one of these & it's just sooo easy! "Which" magazine did a rundown of the types - https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/soup-makers/article/choosing-the-best-soup-maker [the actual 'which is best' section may be paywalled, the overview isn't.]
You've answered your own question in your comment, really. One advantage of a stick blender is that you don't have to deal with hot soup in a stand-up blender. The advantage of a high-powered, stand-up blender is that it can puree very well. However, hot liquids are problematic in these blenders. They expand and can create a mess, and potentially burn you if you are not careful and do not know how to control for this. I use my stick blender for soups, but also for many small batch needs as well...when I don't want to drag out the blender, or the batch is too small for the jar. So, in general, they are interchangeable, but in most cases the stand up version will puree more smoothly, and is (obviously) hands-free.
I don't own a stick blender, so what I usually do for soups is let them cool down a bit, blend on the stand blender and then put them back in the pan (also including the rinsing liquid) for finishing heating and final proofing. Another advantage of the stick blender is that it handles smaller quantities better than a stand blender.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.164896
| 2019-10-28T07:32:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103119",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Menachem Korf",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79211"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103248
|
How can I make a yogurt starter culture from scratch?
Let's say for whatever reason that I cannot or don't want to get store-bought yogurt. How can I create a probiotic culture to make some from fresh milk?
I saw videos explaining how to make yogurt from chili peppers or lemon in milk. The resulting curds are used to create a real yogurt the same way you would make yogurt with store-bought. Another answer explained that this is not yogurt, but just fresh cheese.
It looks a lot like yogurt to me and also needs fermentation, so what is the difference between these two? What makes milk turn into yogurt if using this method?
The question may be conflating two different things. First, let's be clear about what yogurt is: the word traditionally refers to a milk product produced by fermentation with some lactic acid bacteria strains. (The exact strains of bacteria may vary depending on the culture and method, though the word "yogurt" tends to be restricted to thermophilic bacterial strains which ferment best when milk is above room temperature.) The yogurt becomes sour through the production of lactic acid, which is created as a waste product from the bacteria as they grow in the milk ("fermentation").
The second aspect of yogurt beyond the sour flavor is the texture. When milk's pH is reduced to a certain point through introduction of acid, the proteins in milk unfold (denature) and begin to clump together. The milk thus begins to "curdle" and take on a thicker texture which is generally associated with yogurt.
Any source of lactic acid bacteria can potentially be used to create a starter to generate yogurt. In India, chili peppers and particularly their stems are frequently used, as they tend to harbor several bacterial strains that can ferment milk. The resulting product is a type of yogurt, known as dahi or sometimes simply called curd in English.
Dahi can therefore be considered a type of yogurt, produced through fermentation of lactic acid bacteria at warm temperatures.
However, the OP also mentions the introduction of lemon in milk and links to a previous question which states that this can produce "cheese" rather than "yogurt." The reason for the difference is that the method of production is very different with lemon juice. Usually, when people just add lemon juice to milk, they are trying to artificially sour it quickly. The lemon juice will lower the pH, producing a sour flavor. It will also cause the proteins to denature and the milk to thicken. This process happens in the matter of a few minutes, rather than hours.
The resulting product is superficially similar to cultured yogurt or buttermilk in sourness and texture, but no fermentation has taken place. No lactic acid bacteria were involved. The resulting product here is simply what I'd refer to as "sour milk" or "soured milk" or "acidified milk." Because there is no fermentation, and the acid flavor comes from lemon juice (with citric acid) rather than lactic acid, it's not what most people would refer to as "yogurt." And, as the linked answer notes, this process usually won't produce a very thick yogurt-like product unless you use a milk with high fat content like buffalo milk.
In any case, I personally would not call it "cheese" unless you actually strained the resulting soured milk. But it's not "yogurt" either, according to traditional definitions: it's merely acidified milk.
In sum, both chili peppers and lemon juice can be used to sour and thicken milk, but the process is a bit different and produces somewhat different products.
Wow, thank you so much. So, if I make Dahi, it's actually yogurt, while the process with lemon juice would more likely be considered sour milk?
I saw a video showing that the lemon juice yogurt could be used indefinitely as a starter for more yogurt. Is this true and if so, how does it work? Does sourness just spread similar to bacteria, while still being a different process?
Also, are there more sources for lactic acid bacteria than chili peppers?
@TemporaryName - I don't exactly know how lemon juice alone could be used as a starter indefinitely. Lemon juice (or vinegar or other acids) are used to sour milk directly: they don't usually function as "starters" to ferment dairy products. That said, yes, there are lots of other potential sources for lactic acid bacteria, but the type of bacteria (and thus the flavor, texture, and fermentation of the result) will depend on the source. I'd personally just encourage using an established culture, as these experiments may not always produce consistent results.
Thank you so much for your answers. I know that the usual way is to just use your favorite yogurt, but I'm specifically looking to experiment. Can you give me a pointer as to how to find potential sources for lactic acid bacteria?
This is the video I was talking about regarding lemon juice curd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhemUTcFsNs She adds it to boiled milk later on, which seems to turn it into yogurt as well.
Personally I would NOT experiment with this, unless you're using a food as starter known to harbor large amounts of LAB (lactic acid bacteria). Apparently chili pepper stems do have this. I can't find any clear information that lemon juice will commonly have LAB. Other than your video, I can't find evidence that lemon juice is commonly used for multiple fermentations, only direct acidified "curd," as this Indian source also mentions.
In sum, only use foods recommended by reputable scientific sources for sources of LAB. Otherwise, you're letting a dairy product sit out at room temperature in an uncontrolled environment, which can grow all sorts of nasty bacteria and other things. In the lemon juice case, I think what's happening in the video is that she creates an acidic environment with lemon juice, so the main thing that tends to grow well in that is LAB. But without a good source of LAB, you're not guaranteed to get a healthy starter culture. If you try reusing it, you could grow bad bacteria that could make you sick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.165098
| 2019-11-03T03:53:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103248",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"TemporaryName",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79311"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103367
|
Attempted deep frying smoke fiasco
I recently tried deep frying some chicken and it went horribly wrong. The oil started to smoke so much that I had to step outside because it was so thick. Even after I brought the Dutch oven I was using outside it smoked for a long while after. My question is why was it smoking so much.
The oil was cooking in a 9 inch cast iron Dutch oven. I had the heat on about a 9 (out of 10). The oil was peanut oil. At one point I put the lid on the cast iron. It was after I took it off that it began to smoke. I should have been more careful about how I researched the safety of doing this sort of cooking. Can anyone explain why this happened?
Lot of background, but missing one essential piece of information… what was the oil? Oils have 'smoke points' - temperatures which can vary wildly depending on what the oil is. Also, your heat… 9 out of 10 is a bit vague, was this a stove-top, gas oven??
I added that it was peanut oil. Yeah I didn't have a thermometer but I recognize the danger now of not using one.
Was it refined peanut oil? How were you heating it?
When deep frying, the most important piece of equipment you can have is a decent thermometer--many candy/frying thermometers have a clip that can be positioned on the edge of a dutch oven so that you can keep watch of the temperature while frying (like this one).
Different oils have different smoke points. For refined peanut oil, the smoke point is 450°F / 232°C. It sounds like you got your oil too hot, and it reached the smoke point. This can be very dangerous. Just above the smoke point is when oil can actually ignite, causing a serious fire risk.
Generally, you would want to fry well below the smoke point temperature. Recipes generally will recommend frying temperatures of 300°F / 150°C to 375°F to 190°C, depending on what you're frying.
Trying to regulate heat simply by using the knob/setting on your stovetop is not a reliable way to maintain heat when deep frying. Using a thermometer will help ensure you are able to keep oil in the desired range.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.165503
| 2019-11-09T18:55:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103367",
"authors": [
"Charles Dake",
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79411"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43936
|
How can I make cookies without any sugar?
I'd like to try making some sugar-free cookies, which means no refined or "natural" sugar (honey, came syrup, etc.). I'll be trying to use stevia instead.
The obvious problem is that sugar is very important to cookies structurally, not to mention caramelization. Even if stevia were to caramelize, there won't be enough in the recipe to be sufficient for the taste.
So, are there any other agents I could use to counter these problems?
Related: Does Splenda caramelize? (No.)
No, there are no other agents. Caramelization is literally sugar in a certain state. If you remove all the sugar, you cannot have a caramelization taste. You can make cookies which don't taste caramelized, of course.
As for the "important structurally" part, it depends what cookie you are trying to make. If you want to achieve the texture of a sugar-rich cookie, this is again impossible. Out of all edible substances, only sugars behave like sugars when baked.
You can however use other fillers to get a different type of cookie. A shortbread cookie (like pie crust, but in cookie form) with stevia shouldn't taste that much different than a shortbread cookie with sugar. Nut flours or nut butters will give you some very good fillers so you can make a cookie with some bulk without having to use too much flour.
The result will never look and taste like a standard American chocolate chip cookie, or its relatives but will certainly deserve the term "cookie".
I'm OK without having actual caramelization, but I would have hoped there was something that tasted substantially similar. Good suggestions about other fillers and different types of cookies.
You can apparently get a somewhat caramel taste without sugar; Google for sugar free caramel. I doubt it tastes nearly as good as the real thing. And of course, the structure is still a problem.
It likely depends on what you qualify as 'sugar'.
America's Test Kitchen, in their recipes for gluten-free flour replacement suggested using powdered milk to enhance the browning. As that would contain lactose (a sugar), that might not fit within your requirements.
I'd consider it, but I'm looking more for taste than color.
My husband cannot stand the taste of stevia in anything, so I've been having similar problems. I've been told by my doctor to cut down on sugar (easier said than done for my sweet tooth). I have substituted Monk Fruit sweetener and it does work well, but it doesn't seem to be as sweet as sugar. I have found, with certain recipes, that a combination of Monk Fruit sweetener and pureed pitted dates works well when the recipe calls for both white sugar and brown sugar. I just change out the white sugar with Monk Fruit and the brown sugar with pureed dates, same measurements. I've used this in cobblers and cookies. I hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.165679
| 2014-05-06T13:12:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43936",
"authors": [
"Ayan Mullick",
"Linda Gilbert",
"Matthew Read",
"Richard Willis",
"Robert ",
"Spammer",
"Technophobian",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16769
|
Why does my chicken get dry skin in the freezer?
Sorry guys, but I suspect I have a bit of a newbie question here.
When I buy raw chicken breast, I like to open up the package immediately and separate it out into 3 portions because that's roughly the amount I use each time I cook it. If I freeze immediately, it looks a bit like this after I defrost it:
... which is fine. But if I open the packet, then freeze, it looks like this when defrosted:
Clearly the skin is drying out badly. :-) Is there a way I can stop this? I'm thinking of immediately covering the chicken again with clingfilm before refrosting but will that work? Or do I just have to keep it sealed in the packet? If covering it will work, why is that? Is the freezing process sucking moisture out of the skin?
This is the same chicken breast, showing flipped over, right? It bugged me for a bit and I think I figured it out!
Nice guess. ;-) But the flipped side looks like it should look without freezer burn. :-)
It looks like you need a new cutting board (knife scars on plastic cutting boards can be near impossible to disinfect).
@ESultanik Yeah, I could probably do with one. I do fry my chicken extremely hot, though, which should kill off most bacteria.
I've actually found a combination of both aluminum foil and clingfilm to give the best protection. The foil is most effective at preventing freezer burn, but does nothing to isolate odors.
Since the freezer is so cold, you don't ordinarily smell much when you stick your head in there, but that doesn't mean that the odors don't spread about, and you'll notice it only once you thaw your chicken (or other food item). That's why I like to wrap my food in clingfilm as well, but more pertinent to your question, the foil is what you want to prevent freezer burn.
The foil's quite expensive compared to clingfilm; do you think a generous wrapping of clingfilm would do just as well?
You'll have to weight the cost of the foil against the personal cost of having freezer-burned chicken. Personally, I wrap first in plastic wrap, then foil, but you'll want to take the measures that yield results that you find acceptable.
The name for what you're seeing is freezer burn. It happens because water sublimates out of the exposed part of the meat while in the freezer, leaving it all dried out and unpleasant looking. To solve the problem, wrap your chicken (or anything else) tightly in plastic wrap, or place in freezer bags and press out all the air before sealing, and then freeze.
The explanation is correct, but cling wrap isn't airtight. It will work for shorter freezing periods. But for longer freezing (the limit is floating, maybe count > 1 month as long) you'll have to use a vacuum sealer with the proper bags.
It should be noted there are two types of cling film/plastic wrap: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE). PVC sticks better. LDPE is much less porous. I'd recommend trying an LDPE wrap, such as Gladwrap.
I do this with my chicken every time. Buy the bulk pack and portion out at home. I portion into zipper top bags and lay the chicken inside neatly (single layer, flat as possible) and manually squeeze out all the air before zipping the top. I am a little obsessive about trying to squeeze every last pocket of air out, but am too lazy/cheap to get out my vacuum sealer for chicken (save those bags for more expensive meats). I defrost/use the chicken from 1-12 weeks later and haven't had any freezer burn in years.
Applying cling wrap should work. If the problems continue, then you might want to invest in a vacuum sealer.
I like Caleb's answer but I'd just like to add some detail (and I guess get some karma :P)
Caleb's suggestion--wrapping tightly in plastic wrap, is probably a good enough solution if you're using the chicken soon enough. The comment discussion on his answer is somewhat correct--most modern plastic wrap will not prevent freezer burn forever. The formulas for plastic wrap have changed over time and have different molecule permeability protections--some will allow water molecules through (slowly) and some won't.
Your chicken skin is drying out to sublimation--ice converting to water vapor without becoming a liquid first. As I understand it, this is a function of humidity, temperature and pressure. If you had a perfect seal--you'd still get a very small amount of sublimation, but the humidity inside your sealed bag/container would quickly rise to the saturation point. Since the water vapor can't escape, the bag consistently has a high humidity inside and this prevents/minimizes further sublimation.
What vacuum sealers give you is a sealed container, but they're not the only way to do that. I suspect that if you were to freeze a piece of chicken fully immersed in water, it would preserve similarly to a vacuum frozen one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.165936
| 2011-08-09T23:13:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16769",
"authors": [
"ADieDog",
"Aaimah Sheikh",
"DSKim",
"ESultanik",
"Jen",
"Jez",
"Ray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6999",
"rumtscho",
"trhaynes",
"user13107"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15414
|
Thick carbon layer on wok?
I just got a 100,000 BTU burner for wok cooking. Today when I used it, I got a very thick layer of carbon on the wok (see picture below). Is that normal? Should I remove it? If so, how?
EDIT - FINAL RESULT:
Ok so I took a combination of the advice here.
I used an old metal baby spoon to scrap as much of the loose carbon off as I could. Then I turned the wok burner up to high high heat and burned the crap out of the carbon. A lot of it actually turned liquid and I poured it out. What didnt' turn into liquid, loosened considerably and I was able to, with a hacking/chopping motion of the metal spoon, get all the thick carbon coating off. I was surprised how resilient the seasoning on the wok was, very little of the actual seasoning scraped off. Here's the wok after the burning/hacking with the spoon I used:
Next I used some very coarse sea salt and with my hand I scraped and scraped until the inside was smooth again. Then I wiped some grape seed oil on the wok where the seasoning and come off, and burned it over high heat with the burner. Below is the final result.
Nice close shot, but almost too minimalist... Now I and James Barrie can't agree if this is the inside or the outside of the wok. Can you throw some light on the matter?
@rumtscho: You just gave me a good chuckle, 'cause after you said that I started seeing it that way too! It's the inside of the wok. And in a minute here I will post how I got the carbon off, with pics.
This proves my theory that a little elbow grease is worth more than a lot of fancy chemicals, when it comes to carbon
Looks like a normal wok. Probably just too much sugar in your sauce?
@RichardDesLonde Could you provide some more info on your 100,000 BTU burner? That sounds like an amazing cooking tool
100k BTU sounds like overkill for a single burner unless your wok is HUUUUGE (like, fit to serve a large restaurant). I think that's related to your excessive carbon buildup. A little burned-on crap is normal, but that amount is a sign you're either putting in too much heat, or not keeping enough food moving around in it.
Carbon is... well it rhymes with "witch"... to remove. I've not seen it soluble in anything available outside a chem lab, and there are no easy tricks. Here are the removal methods I've seen:
Scrape it off. This is the standard for serious built-up carbon on pans (particularly ones used as smokers). Use a paint scraper or bench scraper, and steel wool. There are specialty tools for cleaning flat grills which have a flat, very sharp edge that work even better, but in a pinch even a stiff spatula will work. Yes, it's exhausting but it turns out to be surprisingly fast if you can pick a good scraping tool.
Burn it off, using the powerful burner or the self-cleaning cycle on an oven. Be prepared for a lot of smoke. Naturally, you'll have to re-season your wok, but this will remove some of the carbon.
I've HEARD people say they can get carbon off by repeatedly heat-shocking it. This means heating it as hot as possible and then dropping it into ice water. However, they talked about like 30 cycles, and it could render metal more brittle. Might be worth a shot?
Personally I'd either scrape the bejeezus out of it, or just ignore it.
Thanks Bob. I don't think I'm turning it all the way up to 100k, but you are right it is very hot. And it's funny you should mention a bigger wok, because I am about to buy a big one!!!
Even if you're not turning it up all the way, 100k BTU is a LOT of power. That's appropriate for a restaurant, heating a 80+ quart stockpot. If you're getting that level of carbon buildup, you're definitely using it too high.
Actually, gun cleaning solvent can do a number on carbon, if you're able to buy it where you live. Probably easier to get access to than a chem lab.
@Aaronut: Greasy and oily residues, or burnt-on oil are not the same as straight-up charcoal. There are plenty of solvents that remove the residues as long as they are still oil-based and not pure carbon. Degreaser, gun cleaner, organic solvents... even a good soak in soap and water: all of these work there. Once it's converted from hydrocarbons to carbon black, you're buggered.
Yes, I know, but many of the gun cleaners are specifically designed for carbon/charcoal build-up, which is a common problem with guns. There's even a review for the product hobodave links to which says that it works well on carbon. Carbon is not very chemically active but it's not completely inert either.
Hrhm... I'll have to take a look at what's in it. Amorphous carbon tends to have a low solubility and reactivity, so I'm curious to see what it uses. I suspect it works much better at removing grease and residues than carbon itself though. Stripping those off yields a much more manageable result.
Now let's get this right - if the burner is set up right, it shouldn't leave the soot on the wok, so the burner needs to be set leaner = more air, less gas.
Now, not much dissolves carbon. Sulphuric acid will do it, but it also tends to dissolve woks!
Solutions: adjust the burner to get more air in the flame - not a hint of yellow or sparkle, just blue flame.
For the wok - leave it out in the yard and let nature clean it. Getting a little rust off is a breeze compared to carbon deposits. If the carbon is a little tarry, you can sometimes get a lot off by wiping with corn oil, then cleaning that mess off with neat engine cleaner.
Not sure how to adjust the air in the flame. How is that done? This is just a simple burner with an "AmeriGas" propane tank.
I burnt some stuff onto the surface of my wok and it was solid like a rock. I scrubbed it off by using a piece of "Wet and Dry" sand paper, about 400 grit. I wet the paper, put about a cupful of warm water in the wok plus a few drops of dish detergent. The Wet and Dry eats the hard carbon off like a starving horse eats grass and the detergent cuts the surface tension of the water. You can sand it right down to the original surface with no trouble. Be careful that you don't sand into the shiny metal. You can continue sanding with 1000 grit or finer and it will polish the steel surface beautifully. When finished to your requirements, wash with hot water and immediately dry and oil the wok. Season the wok again as soon as possible as the clean polished surface will begin to rust quickly. I clean my wok and all other burnt fry pans in this way and the results are wonderful. It is also very quick to do. My 18" wok took only 15 minutes to be returned like new ready for seasoning.
Is sanding by hand enough ? I have a pan with grease and carbon burnt on to its side and bottom - I am thinking of buying a sander for this.
If the other methods fail, you should be able to get your wok to gleam as new. For this, you'll need to use a strong lye bath (sodium hydroxide). Leave it a day or two in a small glass or plastic tub (if plastic, brush a spot with lye first to make sure it doesn't dissolve), then remove and clean with lots of water. Both carbon and seasoning will be removed.
Be aware that this is a drastic solution, usually saved for when a pan has rusted below an improper seasoning. The lye doesn't have toxic fumes or similar, but if it comes in contact with your skin, it will cause serious chemical burns. Take extensive precautions (gloves overlapped by sleeves, safety glasses or at least ski glasses which cover from the side too). If there is a child or pet in the household, don't do it, unless you are able to lock the full tub somewhere (e.g. a garden shed).
Lye is strong stuff, and will strip fats, grease, and burned-on food... but I don't think it'll do anything for straight-up carbon. Pretty much nothing does, including the industrial degreasers, oven cleaners, and bleach that I've tried. As far as I know, you have to go up to industrial solvents such as benzene, toulene, and carbon disulfide to even start dissolving it.
@BobMcGee the lye doesn't have to dissolve the carbon. It dissolves the seasoning underneath the carbon, leaving pure shiny metal. (And unlike a strong acid, it doesn't attack the metal itself). The carbon can dissolve or come off in rags. But the pan is clean and ready for a new seasoning.
great for general problems, but the carbon looks like it is on the outside in the pic ...
@James Barrie First, I usually have no problem with seeing both parts of a reversible figure, but I can't get a stable picture of this thing as the "outside" of a wok (I almost get it, but not stable). That would be some very weird lighting. Second, even if it is on the outside, I think that it will work, as the lye eats away any impurities, (maybe even the black iron oxide) not only seasoning.
I put it over another wok with boiling water for 30 min. Makes scrapping a lot easier.
I bought a metal brush for a drill and used that to clean of carbon. I also put oil on a cast iron and burn it off to season it. It will prevent this type of carbon buildup in the future. Then use coarse salt and a rag to sand down the pan or wok after every use followed by a coating of oil. If the oil is giving time to burn off then it will stay clean and nice. Never, never use soap on any type of cast iron.
To remove carbon you can use sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) however it must be a very strong (high molarity) and constantly boiling. I've done it using an old sink and portable gas ring heater but do note this is very dangerous and I accept no liability for people trying this.
PS I'm an industrial chemist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.166434
| 2011-06-13T03:01:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15414",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Daniel Mikola",
"Eric Hu",
"James Barrie",
"JoAnn",
"Jody king",
"Leland Klipstein",
"MOON",
"Petek",
"Sarah Boyd",
"TFD",
"cellepo",
"happybuddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79165",
"kolen",
"pojo-guy",
"richard",
"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
}
|
64900
|
Should I add water to my homemade orange juice?
I am considering adding water to my fresh-squeezed orange juice. The purpose is mainly to obtain a juice that is less acidic and easier to digest. I suppose there are pros and cons for mixing water/orange juice and I am wondering if mixing them is a good idea.
Does water affect the juice's nutritive or conservative value?
If adding water is a good idea, what kind of water should I add (mineral? boiled?) and in what proportion (50/50?)?
I've never tried watering down orange juice, but I've thought about testing the limits on where a person might consider something to be lemonade vs. acidulated water.
And I should mention that when I was a kid, my mom cut the acidity by blending orange & apple juices to give us.
You could also try adding adding a small amount of basic substance (baking soda comes to mind) to counteract the acid in the orange juice. I'm not posting this as an answer because I've never tried it personally, and I can imagine it tasting pretty terrible. Try at your own risk.
Hello ppr, I'm afraid your question is not really suited for the site. The "nutrition value" part is off topic. When you take that out, there are no criteria on which to decide whether to do it or not. Basically, you'd be asking "which is tastier, full strength juice or diluted juice" and this is a matter of personal preference, different people prefer it differently.
(In other words, if your question is not about nutrition, it's probably primarily opinion-based.)
Does water affect the conservative value:
I doubt adding water would noticeably hurt the conservation value, but you could always add it to an actual serving, instead of pre-mixing it.
Does water affect the nutritive value:
It would of course go down per serving. Less juice in the same serving means less of the nutritional / healthy stuff in said serving.
What kind of water:
I would just use plain water. Mineral will dilute the taste even more than regular water, and actually create a different kind of drink.
My take on it, and thus a personal con:
Don't do it, unless you really can't take the acidity of fresh orange juice. The cheaper hotels tend to do it to create more bang for the buck (from their perspective), and I absolutely hate it. The taste suffers, and, for me less important, the nutritional value suffers. To my mind, orange juice with water lacks everything that makes orange juice delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.167182
| 2015-12-29T13:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64900",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daiga Rutka",
"Diva mason",
"Duncan Cowie",
"Joe",
"Maryanne Donahue",
"Pauline Metcalf",
"Sam Bruce",
"Veronica Casto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45121
|
How to tell if it is honey, super filtered honey, or corn syrup?
There is this article here in Australia that an importer has labeled corn syrup as honey. It has been imported from Turkey and it has been sold to people. I think this is not just happening here in the land of OZ. Just with a little bit of searching I found out that there is some international conspiracy against the humble bees and people messing up the natural processes. There is even super filtered honey that does not have any pollen at all. I always thought the pollen is the most important part of honey. You might as well just have corn syrup instead.
I would like to know if there is a any way to tell the difference between corn syrup, super filtered honey, and natural honey.
The article:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/honey-actually-corn-vic-buyers-100510448.html
natural honey has pollen -- but it's possible that something with pollen in it is pure honey (it could be diluted). Most groups filter the honey because that allows them to hide the country of origin. (many countries ban honey from china or india)
@Joe That's interesting. What is it about honey from those countries that triggered the bans?
For China, it was stiff tariffs, plus traces of lead and antibiotics, and mislabeled product. The India ban is also for antibiotics, but there are also concerns that they ramped up exports so quickly after the US tarrifed Chinese honey that they're actually just relabeling it & passing it on.
@Joe I just checked the label on my monster-sized bottle from Sam's Club. Produced and bottled in Iowa. YAY! (SueBee White Clover)
This might be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Physical_and_chemical_properties ... I'm not sure, but I don't think corn syrup will crystallize. In fact, its often added to prevent sugar crystallization.
I do not think anyone needs to worry about "ultrapurified" honey. "This is a standard, widely used process. It removes all the pollen, along with dust, bees' wings, and, of course, the diatomaceous earth." Going further down in the article we see that "Consumers don't tend to like crystallized honey" at least in the US. Manufacturers in the US take out crystalizing agents of honey (which includes pollen, apparently) so that it does not crystalize.
I don't think there's any way to tell at home. You need a laboratory.
I always thought if honey crystallizes it is a good thing and shows it is not processed. Personally I use Ironbark and Leatherwood honey. The Leatherwood crystallizes very quickly, maybe in 2 or three month. It has a strong flavor,my favorite, but Ironbark is milder and does not crystallize even after a year or two.
Surely flavor is the easiest way to tell the difference between corn syrup and honey? I know some people wouldn't know, but if you actually like honey and have had real honey, I'm pretty sure you could tell the difference.
If you cannot tell corn syrup from honey by tasting it, why would you spend money on buying the more expensive honey? I pay lots of money to buy good honey, usually honey made from specific plants (yields). I prefer fir, chestnut, and thyme, which are dark and have a rich flavor. You can easily tell such honey from other yields just by tasting it. (If you prefer other kinds, it might not be that easy to tell it from corn syrup.) Anyway, I think the bottom line is: But where you trust, learn what it tastes.
Buying local honey is one way to be sure that what you are getting is "honey". I've never heard of people passing off something else as honey. Isn't that why we have the fda? If you are buying it in the store, check the lable... my honey has one ingredient; honey.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but just because you've never heard of it happening doesn't mean it never happens. Also, the asker mentions imported "honey" from Turkey, where producers aren't bound by the rules of the FDA.
I think it's unfortunate that this answer has been so trounced for half of the message. "buy local honey" is good advice.
Just to add to other comments, honey adulteration is very hard to detect with modern honey processing techniques (see this related question, and many honey processors in various countries apparently aren't bothering to do thorough checks on sources. It may not be typical pass off something completely different (e.g., sugar syrup) as "honey," but it's quite possible to add some percentage of other sugars to "stretch" the honey. Often such additions can only be detected with complex lab testing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.167430
| 2014-06-25T02:20:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45121",
"authors": [
"Ali",
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Christine Murray",
"De spam",
"Dispenser",
"DrRandy",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Morag Black",
"ShefSam",
"Spammer",
"Well Actually",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sbi",
"tM --"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68264
|
Doughnuts preseratives
Calcium Propionate
I normally use calcium propionate for extended shelf life problems. I am a packed doughnuts manufacturer, and I have a problem managing my shelf life. Regarding mold on our product, I need some halal/vegan preservatives to extend my shelf life from 3-10 days. I am using yeast, baking powder, eggs, salt, and butter as an ingredients. Some authentic solutions would be highly appreciated.
Early mold on commercially produced bakery goods suggests contamination, probably during the packaging process.
I have experience with a few natural options such as Bred-Mate, Bro-Lite and MoisturLok, but I doubt that any of those will get you as much shelf life as calpro will. MoisturLok and Brolite both have formulations for sweet goods, and I did have luck getting yeast breads to have a 7+-day shelf life with Bro-Lite.
If you have access to it, I'd recommend just getting halal calpro, as that's going to have the longest shelf-life by far.
King Arthur Flour sells a "cake enhancer" that extends shelf life by a few days. It works just as well in breads and other baked goods. The enhancer is gluten free, vegetarian, and Kosher.
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/cake-enhancer-10-oz
The cake enhancer simply makes the bread keep soft longer. The OP is having trouble with mold, not hardening.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.168113
| 2016-04-14T11:09:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68264",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25910
|
Making flour tortillas softer and more elastic
I would like to make a tortilla that is softer and more elastic, allowing for large burritos with lots of filling
I've been using the following recipe below which yields good results, however it is not soft or elastic enough to handle large amounts of filling.
1/4c butter
1/2c water
1/4 tsp baking powder
1 3/4c flour
I knead the dough and then immediately cook.
RESULTS
The tortillas taste great fresh, but after sitting in a zip-lock bag for a few hours the become much less pliable. I generally re-heat them with a damp towel in the microwave which makes them pliable enough to wrap filling in.
I've read this question about how to make "Big, Fluffy" tortillas, and it notes letting the dough rest is a key step. I did try this, and I ended up getting more air bubbles but other than that they are pretty much the same.
I would like to figure out how restaurants like Moe's make and prepare their tortillas which are suitable for large burritos. I am open to suggestions in technique or ingredients.
What flour are you using, and how long are you kneading? For elastic, you generally need more gluten (=bread flour, more kneading), but this also opposes the "soft" part, if you understand "soft" as in fluffy.
If your tortillas are of the thickness you want, then the answer to making a larger tortilla is to use more dough for each.
Flour - I am using all purpose, unbleached flour and kneading until it forms a dough. I don't keep kneading like I would a pasta or bread dough.
Usually restaurants that are doing mission-style burritos (which I think is what Moe's does) use 12-14" tortillas and also (perhaps most importantly) a tortilla steamer. By vigorously steaming the tortillas, they become more stretchy, thus they can be filled more without ripping. The foil that is then wrapped around the burritos ensure that as the tortilla cools down and drys out that it will continue to not rip.
@djmadscribbler That answers my question! I always called them "American Burritos" But now I know the name and the origin of the style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_burrito
Not boiling salt water? I've had reliable results that way -less drying out in pan. Never have used baking powder either -puffy enough without that cheat. Would also choose pure fat over butter with its water content
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_burrito
Two key technologies that made the San Francisco burrito possible are
the large flour tortilla and tortilla steamers, which together
increase the flexibility, stretch, and size of the resulting tortilla.
The tortilla steamer saturates the gluten-heavy tortilla with moisture
and heat, which increase the capacity of the tortilla to stretch
without breaking. This in turn allows for the size of the San
Francisco burrito. Corn tortillas, the original indigenous
pre-Columbian form of the tortilla, cannot achieve either the size or
the flexibility of the flour tortilla, and thus cannot be used to make
a San Francisco burrito. A few San Francisco taquerias grill the
tortillas instead of steaming them, using heat and oil instead of
steam; and a few grill the finished product before the final step of
wrapping it in aluminum foil.
The aluminum foil wrapping, which is present whether the customer is
eating in the restaurant or taking out, acts as a structural support
to ensure that the tortilla does not rupture. One of the main
difficulties of the San Francisco burrito is the issue of structural
integrity, but skilled burrito makers consistently produce huge
burritos that do not burst when handled or eaten. A successful large
burrito depends on an understanding of the outer limit of potential
burrito volume, correct steam hydration, proper wrapping/folding
technique, and assuring that excess liquid has been removed from the
burrito ingredients prior to inclusion.
I'm going to second the steaming!
Bull-honkey on the steamers part. All you need is a comal (a.k.a. griddle) for the cooking, and later, re-heating part.
The reason your toritllas get hard after day 1 is due to the baking powder. I know you're saying "but I need that to rise or get soft and chewy". Again bull-honkey.
I make awesome "mission" style tortillas on an every-other-week basis and I use NO baking powder, steamers, nor butter.
I do use, [whole wheat] flour, olive oil, warm water and salt, and that's it. Ingredients aren't enough though, it's prep that ties it all together. You need to let the dough autolyse is the trick. Combine flour and water (into dough mass) and let rest covered for 20-30 mins. then add oil and salt, kneading slightly again to combine. Make dough balls, flatten, roll, toss on a super hot griddle for 30-60 seconds each side (each side needs to bubble, if this doesn't happen or takes too long to happen, you're griddle's not hot enough, you'll end up making a cracker), and BAM! ready to eat, or store in air tight bags for later (refridge)
for the record, yes, I'm hispanic (have 5 kids). I eat habanero salsa. I'm authentic. the above is authentic.
Your welcome
My aunt users my grandmother's recipe and they are the thickest most pliable and delicious tortillas I've ever had, similar to the texture and taste of Taco Cabana but thicker and tastier and she would laugh at the thought of using a steamer.
I'm in total agreement with the the comment above starting with: "Bull-honkey" though my aunt does use some baking powder. She's always told me that if you want them pliable then you have to knead the dough.
Good luck!
Here is a great video on making soft tortillas....the secret is the kneading, resting, and the extra kneading when dividing the dough into dough balls. Best wishes to all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W-KWRcC7DE&t=0s
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
This recipe I use:
4 c flour
1/2 c lard ( kind in green and white small or lg tubs) Manteca
1 1/2 c hot water
Tsp salt
1-2 tsp baking powder
Add dry ingredients together n mix
Add lard and mix by hand until flour looks like sandy texture
Add third of water and knead in then add another third water ,knead again then keep kneading til big doughy ball
Cover with damp towel and let sit 15 mins
Regular sized tortillas use golf sized dough ball
If want bigger tortilla use bigger sized dough ball
If wanting soft tortillas for next day make sure to wrap securely and put in fridge. If not soft when take out. Microwave few 6-9 seconds for single tortilla and should be soft as new.
You are using too little water and too little baking powder in your formula. Now you use 31% water (on flour) and you should use about 70%. Also, double or triple the baking powder.
Athanasios.
I think you are looking for a Sonoran style tortilla. You'll need to use more fat to get them that thin. Here's a recipe you might try.
https://ladyandpups.com/2021/05/13/paper-thin-soft-chewy-sonoran-style-flour-tortilla/
Steaming your tortilla is the best way. (Just like Chipotle)
I use flour, salt, baking powder, lard or crisco, warm water. Mine stay
soft till the next day and more if any left over. This is the old way and I am hispanic. I also love to add Rosemary to mine at times depending what
I am putting in it. Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.168274
| 2012-08-29T15:54:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25910",
"authors": [
"Anima",
"Brian",
"Colleen Shields",
"Jill Owen",
"Pat Sommer",
"bob1",
"derobert",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99650",
"lemontwist",
"paul",
"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
}
|
19697
|
Is there a salt antidote?
Possible Duplicate:
How to fix food that got extra salty?
Is there any way to resurrect a dish if you put too much salt into it ? I know you could double up all other ingredients to dilute the salt, but if you don't have this option is there anything that tends to counteract salt ?
Yep - looks like a dupe. I'd vote to close but not delete (if I could) so people searching for "too much salt" will find their way to that question (which only shows up if searching "too salty")
Depending on the exact dish, a possible solution I have found (and tried) is to add potatoes to the dish, leave for a while (30 mins or so) then remove. They are meant to absorb the salt somewhat. It didnt work for me however.
What is the dish you are having problems with? If it is something with a sauce (e.g. Stew) I have before had to strain it to remove some sauce and then add more stock/water to dilute it back down to your desired consistency.
… "it didn't work for me however". Then why are you recommending it? It doesn't actually work for anyone...
@derobert: I've made something like this work. You end up with about twice as much stew by the time you're done though.
@Joshua right, you can always add more of everything else (or even just one other thing), and dilute it out. Add enough potatoes, and eventually it won't be too salty (of course, it won't be much else, other than potatoes).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.168962
| 2011-12-16T09:45:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19697",
"authors": [
"Acinonyx",
"Gabby",
"Joshua",
"Kevin",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42941",
"malyshev",
"timhortons",
"user1952500",
"user42941"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26055
|
Why should I add salt to my curries?
I've been advised by a friend of mine that I have to add salt to my curries if I want the spices to come out and not leave me with a bland curry.
Now after being a doubter, as I never add salt to my food (for flavour reasons), I tried once or twice with various curries and after getting the amount right, it worked! I can kind of imagine the salt ions binding with some chemicals in the spice to aid it's solubility, but I'm not sure.
Why is adding salt so important for curries? I've read this but it doesn't seem to say anything about spices.
To clarify:
When I have added salt to my food as I cook that didn't have spices in (but did say have garlic, herbs, meat juices etc.), I haven't tasted a difference.
When I have made spiced meals (Curries, Tagines etc) with pre prepared spices and I've added salt I have noticed a marked difference.
It's not specific to curries.
@Jefromi ...ok then 'My Spiced Dishes'.
Theoretically this is a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12204/why-does-salt-taste-different-in-different-dishes (salt enhances basically all flavor) but the answers there don't explain a lot.
That deals with a comparison of salt and a herb. This is about the combination of salt and spices. Not a duplicate, I don't think.
To be clear I'm not voting to close, but they are essentially asking for the same thing. You're asking "why do I put salt in dishes", which assuming you know it enhances flavors, is the same as asking why it does that. The other question did use an herb as a reference, but note that it says "salt changes the flavor of tomato, potato, and pasta in completely different ways" - so essentially it is asking why it enhances all flavors. (Relatedly, why don't you add it to anything, even in small quantities?)
@Jefromi I don't know, I've never felt it makes things taste better I guess.
I agree with @Jefromi, it's not specific to curries. Its really just a personal choice to add or not to add salt to your meals and how your palette responds to it.
@Divi from my personal experience I'd argue it was specific to spiced dishes.
Really, so you don't use salt when grilling vegetables or a steak? What about bread, or baked goods? Is there anything that doesn't taste bland without salt?
@Aaronut nope, though I rarely bake bread. I don't find things taste bland without salt, and if they do adding salt normally just makes it salty.
Your experience with the curry is normal. Salt helps bring out and enhance existing flavors. This is true for everyone, as far as I know. Different people have different sensitivities, and want different amounts, but the effect is the same. Given that you thought the curry tasted better with it, I wouldn't be surprised if you should also be adding salt to other things - maybe just not as much as recipes typically call for.
Curries tend to use some spices with a relatively bitter taste component, and salty and bitter are generally recognized as two taste dimensions that balance out. The salt helps to compensate the bitterness so the aromatic aspects of these spices are showcased. Pre-ground spices and spice mixes tend to be more stale than spices freshly ground or used whole, so the bitterness is stronger relative to the aromatic potency, requiring more balancing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.169124
| 2012-09-08T11:05:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26055",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AncientSwordRage",
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46384
|
How do I stop my pans from boiling over?
Yesterday the wife and I decided to boil some potatoes in a normal non-stick pan.
We added salt, potatoes and boiling water. We put this on an electric hob, with no lid at maximum heat (marked at 6, which is ~10 times hotter than our 5 setting. From experience, the remaining settings decrease operating temperature linearly). When come to the boil we cover with a lid.
Almost immediately they boil over, spilling water across the hob. We remove the pan from heat, remove the lid, put the pan back on heat, turn down to setting 3, and wait. Once at the lower temperature, we replace lid. The pan boils over.
I know the basic mechanism behind boiling over. Some agent increases the surface tension of the bubbles, causing many bubbles to form and then boil over. I am guessing that it is the starch. I don't know what factor the lid plays, as occasionally the pan boils over without the lid on.
Is there anything I can do? Are the pans not clean enough? Not enough/too much salt? Wrong type of salt?
I've heard of the wooden spoon trick, but I actually want to tackle the root cause. Plus most of my spoons are silicone, and the trick doesn't work with them.
So what can I do to prevent boiling over?
highly related (if not duplicitive) : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7909/67
Water boils and turns into steam. As more water boils more and more steam is produced and the pressure builds up. When there is enough pressure, the lid lifts ever so slightly letting the steam out. When this hot steam hits the rather cold air outside some of it turns back into water. To continue boiling under these conditions turn the temperature of the hob lower and have it boil more slowly or even simmer or get one of those lids that has an opening you can open and close by turning the lid handle clockwise.
I'm 7 years too late to this question, but why in all that time did no-one question the size of the pan or how full it was?
You are doing precisely the opposite of 'normal' procedure, which is to put the lid on the pan until the water starts boiling, then remove the lid (either partially or completely) to prevent boiling over. A reduction in the hob temperature will also probably be necessary, and is in any case desirable - mercilessly boiling any vegetable is rarely a good thing.
With the lid off, heat is lost at the top of the pan at a rate which is usually sufficient to prevent boiling over. With the lid on, much of the heat is retained, which A) helps the water come up to a boil quicker and B) causes it to boil over much more easily.
See this answer for more information.
I never did understand why more people didn't just reduce the temperature ... once it's boiling, there's no need to keep the heat on high.
@pureferret I agree with this answer that the root cause is that you are using way too much heat. If your second-highest setting is too low to cook the food through (which I doubt - I sometimes bring potatoes to a boil, then remove them from the plate and they cook through nevertheless), try a combination of cooking in a Dutch oven (which you heat on the high setting) and cooking less food at once. But seriously, if your second highest setting cannot keep at least 85 Celsius in a normal sized pot of potatoes, you will spare yourself much kitchen grief if you replace it.
Besides temperature adjustments or stirring, in the case of boiling starches in water (pasta, potatoes, etc.), you can add a little bit of oil to mess with the formation of the bubbles. This won't help if you've got a rolling boil, but will give you a better safety margin when you're closer to a simmer.
Place any wooden-handled utensil into or across the top of the pot. It doesn't necessarily have to be a spoon, just something wood (metal or plastic won't pop the bubbles as they're too smooth; placing it across the top might not pop them in time, but if the utensil isn't heat-safe, it's a last resort.
You can also try a splatter screen across the top of the pot (again, to break the bubbles).
For milk, there's a device that you place in the bottom of the pot to help dissipate large bubbles called a milk watcher. I've never used one myelf, but there's an answer to a similar question suggesting it works for pasta, too.
Note : for the wooden item-trick ... it needs to be raw wood. This will not work if the wood has a smooth, finished surface. (I have a wooden ladle like that)
Other answers have suggested taking off the lid when your pot boils, lowering the temperature, stirring, the wooden spoon trick, and adding fat (oil). These are all helpful suggestions, but one special case comes to mind that's worth mentioning. That case would be cooking rice in an inexpensive rice cooker, of the type that's vented through the lid and has no real temperature control. They look like this:
If the contents of the bowl produce a lot of bubbles, they can block the vent. When the vent is blocked:
Air doesn't escape as quickly, so there's more pressure and less cooling;
Lack of temperature control combined with the above means the bowl gets hotter;
Hotter bowl creates more bubbles.
End result can be a pretty big mess as the bubbles start to leak out through the lid and around the rim. You can get a surprisingly big puddle on your countertop this way, and water overflowing on an electric appliance is never a good idea.
But with the rice cooker, you can't really take the lid off or it won't cook right. So you can't use the spoon trick or stir to break up the bubbles, either. And there's no way to control the temperature on these models. The one thing that does help is adding fat, but sometimes you don't want to add fat or it's not helping enough.
So, what can you do to stop this other than cook several smaller batches or buy a bigger/more expensive rice cooker?
The answer is simple: rinse your rice thoroughly. This is specifically a problem with white rice because of all the loose starch that's formed during the milling process, when the bran and germ (the parts that remain in brown rice) are removed. Depending on the type of white rice, more or less starch might be created; depending on the brand, more or less might remain on the packaged product. This loose starch essentially turns the water in the cooker into a thin paste, which bubbles like crazy. If the rice is starchy enough you can even have issues with the cooker half full (or less).
If you prefer the texture of the un-rinsed white rice, you could try only rinsing it a little; otherwise, you want to rinse until the water runs reasonably clear.
Of course, you wouldn't want to rinse arborio rice for a risotto, but if you're making risotto in a rice cooker I think we have bigger problems that need to be addressed...
When a liquid is boiling, putting more heat energy into it doesn't make it get hotter: it just makes it boil (i.e., turn to a gas) faster. Putting the lid on means that heat leaves the pan more slowly, which has the same effect of putting heat in more quickly: it makes the pan boil faster.
The fastest way to get the water boiling is on high heat with the lid on. (Actually, if you have an electric kettle, it's usually faster to boil the water in that and then transfer it to the pan.) Once the pan of water is boiling, turn the heat down and, if necessary, take the lid off or partly off. Turn the heat down as far as you can while still keeping the water boiling (i.e., with bubbles of steam forming throughout the water, not just at the bottom). Anything higher than that is just wasting energy, filling your kitchen with steam and encouraging your pan to boil over. Be careful with electric hobs, which often respond rather slowly to changes in setting: it might take quite some time for the hob to react to you turning the heat down from high so you might want to turn it down a bit before the water comes to a boil.
Pans of starchy food do tend to boil over even on relatively low heat if you have a lid on. Rinsing the food before boiling this helps, as does putting a little oil in the water – a teaspoon or so is usually fine.
Worth noting that while you can't make the boiling liquid hotter, you can definitely make the container hotter, which can help keep the liquid above boiling temperature as you add cooler ingredients. (Not to mention things stuck to the bottom of the pot - you can heat those up real good!)
This work very well for most foods. Grease a 1 to 2 inch ring around the top inside lip of the pot with either oleo, butter, crisco etc. I always use this when cooking rice, oatmeal, grits, potatoes etc. This causes the bubbles or liquid to fold back into the pot. However nothing will work unless you reduce the heat to the correct level. Any thing above the boiling point of the contents will wildly escape as steam. The temperature will not rise above this point.
Never remove the cap from a boiling car radiator. This reduces the boiling point from some point well above 212 degrees to 212 degrees. The excess heat erupts from the radiator resulting in severe burns. This is the same principle as cooking on too high of a heat setting. The heat has just gotta go.
Been there done that.
I had this problem while steaming lobsters where the whole point is to keep the lid on. I solved it by sprinkling black pepper which is buoyant over the surface of the foam. The pepper did not effect the flavor in this case. After doing this the foam was kept to a minimum whiles still retaining efficient steam. Hope this helps.
Why not use a bigger pan?
If the pan is less than two thirds full, you should bring the contents to the boil, then turn it down and as the water boils it will cool as it fills the larger space and drop back into the pan and not boil over.
I don't know why this ended up at the bottom of the pile with a downvote. This is one aspect not covered by any of the other answers & pretty much the next-most obvious after "turn down the ring". Pan too full, pan boil over. Pretty simple.
So the answer is...YOU CAN'T STOP YOUR PAN FROM BOILING OVER WITH A LID ON - even on minimum heat!
I wonder why we got flags for deleting this answer. It seems to address the question - "you can't" is a valid answer to "how do I".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.169422
| 2014-08-14T07:15:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46384",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Fuad Mat Som",
"Air",
"Couverture AS - 95",
"Jenny Eads",
"Joe",
"Marek",
"Mary Banda",
"Nuno Rodrigues",
"Shond Glover",
"Tetsujin",
"Valda R.",
"arunjit jolly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"unom"
],
"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
}
|
89311
|
Can Thermomix(-style) appliances knead dough well?
I make italian-style pizza, by kneading the dough in a bread machine. The machine does a very good job (it works it for around 45 minutes), much better than I could do with my hands, and using a pizza stone oven, I can make a pizza that is very close to a traditional one.
Now, I was evaluating the purchase of a Thermomix-style appliance, so I was wondering - can such machines knead dough well?
(Note that I searched on the internet, but the most common type of home-made pizza is the thick one; I'm interested instead in the results for the traditional italian one - a few mm thick)
A dough hook in a machine can do a very good job of kneading (e.g. in my Kenwood - though I make pizza dough in the breadmaker because of the controlled proving temperature). You may have to optimise your recipe but I believe your question can be treated as a more general "can a thermomix knead dough well?"
German article about different kneading appliances: https://www.ploetzblog.de/2015/05/13/von-klebern-krume-und-knetern-sechs-knetmaschinen-im-praxistest/
In short: Thermomix is okay but leads to a warmer dough than others because of the motor being placed right below the bowl.
Others knead from above, so the dough stays cooler. Cooler dough means more time to proof, means more taste in your bread.
If you want your appliance mainly for kneading, there are better alternatives. He recommends the Kenwood Major or Kenwood Cooking Chef. The Cooking Chef has the advantage of a heating element (like the Thermomix), which is useful for special baking stuff like a "Malzstück" (malt-piece?, introduces a malty taste and needs cooking for longer time on a precise temperature).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.170268
| 2018-04-21T09:41:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89311",
"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
}
|
23929
|
What "Is" Barbeque or "BBQ"?
Possible Duplicate:
What styles of barbeque exist in American cuisine?
There are many different techniques, practices and (of course) sauces that are given the label "Barbeque" (or BBQ, or Bar-B-Q, or....).
What are the various styles of BBQ, and what distinguishes them?
What (if anything) is/are the common threads that tie them all together?
No matter what answers you get below, the true nature of BBQ is drinking beer while cooking stuff outside over hot coals.
which is a question you did not answer....
Delicious. BBQ is delicious. Often, crappy meat made INTO something delicious.
You question has a short answer to it.
Barbeque - What you do on a gas or charcoal grill
BBQ - shredded, pulled or sliced pork, lamb or beef seasoned with a hot pepper and vinegar , mustard based, tomato based or mayo based sauce.
For more on BBQ the BBQ song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ubTQfr_tyY
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.170428
| 2012-05-23T04:22:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23929",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"Annemiek",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"Mary",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"evereveron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"phooji",
"user2533577"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109467
|
is Doubanjiang (Szechuan hot bean paste) an acceptable substitute in recipes calling for Doenjang (Korean fermented bean paste)?
I have a LOT of Doubanjiang taking up valuable space right now. I wanted to make some Ssamjang which calls for Doenjang.
Even the names are remarkably similar...
The two have almost nothing in common, beyond being fermented and pastes (though doubanjiang is only sort of paste-like). The ingredients (broad beans and chilies versus soybeans) and the taste are very different.
That’s not to say that you’re not allowed to make a sauce for your ssam with doubanjiang, of course. But one is not a straightforward substitute for the other.
+1 because this is accurate. To add some stuff: miso paste is similar in texture to doenjang. The flavor is very different again, but that's the closest comparison I can think of. Also, based on the title of the question, it seems like OP's doubanjiang might contain chilis... doenjang is 100% non-spicy.
Good point... I was trying to get at why they were different despite both being “bean paste” but I’ll reword.
So, normally ssamjang calls for both doenjang (which is generally, but not always, not spicy), and gochujang (which is spicy). Presumably you'd be substituting your doubanjiang for both of those things, not just one of them, since it has both beans and chilis.
You'll also encounter three other differences: generally doubanjiang is looser than the Korean pastes -- it's more of a mixture than a paste, with lots of free oil. It's also both spicier and saltier than either Korean sauce.
That said, I'd bet that a sauce made with doubanjiang, green and white onion, sesame seeds, sesame oil, and honey, would actually be pretty good, even if it would taste substantially different from Korean standard. So it's a question of whether you're looking for a real Korean flavor, or just a tasty hot sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.170558
| 2020-07-05T05:26:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109467",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120268
|
What is the proper way to make a fruit purée?
When making a fruit purée, specifically raspberry, to be used as a filling or a layer for cakes or chocolates, what is the proper way to do this?
Should the berries be cooked? Should the cooking occur before or after straining the seeds? Should a food processor be used before removing the seeds? Should acid or sugar or pectin be added to the purée?
How does this change for other fruits like strawberries? Blueberries?
The proper way is the one described in the recipe you are making.
All of the variations you listed above will give you a fruit puree, for any berry (or even other fruit) you choose. The purees will of taste differently depending on how you make them, but none of them is somehow less "proper" than the other.
It is the recipe author's job to choose a preparation method in which the puree's texture and taste harmonizes best with the rest of the recipe. So, just follow it, and you will get the intended result.
There are two cases in what you listed in which the combination of preparation steps could be problematic (so if you see it in a recipe, you should choose another recipe). First, if you have small seeds (such as a raspberry or blackberry) and need a seedless puree, but use a bladed implement like a food processor or a blender before straining. In that case, you will most likely end up with sharp seed pieces that are left in after straining, defeating the purpose of a seedless puree. Second, thickeners need the correct conditions to work. As you listed pectin, you have to make sure that you are within the correct ratios of sugar and acidity for the type of pectin you are using, and you have to warm the puree to the needed temperature. With other thickeners, you have to again ensure that their requirements are met.
Thank you for the information. What's the taste or texture difference between uncooked and cooked purees? Also does cooking with the seeds change anything about the finished product? I'm thinking about this because I know that in french clafoutis cooking the cherries with the pits still in lends a vanilla like flavour to the finished dish.
The texture difference is that the cooked puree is always softer. The difference in taste is that raw puree tastes closer to the original fruit than cooked. I am not aware of any general flavor effect of cooking the seeds along; if you want to know it for a specific fruit, you will have to make it into its own question (one per fruit). Personally, I am also wary of the whole flavor-note-language, I find its usefulness very limited - but maybe somebody will be able to provide a consistent description.
I don't think there is a "proper way". At it's most basic, a fruit purée is just mashed/puréed raw fruit.
If there are seeds, and you don't like them, then push the fruit through a sieve. If the berries are too tough to easily push through a sieve, then cook them a little first. If the berries are too tart, add some sugar. If you don't mind the seeds, then blending may be OK.
Cooking/boiling fruit and adding sugar, pectin and acid, is what you would do to make a jam or preserve, which is a different thing really. Usually much sweeter, and these usually set at room temperature, and are often quite sticky, and can last for a long time as the sugar and acid preserves the fruit. You might not need to go as far as this for a cake filling, but ultimately it depends what you want. There's no rule that says you can't use jam for a cake filling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.170738
| 2022-04-07T16:58:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120268",
"authors": [
"CoinsWorth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98667",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30340
|
what happens when one mixes flour into batter?
I have been mixing quite a bit of batter lately for various recipes, and I continue to see the same behaviour:
The flour clumps together as soon as it hits the fluid (beit milk, water, or anything else); using a sieve to sift the flour doesn't seem to matter;
Mixing longer does not make the clumps dissolve;
Adding more flour up to a critical amount while mixing will, all of a sudden, cause the clumps to grind apart and dissolve, mixing with the fluid, and create smooth batter.
This has led me to imagining that it's the grinding of the flour particles against each other that causes the smoothing of the batter, more than anything else, and that the mixing helps that effect.
Is this hypothesis correct? Or is there something else going on, that I missed?
I have given some general background in the answer below, but for more specific information about your application, you should provide your measurements and method.... the ratio of flour to liquid, temperature, other ingredients, how you treat them... all of these things play a role.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22648/why-do-some-powders-clump-in-hot-water/22650#22650 on why flour clumps.
Many, many things happen when flour flour is mixed into batter. From your description, though, it sounds like you are interested in what leads to and relieves clumping.
When water (whether it is just plain water, in milk, in juice, or whatever) and flour are mixed, the water will begin to expand and penetrate the starch granules in the flour. The starch will swell, and become sticky.
Now, imagine a small clump of flour, with water penetrating from the outside. The outside surface of the flour clump will swell up as the starches become staturated with water. They are also sticky, so they tend to not separate--the surface sticky flour tends to stick to its neighbors and the flour on the inside.
Once the outside surface of the clump is saturated with water, it is very hard for more water to penetrate the clump, so it tends to persist.
The main way to mitigate this clumping is to stir vigorously, immediately upon introducing the flour and liquid. This will tend to distribute the flour particles throughout the liquid before significant swelling occurs. This is why when making a flour slurry, you whisk or beat it quite briskly right away.
Additionally, slowly over time, water will also penetrate the clumps, slowly swelling and hydrating the starches in the center, but then you tend to have quite sticky lumps, like in lumpy gravy, and those are nearly impossible to dissolve, so you don't want that to happen. Immediate agitation is the key.
In the batter you describe, it is probably the additional mixing more than the the additional flour that relieves the clumping. You have said that it doesn't happen until the flour is added, but it may be that the additional volume just makes your mixer more efficient since it has more to work with.
Still, nothing is simple. If you have a lot of water, and a little flour, stirring easily creates a slurry without lumps.
If you have a much larger ratio of flour to water, there isn't enough water to make a liquid phase, and so you get clumps. Within limits, over time, the water will distribute itself throughout the flour phase, and you will get a continuous mass of dough. This is what happens (ignoring the effects of shortening for flakiness) in a pie dough, for example, which is quite dry. It needs the resting time for the water to hydrolyze the starches, and spread evenly throughout, so what you have is one moderately hydrated clump, as it were.
This is only a the tip of the iceberg of complexity that is just flour and water. The ratio, the temperature, the type of flour, the way it is treated all matter.
The interaction of starch and water is only one important interaction.
Another very important and complex interaction is the formation of glutin (a strong, stretchy protein that forms the primary structure in yeast-raised breads, among may other things) over time in the presence of water, and with agitation (as in kneading bread).
Thank you for your extended explanations! You did interpret my description as I had intended. You've given me some ideas about what to test next. Yes, mostly I've been using more liquid than flour, and I've been using them in various quantities depending on the recipe, so exact times of mixing and ingredient ratios differ from one batch to the next, but the observed behaviour seems to be a constant.
While I appreciate the implied compliment, you might want to wait and see if other folks provide more and interesting information.
Assuming you are making what I'd know as batter (for pancakes, waffles, yorkshire puddings, or batter for deep-frying): Don't add flour to batter..... it goes lumpy due to the reasons @SAJ14SAJ has stated; you should be starting with flour and making batter. If you need to add extra flour to thicken batter I'll address that at the end.
To make lump free batter: Sift the flour into a big bowl, make a dip in the flour in the center of the bowl. Add any eggs first one at a time. Crack the egg into the center of the dip start mixing slowly just moving the egg around so small bits of flour dissolve in it to a paste when it gets really thick add the next egg. Once all the eggs are added you may have only combined half the flour and you'll have a thin paste in the middle of flour.
Start adding the rest of the liquid a tiny bit at a time still working your way out to bring the flour into the paste until all the flour is combined. Once this has happened continue adding the liquid to thin the paste to a batter.
If you have batter and need to add more flour to thicken it; put the flour in a cup or small bowl add a tiny bit of batter to make the thin paste add a bit more batter to thin the paste further, keep adding slowly until you have a lump free thick liquid then stir this into the main body of the batter.
I know this isn't as interesting as SAJ14SAJ's answer and isn't really looking at the science but there isn't really an issue if you do the whole thing the other way around.
Exactly right. I'm surprised the recipes @OmegaJunior follows don't explain this. Flour in first. Liquids in gradually.
The well method applies to pasta and some pastry. There are other methods that also work in other scenarios, such as the creaming method for cakes or cookies, or the muffin method for quickbreads.
@SAJ14SAJ Unless qualified by something else, I think "batter" means pancake, waffle, yorkshire pudding, or batter for deep-frying -- all of which are basically the same recipe, and for which I would use the well method.
@slim I have seen many recipes for pancakes and waffles which insist on adding the flour to the liquid ingredients and not the other way round. And even more cake recipes - and I would certainly say "batter" when I am talking about an not-yet-baked cake.
Is this another American/British thing? Batter to me in the UK doesn't have any (significant) fat in as @slim said pancake, waffle, yorkshire pudding, or batter for deep-frying. Cake before it's baked I'd call cake mixture..... The much higher viscosity and the fat means that the flour can be folded into these without clumping.
Of course, with the well method, even though all the flour goes into the bowl first, you're really gradually adding flour to the liquid -- by gradually pulling small amounts of flour from the edge of the well into your liquid mixture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.171044
| 2013-01-24T01:47:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30340",
"authors": [
"8 bits are awesome",
"Billy",
"Brandy isadora",
"Khang T",
"OmegaJunior",
"Peter Smith",
"RHONDA G COHEN",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70902",
"kindlin",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33597
|
Does acidity negate double-acting baking powder?
As described here, most common baking powders contain two acids, one that reacts to moisture, and one that mostly reacts when heated. Does that mean that if my dough is already acidic (and has no baking soda to neutralize said acid), all the baking soda in the baking powder will get used up when mixed with the wet ingredients, leaving none for the second reaction during heating?
If so, what rules can I follow to make sure that my dough/batter has a neutral pH and will therefore get that second rise? How much baking soda would be needed to neutralize certain amounts of acidic ingredients like buttermilk, sour cream, cocoa, honey, vinegar, lemon juice, molasses, etc?
EDIT: I'm using Magic Baking Powder by Kraft Canada, which consists of cornstarch, monocalcium phosphate, and sodium bicarbonate.
The short answer to your question is YES. The extra acid in the ingredients will hamper the second act of the double acting baking powder. The acids are timed/staged for reaction not the baking soda.
The Magic Baking Powder (happens to be in our kitchen, too) is mostly a single acting formula since monocalcium-phosphate is a low temperature acid (with apparently some double acting properties due to generation intermediate step of dicalcium phosphate; per your link). High temperature acid for second acts typically include sodium aluminium sulfate, sodium aluminum phosphate and sodium acid pyrophosphate.
You can try to counteract that by adding a bit of baking soda, but you run the risk of altering the taste and not having it all neuralized.
If you really want to get pedantic, use a pH meter to measure the acidity of your dough. I suspect tasting the dough might give an indication as well. (bitter alkaline, sour acidic)
Another test might be to mix your acidic ingredients in a bowl with some water and start adding measured baking soda until you see no more reaction (bubbles) and use that as a your basic of neutralizing your dough.
All said and done, I agree with SAJ14SAJ that you'll be just fine going with the existing recipe. There should be enough baking soda left to get something out of your double act. I also heard it from a world-class baker that most recipes can be done with only baking soda, let alone baking powder or double acting ones.
I wouldn't rely too much on tasting. Sugar will cover both the sour taste of the acid and the soapy taste of the base.
@rumtscho yes it does, and thanks for pointing it out. hopefully roughly equally on both sides and enough to give a hint.
I also found this: http://www.clabbergirl.com/faq.php: "Due to the nature of how this acid [monocalcium phosphate] releases carbon dioxide gas with sodium bicarbonate in the presence of moisture, two-thirds of the available gas is released within approximately two minutes. It then becomes dormant at room temperature due to the generation of an intermediate form of dicalcium phosphate during the initial mixing. This stage of the reaction contains only one hydrogen ion and requires the catalyst of heat above 140 degrees F. in the batter." But the extra acid will still use the alkaline I expect.
@Hinrik nice find. I've updated the answer to note that monocalcium phosphate is a low temperature acid.
More technically, baking powder reacts a basic ingredient or alkali with an acidic ingredient. The reaction is enabled by the presence of water or heat. In a double acting baking powder, the 2nd reaction requires a certain amount of heat to be triggered, but it is still a reaction between an acid and a base.
So the limiting factor is whichever of the acidic or basic ingredient there is less of.
For example, if you added more lemon juice to a quick bread based on baking powder, there would just be a surplus of acid. If you add more baking soda to a balanced bread, there would be an excess of base (which would also taste a little metallic, as baking soda tends to).
However, there is no need to get the two ingredients perfectly balanced; that is just an incorrect supposition. Many or even most baked goods are probably a little bit acidic from fruit, buttermilk, or other ingredients, even after they are baked. If you look at a chart showing the pH of common ingredients, you will see that most are slightly acidic, such as flour and butter, even when you wouldn't expect it.
Update:
Per Harold McGee in On Food and Cooking, 2004 edition, pp. 535:
A rule of thumb for balancing baking soda and acid is 1/2 teaspoon of baking soda to:
1 cup of fermented milk
1 teaspoon lemon juice or vinegar
1 1/4 teaspoons cream of tartar
I'm not sure whether you answered the question. My concern is the 2nd reaction. Yes, it's still the same kind of reaction between an acid and a base. But if, as I posited earlier, the batter is already quite acidic (and includes no baking soda) before the 1st reaction happens, won't the 1st reaction use up all the alkalines in the baking powder, leaving nothing left for the 2nd reaction to happen? If true, then baking powder won't behave any differently than pure baking soda in particularly acidic recipes from a leavening standpoint (aside from requiring more of it).
You will be fine... almost all recipes have an excess of acid.
But how does that work? It would make sense to me if it were the alkalines in the baking powder which would only react when heated. As long as there's more acid left in the batter, what would prevent all the alkalines in the baking powder from reacting when exposed to moisture? Why would there be anything left for the 2nd reaction?
That is an interesting question, and I am having hard time finding the exact chemical constituents of a particular baking powder--and the thing is, they all vary. Still, I can tell you from 30 years of experience, in practice it is not an issue, even if it should be in theory. What brand of baking powder (from what country) are you using?
I'm not having any issues with the recipes I'm using, it's just something I've been wondering about. I've been using Magic Baking Powder by Kraft Canada, which is composed of corn starch, monocalcium phosphate, and sodium bicarbonate. Don't know the exact ratios, though.
The first reaction is chemical in both.There are no more bubbles formed in baking powder vs baking soda but the corn starch combined with water in baking powder coats the bubbles if you will,by creating a less porous membrane allowing the gasses to expand more,therefore more body, when introduced to heat.
oh wow, how did you learn about that? Is there an article online that would give me more information?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.171777
| 2013-04-18T16:40:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33597",
"authors": [
"Hinrik",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"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
}
|
30671
|
pieces of wood in cinnamon
I recently bought some organic cinnamon (not ground, broken pieces for a hand mill) and saw what looks like pieces of wood in the mix (they don't have the same color as the rest of the pieces). Is this normal and/or safe, or should I return the product?
Well cinnamon is bark.
As Megasaur said, the spice cinnamon (or often, cassia, which is quite similar) is the inner bark of a tree. As a natural product, there is going to be some variation in the color in any case.
I would look quite closely at the texture and grain of the differently colored pieces compared to the more normal pieces. If they show the same pattern or structure, you probably just have normal color variation. If they are substantially different, then perhaps the product should be discarded or returned--or just those pieces picked out.
The purpose of this inspection, such as it is (and I am not botanical expert) is try to determine if the different pieces are still the inner bark, and not something else. I would suggest only buying spices from a reputable source in the future.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.172299
| 2013-02-04T08:05:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30671",
"authors": [
"Colton",
"Green Grasso Holm",
"High Plains Grifter",
"Irfan Uygur",
"Megasaur",
"Patt aA",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71740",
"soda machine Prince"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36755
|
How does mixing different kinds of beers/liquors mask the taste of alcohol?
Some time ago, I was at a college party where my friend gave me some horrifying concoction of various liquors, and he asked me to try it. As I'd expected, it was absolutely foul- until he added a splash of beer. Naturally, I was skeptical...up until I tasted it. I couldn't taste ANY alcohol whatsoever, just some of the juice he'd used. And since then, I've had quite a few other mixed drinks where the taste of alcohol just disappears.
In general, what is happening (chemically, mechanically, any way) when you mix two different types of alcohol together? Are there any specific tricks to being able to make drinks like that?
Please don't leave comments asking the reason for downvotes. Voting is anonymous for a reason. If a downvoter feels that an explanation is warranted, he or she will leave one.
According to the article Why People Hate Drinking, there is considerable variation in how people perceive the flavor of ethanol:
Some find it is primarily sweet (non-tasters)
Some find it bitter and sweet (average)
Some find it overwhelmingly bitter (super tasters, as defined by sensitivity to tasting a specific compound, PROP or 6-n-propylthiouracil, as bitter)
Depending how people perceive alcohol, it may be easy to mask it, especially with strongly sweet flavors, or when there are other more apparent bitter flavors.
However, this is as much to do with the specific physiology of the taster as it is to do with the contents of the glass. The same drink tasted by different people may give differing experiences.
Beware the Long Island iced tea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.172434
| 2013-09-13T00:53:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36755",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49520
|
Canadian meat/fat "candy"
In the 1970's in Canada (Ontario), I ate this food, it was referred to as "candy". However, it was some sort of fatback/bacon type of stuff (though I don't remember any meat, it was just soft fat inside the crispy outer shell; also I don't remember it as being particularly smokey), that was cut up into bite-sized cubed, and fried until crispy. Is this some type of traditional Canadian dish? What exactly was it made of?
No "canadian-cuisine" tag?!
Eskimo "Squaw Candy" is smoked salmon jerky. Was the Canadian candy an old traditional food of the natives? Or a more modern thing?
I have no reason to believe that it was from the First Nations; plus it came from more southern parts, Ontario specifically.
From what you describe it sounds like čvarci. In the U.S., especially in the south we call them cracklings (or cracklin's). Basically it is what is left from cubing pork fat and rendering the lard out. Makes a quite tasty snack and from what I read was/is a popular delicatessen snack in some areas of Canada. We often make this with fat from a ham or salt fatback.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cvarci for more information.
Sounds like pemmican (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican), originally an aboriginal recipe combining pulverized meat, berries, and rendered fat.
Note that there are many First Nations in southern Ontario.
"The crew had ample provisions-- canned hams, bread, sailor's biscuits, dried fruit and countless cans of pemmican, a staple food made from meat that is dried and ground, then mixed with fat and raisins." from: http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/charles_francis_hall/index.html
Pemmican isn't fried, and it's not mostly fat. It's typically at least 50% dried meat, crushed to bits, then mixed w/ tallow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.172603
| 2014-11-04T21:22:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49520",
"authors": [
"B. B. Booth",
"Beverly Walker",
"Cath Cross",
"Dave",
"Dawn Zick",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Harry Gillen",
"Jennifer Bell",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martha Heck",
"Michael",
"William Staples",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jkmartindale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37809
|
Can you make porridge out of P.A.N. harina?
I don't have proper polenta, but I do have P.A.N. arepa flour, can you successfully make a porridge similar to soft polenta or grits out of this type of cornmeal? What ratio of liquids is required?
You cannot make grits, because by definition, true hominy grits are treated with alkali which is what makes them different than plain cornmeal or polenta.
Searching for harina pan polenta indicates a variety of recipes are possible (most are in Spanish, so I cannot read them). However, it doesn't appear that a porridge type dish is the usual application for this product.
Still, the nature of the product indicates it should work, although the result may be slightly different in texture and flavor from more traditional Italian style polenta, since the harina PAN is precooked before being dried and ground. It should therefore cook up much faster than one made with regular corn meal, analogous to the difference between instant oatmeal and traditional outmeal.
There would be no single ratio of water to grain, however, as polenta can range from a thin porridge to a thick enough to cut into slices and fry. You will have to experiment to find the ratio that you like the best. I would suggest starting out at about 2:1 liquid to harina pan by volume.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.172802
| 2013-10-22T02:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37809",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73459
|
Why did my Creme Brulee end up with lots of oil?
I used a youtube recipe for passion fruit creme brulee. I followed the ingredients and the steps and my creme brulee ended with lots of oil on top of it.
Why did this happen?
EDIT.
My burnt sugar topping was chewy as well, instead of crunchy. Any tips?
Oil, really? Are you sure it was not whey?
It was oily I touched it and it felt like oil, and it was clear and golden.
If the custard over baked, the liquid could have separated from the solid. The creme will look loose, or semi-liquid, when it is removed from the oven after gently baking bain marie (created by the water poured around the ramekins, placed in a larger container). The custard sets during cooling, first on a rack and then in the frig. The sugar may have absorbed the liquid, and became more of a caramel as it was heated, rather than the burnt (brulee) crust.
Agreed. Despite the OP's identification of the liquid as oil, I still think it's whey and he misinterpreted the feel. I now took the time to watch the video, and the recipe is very risky - it takes the cream to 200 F, it uses fruit (acid increases the chances of curdling), it does not give amounts (too little sugar increases the chances of curdling), and worst of all, it suggests baking at 350 F and simply throws in a time assessment (45 min). A cook would have to be quite lucky for this recipe to not split.
@rumtscho; yes, I referenced the recipe on the creator's web site, and had similar thoughts http://www.byrontalbott.com/?s=passion+fruit+creme+brulee
@rumtscho what temperatures are more reasonable for heating the cream and then baking it? is the 200F / 350F too high?
If I may, the classic method has you scald the cream (in saucepan), beat eggs and sugar in a mixer, gently add the hot cream while continuing to beat, add vanilla, pour into ramekins. Into bain marie. Oven at 300 F (150 C, oven mark 2), bake 35-40 minutes. When out of the oven, remove from water bath or it will continue to bake. Search 'classic creme brulee' and try a four-ingredient recipe.
It’s not oil, it’s not whey, it’s the butter fat from the cream which has separated. This happened to me, while delicious on toast, not exactly what you’d like to have on top of your creme brulee. It helps to cook on a gentler heat; lower oven temp and in a water bath. Also helps to cover the individual ramekins with foil and to only turn the oven on the bottom, do not turn the top heating element. Also, check your cream, you want to use homogenized whipping cream; which doesn’t separate as quick as the natural; less processed non homogenization stuff.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.172930
| 2016-08-26T00:44:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73459",
"authors": [
"Fermin Arellano",
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48430",
"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
}
|
39361
|
Why is my sherbet loosing flavour?
I have recently been mixing batches of sherbet using Malic acid, colour, flavouring and granulated sugar. I add all the ingredients and mix it for 10 minutes in a stainless steel drum.
The flavor is very strong to start with, but over a period of 2 weeks it loses all its flavoring.
I am unsure of the reason why, and wonder if anyone could help?
What is the flavouring?
I haven't tried this myself, but this website has some good tips:
"Simple to prepare because all the quality comes from the quality of fruit used: the better the fruit is, the better your sorbet will be. In others words, if you use tasteless fruits, you will have a tasteless sorbet."
"...fruit purées lose their flavour, vitamins and colour quickly in the air. If possible, make the fruit purée in your blender at the last minute, then 30 minutes in the freezer, and finally into the machine"
This website simply states:
"Sorbets are water ices and at their best when freshly made, as they lose flavour in the freezer."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.173177
| 2013-11-11T18:05:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39361",
"authors": [
"888soyjuice",
"Alison",
"Amity Montessori",
"Kevin",
"Mien",
"cnamejj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94368",
"user123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45888
|
Vegetable stock for a vegan gravy
I am vegan. I want to make a vegan gravy sauce but I want to make my own vegetable broth without too much salt. I don't want to use a ready to use vegetable stock and nutritional yeast. How can I add a rich flavor specifically suited to a gravy, with as much umami as possible?
vegetable stock recipes are pretty easy to find on the net, and recipe requests are offtopic here. Is there a specific issue with the recipes you've found that makes them a problem for you?
If I could have found a vegetable stock recipe that will lead to a gravy sauce, I wouldn't have asked.Most of the recipes have ready to use stuff. I was wondering if there was a secret ingredient or a combo that would substitute yeast extract that is usually added ready to use vegan stoks.
Gravy (especially vegetable gravy) is essentially just thickened stock. Use any vegetable stock recipe (and there are thousands online) and thicken it once it is ready with cornstarch/cornflour.
Try using potato starch as your thickener when making the gravy. It gives gives a really nice gravy-ish flavour.
@ElendilTheTall, OK thank you. I didn't know what my aim was supposed to be for a vegan gravy.
A gravy tastes like gravy because it has salt and glutamates, which is what yeast extract has been formulated to deliver. There is no vegan replacement. The only good way to produce glutamates in your kitchen is to sear meat.
You can certainly make a veloute sauce instead of a gravy. It is made from stock and roux. Roux is a combination of fat and starch - the standard is flour with butter, but any fat and any starch works. A veloute sauce has great texture, but the taste is quite bland. You can strengthen the taste by using mushroom stock instead of vegetable stock, use flavored oils (e.g. macadamia nut oil), and herbs and spices. It will develop a complex aromatic profile, but it will stay very far from the rich umami of a gravy. The aromatic oils and fresh herbs also tend to be somewhat expensive.
If you are set on making a gravy, you could use pure MSG instead of the yeast extract. This will give you a very good taste, but I don't know if it will improve your situation. First, MSG is not so easily available, and I don't know if they also offer it in guaranteed animal-free versions. It isn't usually derived from animal products, but as a vegan you are probably sensitive for the possibility of contaminations. Second, if you don't add the salt by yourself, you will still be missing out on taste. This is not that bad by itself, because maybe you are OK with a product which has a higher glutamate to salt ratio than what you can get with yeast extract or bouillon cubes - personal preferences for salt vary. But, if you are avoiding salt, chances are that you are on a low-sodium diet. And MSG is a sodium compound by itself, so you'd have to restrict it too. If that's the case, you're better off using small amounts of yeast extract and living with less taste than combining MSG and salt by yourself.
You could finally try to get umami from plant sources, but this is not so easy. The only two plants in question are tomatoes and mushrooms. Concentrated tomato puree makes great sauces, but they taste like tomato, not like gravy, and there is no way to remove the tomato taste from them. So you're left with mushrooms only, preferably shiitake and relatives. They're OK, but they are mostly water. You'd have to get dehydrated mushroom powder and use it in copious amounts. Because dehydrated mushrooms aren't that smooth, you'll never get a perfectly smooth texture. Your sauce will also be quite expensive. On the upside, the compound in shiitake which gives them their umami taste is not sodium based.
Your last options would be seaweed and wheat-based fake beef flavoring agents. I don't know where you could get hold of seaweed or how you'd have to prepare it, and also whether you can make a gravy with it without a fishy smell. The fake beef flavoring agents are an industrial food additive, I've never heard of it being available for consumers.
I've heard rumors of vegan dashi using mushrooms to replace the fish elements that might be a good base as well: it'd be a combo of your suggestions to use mushroom stock and your suggestion to use seaweed.
One of the health food stores near me has a 'seaweed' section. (I went there looking for Agar once). They had nori and various kelp products (flakes, granules). And you don't have to necessarily put the mushrooms in the gravy -- soak shitake mushrooms in hot water, then decant off the liquid (don't use the stuff at the bottom, as it's gritty). You can use the mushrooms later in something else.
@rumtscho, thanks for yor input, it has been very informative for me. I am on a low-sodium diet and as far I know MSG is a known carcinogen so I'll avoid salt and MSG. Creating umami taste sounds very interesting. However, I can't geld hold of dehydrated mushroom powder in the part of the world I live. The closest tuff that I can get is probably Nori.I was wondering if I can replace seaweed with Nori.
@rumtscho Asian grocer? I know in various parts of SE Asia, we can get Ajinomoto brand MSG in large jars or packets.
You're giving away my secret! I always try to make food for vegans/vegetarians as umami as possible, it tends to send their protein-starved tastebuds wild. MSG is currently produced by a fermentation process, where specific bacteria convert carbohydrates (usually undefined sugar) into amino acids, which are then broken down into free glutamic acid. I've always bought mine at asian markets for the insanely low prices. Many grocery stores in the United States carry msg of either the Aji No Moto or Ac'cent brand, check the spice aisle.
For gravies, I usually make a regular vegetable stock, but I'll throw in a couple of sun dried tomatoes, a handfull of dried mushrooms, and a few inches of kombu. I add nutritional yeast as well for the final gravy, but those three create a lot of umami flavor on their own.
For plant-based umami, one of the often-used seaweeds is "kombu", it's sold for japanese-style broths - one can eve, with a bit of searching, find kombu soup base mix (usually using the name "kombu dashi")... just be sure it's kombu alone for vegans. Easier to look for with a name :)
Mushrooms (esp Shiitake), tahini, tomatoes, miso, gochunjang/doubanjang, furu/sufu, seaweed, (brewed) soy sauces, fermented soybean or wheat pastes, shiitake/shiitake soy sauce can all bring umami (some Types of Doubanjang or fermented tofu might not be vegan, check what brand you use...). The one problem for extreme umami is that it works even better with guanylates/inosinates present, and these are usually only found in animal sources - rumours have it that Golden Mountain sauce, even when containing these - not all variants seem to do, differing ingredient lists..., is vegetarian and uses microbial sources.
Dark gravies might also take advantage of caramel/caramelization/maillard products... which can be achieved by adding, well, caramel or something caramelized.
I used miso as a gravy base earlier this week (for chicken gravy) and it turned out great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.173319
| 2014-07-26T12:04:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45888",
"authors": [
"Dahlia.S",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ernest Thorick",
"Fruit Sugar",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Megasaur",
"Megha",
"Niall",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Suneel Sunny",
"Willk",
"Yamikuronue",
"bdoyle159",
"buttlord",
"chris jeffers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"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
}
|
40644
|
Subs for baking mix/ eggs and condensed milk?
I am trying to make my own protein cookies/bars. This way I know what is in them. I have a good idea on what I can replace oil and eggs with. What I am still unsure of is what to replace the biscuit mix and the sweetened condensed milk with. I don't want to use flour,dairy or sugar.Can anyone help?
I'm guessing you're using a recipe for this since biscuit mix and condensed milk are a bit counter-intuitive for a protein bar with your specifications. The biscuit mix is going to be almost all flour and sugar, and the condensed milk is dairy and sugar. Why not just pick a recipe that doesn't use the ingredients you're avoiding?
Especially if you're trying to avoid flour, it's difficult for people to try to help without seeing the recipe, but really, sourd'oh is right: find a different recipe to start from. If the four big ingredients are things you don't want to eat, it's not a good recipe for you.
I am modifying a peanut butter fudge cookie recipie. It uses biscuit mix for flour. I was going to use almond flour but I am not sure what else in in the biscuit mix such as rising agents that would be missing from the almond flour. changing the normal peanut butter for a high protein mix of Almond and peanut butter and adding some other things to it as well.
Don't try to modify the recipe, unless you're ready to have a lot of failure before you get something you like. Making substitutions for all the main ingredients in a recipe (flour, sugar, dairy/fat) is a good way to make it fail.
Look for recipes for peanut butter protein bars, presumably vegan, gluten-free ones. (I tried searching for vegan gluten-free peanut butter protein bars and found this one - probably at least a good starting point.) Even if you can't find something that meets all your requirements, you can get close, and not have to make as many substitutions.
You can possibly replace the biscuit mix with a gluten-free flour and some leavening, probably in a ratio like you'd use for self-rising flour, 1.5 tsp baking powder per cup of flour, and 1/4 tsp salt. (The biscuit mix may also have a bit of sugar normally, but most of the sweetness in your recipe is from elsewhere, so that shouldn't be an issue.)
For sweetened condensed milk, you can likely use coconut milk (so that there'll be some fat, and it'll be thick) and artificial sweetener to taste.
For eggs, you can try an egg replacer in a carton, or flax or chia eggs (ground flax/chia seed and water). If you've also lost the binding power of the flour, you may end up needing more egg replacement to compensate, or even want to add things like oats help it all hold together.
But with all those substitutions, you're likely to end up with something really far from the original recipe. The texture will likely be pretty far off, if it even holds together. It'll really be best to start with a recipe that's closer to what you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.173955
| 2013-12-28T19:44:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40644",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Neloy Sarothi",
"Nicole",
"SourDoh",
"Victoria Stokes",
"bluelurker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94612",
"peachy",
"web88th1xbit2",
"www1xbit8 spam",
"wwwfun88com13 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9136
|
Proper cow bones to prepare holodets
Holodets blues
Holodets is a typical Eastern Europe recipe. It is is basically a meat aspic, the gelatin being obtained from long boiling the bones and melting the connective tissue-collagen.
I tried to do holodets using cow bones (no pig feet, that one is easier).
My problem is that I can't figure out from the recipes which bone is used. It's mentioned as "hoof", "knee", "leg bone", etc. But there is no photograph and bone names vary from place to place.
I prepared the dish but the collagen content of the bones I used was not enough, so I ended up adding agar-agar, which I know is not needed if the bones are "the correct ones".
Can anyone to help me to identify the bones? A photograph should be the optimal answer!
NB> Please feel free to correct my English
Do bone names really vary that much? The exact bone isn't so important- just that it contains enough collagen. Leg bones, hooves, and joints have a lot.
@Sobachatina I just know that my first test was a failure. I used a short bone from the leg (not sure which one) but without meat ... perhaps the tendons are important.
The tendons are not necessary. If it was a leg bone it should have had enough collagen. I would make sure that you cooked it long enough and didn't use too much water for the amount of bone.
@Sobachatina Ok, I'll try with a femur. Just answering your comment, I cooked my bones for 5 hours and used just enough water to cover them.
The Hungarian name for this is "kocsonya", and I've always despised the stuff. Give me the meat soup (húsleves) warm, please.
@Marti I plan to try that too :)
@Marti also changed "Russian-Polish-Jewish" by "Eastern Europe" ... seems that the dish geographic distribution is very broad.
@Marti- it was an acquired taste.
The Russian lady that taught me how to make Kholodets used a chunk of femur.
She would simmer for at least 5 hours the bone with a good bit of meat still on it. As the broth cooled she would remove the meat from the bone, chop it and put it back into the pot along with a sizeable amount of sliced garlic.
After chilling in the fridge (usually overnight) she would remove the fat that accumulated on top and serve with a very khrenoviy mustard.
I'm sure that a joint would have worked just as well- it just wouldn't have as much usable meat.
I'm sorry I don't have pictures.
Ok. "femur" is decriptive enough :) ... Did she leave the marrow in? I think the marrow will give a dark tint to the broth ...
She did leave the marrow it. Because of the length of the bone it would have been very difficult to get the marrow out.
Was the cartilage still on?
@chris yes, in fact the whole bone "cap" was on and got separated while cooking
I think the cartilage is critical to getting a good gel. That's why they typically call for joints.
@chris, well the short bones I used had two cartilage caps each one, so the relation cartilage/bone was much better than with a femur
@Sobachatina BTW I have khren plants in my garden .... :)
I use, like my mother teached me, some bones named "garrón"in Argentina. She was from Polland. Are the "femur" bones.
I don't use meat, chicken or pig. Only the bones, vegetables and spices. I put the cartilages and tendons, with slice of eggs and "ajo" and over these the soup. It must be cold to be eaten.
Ajá! Y dónde lo comprás?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.174205
| 2010-11-15T12:42:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9136",
"authors": [
"Charlie Farley",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Marti",
"Sarah",
"Sobachatina",
"Softcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72117"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79195
|
Are silicone baking mats safe for heating enchiladas?
So, I had bought a ready meal (I have broken hand) enchilada, something I've never tried before. Instructions says 15 mins at 200c with plastic film lid, then take plastic film lid off and a further 15 mins at 200c. It came in a plastic tray. I never trust plastic so I took them out and put in some foil in a baking tray and that was big mistake as the underside fused to the foil. I got a mushy mess.
I have a silicone baking mat which I have never used. It says heat safe up to 250c on side of box. It seems ideal but I've yet to try it.
When you say "safe", do you mean it in terms of personal safety ( like the silicon tray failing somehow and causing you to eat silicon, or start a fire or something), or do you refer to the safety of the enchiladas ? (Like if their texture etc. will be affected)
In general, your question is probably going to be labeled as health and opinion based and closed. It is very difficult to say something is safe-unsafe authoritatively because most such answers are opinion based as to who you are going to accept as authoritative. US FDA says they are safe. You will always find some group that says everything is unsafe. Taking a position in either direction ends up mostly unproductive, other than for things which have clearly been demonstrated as unsafe such as heating Teflon to very high temps.
That said, silicone mats are intended to be basically inert to most food contact to their recommended temperatures. Above that, they will start to break down and then all bets might be off. I personally assume they are safe, but would tend to avoid high acid items just for caution, but enchiladas would definitely not be high acid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.174753
| 2017-03-16T19:32:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79195",
"authors": [
"Sarumanatee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73064
|
Smoking dried peppers?
I have a load of dried jalepeno so wish I'd made into chipotle peppers instead - is it possible to rewind time?
I was thinking of soaking them then doing a low temp smoke on my grill. Will that get me close or is it just not worth it?
UPDATE 2017-09-26
A year in, I would not recommend this procedure. Certainly, if you have already dried peppers and want smoky flavor, go ahead, but I've found that the depth of flavor as a result of shorter smoking times is noticeable, and there is an acridity that is present in all but the richest of dishes. Smoke the peppers fresh, if at all possible.
EDIT
Did it. I just used an aluminum pan with lots of holes poked into it. I soaked the chips and the peppers, and I was glad I did. In my Weber charcoal grill I didn't have tons of temp control, and some of them got a little charred even with soaking. On the other hand, I also tried to smoke some fresh peppers, and they didn't dry completely before my coals (and daylight) ran out, so clearly the initial moisture level of the peppers makes a huge difference. I guess I could have stopped and re-soaked them half-way through.
I've made some hot sauce with the pre-dried peppers, and it seems like there isn't a ton of smoke coming through, so my final thoughts on this are:
If you have lots of dried peppers you want to smoke, do it, but you'll get better flavor if the peppers are fresh.
A buddy of mine soaks and smokes to make a sauce for chili but you don't get a much volume.
Sounds possible, but what would the consistency/integrity of the peppers be like on the second drying? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing it would be like a dried paste instead of a dried pepper.
If you can indirectly smoke them you wouldn't need to soak them first and they would hold their shape.
I've cool-smoked home-dried, home-grown chillies over oak. It worked well. My home made smoker uses external heat under a dish of wood shavings sticking out the bottom of the chamber. Chipotles are smoke-dried so you won't get that intense smoke flavour in already dried chillies.
They show every sign of keeping indefinitely in an air tight jar, and still hold their shape (though I've crumbled some into flakes).
I tend to use them in sauces that are cooked and then served hot (or frozen in between), often with home-smoked garlic as well. Ideally the ratio of smoke flavour to heat would be a little higher next time. More time would help - I probably did a total of about 16-20 hours over two days (it went out overnight).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.174905
| 2016-08-11T17:23:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73064",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44559
|
Home made Rice Milk that's not slimy or chalky?
I'm wondering if it's possible to make rice milk at home that's similar in texture/taste to Rice Dream rice milk. Most recipes online are really similar to each other, essentially being, blend some rice with some water, and (either after straining or not, and sweetening or not) enjoy. The two major differences seem to be with the rice being cooked before blending, or raw and soaked overnight before blending.
Having tried both now, here's what I feel:
- Cooked rice seems to leave the Rice Milk with a viscous/slimy texture
- Soaked raw rice seems to leave the Rice Milk with a chalky/powdery texture
Both of these, even after straining multiple times through a nut milk bag. The second option seems slightly better to me, just because the slimy texture makes me want to gag, but using cooked rice seems like the more popular option online, so maybe I'm missing something. I noticed none of the recipes call for salt or oil, both of which are listed ingredients in Rice Dream. I'm not sure if that would make a difference for the texture.
Does anyone out there have any experience making Rice Milk and know how to make a decent tasting (or at least, decent-textured) batch at home?
What rice are you using? Raw starch is always chalky in texture. Cooked starch can be more or less slimy, depending on the long/short chain starch ratio. You want a non-glutinous rice to avoid slime.
Since I'm not sure how to re-post as my guest account, I just want to say that I tried a little variation after reading logophobe's answer stating that he thought an added oil would counteract the chalkiness.
I toasted the rice grains (as the linked article stated) before soaking them, and then after blending, I strained the resulting milk once, and then threw the strained liquid back in the blender and added some canola oil, and the result was a MUCH better texture overall.
I didn't have Xanthan or Guar gum on hand to try, so I'm still yet to see how the mixture will hold up in the fridge, and if stirring will be enough to keep it this texture.
It definitely needed some sort of sweetener still though (in my opinion, but that's probably up to preference), but I feel like the oil, and possibly the toasting, really affected the texture in a positive way, to where it's a much more palatable base.
Good to hear. The gum agents might be worth a try if you have problems with the oil and milk separating, but not necessary if you like the current texture.
Ok this post is 3yrs old but i dont know if this will work with rice milk but worth a try. I usually do this with oat milk
Use cooked rice 1: 3 or 4 rice : water
Blend on high for a few minutes, then strain through nut milk bag and let sit for 30 minutes or so. When the starch and all that "slime" seperates use a ladle and bottle for the top layer, trying not to disturb the bottom layer.
As you identify, the addition of oil will most certainly affect the final texture of the rice milk. Any fats have a "smoothing" effect on texture which would most likely counteract the chalky sensation you describe, and they add some extra viscosity as well. This is the reason that things like ice cream are so, well, creamy, why certain sauces can be finished (or "mounted") with butter to improve their texture, and so on.
I came across this article which experimented with a few different variables when making rice milk. (One interesting but semi-unrelated note is that toasting the rice before soaking may help add further flavor and reduce the "raw" character you describe.) However, this does note that rice milk made with oil has a tendency to separate, which could be a problem.
There might be additional ingredients you could add to further refine the texture and prevent the mixture from separating. Xanthan gum, for example, provides a slightly more viscous texture and is very effective at particle suspension, which would help keep the rice and fat emulsified. Guar gum may also have its advantages since you'll (presumably) be keeping your rice milk cold. These are the same sorts of stabilizers used in commercial ice creams to help keep a refined, smooth texture. I think adding a very small amount of these hypercolloids could be worth trying to further smooth out the texture of your rice milk while also preventing it from separating. Add carefully, though - too much and you'll wind up with rice gel. These ingredients are readily available here in the US at specialty-foods stores, co-ops, and health foods stores.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.175131
| 2014-05-31T04:06:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44559",
"authors": [
"HO TRAINING",
"Ingrid Voiceover spam",
"Jim",
"Lou",
"Vida Skin Beauty Center",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35611
|
Why did my red chili powder turn brown?
When fresh , it was pure red in color. But after a couple of months it turned brown. Its home made so no case of adulteration.
What you are seeing is called oxidation (in most vegetable matter this is the enzyme breakdown of the phenols into melanin)
Some of the chemicals in the chilli powder have reacted with oxygen in the air, and over time have therefore changed colour. This is quite normal, and many foods exhibit this change
It most foods it does indicate a loss of flavour as well. This can be a good thing, as it may take away sharp tannin tastes for instance
In my experience chilli, whole or powder, changes in a good way with aging
The only way to reduce this effect is to pack the chilli powder in air tight containers, and use oxygen absorbers (pure iron) and a vacuum pump or flood it with nitrogen gas. Another way is to store it in the freezer, but this may have other undesirable side effects
Commercially some powdered foods are protected by coating them with a preservative, in this case citric acid. To be effective the surface of each grain of the chilli powder needs to be coated in a citric acid "film". The techniques for doing this are not generally possible, and may involve "secret" machines using ion-deposition, or centrifuge drying
I like how you say "secret" machines ;-)
Enzymatic browning can be controlled also by heat denaturing of the enzymes, starting from around 60C and may need to go much higher. Roasting or searing the chili before milling/grinding may work but watch out for Millard browning which begins at above 120C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.175482
| 2013-07-27T05:19:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35611",
"authors": [
"Lizisok",
"Martin Turjak",
"Steve",
"TejasMe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83315",
"jlfusari",
"solumnant",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18087
|
Where can I find "food safe" glass marbles for sous vide cooking?
I would like to find "food safe" glass marbles for sous vide cooking. They can be used for keeping bags from floating, to space out ingredients in a bag, or even as "filler" space in a chamber vacuum to get a higher level of vacuum sealing. Even for bags that don't float, the extra weight can keep the bags from moving in the current generated by a immersion circulator with a strong water pump.
Here is an example of using them as a anti-floating weight.
Many "toy" glass marbles are in China or other countries. They may have lead or cadmium or have other dangerous metals or chemicals added -- especially if the glass is colored and even clear glass may be made with chemicals that are not "food safe".
Does anyone know where to purchase glass marbles or beads that are guaranteed to be "food safe"???
I think I am going to use large "steelie" marbles. To make sure they don't rust, I am going to vacuum seal them individually so they don't rust or if they do, they won't impact any flavor onto the food.
If all you need is to weight it down, why not just use rocks and twine? And if you do want to put things into the bag with the food, you have a vacuum sealer. Can't you seal the weight first, then toss the sealed weight into the bag?
@Megasaur: That's what I meant by my comment of sealing them individually. I don't want to use rocks and twine because I don't want any sort of debris in the water bath -- It's a low possibility but debris that gets taken into the immersion circulator input can end up breaking my $1200 toy.
I would recommend using Whiskey Stones. They are used in whiskey instead of ice cubes. So they should be heavy, won't rust, and are supposed to be immersed in liquid that you'll consume. I think that probably meets all your criteria.
Whiskey Stones
Another alternative is to use a rack. This comes with the Sous Vide Supreme and I find it quite useful for keeping meat submerged. It does however only accommodate certain sizes of meat. It works quite well. You can buy it separately online for $12.
You can always go with steel pie weights.
Do you know if they'll rust? I saw ceramic pie weights too but it they are water/oil permeably they may absorb flavors and pass them onto the next sous vide dish. http://www.amazon.com/chefgadget-Ceramic-Pie-Weights/dp/B0011YKPUE/ref=pd_sbs_k2
Thats why I didn't recommend the ceramic ones. They're stainless steel, under normal use - they shouldn't.
I think I am going to use large "steelie" marbles. To make sure they don't rust, I am going to vacuum seal them individually.
@Adisak: Rust shouldn't be a concern in sous-vide applications, as they won't be coming into contact with air or water.
@Aaronut: There's always some water in the vacuum sealed packages. Meats still release some juices in sous vide cooking.
There are glass marbles that are used by Whisky enthusiasts to keep the amount of air in half-emptied bottles down. They should do your job.
Do you have a link for these ?
You could always use binder clips and clip them to the outside of the bag.
If you need more weight you could hook/tie something to the clip.
Almost all borosilicate glass is food-safe, but if you want to be absolutely sure, get clear colourless glass, at least colourless on the outside even if there is something encased inside. Pyrex is borosilicate. Many marble makers also prefer to use borosilicate over soft or sodalime glass.
Use of metals (their oxides and other compounds) always manifests itself through colours, whether opaque or transparent.
Brilliant idea to use glass marbles inside. Glass is inert. I favour that over metals, however unreactive in this type of application.
http://www.marblekingusa.com/Home_Page.php
These marbles are lead-free and made in USA
Toss a couple of knives, from your flatware, into the bag.
The items pictured (without bones) should not float if you were able to get air out of the bag...not sure why any weight would be necessary in that case. Bones contain air(as do veggies). In this case a weight, rack or clip is helpful.
Knives (or even forks) may inadvertently pierce the bag. Spoons however, sound like a good idea.
@Adisak - the reference to flatware makes me think they meant butter knives, which may well be rounded enough not to be much risk to a bag - though that will depend on the style of flatware, some are much sharper than others.
I just ordered these...they sound like what you need.
https://www.morebeer.com/products/glass-marbles-topping-3-lbs.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2fffhsPD_AIVymJyCh21GwDcEAQYASABEgIdDfD_BwE
I just ordered some 1" 304 stainless steel balls from here. They're reasonably priced and I think they will safely get the job done.
https://www.craigballsales.com/aisi-304-stainless-steel-balls-1-25.40mm-diameter-lot-of-25.html
My solution is to use a simple vegetable steamer, as shown here: http://bbq4dummies.com/2013/07/floating-bags-in-sous-vide-cooking-the-7-solution/
You can use ceramic pie weights, which are little ceramic marbles made for "blind baking" pie crust. They are made for baking and withstand up to 480 Fahrenheit.
What does this add beyond the other answer suggesting pie weights (which also discusses ceramic versus steel weights)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.175675
| 2011-09-29T21:58:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18087",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adisak",
"James Wang",
"Megasaur",
"Megha",
"Phasma Felis",
"R R",
"Sneftel",
"Zooz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84543",
"janilee",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41079
|
How to get rid of goitrogens from goitrogenic foods without cooking?
Cruciferous vegetables like cabbage, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, broccolini, cauliflower, mustard greens, kale, turnips, and collard greens contain goitrogens. Is there a way to get rid of these without cooking. I eat those vegetables daily in salad.
We don't answer questions regarding health claims, so I removed the health-related parts from your question.
Gamma Radiation... not practical, but it would inactivate the enzyme that leads to goitrogenic activity in most Brassicae. The majority of these vegetables are really only very slightly goitrogenic because the possible thyroid inhibiting substance, goitrin, is bound up in progoitrin, an inactive compound.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.176186
| 2014-01-12T02:09:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41079",
"authors": [
"JelliPapi",
"MEMark",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95688",
"mpo99 co spam",
"suki togel77 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40945
|
What could possibly happen if I overmix the butter and sugar in a cookie recipe?
I knew that the point of the creaming method for cookies is to use granulated sugar to create small air pockets in butter. But what happens if I overdo it.
I usually use melted butter and there's no problem with overmixing, but this time I didn't melt the butter before mixing.
Your butter can melt through friction heat.
You said that you are used to melting the butter. There are cookie recipes which require this, usually chewy cookies. Creaming the butter with the sugar produces a different texture, and you should not change the method between recipes. If your recipe already asks you to cream, you should never cream so much that the butter starts to melt (which can happen at rather low temperatures), as you won't get the texture of fluffy creamed cookies. The problem only occurs with real melting, softened butter is OK. In my experience, it is actually best to leave the butter out at least overnight before creaming, instead of only leaving it out for about an hour to get soft to touch, or cutting cold butter to whippable pieces.
While melting butter is the "upper limit" of creaming, it is unlikely to run into this problem unless you forget a stand mixer turned on, or you softened your butter at high room temperature (above 30 Celsius). With 22-ish degree butter and a hand mixer on moderate speed, your arm will go numb before your butter melts.
If you are mixing by hand, or even with a powered hand mixer, you are unlikely to over beat when creaming butter and sugar together.
If you are using a stand mixer, and leave it on, I suppose it is possible (especially on a very warm day) to break the butter emulsion and get a messy, gloppy curdled looking mass that could be melted down, but would not perform properly in a creaming recipe.
The risk of this is low under normal circumstances.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.176285
| 2014-01-07T18:42:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40945",
"authors": [
"Bakjuno Baby spam",
"Debra Siddall-Montanez",
"Kayerisha",
"OctopusIvy",
"Realm",
"Shopp-Marketing spam",
"d3dmanwalking",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95514",
"khalid",
"situs bandar spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68295
|
Home oven over 500°F?
I am curious why I can not find a home oven that can reach temperatures over 500°F/260°C. Every oven I have seen maxes out at 500°F.
I am wondering are there safety regulations that limit this, or maybe technical or cost reasons?
Mine goes to 550F, and I looked at a handful of random ones from Home Depot and saw 550F there as well. Still a fair question why they don't go past that, I suppose, but I don't think 500F is a hard limit.
Where are you? Your country may have restrictions that other places do not.
@Catija I would say that if someone's quoting oven temperatures in Fahrenheit, they're in the US. Even in the UK ovens are labelled in Celsius.
Self cleaning cycle will exceeds 500°f, but many ovens lock the door during that cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven says 900°f
I remember with small pizza ovens in the EU, there were issues with the maximum OUTSIDE temperature being subject to regulation. And don't forget that manufacturers will be shy to implement a capability that is useful to few users but risks unsafe use by a lot of users (setting food or cookware on fire) and ensuing legal arguments.
I've never seen above 550 for a home oven in the US. Likely because of lawyers.
No there is no reason why a well-built oven can't go higher then 500°F: my German-built Bosch oven has:
a pyrolytic self-cleaning program that goes to 480°C (896°F), and even the hardest stains get reduced to a mere sprinkling of white dust
the grill goes up to 350°C (662°F) which will make a perfect gratin in less then a minute, but which will burn the same gratin to something resembling charcoal in about 2 minutes.
This is quite consistent with Tim's answer; Bosch is definitely a more high-end brand in the US. So given that you have to spend that kind of money to get a high max temperature, while there are cheaper ones available with lower max temperatures, I wouldn't exactly say there's no reason most commonly available ovens don't go higher.
Can I ask what is the model as the link no longer works
It's also a 5YO model by now @MyDaftQuestions so it doesn't exist any more, but this one comes close
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.176491
| 2016-04-15T17:39:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68295",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Fabby",
"MyDaftQuestions",
"Optionparty",
"Peter Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87947",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84706
|
Can ginger root that's gone bad hurt you if you eat it?
We use ginger root with a mixture of lemon and other ingredients.
Can ginger root that's gone bad hurt you if you eat it?
What are the spoilage symptoms - is it dry, rotten, moldy, discoloured, tasting and/or smelling off?
Sure. Most foods can cause you damage if you eat it when spoiled. E.g. if its grown moldy, you don't know if the mold is a safe to eat one or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.176708
| 2017-09-28T12:18:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84706",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77368
|
microwave use after cell phone heating
My daughter put a cell phone in the microwave and switched it on. The phone was heated for less than a minute at maximum temperature. There was a strong smell from the burnt phone and the microwave. Can we use the microwave again? Which steps are necessary to bring the microwave to a condition where food isn't contaminated (both from an aroma and a food safety standpoint)?
Probably can't use the phone, but was there any damage to the microwave?
How old is your daughter? (curious why she would do that)
Naturally, she chose a Samsung. Does it still work?
Whatever you do, store the damaged phone somewhere where it a) can not start a fire and b) cannot get wet.
:-) Isn't this a question to be asked on http://electronics.stackexchange.com instead? Mod's?
@Nav If you really want a mod to look at something, flag it. But questions about kitchen equipment are totally on topic here, there's no reason to migrate.
@Jefromi your call :) I did choose "answer" format due to the safety implications of leaving a damaged device with a lithium battery lying around - they can literally blow up hours later. Wanted the warning to be well visible.
electronics.se is temperamental about repair questions - and the main issue here is food safety/hygiene, not repairing the electrical function of the microwave or the telephone for that matter....
I would ventilate it well, wipe everything down and wash up the turntable. Then, when the smell has cleared (and doesn't come back when the door has been shut for a while) use it but only for covered (loosely) food at least at first.
I'd also test that it heats up a cup of water before cooking anything real in it.
When I set a potato on fire, it was months before the smell cleared. (maybe if I had used it more often it'd have cleared faster ... but it smelled like burned hair)
@Joe that's also possible, and I'd give up if there wasn't dramatic improvement within a couple of days. Testing with a cup of water can be done before it clears, and there's just a chance that the steam will help dissipate the smell. Also leaving it semi-outside (like a garden shed).
maybe also some baking soda as that's a bit abrasive and can help absorb oders
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.176780
| 2017-01-11T18:30:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77368",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Nav",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41053
|
Can a "kitchen machine" appliance and a food processor fully replace each other in baking applications? If not, what are the limitations?
Should I expect that the whisking/dough-kneading abilities of a multi-purpose appliance that appears to more of a food processor, such as the following...
Be comparable to those of a multi-purpose appliance that appears to be more of a stand-mixer (and the other way around)? Does it just come down to the wattage of the motor, or are there other ways of evaluating which might serve the majority of uses best?
Most ideal for what? Someone might be able to tell you which extensions or gadgets are important if you explain what your goals are (i.e. what kinds of meals you intend on cooking), but we don't permit shopping questions in the vein of "review this product" or "which product/brand is best". Evidently you're aware of what the attachments are and what they do, so what are you actually looking for help with?
I suppose I was hoping to hear things like, "the wisking abilities of food processors are an advertising gimick"/"work just well as a stand mixer meant for that sort of thing". I don't have a menu planned for the device, but I do expect to want the food processor function more often. If this is such an unpopular question, should somebody just flag it for removal?
It's not a question of popularity, it's simply too open-ended. I'm suggesting how can you could potentially phrase this question to get useful answers and have it remain open.
@shootingstars : I'm of the opinion that the really vague title makes the edit worse overall. Maybe about the disadvantages of the all-in-one food prep appliances?
The vague title appears to have been an editing mistake on my part.
I am finally closing this question. Frankly, I don't think it can have an answer: nothing stops one manufacturer to make a device which is perfect at both whisking and cutting, and another to make something which is junk at one of them or both. And this is not correlated to shape.
Strongly disagree. "nothing stops one manufacturer to make a device" would be kind of a valid answer even - but if you take into account that 90% of devices that "look the same" as a popular style tend to be equal-or-worse copies of another with some randomness thrown in, if you say a "typical model in form factor XY is gonna suck at kneading and a typical model in form factor AB is gonna knead at sucking" you will usually be right.
Your ideal multipurpose appliance is a set of four items:
A paring knife
A chef's knife
A bread knife
A food mill
With skill and these four items, you can perform nearly any kitchen task, with greater precision and accuracy than the expensive electrics. They also take very little space. It takes practice, and is more work, but I went years before I had a food processor or other electric.
Truthfully, this question cannot be answered directly. Every device has its strengths and weaknesses, and is ideal for different tasks.
See also:
Blender vs food processor vs juicer
Food mill is definitely a good suggestion. I had a food processor once and loved it, then broke it. I've been missing it lately, and thought I might figure out the most I could get out of a device if I did add one to the kitchen. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.176989
| 2014-01-11T06:36:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41053",
"authors": [
"ALYSON CLAYBAUGH",
"Aaronut",
"Colbin Gracie",
"Freebet Terbaru spam",
"Joe",
"Majid Majidi",
"Phillip Hartshorn",
"Slydeman",
"Walter Tross",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98440",
"keluaran macau spam",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"ryanjdillon",
"user95601"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46053
|
Why are Cinnabons so soft and moist?
This is a question about the science of baking. What factors contribute to the softness and moistness of the Cinnabon® brand cinnamon rolls? Particularly, I'm interested in:
The type of flour to use (e.g. cake, AP, bread, etc.)
The amount of water and other liquids (i.e. the effects of hydration)
Leaveners
Cooking temperature and time
Additives
Process/technique
I'm not sure whether you meant cinnamon rolls. If so: These are made of yeast-leavened dough which is quite soft. (Yeast-leavened dough is also part of toast, pizza, bagels, some kinds of donuts etc.)
In addition, it's a kind of not-so-fine puff pastry (Danish pastry): Between two layers of dough there is a layer of solid fat (like butter). I think that the fat will make the yeast-leavened dough "extra" moist.
To make a simple yeast-leavened dough you need water, (plain wheat) flour, salt and yeast. Some other pastries require sugar, fat (e.g. butter), replace water with milk, et cetera ...
The flour needs to have gluten otherwise the dough cannot hold the tiny air bubbles that the yeast produces and the dough won't be able to rise. Plain wheat flour suits perfectly for this purpose. But it has a disadvantage: If you store the pastry wrongly, the pastry will be frumpy. (1)
Just pick a nice receipe of cinnamon rolls and you'll see :D
If you want to know more about cooking and stuff: "Cooking for Geeks: Real Science, Great Hacks, and Good Food" by Jeff Potter (O'Reilly & Associates). Seems to be a nice book for geeks :D
(1) Source: "Kochen für Geeks" - somehow I could not find the chapter about yeast in the English pendant.
Would bread flour, due to its higher protein content, mean softer and moister buns? Does more fat mean moister and softer buns, too (i.e. should I be looking for milk and butter with the highest fat content?)? How about hydration levels - how does that affect things?
I never used bread flour and never have seen this in my region. I think, yes, you are right. Sometimes there could be malt (food for yeast) in bread flour, the dough will rise better. You could use sugar instead.
There is always a trade-off between some (useful and not useful) characteristics of the ingredients. If you use only gluten instead of AP flour you probably get something soft and moist but also something gummy. Bread flour will make the dough rise better but the pastry will also be more chewy.
The more fat in the bun the moister it will be but fat also inhibits the yeast grow.
Hydration: I never really varied the hydration significantly levels. But I am very certain that a low hydration level withdraws the yeast's basic survival needs and does not provide enough water to gluten to stick. And too much water: it is harder to process. That's why there are no yeast "risen" cookies (disregarding zwieback).
@CookingNewbie bread flour means less soft, more rubbery bread.
Cinnabon is a recipe I found on allrecipes.com. It includes a recipe for the yeast dough to be made in a bread maker. Milk and egg in the dough make it soft. The huge amount of cinnamon and the brown sugar/butter filling also stay soft. Cinnabon is trade name for a company.
To bake anything where I am located I have to use King Arthur all purpose flour.Everything turns out soft and the way I want it.Different flour in different regions makes a big difference.
While using the right flour will certainly help, there's a lot more to it than that. You can make all kinds of bread, not just soft, with all-purpose flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.177275
| 2014-08-01T23:50:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46053",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ching Chong",
"CookingNewbie",
"Jennifer Gockman",
"Jiles and Fugate Law Group",
"Lilyjones",
"Nicole",
"PV Worx - Solar Panel Cleaning",
"Urgen Semmens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100134
|
Perpetual stew-like stock using the fridge: is it a good idea?
I work in the science behind nutrition and one of the first things you learn is that a huge amount of nutrients from your food goes down the drain when you throw out the cooking water. In the water you use to cook broccoli, chickpeas, tomato, basically any vegetable, you will find a significant fraction of the vitamins as well as some carbohydrates and fats.
I once read something about a "perpetual stew", a stew that people in the Middle Ages were keeping all year long on the fire. Whenever you needed to cook something in water, you threw it in the stew: not only it added the flavor of the stew to your meal, it also changed the taste of the stew.
I like this concept, and I was thinking that each time I cook something in boiling water, I could save that water to prevent wasting all the nutrients it contains (and likely pesticids, too, but that's another story). Keeping something on the gas at all times is a crazy ideas in this day and age, and unrealizable in my apartment. But I was thinking of buying a big jar and keeping it in the fridge at all times, filled with the broth from whatever I cook (mostly vegetables and starchy foods, the idea of putting meat in a perpetual stew grosses me out a little bit). I would fill up the jar with the water while it's still hot, and immediately close it.
Do you think it's a good idea? Would it improve the taste of my food in addition to increase its nutritional value? And would keeping it in the fridge be enough to prevent contamination and bacterial/fungi growth?
Edit: my question does not concern soup per se. I'm not planning on leaving any chunk in there, no solid food, only slightly-flavored water. This limit the amount of carbohydrates contaminants could use as food, and render it pretty low. Besides, I have specifically mentioned not wanting to elt the soup on the fire at all time.
In the comments of the first answer, I have concluded that I will probably be cleaning the jar every time I use the broth, and boil it before placing it in the jar again. This makes my question really different from the soup one.
Possible duplicate of Never ending soup; is it actually safe?, although the current question also touches on taste and nutrition.
Possible duplicate of Can one preserve food by periodically heating it?
I like this idea, a lot actually, it would be an interesting experiment, but you would have to keep it on the gas.
Ignoring the safety concern of accumulating pesticides, which you mention, this would be like any stew which a quick Google search tells me should last about 3 to 4 days in the fridge. At least you don't want to cook meat in it.
Bringing it to a boil over and over again might help but you're also adding a new risk of contamination every time. Definitely not a long term solution.
In terms of flavors, you're basically making a stew out of anything; it could turn out great or horrible depending on what you cook but over time it would surely develop some strange off-flavors.
If you want to reuse your cooking water, I would do so in the same dish; for example, in the sauce. Or maybe you could keep it for a soup you want to make in the next day few days.
Very good advice. Do you think I could increase its "shelf" (fridge) life if I put it in an hermetic jar and boiled it before doing so, cleaning the jar with dish soap each time I use the stew? I could also add a truckload of salt to fight contamination.¨
That would increase its fridge life but only by a few days, and even if it was weeks we're talking about a stew that needs to stay safe for a perpetual amount of time. I want to say that bringing it to a boil and putting it into a clean jar every couple of days would keep it safe but over time it's getting riskier and riskier.
Btw, for future reference, I'd wait before accepting an answer to see what the rest of the community has to say about it. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.177575
| 2019-07-11T12:42:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100134",
"authors": [
"C. Crt",
"Crosscounter",
"Hugo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76478",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81935
|
Why is my stock flavorless?
I made stock last Sunday, which I intended to use as the base for homemade tonkotsu (pork broth) ramen. Accordingly, I used both chicken and pork (roughly equal amounts of chicken backs and pork hocks). I also added several cloves of garlic, a large leek, celery, carrots, and small knob of ginger.
I boiled the meat/bones briefly before straining and starting over with cold water (for clarity of finished stock), added the other ingredients, and brought to a boil. I then reduced to a simmer and skimmed the very small amount of scum from the surface. The stock simmered for about 8 hours before I strained it through a cloth.
The resulting stock is perfectly clear, with an excellent, thick mouthfeel and gelled nicely in the refrigerator. However, the stock also has very little flavor-- even copious amounts of salt don't help much. Since my stock is by all other measures a success, I'm puzzled as to why it's so flavorless.
Where did I go wrong?
Have you confirmed that others think your stock is 'flavorless'?
What is your ingredients to water ratios by weight? And the reduction ratio? Miso, kombu and dashi are good sources of flavours and umami. Gelling alone is helpful for texture but not intensity/complexity of flavours, after all gelatine is bland.
@CosCallis Unfortunately I live alone, so there are no others to taste it. But if I'm eating it and I think its bland, isn't that all that matters?
Couple notes or suggestions;
Added in fat? Typically for ramen adding in a copious amount of finely chopped pork fat is a must. Usually boil a slab on top of bones for 4 hours and then chop and add. Serve with a side of lipitor.
Where is the savory flavour or unami? You need to either cook some veggies/aromatics to get the Maillard reaction or cheat and add some MSG and/or a unami super boost (mushroom, marmite, anchoivies or other). Lots of techniques to get savory flavour; which I think is what you may be missing. soy sauce, or miso are also classic; pending what your end ramen is going to be.
Overall the technique is good; just missing the flavoring step; the base broth itself is not going to have a lot of flavour since you are not roasting; along with blanching step.
Blanching for a clear broth does remove a significant amount of flavour; but is
more classical ramen approach.
Another trick you can use to extract more flavour is add a acid early to process; 1TBsp to 1/3cup or so of apple cider vinegar. My goto when making a thai sour chicken soup or some other white broth soup that will be loaded with lime and cilantro later. Drastic flavour change; so be-careful and test first.
+1 Next time I'll roast the veggies and add mushrooms. What would have happened if I roasted and blanched the bones? Even though none of the recipes I looked at mentioned roasting them, I did consider it as its my usual procedure for making plain chicken stock (which usually comes out very flavorful), but in the end I decided the flavor from the roasting would all go out in the blanch. Is that not the case?
@senchen - most stock recipes I have call for roasting the bones/meat. Maybe instead you should just do a single slow raising of the heat to a simmer, and skim the "foam" for broth clarity. Also, I really don't care about how clear a broth is if the flavor is good. I'm guessing that initial boil may be extracting quite a bit of flavor that you're tossing out.
Typically you want to blanch first; then roast. This adds significant time as you have to let bones dry before roasting or have a really hot oven. But keep in mind this will darken the ramen to more of a lighter brown and not the typical yellow associated with classical ramen.
Many chefs skip blanching all together; richer broth; lots more impurities; more flavour. (good or bad?) Lots of arguments follow this; personally i like both; pending my mood.
I've always made stock using meaty bones with salt added. I have borderline low BP and can use the sodium. But I've heard many people making perfectly good stock without salt so I don't think that in itself is the problem.
If others agree your stock lacks flavour, it won't be due to your method. I'd say it's more likely your meat. Remember that chickens are slaughtered at a very young age - a matter of weeks - so the chicken backs would be from young chicken. Older larger chickens would be left whole for roasting. The same goes for pork hocks. A grown pig is a very large animal and you'd be able to judge from the size of hocks you used, the pig they came from wasn't that old either. Most pork we eat comes from pigs between 5-10 months of age - no longer babies but comparable to roughly a young teenager.
Old hens and parts from fully mature pigs was what was traditionally used to make stews and soups. The meat was too tough to fry or roast but was very flavourful for slow simmering. Think of the difference in flavour between veal (calf) and beef.
+1 I think you may be on to something here-- the quality of the meat/bones I used was less than what I typically buy-- a function of what the grocery store had that day, unfortunately.
If I want to make really good chicken stock for ramen then I use Guinea fowl fowl. It's true that a lot of cheap chicken lacks flavour.
I make stocks on a weekly basis and am used to some variation in flavour but the lack of potency usually comes from 1) too much water 2) not enough salt
Now I don't use salt in making the broth but it's often the salt that draws out the stock's flavour and so the final broth is often much richer when you salt or add soy sauce, fish sauce etc.
My method these days involves a pressure cooker with a fixed volume of liquid - not necessarily covering the meat.
My favourite ramen broth is a smoked ham hock with 1L water in the pressure cooker for 45 mins and it's fairly intense without extra salt.
Too much water? not reduced enough ?
I would color the meat and the vegetables with a little bit of oil (one batch for the meat and one batch for the vegetables) before adding the water.
I only started with ~2 inches above all ingredients worth of water, and reduced a lot more than that, so I doubt its the water content. And none of the various ramen-broth recipes I looked at mentioned anything about pre-cooking any of the ingredients in any way...
I have found triple reducing helps optimize flavour and viscosity. Reduce, add water 3/4 of original amount, reduce to desired outcome. I also love salt more than most so to avoid over salting I finish with a splash of vinegar. White, rice, apple, or whichever suites your preference for the final profile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.177891
| 2017-05-23T16:14:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81935",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"senschen",
"user110084",
"worthwords",
"zerobane"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81700
|
Is there a special way to dry bread out to make breadcrumbs?
I have a recipe for making Italian Breadcrumbs. If I leave the bread out on the counter it molds before it dries enough. I thought making breadcrumbs would be a great way to use some of my homemade bread. I love making bread but unfortunately it dries out to fast for sandwiches, but not enough for breadcrumbs. Is there a way to dry it out before it molds? I have tried all kinds of bread, some hydrated more than others.
You don't want to dry it on the counter... put slices or small pieces in the oven on low heat or grind it in a food processor and toast it in a skillet until it's crisp and brown.
Stale bread is not "dry"... it's stale and it's only on the surface. If you want truly dry bread, you need to toast it and really get rid of all of the moisture.
From Serious Eats, they discuss the difference and Kenji explains their preferred method (though this is for stuffing, the information is the same):
Drying involves the evaporation of moisture from within a piece of bread. The structure of the bread remains more or less the same, though it becomes less pliable because of the moisture loss. Dry but not stale bread will be crisp like a cracker and crumble into a fine powder.
Staling is the process by which moisture migrates out of swollen starch granules and into the spaces in the bread. The moisture-deprived starch molecules then recrystallize, forming tough structures within the bread. The moisture may remain trapped within the structure of the bread, giving you a loaf that's simultaneously moist but stale. It'll taste leathery and chewy, but not cracker-y or dry.
Staling occurs most readily at refrigerator temperatures, so it's best to store bread either on the counter or in the freezer (well wrapped, to prevent drying).
So, knowing this, we realized that despite all the recipes that call for stale bread for stuffing, what we're really after here is dry bread—bread that has had plenty of moisture driven out of it, giving it more room to absorb flavorful stock. Staling takes time. Luckily for us, drying is fast.
I dry my bread by toasting it in a low (275°F/135°C) oven for about 45 minutes, tossing it a couple of times halfway through. By drying the bread like this, you make enough room in two regular-sized loaves (about two and a half pounds of bread) to absorb a full four cups of chicken or turkey broth. It's so much broth that it almost tastes like you baked it in the bird, even if you decide to do it in a separate pan. I recommend starting it with foil on top to trap some moisture, before removing the foil and crisping up the top.
So, please don't waste your lovely home-made bread by leaving it out to go stale. Dry it using heat.
Also, I'm going to hazard to say, if your recipe doesn't already call for truly drying your bread, you might want to find a better one.
You can always make lots of it and freeze it... my dad's been freezing his breadcrumbs for decades and they work great.
That's a great idea, I never thought about freezing some.
Making your own is the best! Using this method puts those store bought bread crumbs to shame.
If you'll recall from science classes, water turns to steam when it reaches 212° F (100° C). So, to rapidly remove the water from bread (i.e., dry it out) set your oven just above that -- say 225° F (or 105° C). In the meantime, if you haven't done so already, cut your bread up into cubes of one inch or less (smaller is better) and scatter them in a single layer on a baking sheet. (You can put multiple sheets in the oven at once. You can pile the cubes up, too, but it will require you to stir them occasionally (at least once) and will take longer.) Put them in the oven and in less than a half hour, you should have nicely dried bread cubes that you can easily break (or grind) into crumbs.
Tip: if you have a convection oven, use the same temperature and they'll be done even faster.
Note: Regardless of whether you use a regular or convection oven, you can increase the temperature to speed up the process, but be careful: the hotter the oven, the faster the bread will start toasting on the outside before it's dried through and through, which will impart a flavor to the bread crumbs that you might not desire. In any case, I wouldn't chance running the temp any higher than 275° F (135° C) -- and you'll want to pull them from the oven quickly once they dry out.
Bonus: If you have plenty of bread and you know you'll need more eventually, make extra crumbs and keep them in an airtight container. (Resealable plastic bags work well for this, allowing you to squeeze out any extra air, which contains some degree of humidity, which leads to spoilage.) Better yet, keep that airtight container of extra crumbs in the freezer and they'll keep for a couple of extra months or more.
Actually water turns into vapour at any temperature, not just at boiling point. So, drying happens at any temperature too for as long as there is a humidity gradient or "water concentration" difference between the food and its surrounding air.
Yes, I know. We're trying to speed things up when making breadcrumbs, so as not to allow the bread to spoil while waiting for the majority of water to evaporate from it. I wrote, "water turns to steam when it reaches 212° F," which is correct. Adding sufficient heat to raise water's temperature beyond the boiling point forces it to vaporize MUCH faster than leaving it at whatever might pass for room temperature.
Just putting bread in the fridge between 2 paper's will dry it in a few days. Then set it on the counter to finish or in the oven on low for a hour. The freezer also will work. Setting any bread out on the counter I do not advise. Ants find it fast in the tropics. Once dry grind it & store in sealed used icecream box's. With a little rice in the bottom. This is tropics. High humidity area here. Our ants love bread here also.
The freezer is probably the gentlest way to dry out bread and quite a few other things. Cut the bread into slices or small chunks, wrap them in a paper or fabric towel (something permeable), and leave them in the freezer for a week or two. This is effectively freeze drying without a vacuum pump. This is the first step for my croutons and breadcrumbs. Obviously, if you just wanted to store bread in the freezer, you would not use a permeable wrapping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.178567
| 2017-05-15T23:27:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81700",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"GJ.Baker",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57926",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82079
|
What happens when I boil 2 pots of pasta in the same water back to back?
I had to make 2 pots of pasta back to back. I did a pot of spaghetti as usual. I add a little vegetable oil always, salt, and I throw about 5 peppercorn seeds in the water, bring it to a boil, then add the boxed dry pasta.
Well, this time, when done, I took the spaghetti out of the boiling water (with tongs and a sieve. It was perfect. I then decided to do the linguini in the same boiling water. Was this a mistake? I just added a pinch more salt, and let it cook. When I thought it would be done, it was a little weird. Maybe chewy? I don't know if I'm just being paranoid and should just let it cook more.
Did I do a big pasta faux pas?
You'll have two pots worth of cooked pasta :) The effect described could be from already going for the bare minimum of water, and getting it too rich in starch from the first batch - in pasta cooking, there is a reason for using water as if you got paid by the liter for using it!
Lol @rackandboneman you are absolutely right about 2 pots. I had a lots of water-- I was just paranoid. It was just a little more al dente than usual. Was going for al dente as I didn't know what time my guests would actually arrive, and was hoping to flash the pasta back through boiling water for a quick reheat and serve. It all worked out!
There should be no issue with doing this, restaurants often do this; the only thing that will happen is that the water will have more pasta starch as you cook more pasta in the same pot. Obviously, basic food safety rules apply here - you need to keep the water out of the "danger zone", but otherwise it should not be a problem.
This could be a good thing as far as helping the pasta bind to the sauce, but will possibly make the pasta a bit more sticky if you don't sauce it right away.
There is one possible complication here other than the food safety issue that Chris Macksey mentioned if you're not cooking it back-to-back:
The water is going to foam more the second time as there's more starch in it.
You then might be tempted to turn the heat down some, or remove the lid from the pot, so you're not actually cooking both batches at the same temperature.
In your case, you added some oil to the water, so that will help to reduce the foaming process, so it might not be quite as bad as if you didn't.
If you're working solely off of the time to cook the pasta, you might need to give the second batch a little bit of extra time to compensate.
I personally always treat the times on packages as a guideline, as I cook enough different brands and shapes of pasta that I don't have it particularly "dialed in" -- so let taste be your guide. If you think it needs another minute, give it another minute.
I also add some water back to the pot between batches of pasta -- you've lost some water due to both evaporation and absorption by the previous batch of pasta that your water level will slowly go down, further concentrating the starches, and giving the pasta less room to move about freely as it cooks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.179109
| 2017-05-29T19:39:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82079",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57349",
"middleagedgeezer",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82003
|
Replacement for Calcium Propionate for bread
Hi we run a bakery and we understood that Calcium Propionate is not safe for regular consumption. Can some one suggest a safe preservative..
I would be helpful to clarify where you read that it i unsafe. US FDA for example regards this is safe.
There do not appear to be established replacements however "micro-encapsulated sorbic acid" is advertised as inhibiting mold without destroying yeast. http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Product-innovations/Microencapsulated-Sorbic-Acid-The-Winning-Formula
Outside of the usual Internet echo-chamber of scary-ingredient phobia, there is no evidence or concern for Calcium Propionate (which is naturally occurring anyway.)
One study that seems to be cited exclusively is a tiny study published in the Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health from New Zealand. However, this study is pretty poor as far as they go. Only 27 children, methodology not shared, etc. It's important to point out that this seems to be the only study of its kind. It did not compel further study or elicit real concern from the medical/laboratory community. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1754.2003.00222.x/fullIt
With all of that said, mold is usually not a concern with fresh baked or par-baked frozen dough as these breads go hard and stale before mold appears.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.179415
| 2017-05-26T15:59:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82003",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82267
|
Substituting Soy milk +vegan butter for whole milk +margerine for whipped fluffy icing
I would like to make an icing for my family member who has a milk allergy.
I have a recipe for whipped fluffy icing using whole milk, flour, sugar and margerine. It is cooked, then cooled and additional steps follow. Will it turn
out well if I substitute soy milk and vegan margerine? Also, can it be refrigerated?
It would be helpful if you were to add the actual recipe to the question.
"vegan butter" is a synonym for "high quality margarine"....
Yes. Soy milk (or any other non-dairy milk such as almond milk) can be used as a direct substitute for dairy milk. (Your mileage may vary if you make homemade soy milk, which may have a more "beany" flavor.) In addition, vegan margarine such as Earth Balance can be used as a direct substitute for butter. In fact, these are two of the easiest vegan substitutions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.179551
| 2017-06-09T01:54:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82267",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82276
|
Sous Vide time for 1.5 lb 1 inch thick bone-in chuck roast at 140F
Would this require a 24+ hour bath at 140F, or would the limited thickness and size allow it be 12 hours?
What temperature are you planning on using?
I was looking at 140, but I am not bound to that temp
I assume that you are starting the meat straight from the fridge. That is quite a high temperature. At a glance (not checked quantitatively), I am going to suggest that the difference between 12 and 24 might not be that obvious both in terms of texture and diffusion of flavours.
It takes very roughly 81 minutes for your meat to reach the 140F cooking temperature assuming you have just the meat and no marinade in the bag, and no part of the meat is frozen. The rest is all steady state cooking time. Based on my own experience, I am inclined to say that if there is any difference in texture and flavour between 12 hours and 24 hours, it is subtle to the extent that it may be noticeable in a side-by-side comparison.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.179645
| 2017-06-09T12:27:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82276",
"authors": [
"TaylorBarrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58453",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57358
|
My commercial made chapati becomes brittle within 12hrs
I manufacture commercial chapatis. It is packed in 25nos together in a butter paper and lastly in a polybag. These are marketed. However, the chapati becomes brittle and crumbles after 14 hours.
I am interested to know how to keep the chapatis soft, chewable and non brittle for more than 3 days.
Daniel
I found they last longer if made with boiling instead of room temperature water. Which is not surprising since you will get far less long-stranded gluten formation this way (and since it is not leavened with yeast, you don't need any either). It seems some (but not most of the) chapati/roti recipes found on the internet also specify boiling water.
Welcome Daniel! From this article on IndiaCurry.com about storing chapatis:
Storing Chapati for up to 2 days
The Chapati may be stored in the refrigerator for up to 2 days
Let the Chapati cool to room temperature
Wrap a stack of six Chapati in Aluminum foil.
Put the foil stack in a sealable plastic bag, and close the seal
Store the Chapati bags in the refrigerator.
To serve Chapati, heat on hot Tawa, Microwave, or in a conventional oven
Further reading in this article tells how to store them in the freezer for longer periods, up to 3 months.
Storing Chapati for up to 3 months
For a long term storage, the dough for Chapati should be kneaded with regular yogurt. The Chapati should be cooled, wrapped in Aluminum foil and frozen
Also, from other reading, the chapatis must be very soft. To end up with very soft chapatis you would knead with yogurt or milk rather than water. Another recommendation was to let the dough sit for a length of time after preparing as the dough will get softer as it rests.
Check out this video from Stella Parks on making bagels. She says that by making a heated paste of water and flour, and then adding that to the bagel dough can make them stay fresh longer.
Perhaps this concept can be applied to chapatis.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.179756
| 2015-05-10T13:10:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57358",
"authors": [
"Ashley Ledford",
"Gayle Cooper",
"Joseph Randall",
"Julie Cheetham",
"Kathleen DeCann",
"Nicholas Borg",
"Shawn D.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140252"
],
"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
}
|
58902
|
Can I use the leftover pickling brine?
I have some leftover brine that was leftover from making canned pickles, it was heated up to put in the canned pickles to make them. Can I use this brine again to make more canned pickles? The brine never touched the pickles or anything else.
If the brine is no more than 24 hours, go for it, if not toss. I had a similar question, I believe a while back. You could reheat the brine, let it cool then put the pickles in it. If this is the case 48 hours max, but again, reheat, cool then put the pickles in. My dad used my brine over and over again without doing anything to it once he ate my pickled veges and almost hit 96, but I really don't suggest it. 24 hours, use the brine more than 24 less the 48 reboil, cool, pickle.
possible duplicate of Reusing pickle brine
disagree on the dupe - that is for brine that is quite old and had pickles in it. This is for salty and/or vinegary water that was heated up and then cooled. It doesn't have the same risks as brine that has had pickles, herbs, spices etc in it for ages and been exposed to air repeatedly.
Definitely a dupe of this. Nutshell: probably safe for fridge pickles if it is just the brine (water, salt, sugar, vinegar). Heating it more than once may make it not shelf-stable. I would assume used pickle juice may be ok for quick fridge pickles once or twice, but you should probably just filter it and use it for dressings or marinades.
What is in the brine?
Not sure any of the above have read your question completely. You are asking; can you store extra brine that you made but was not used in your pickling process. I do this systematically when my Green Beans are going crazy. I mix up extra brine and store it in the refrigerator for up to 2 weeks. The brine is simple pickling salt, water and white vinegar. Then I can use it incrementally as my produce comes in. Saves me a few steps by simply reheating premixed brine instead of making it each time. I like this approach because it allows me to put up a few pints at a time while the beans are fresh. Have never had a problem with my Dilly Beans.
Yes, if I comprehend correctly, it was part of the brine solution you heated, but it was not actually used in pickling. There is (arguably) some concern with reuse pickled liquids, on the basis of potential levels of bacteria.
Personally, I have reused pickling solutions - though these have mainly been vinegar solutions based and not brine solutions. Have yet to delve into natural fermentation 'pickling'.
You never reuse brine that has been used on meat
Veggie brines are ok though
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.179970
| 2015-07-08T18:07:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58902",
"authors": [
"Alsoome Amari",
"GdD",
"JSM",
"Kate Gregory",
"Neil Meyer",
"Oswald Julmi",
"Robert",
"Steven Sutis",
"Terrence Wright",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"user33210"
],
"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
}
|
91960
|
What is the benefit of a tinfoil packet?
I see a lot of recipes for tinfoil packet meals: various vegetables or meats and aromatics wrapped in tinfoil and baked/roasted. What is the benefit of roasting using a tinfoil packet compared to just roasting in a normal roasting pan?
A packet meal is meant to be taken as a packet. You can alter.
Is this what you mean as "tinfoil packet"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_papillote
Yes. Exactly that.
The packet keeps in most of the moisture, and also changes the way the food is heated - less radiation and convection, more conduction. These two factors change the taste of the food. It gets better heated throughout, less browning, and on the whole, it is more similar to what cooks call "wet heat" than "dry heat" despite being in an oven. This is what makes "packaged" recipes culinary different from the same food, simply roasted. It used to be even more important back in the age of wood fired ovens, which gave much less even heat. Note that tinfoil is just one of the options - you can wrap in other inedible substances like banana leaves, or edible ones, like making dolmas or meat pies.
A second very important difference is the matter of presentation, taking a piece of wrapped food gets perceived differently than taking a few spoonfuls of roasted vegetables out of a pan. Many en papillote preparations are more aesthetically pleasing than the ones that use tinfoil, but even the foil ones are, if not prettier, at least different.
Then you get into edge cases like the problem of baking a lump of cheese without losing all the fat, and so on. But for most foods, open roasting is an option, and wrapped roasting gets done because it is a different option, not because it is how it has to be done.
There are a couple benefits:
Ease of clean-up. This is the most likely scenario. I, personally, find that Americans like to waste a lot of resources to avoid clean-up tasks, and this is one of the ways.
Mess prevention. Roasting in pans can have spills and drips that this helps avoid.
Controlled environment. By using packets you can get some stock or other flavorful liquid in there and only use a little. The cooking environment will stay moist with only a little liquid.
Contain the flavors. I have not tested this but the smaller the enclosed space the less aromatic compounds you lose when cooking. I don't really buy this, because those compounds are moving as the temperature increases...but there is a little logic to it.
I'd add one more: customizable. If you have someone who's allergic to peppers, you can make a separate packet that doesn't have any.
A lot of foil packet preparations are done so the entire meal can be done on a grill.
It's much more convenient to do all the cooking with one device, rather than, say roasting vegetables in the oven and cooking meat outside on the grill.
I roast vegetables on the grill without the packet method all the time.
@bruglesco : it depends on how far the bars are spaced on your grill. (I prefer a grill basket myself). But they're almost always useful for cooking on a campfire so you don't need to haul in heavy pots and pans
@Joe but the answer doesnt mention campfire cooking. That I would upvote.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.180214
| 2018-08-29T18:32:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91960",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Matt",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78879
|
How to cook fallow deer ribs?
Yesterday I tried to make fallow deer ribs in a slow cooker. With beef ribs, I cooked them in a temperature-controlled slow-cooker for about 12 hours at 75 °C = 167 °F and they where amazing!
Done the same with fallow deer ribs, and they came out so dry that I had to cut the meat off the bones and blend it with hot water into a creamy soup to be able to eat it somehow.
I happen to have a moisture analyzer, and the meat after being slow cooked had only 55% moisture, while raw had 75%, so it lost 60% of its water during cooking.
Fallow deer is more tender then the common red deer, and also less fatty then beef I think (at least this piece). I even wrapped the whole thing in large cabbage leaves to prevent moisture loss, but it didn't help.
This is the piece before cooking:
I find it difficult to find a good way to prepare something which is on the bone, but so lean and tender. I find it easier to do with tough and fatty meat. Despite the meat attached to the bone being very tender, the bones are holding tightly, so I can't cut this into rib chops - I don't think I have a tool which can manage to cut this.
Boneless pieces of fallow dear I just sear for a few minutes on a pan and they are tender and great. But here I wanted to do something so the meat falls off the bone nicely, so I slow-cooked it, which ruined it.
I have another fallow-deer rib rack like that, how not to ruin it this time?
Is it possible to cook this properly in a slow cooked and/or in an oven, and if so what temperature and time to use in both cases? The whole thing weights about 2 kg (4 lb).
I've never cooked fallow deer ribs, but in general, lean meat needs to be cooked quickly. If you have a way to saw them apart, I would cook like lamb loin chops...seared in a pan or on a grill...a couple of minutes per side. You could cook it in an oven, but use a meat thermometer and cook only until desired doneness.
You will not succeed in slow cooking your deer to a nice, flavourful dish. There is not enough collagen or fat to do so; this is generally true of wild game. It has occasionally worked for me with rump or brisket from an older moose, but even then, the rump would have been better ground.
You appear to have the backstrap (loin), which is one of the two best cuts for steaks (the other being the tenderloin). I would suggest that you make medallions (e.g. venison steak Diane). Also by the same author here is a general discussion of deer steaks.
If you really do want to roast it, it should be barded (surrounded in fat such as fatback or bacon) or larded (strips of fat threaded through it). I prefer larding as barding reduces the Maillard reaction. In any case, it should be cooked quickly. E.g., an interesting recipe - which I have not tried - is here at Serious Eats combines roasting with post roasting browning. I think this is as slow as you can do it.
Finally, a hacksaw with a medium blade can work as a meat saw if you want to try chops. A wood saw can sort of do the job, but the coarser teeth tend to produce an excess of bone splinters.
Best of luck and don't forget to use your previous piece to make a great brown stock.
I also need to saw even if I want to make steaks/medallions out of it, how else I am gonna to take the meat off the bone? The recipe seems to call for boneless piece of meat. Is there any way to cook this well as a whole, without cutting it up or separating meat from bone?
That looks like a great thing to post in a separate question (=
@OmegaTerus Separate the loins using a boning (or fish filleting) knife. Cook the remaining meaty ribs separately (e.g., seasoned in a hot oven for five to ten minutes) as cook's reward or a nice meal, depending on the actual amount of meat..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.180491
| 2017-03-04T00:13:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78879",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"lowtoxin",
"moscafj",
"wumpus D'00m",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71477
|
how to cook nondescript venison in a cast iron pot so its tender?
Imagine you bought a piece of venison (unknown which part of the body, and exact species unknown, but probably red deer), and I have only a Le Creuset cast iron pot to prepare it. What would be the procedure to have the best chance of the meat ending up tender and tasty? Frying is not allowed because of advanced glycation end products (AGEs), nor is any method which will cause these to form in high levels. But I don't want to end up with a tough, dry, difficult to eat piece.
Please post an exact procedure to cook it tender, including things you think are obvious, as I am not very experienced in cooking so maybe I am missing something obvious, and so it turns out tough and dry when I tried to braise it, and the longer I cooked the tougher it was.
I think I'd be nervous cooking meat from an unknown part of an unknown kind of animal. Well, maybe not nervous cooking it, but definitely nervous contemplating eating it.
@DanielGriscom: in UK for example game meat often sold in supermarkets is usually not described what species of animal is it, just "venison" (which is generic for deer without specifying which species of deer). I've seen game meat in various supermarkets in UK, never seen the name of the species on it. I bought such meat on few occasions, was expensive and ended up dry and tough, hence the question.
Ahhh... your edits (changing "unknown game animal" to "unknown exact species of deer") narrow things down greatly. The original description would have been consistent with duck, boar, bison, deer, salmon, who knows...
it turns out tough and dry when I tried to braise it, and the longer I cooked the tougher it was
Then it is impossible to achieve what you want.
All "low and slow" methods overcook the muscle tissue, making it tough. At the same time, they melt the collagen in the meat, turning it into lubricating gelatine. The cooked meat then consists of muscle fibres embedded in the melted collagen, and is fall-apart-tender. You have probably had it as pulled pork or similar dishes. The requirement for this type of cooking: you need a high amount of collagen. If you don't, you will just end with the tough muscle fibres sticking to each other instead of swimming in collagen, so it will be one piece of tough meat.
How do you know that a piece of meat has enough collagen? You can use heuristics such as taking a look at it and recognizing the amount of connective tissue present, and also your knowledge about the animal and its parts (older animals and more supportive parts have more collagen). But the final test is cooking. If the longer you cook, the more tender the meat, it has enough collagen for low-and-slow. If it turns tougher, then it is not suitable for slow cooking.
The second option is hot-and-fast. It always produces AGEs. You excluded this.
The third option would be sous vide. As you 1) specified a cast iron pot, and 2) probably don't have a sous vide stick to suspend in that pot, and 3) don't know enough about the meat to look up the proper time and temperature even if you have the stick, that seems also out of question.
It seems that you need to buy some other meat. From there on, the proper procedure is to follow any recipe for low and slow cooking you choose.
what do people do with such meat usually? I find it hard to believe that people pay a lot of money to buy venison just to eat a tough dry thing. Also I don't believe most people sous vide it. If we remove the restriction of using only a cast iron pot, does it get possible?
They use the hot-and-fast methods, such as making steaks, roasts and dozens of other similar dishes which produce a tasty seared crust. I would even say that in modern Western cooking, these are the most popular cooking methods for meat.
A third option is to mince it and bake something like a venison cottage pie (you've ruled out burgers). This will have the effect of mechanically tenderising it as well as breaking it up into little pieces which won't seem as chewy. You may want to mix in a little beef mince (of the fatty kind) if you suspect the meat is rather lean (and tough venison can be). Of course, you need a mincer to do this.
For getting tender meat, you typically have two choices --
Low and slow cooking
Hot and fast cooking (ie, a quick sear, left rare or medium rare)
Option 1 is best when there's lots of fat, which is rarely the case in game meat.
Option 2 is a problem for unknown game meat, as without knowing what animal it is, we don't know what the risk of parasites are. (so it's important to know what you're buying).
If I had the meat, I'd probably be inclined to use mechanical tenderization (ie, pounding or stabbing) if you want something more steak-like, but cook it to medium, or a low and slow cook but be mindful of how you cut it up. You could even cut it up for a stir-fry.
As you've then given us the restriction of only one choice of cooking vessel, I'd say you're best off with the slow cook. I'd personally go for stew or pot roast as the slow wet cooking tends to yield tender meat even if it's not all that fatty ... but you also said 'minimum amount of extra ingredients' ... and that starts getting into 'recipe request', which the folks on this site tend to shut down.
by unknown species of game, in fact I meat venison without knowing is it red deer or roe deer. Roe deer is much more tender then red deer in my experience, so that's why I posted that the species is unknown, but likely red deer. Maybe I should modify the question.
stir-fry doesn't satisfy the low-AGE requirement
I would be personally inclined to make a brine and make a wilder version of corned beef. I have made something similar with the tougher parts of beef ie brisket.
The process of osmosis hydrates the muscle tissue, allowing the cells to hold on to more moisture while cooking. This may give you the chance to do a slow-and-low cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.180926
| 2016-07-17T20:27:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71477",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"lowtoxin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110018
|
Why homemade and certain artisan commercial butters have creamy texture but most commercial butters have oily texture?
Usually when you make homemade butter, and sometimes some commercial semi-artisan butters, for example french Isigny Ste-Mère Unpasteurised, the butter has a, what I would call "creamy" texture. I realized its not what others consider creamy, but I lack a better word at the moment. Think ice-cream creamy not face-cream creamy. Seems almost like very thick cream (but also not talking about the liquid homogenized stuff sold as cream in supermarkets, but real cream you get when you let milk from a cow you just milked yourself stand and cream collects on the top). The butter has a kind-of ice-cream texture, but without the need to keep it cold, and you can cut it up with a knife and eat like pieces of some cheese and it feels tasty.
But most typical butters from the supermarket have none of that, and feel like a totally different product. Has a very oily texture, not much creaminess, and if you try to eat it like cheese it tastes almost disgusting, unpalatable. It seems more like semi-solid oil. Even higher quality butters like Irish Kerrygold which is touted as grass-fed, is very oily, actually its more oily then other commercial butters.
I also have the impression that the homemade creamy butter melts at a higher temperature then typical commercial butter, which would be already melting and not keeping its cube shape at a hot-day room temperature without aircon (~26-30°C, ~80-90°F) but the homemade butter would still stay pretty solid.
I am not talking about fake butters with vegetable oils added in, all of these butters are pure cow milk butters with 82% fat, nothing added.
What exactly in the process makes the difference in the result?
I don't think it's the pasteurization, as I've seen butter from unpasteurized milk which was also oily and not creamy, certainly much more oily then other butters I've seen. There seems to be a varying degree of oiliness vs. creaminess among various commercial and homemade butters, it's a spectrum, not a all-or-nothing thing. Some commercial butters feel less oily and more creamy then others.
Simplest answer would be that one butter is churned from milk while other is milk centrifuged to lower the fat content to make 0%, 1% or 3% milk and the fat is then used to make butter.
@SZCZERZOKŁY That should be an answer
@SZCZERZOKŁY I don't think any butter is churned from milk. I had made some creamy butter in a blender, and used cream purchased on a farmers market, not milk. So the input to the butter-churning is always something more fat-concentrated then milk.
I find this question very strange. I would describe all commercial butter's texture I've had as "creamy" and not as "oily". I've had homemade butter, and the texture was much less creamy, more crystalline, a bit like coconut oil. I cannot even start imagining what qualities you are describing here with these words, and without such a definition, I doubt that there can be an answer.
@rumtscho This is because when I think of the word "creamy" I imagine a thick heavy cream which collects on the top of freshly milked cow milk, so thick that it won't pour out if you turned the cup with it upside down. And when you think "creamy", you probably think of a face cream.
if you want to eat something that's like the cream collected on top of raw milk, you should probably be looking into mascarpone, not butter.
While I am not completely sure what texture difference you are seeing, and I would not necessarily describe store-bought butter as 'oily', I can think of a reason why the texture of homemade butter is different: air. Depending on your method, when churning butter at home, you usually incorporate some air into the butter, giving it a 'fluffier' texture. This is similar to (but less extreme than) whipped butter.
A simple test to see if this is indeed the case would be to take some store-bought butter, follow the recipe I linked to above, and see whether the result is closer to your preferred texture.
I haven't done the recipe you linked, but after seeing it, I am pretty sure that is not the creaminess I am talking about. The creamy butter I am talking is not at all airy, actually its more firm and solid then the supermarket oily butter. The creamy butter I like is NOT fluffier, quite the opposite. Creamy is probably not the right word to describe it for people who are used to only seeing supermarket cream, which is completely different then real milk cream, when you milked a cow and let it stand. That cream is thick, has a texture you can almost chew through, is not soft and airy.
I will make a guess in light of the new information.
If the quality that interests you is being similar to the cream collecting on top of raw milk, then the process difference here is underchurning. Cream is just an intermediate stage between milk and butter. If you stop it earlier, your butter will be more similar to cream than if you stop it later.
The point of churning is to produce a butter with high fat content, removing the water and some of the protein and carbohydrates from the milk. If you stop it earlier than the commercial producers do, you will have more water and other stuff left inside, and the fat will still be a bit more emulsified, both because of the water present and because you won't have agitated it enough to have sufficient coalescence of the fat globules.
So, when producing butter, most cooks prefer the process to have been sufficiently to the point where they get commercial butter. It performs better than underchurned butter in baking and cooking, and many people prefer it as a spread. But if you like it not-completely-churned, then you can indeed go for butter which offers just that.
I somehow doubt it's under-churned, because the Isigny Ste-Mère Unpasteurised butter (which has the creamy-cheese texture you can eat it alone) still has the same amount of fat as any other commercial butter (its 80%, but only because 2% in the butter is salt, so its actually 82% of the butter), and I've made butter from cream bought from a farmer with a mixer machine, and churned it as much as possible. I'll describe it another way: if you take a piece of butter between fingers, the typical supermarket butter feels like oil, but the homemade or Isigny butter feels like some kind of cheese.
Regardless of whether it is the reason for the difference in texture (which I still find hard to grasp - I never had homemade butter feel like cheese on touch, I find it oilier than commercial butter), homemade butter certainly gets less churning/a lesser amount of agitation than commercial butter.
do you know Kerrygold Butter? It actually feels more oily then most other commercial butters, opposite of the homemade butter. Have you ever had homemade butter which feels so good to eat by itself? Most commercial butter is unpalatable to be eaten in significant amount just by itself, not combined with other food. The homemade non-oily butter is very palatable, delicious to eat several tablespoons of, just like that, without any other food.
I have never had a butter which I personally found palatable by itself, homemade or otherwise. I've eaten Kerrygold, and never noticed a different texture than other butters from the supermarket. I suspect that the difficulty in communication here is that there is some specific texture that is subjectively important to you and you personally enjoy, but the average person doesn't even notice.
I thought of another way to describe the home-made butter texture: its like ice-cream (when its still properly cold, and not already melting), but without the need to keep it cold. I also have the impression that it melts at a much higher temperature then typical commercial butter, which would be already melting and not keeping its cube shape at a hot-day room temperature without aircon (~26-30°C, ~80-90°F) but the homemade butter would still stay pretty solid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.181631
| 2020-08-04T06:20:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110018",
"authors": [
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"lowtoxin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110067
|
What are the conditions that raw milk, just milked from a cow, should stand to obainin thick traditional Romanian smântână?
Let's say I have fresh, raw, unpasteurized milk, just obtained from a local cow owner who milked the cow within the last hour, the milk is still slightly warm from the cow's body heat. In what conditions it should stand and for how long, to obtain thick, traditional Romanian smântână, viscous to the point that it would not flow out of a cup when its turned over.
I know such smântână is sold by old ladies on the farmers markets in Romania. What to do if my smântână doesn't turn out like that, even having the same milk, from the same cow, bought from them, not skimmed. For the educational purpose of the question let's assume they are not cheating me and selling me milk with some cream already skimmed, that can be a factor, but let's eliminate all other possible factors before accusing the cow lady.
Traditional Romanian smântână differs from traditional French thick high-fat crème fraîche. Creme fraîche is made from pasteurized cream and has a bacterial starter culture added, while smântână had no pasteurization done at any point and no cultures are added, only the milk's natural bacteria are making it. This process is without the use of a centrifuge or separator, as separator-made smântână is much more liquid.
I am not sure if smântână is considered a cultured product or not, as while it is said it should not be sour, but it certainly ferments a little while standing, only not as much as soured milk or yogurt? The Wikipedia page mentions "Smântână taste is tangy and sweet, a soured smântână is considered as spoiled."
I am looking for information on the parameters to obtaining a thick, highly viscous, non-flowing smântână, for example:
The temperature at which to keep the milk
The time to keep it at that temperature from the moment of milking the cow till smântână is ready
Anything else I should know to ensure I obtain a thick, highly viscous cream which doesn't taste sour
The correct answer will be only one which refers specifically to the Romanian traditional way, ideally from someone with knowledge from a Romanian grandmother, or otherwise having knowledge how it was traditionally done, before there were fridges and separators. Any other ways to obtain cream, any procedure not specifically from Romanian tradition, is outside the scope of this question.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
I can't give you the Romanian recipe but I doubt it differs much from Polish.
First, Start with cow milk. It must be genuine unprocessed milk - absolutely not cooked, UHT, preserved, skim, lactose-free or other 'inventions' where the natural bacterial flora has been killed and the milk will rot instead of souring.
Make the standard fresh cream. There were traditional tools for that but a centrifugal separator will do just fine, with far less effort; the technology doesn't 'spoil' this part.
Don't go over the top with fat content. The American creams are ludicrously fatty. 14-18% of fat content is normal, up to 30% is okay but really unnecessary and will make it harder to achieve the right results.
Then put the sweet cream in a clean ceramic jar, cover with a clean cloth that allows air through but will stop insects, and leave in a slightly cool place - temperature of order of 18 Celsius degrees (although 'cooler side' of room temperature is fine). Let it sit overnight and if you started with genuine unprocessed cow milk, it will sour and thicken into the traditional sour cream with a layer of transparent whey on the bottom.
Thank you for the information, this is interesting, but I have the suspicion that it does differ significantly from Romanian smântână. I do have some bits of information how it is done, and from all I know, there is no 2-step process of first extracting "fresh cream" and then letting it sour. Romanian smântână is not even supposed to taste sour, but "tangy and sweet". And the "make standard fresh cream" would need a lot more details, how long do you wait from the moment you milk the cow? Remember we are doing this because we have a cow or know someone who has a cow and we just had it milked.
@yann: Maybe, never tried Romanian. I just know thickness of sour (meaning any level of tanginess) comes from the souring process, not from fat content. For waiting, I know both milk that was just short of going sour was okay to use, and milk literally diverted to the separator from the milking machine on the way to the tank, not even 10 seconds old; they will just differ in time it takes to go soured but the end result is the same.
You forgot to mention the one processing step that milk really cannot have if you want to gather the cream: it should not be homogenized.
@cbeleitesunhappywithSX Are there any cows which give homogenized milks?
@yannn: no. Homogenization is mixing the milk very thoroughly in a way that distributes the fat evenly in very tiny droplets. The milk as it comes out of the cow has droplets of fat, which will fuse and grow and finally form the cream clot at the top after some time. The mixing/homogenizing distributes them as much smaller droplets. The smaller droplets won't separate easily, so you cannot get the cream by waiting.
I will admit that I have never been to Romania and will base my answer on the guess that "smântână" is a loanword from the Slavic "smetana" - which is highly probable given my knowledge of the mixing of language and culture on the Balkans, and your description of the final product.
The English word for it is "cream". Typically, cream is in the range between 30% and 50% fat, although the transition to milk on the lower side and butter on the high side is fluid. Outside of pastry chefs, most people nowadays are familiar with the 30% to 33% "whipping cream" sold in supermarkets, and may be surprised to encounter products with much higher fat and hear that they are still considered "cream". What you want is probably 45% and above, making it "double cream".
The way of obtaining a thicker cream is to simply increase its fat content. The fast way is by a separator, the slow way is by letting it sit. The starting product can be milk, raw or not, or already-made cream (by separator or by sitting), as long as it has no stabilizers (look on the label for the words "stabilizer" or "carrageenan"). A separator is perfectly suited to making thicker (higher fat) cream, you just have to let it run longer than for the whipping cream sold in supermarkets.
So let's assume you wish to start from raw milk. What you should do is:
put it in a vessel of your choice. Preferably one with a wide opening (like a pot) rather than one with a narrow opening (like a bottle). Make sure you can close the vessel reasonably well (a normally fitting lid on a cooking pot will do).
put the vessel in the fridge and let it sit undisturbed.
when the smântână has built up, gather it.
To go to your points one by one:
the temperature: Do it in the fridge. The traditional way of doing it outside is unsafe.
the time to sit: Several days. It's impossible to give you an exact number, you have to gather it when you consider it good enough
the way it is traditionally separated: By any way you can accomplish the task. You can gather it with a spoon, or with a slotted spoon, or you can attempt to pour out the milk only without disturbing the cream.
"Anything else I should know to increase the chance of obtaining a thick, highly viscous cream which doesn't taste sour"
if the stuff you get feels too liquid to you, you might want to switch to a multi-step process where you gather the top layer roughly, with a bit of milk still in, transfer it to another vessel, and wait for this slightly-concentrated cream to cream up even better.
instead of starting with raw milk, start with whipping cream from the store and leave it to sit in its original sealed container until shortly before its best-by date.
Note that there isn't that much fat in milk, and the traditional method is also rather inefficient, so about 50 g of cream per liter of milk would be a great result. Don't wait too long in the hope to see more cream building, the time you can wait is bound by the milk spoiling.
You also asked if it's not cultured. Cultured smetana is a different product (I suppose it exists in Romania too, but don't know the term for it). People talking and writing about the two don't always bother to mention the qualifier "cultured". I don't know if you may actually want the cultured product, but to have happened upon descriptions of the non-cultured one and to have mixed them up.
If you want cultured smetana as widespread on the Balkans (it has a different texture and is more sour than the noncultured one described above, but without being spoiled), you have to obtain a L. bulgaricus based yogurt culture and use it to culture whipping cream (not milk), using the exact process prescribed for making yogurt with it. You can obtain the pure culture - Laboratory Genesis ships throughout Europe, I believe - and it will have instructions. Or you can buy yogurt labelled "Bulgarian yogurt" in the supermarket and use it as the starter - here, you can follow a standard yogurt recipe, but remember that L. Bulgaricus is thermophilic, so you should incubate at 43-46 C for best results.
And now for the difference to the creme fraiche. The most traditional smântână (the "sweet" one made by sitting) does indeed have some bacterial activity in it, it is made by leaving the milk at room temperature. But you have no way to control the proportion of lactobacillic bacteria to pathogens multiplying by it. The texture and smell (being spoiled) is a very rough way of recognizing the worst batches, but even in the properly prepared ones, you will be consuming significant amounts of common pathogenic bacteria, and with some of them, you will also be consuming less common, but more dangerous ones like listeria. So, if you choose to do it that way, be aware that 1) you have a rather short window of consuming it between the cream forming and spoiling, and 2) when you consume it (before it has visibly spoiled) you are already deep in what is considered unsafe by modern standards.
The difference between modern cultured smântână and creme fraiche is not the use of a starter, it is the culture used in the starter. Creme fraiche is done with a different species of bacteria in the starter.
Thank you for your answer, some useful information here, though still hoping to hear from someone with a Romanian grandmother. Though a few comments: the scope of the question is to describe only the traditional process, of making it from raw milk from a cow just being milked. Anything involving purchasing anything from a commercial source, like "whipping cream" is out of the scope of the question. Also what is considered "unsafe" by currently prevailing thinking in western countries should not override that I am specifically asking about the traditional method. Thanks!
@yannn The process is the same in all countries, you don't need a Romanian grandmother for it. I added in parallel some info on going "fully traditional" by leaving it outside - note that even the fridge process is unsafe, but by doing it out of the fridge, you are no longer playing a game of chance, you are getting into an area where you are almost certain to suffer negative consequences with repeated consumption.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.182217
| 2020-08-07T03:26:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110067",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"SF.",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"lowtoxin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105017
|
Potato substitution question?
Are there any recipes you know of where if potatoes weren’t included it would fundamentally change the recipe or the way it tastes? For example, a lot of recipes that have mashed or sliced potatoes you could sub in cauliflower for, but are there any recipes where potatoes have to be included or else the dish wouldn’t be the same?
I came up with a few examples of where potatoes only are needed but I’d love to hear your feedback:
- Pierogis
- French meat pie
- Latkes
I think this will result in a list of equally valid responses, thus making it off topic for our site.
Well, if you make a potato-leek soup without potatoes, it is not a potato-leek soup, it will be a leek soup.
I'm not sure what the idea here is. Potatoes au gratin and cauliflower au gratin are different recipes, and one could not be mistaken for the other. Is the question just, do potatoes have a distinct flavor?
His question was could I find a recipe where potatoes are so integral to the makeup of the dish that any other replacement would completely change how the dish tastes? Ex: au gratin example, if you switch out potatoes for cauliflower, similar textures and taste, however subbing in something else in a latke would completely change the dish.
Btw., there are also latkes based on other root vegetables...
Sorry, but you will never find an objective criterion for where the boundary is between "completely changes the dish" and "does not change the dish completely". You will always find individuals who are certain that a given dish falls into the one or other category, but you won't be able to combine their opinions without creating contradictions.
Mash made with butter (and garlic if you like, or sour cream, mustard, or cheese, etc.) will be rather different made from another starchy veg, and not just in colour. Common mashed veg might be sweet potato, or carrot and swede, and these, whether plain or flavoured, taste very different from mashed potato.
The same can be said for chips/fries/wedges: put the same seasoning on potato and sweet potato and you'll get different flavours. It's hard to separate the texture aspect completely for these, but the flavour difference dominates.
It's more a matter of serving tradition - yes potatoes are quite plain and enhanced by other things, but it's not essential to do so. The addition of butter to a baked potato or new potatoes is a lot to do with mouthfeel; the quantity is often too small to have much effect on the flavour. Also, even between potato varieties there's a difference in flavour, if you don't add so much seasoning that you mask it. This is particularly obvious with new potatoes.
In fact new potatoes are the dish in which it would be hardest to replace the potato with anything else (and it's not just because it's so simple - baked sweet potato, while not the same as baked potato, is rather similar and also has basically no other ingredients). If your friend reckons potatoes don't have their own flavour, steam some Charlottes or Jersey Royals and serve them those
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.183089
| 2020-01-28T14:10:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105017",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80315",
"moscafj",
"pimentoandprose",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122165
|
How can I thicken French Onion chip dip?
Many store-bought chip dips have a firm, thick texture that's hard to replicate at home. If I draw a Ruffles chip through a commercial French Onion Dip, I can still see the ridges in the dip the next day. I've experimented with several thickeners, including guar gum, tapioca starch and Ultra-Tex 8, but it's difficult to activate the thickener in a cold dip and my dip ends up pasty, not firm.
Is it possible to get that store-bought texture in a homemade dip?
My recipe includes sour cream, white vinegar, lemon juice, seasonings (onion powder, garlic powder, sugar, salt, parsley) and guar gum as a binder. And whatever thickener(s) I'm experimenting with.
Ingredients in the commercial dip I'm trying to replicate: Skim Milk, Whey (Milk), Palm Oil, Water, Contains Less Than 2% Of Onion*, Parsley*, Salt, Sugar, Hydrolyzed Soy And Corn Protein, Hydrolyzed Torula And Brewer’s Yeast Protein, Citric Acid, Lactic Acid, Acetic Acid, Monosodium Glutamate, Food Starch-Modified, Gelatin, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Locust Bean Gum, Soy Lecithin, Potassium Sorbate (To Preserve Freshness), Guar Gum, Carrageenan, Yellow 5 & 6. *dehydrated
Providing your ingredients would help elicit better responses.
The ingredients of your commercial alternative that you are trying to replicate might also prove enlightening.
I count at least 5 different "thickeners" without looking up what I don't recognize. And when I look it up, I find that it helps gelling agents work at lower temperatures, supposedly. https://modernistpantry.com/products/sodium-hexametaphosphate.html
These tips will alter the taste but are still reasonable equivalents:
Replace some of the acids for powder form. Instead of white vinegar AND lemon juice, you could add citric acid, sumak, or lemon pepper.
You could also add parmesan instead of salt.
You can also replace sour cream with something thicker such as creme fraiche or yogurt.
Or thicker yet: cream cheese or mascarpone. Blend that in there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.183453
| 2022-10-31T15:45:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122165",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105179
|
What can I do about peeling wok seasoning?
I bought a carbon-steel wok, seasoned it, and it worked great for a couple weeks. Now however a small portion of the seasoning right in the very middle seems to have peeled off. While the sides are perfectly non-stick, the middle is, if anything, slightly sticky to the touch. I really hope I don't have to strip the seasoning and redo it from scratch. Any recommendations? Thanks!
Edit: I should also add that the metal underneath the peeled-off portion looks like the unseasoned wok, a light blueish grey.
i think that you use too much oil in the beginning, best option would be to clean everything up and redo from scratch.
The most likely problem is that you let oil pool in the bottom of the wok during seasoning, so it didn't polymerize properly. Personally, I would scrub that portion off, and reseason only the bottom, using this method:
Heat the wok to smoking hot.
Turn off the heat, and immediately polish with a lightly oiled cloth or paper towel.
Turn it upside down to cool (this prevents oil pooling at the bottom).
A second possibility is that you cooked something very wet, and maybe acidic as well, in the bottom of the wok while the seasoning was still fairly new. Again, the answer is to scrub off the damaged portion and reseason it.
Some relevant links for general care of carbon steel woks:
Patina burning off
When to redo seasoning
Serious Eats wok seasoning
Overall, don't worry about it too much; I find that I mess up the seasoning in my wok (usually due to too much steaming) at least once a year and re-do it. As long as you don't scratch up the metal (use a bamboo or plastic scrubby), you can rescue your wok from any kind of seasoning problem.
Thanks so much! That's really helpful. When I scrub the damaged part off, I just used the previously-mentioned bamboo or plastic scrubby? Thanks again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.183627
| 2020-02-07T14:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105179",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80990"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45695
|
How to prepare this (Chinese) snack?
I've bought a bag of small dried and salted fish at my local Chinese market. My guess was that the thingies could be eaten right out of the box, but they are too bony and salty.
I guess they need some kind of desalting and perhaps frying, but not sure what to try.
From the back of the bag drawings and text (thanks Google Translate!) I managed to infer that it's really a snack (ideal beer companion!)
Any ideas on how to prepare/serve them?
Is asking the owner of your local Chinese market for a translation or explanation out of the question?
@Dispensador Yup. Their local language command and helpfulness aren't (how to say it) "outstanding".
That is unfortunate. Hopefully a literate Chinese speaker will stumble upon this question and give you a hand.
@Dispensador Google translate now can OCR and translate from Chinese. Those were not cooking/serving instructions but just some marketing and storage considerations (so I deleted the second photo)
Didn't know it could OCR already, neat! At any rate, good luck finding anything about this. Maybe I'll do some Googling of my own.
@Dispensador See http://chinesehacks.com/resources/mobile/free-chinese-character-recognition-google-translate/
They might be similar to dried shrimp -- where they're used as a flavoring in other dishes, and not intended for eating on their own.
@Joe Not sure: http://www.aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-dried-fish-snack.html
If they are suggested to be consumed with beer, then they are already prepared. People make beer snacks salty and overly crispy on purpose.
@rumtscho My doubt aroused because they don't taste nice at all. But perhaps it's an acquired taste.
Next time get the really really small ones. Those are best raw. The bigger ones usually are fried first before eating. Then the bones get crunchy and the saltiness is not as prominent.
Others are used for stocks or garnishes, as said before.
Based on my russian experience, this is ready to go snack. Just bite it and drink beer.
I know, my american friends usually scared to try "uncooked" fish, but salty dried fish is good. Also I would recommend you to try salty dried calamari or octopuses.
Cheers!
Thanks a lot for your answer. Trying them out of the box was exactly what I did, but they are waaay too salty and the taste is not "pleasant". And I'm far from a picky eater :)
From the text it simply says 提魚干, which I assume is some sort of dried fish. I'm not sure about Chinese, but based on Japanese cuisine it looks like it might be a type of Niboshi.
Those are usually used as a stock for soup, as flavoring in dishes, with dips as a snack, or as garnish when ground, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.183808
| 2014-07-18T14:34:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45695",
"authors": [
"Arun Rai",
"Dispenser",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110224
|
What causes some fish to get texture like mashed potato suddenly?
Sometimes a fish I cook disappointingly becomes of a mushy texture like mashed potato. One particular species where this seems to happen very easily, is Lethrinus miniatus: sweetlip emperor (also called trumpet emperor or sweetlip swoose) I've eaten other similar fishes (other sweetlips or emperors) and I didn't encounter the same problem.
Cooking is done on a cast-iron electric cooker, on a cast-iron pan, putting a little ghee on the pan and no water added, cooking on the lowest power (140 W) for an hour or two, of the whole intact fish, with skin and scales. Using a lot more butter, when the fish is fully covered in hot liquid ghee, avoids the problem, but with large specimen (~ 2 kg) its quite impractical and expensive, as it takes several kg of clarified butter to immerse the fish.
So having success with the immersed in ghee method, I am trying to make it work without so much butter, but the result is disappointing, the fish seems to transform from undercooked (when it's not possible to pull off the skin without taking a lot of meat with it) to mushy, mashed potato in almost no time. Often one part of the fish is still undercooked and not far from it is already mushy. As I am cooking it quite slowly and at low temperature, and cast-iron has a large heat mass, it would seem it should cook quite uniformly, but it appears it doesn't.
I did this also with a thermostatic controller with a probe both inside the fish body or probing the thin layer of ghee under the fish, with 65°C (149°F) or 80°C (176°F), but it seems the temperature differs a lot between parts of the fish, with some parts being undercooked and others mushy already.
I want to try not exceeding 60°C (140°F) but this would mean extending the time, so I am not sure it will yield the desired result.
Considering it doesn't happen when fish is immersed in clarified butter, I would like to know what physicochemical properties of the fish meat makes this happen and most other, even similar species it doesn't, and are there any other ways to avoid it, preferably regarding time and temperature control?
Another thing to consider, is that the sweetlip emperors I cooked in butter, were also mostly cooked from fresh (same-day caught), while the one I cooked today which turned out mushy was frozen by me from fresh and then unfrozen and cooked, but I am not sure it was always the case with a few mushy ones I had and some which turned out fine in butter bath. I am trying to isolate the cause of the mashed-potato-like mushiness, having several variables.
I'm really confused about the cooking method, you are poaching the fish in ghee?
@Max: yeah, kind of. 12" cast iron pan, some ghee in it, no water, and the fish, nothing else. When it's fully submerged it comes out great, but that uses a few litres of ghee, which is expensive, so I am trying to do this with only a small amount of ghee in the pan, most of the fish is in the air over the ghee.
You have already diagnosed both your problem and the solution. Your intended cooking method is to poach the fish in ghee, you are not poaching it (for poaching, you will have to immerse it in a generous amount of liquid, in this case ghee) and thus it overheats.
You should either accept that this dish takes several kilograms of butter, or choose a different preparation method for large fish. What you cannot do is take away what makes the method work (the ghee) and then still expect it to work.
The freezing process will definitely damage the integrity of the fragile fish meat, but that can't be the only explanation to this texture. It looks that your fish is really overcooked, and I can't really understand your recipe, but I don't think that any fish, even the large specimen you mentioned, should be cooked for so long, even at a low temperature. Depending of the type and size of the fish, the best way to cook it is either to grill it in a pan, a few minuts on each side on a medium to high fire (you can do it "à la meunière" if you are partial to butter, it's delicious), or in the oven, generally 20 to 45 min around 180° C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.184042
| 2020-08-16T05:42:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110224",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"lowtoxin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110473
|
How long would meat stored (in jars) and fish (whole) in a ice-water bath last?
For various reasons I'd like to store fresh meat and fish without freezing for as long as possible. I should preserve its original state as fresh and taste, so salting, cooking, vinegar is out of the question.
I have this idea to put meat in glass jars (with empty space filled up with ghee or tallow to eliminate air which degrades meat too), and fish as whole fish (with skin and scales, I just remove the intestines and gallbladder before storage), in water-ice bath. The idea is to keep constant temperature just above freezing, i.e. around 0.5°C (33°F).
I could set-up the ice bath in a double Styrofoam container and replace deep frozen plastic bottles with water made in the freezer daily. Would this keep my meat and fish in as close to fresh state as possible for longer then simply sitting in the refrigerator (where temperatures will vary by a few degrees due to the duty cycle and opening the door)? Is anything like this practised with success and how long would meat (specifically beef, lamb, goat) and fish (e.g. snapper, barracuda, salmon) keep fresh like this?
Maybe a better approach is to use a high-speed cooling method to rapidly chill your meat and fish before placing it in your less-than-perfect freezer. See: https://ideas.4brad.com/node/419
The best approach is to get a new freezer.
@Rob This is not the point of the question. The freezer is a side issue. The question is about storing meat and fish above 0°C, which I know is safely being done for much longer then 5 days, because meat ageing is done above 0°C.
I know that's not your point but it is you issue. You are asking how you can get away with not using a proper, working freezer.
@Rob I will delete any mention of the freezer now from my question, because its supper annoying when someone is talking about not the aspect of my question that I want information about.
Is it safe to store fresh meat and fish for a bit longer at 33F than at higher temperatures? Probably. OP's original question asked about two weeks, and the answer is: at 33F, food is probably safe for greater than two weeks, per the scientific literature on food safety. I know everyone wants to quote FDA regulations or whatever here, but they are a one-size-fits-all oversimplification.
I gave a summary of the science of different temperatures with storage life in an answer here. Unfortunately, the website that was used to source a lot of that summary for that answer is no longer extant, as the author (a prominent food safety scientist named O. Peter Snyder, who actually came up with the principles for many HACCP protocols) died last year. I suppose that information may be archived somewhere, but I don't have time to dig up another citation for it all right now. One can find citations in food safety journals for various models and studies, but they often don't make it into consumer or business guidelines for food, as these are necessarily simplified.
As I noted in the linked answer, pathogenic bacteria grow at progressively slower rates at lower temperatures. Only a few types will grow at temperatures below 35F, and all growth should cease for normal pathogenic food agents by 29F. At 35F, the safe storage lifespan is at least double that of 40F (a typical refrigerator recommended temperature). At 33F, the literature would suggest that a 2-week lifespan for safety is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, safety is not the only concern. Food quality can degrade over time even if food doesn't become unsafe to consume. The discussion in comments over aging of meat is a case in point: beef aging does introduce significant changes in flavor, texture, etc. In cases of large aged beef cuts, many people regard the changes to be positive (after removal of surface mold, etc.), but the changes in fish over time may be less predictable without standard preservation methods.
Removing air from the environment around the food will significantly help to maintain some freshness, but introducing ghee or tallow (as mentioned in the question) could change the products in unpredictable ways. I should also clarify that it would be important to have sterile ghee or tallow. Also, to use them for sealing will likely require heating. Residual heat as the fat solidifies will cause thermal cycling, which could introduce additional problems (both from a food quality and a food safety perspective).
Bottom line is that at 33F you're likely to grow spoilage microorganisms that will make the food taste awful faster than you'll grow pathogenic bacteria that will make you sick. And yes, a consistent 33F temperature is likely to preserve food for longer than a less consistent refrigerator interior that likely cycles in a wide temperature range, hopefully below 40F (but frequently not; many people will be surprised if they start actually measuring the temperatures of things on their refrigerator doors). As to how long you can store a particular food using your particular method before it degrades in quality - well, I'm not sure anyone can predict that.
Storing food in this manner would not be a good idea.
An ice water bath as you describe will prevent the food from freezing, keeping it barely above freezing temperature.
This will not allow uncooked or unpreserved meat or fish to last any longer than the usual recommendation.
Well, the whole point of my idea is to "prevent the food from freezing, keeping it barely above freezing temperature" i.e. for example 0.5°C (33°F). The table you lists for fresh beef "3 to 5 days" at 4.5°C (40 °F), and my temperature will be a whole 4°C (7°F) lower then that so I don't see why it wouldn't keep good longer with each degree lowering temperature. Especially that refrigerator temperature control is not very precise and varies greatly between the shelves and position deeper/closer to the door, the guidelines probably have a large margin of error.
Also note that meat is often aged for much more then 5 days, and this is done at above freezing, so it's surely not a limit of 5 days to store fresh meat above water-freezing point temperature.
@yannn your question is about food safety, and the site's rules and standards call for the only answer to food safety questions are from authoritative sources, which is likely why there are no other answers to your question. As far as alternative preservation techniques, you are correct that they do exist, but the question isn't about alternative preservation.
This is a worldwide site, and you quoted an United States authority, while much of the world has a pretty different opinion on what is safe in food then US authorities (e.g. US vs. French about raw milk), and USA authorities opinions should not be assumed to be the only valid ones. Also meat is commonly stored above freezing for much longer then 5 days during ageing, e.g. two weeks, and that meat which was stored above water freezing for 2 weeks is sold as fresh meat in UK for example, so it seems to be plausible that I can store fresh, not previously aged meat above 0°C for 2 weeks.
@yannn US sources are not the only ones - but the recommendations are very similar in many countries. There’s a difference between aging and storing meat and a difference between safe methods and customary, yet not necessarily safe approaches. Your own example of raw milk is a good example - the fact that raw milk cheeses are not recommended for pregnant women shows that they are not truly safe, but that the remaining risks are considered acceptable for healthy consumers. All food safety rules are based on statistics and risk assessment, which may be different between countries and agencies.
@Stephie It's indisputable that during ageing meat is made available later in time, thus during ageing storing happens, so whatever method is used for ageing is also a storage method. Wet-ageing involves vacuum-sealing beef and allowing it to sit in the refrigerator commonly for 2 weeks. No matter how you look at it, this is storage and is done above 0°C.
@yannn ageing and improperly storing look very similar but will give you very different results at the end. Ageing is done under certain controlled conditions; outside of that it's just improper storage and will produce spoiled food.
try vacuum sealing the meat of fish before storing them either in the fride or freezer, removing air will allow you to get longer preservation in the fridge
(due to lower umidity and oxidation rate)and better quality when you freeze the product avoiding freezer burns and big ice crystal formation
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.184393
| 2020-08-29T12:31:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110473",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Phil",
"Rob",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559",
"lowtoxin",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105232
|
Cooked ham left out overnight
I forgot to put the rest of the ham we ate for dinner in the fridge last night and didn't realize it until this morning. Heat wasn't on but it was probably around 57-60 degrees overnight. If I pressure cook the leftover ham with some beans, how big a chance would I be taking in eating it? I know pressure cooking should kill the bacteria, but I don't know how many toxins would have already been produced.
Just the let you know where I'm coming from, we typically eat things in our house that others would prob throw out for safety's sake (foods past their dates or left out a little longer than they should have been).
Apparently my question is too close to other questions. I would say the difference lies in two parts. One, I am planning to pressure cook the food in question which should kill the bacteria in the food. So my main question is about the toxins produced by the bacteria. And two, I am asking for an opinion, not a reiteration of food safety guidelines. As stated, our family often breaks food safety guidelines when we do not see a significant chance of it actually causing us problems.
Hi Lisa! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Opinion-based questions are off topic for this site, so you're unlikely to get the answer you're looking for. In particular, "Is it safe to eat?" questions are strictly limited to objective, fact-based answers, which limit answers primarily to food safety guidelines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.185017
| 2020-02-10T14:32:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105232",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"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
}
|
105839
|
Reducing fat content in thick chicken stock
My chicken stock is very gelatinous (good) but it didn't have a layer of fat to skim off. How can I reduce the fat content?
Gelatin and fat are different. Chill your stock. If a layer of fat solidifies at the surface, remove it. If you see no layer of solidified fat, you've probably eliminated as much as possible.
I'm tempted to say 'keep the fat' (schmalz). It's useful, tasty stuff.
@RobinBetts absolutely!
As it cools, the fat and water will separate into two layers, with the fat on top. If there is no/little fat layer, then there simply isn't any fat. The thickness that seems fatty is just gelatin that has set like jelly. That's a good thing as it means the stock was well made.
To prevent gelatin from freezing, add more water. And excess fat can be removed by cooling the broth and collecting it on the surface.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.185155
| 2020-03-15T14:06:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105839",
"authors": [
"Robin Betts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107286
|
Correct temperature and technique for frying in cast iron
I recently bought a cast-iron grill pan, in hopes to recreate the great taste of grilled salmon steaks I ate recently at a restaurant.
Before trying it, I had received advice that I should let the salmon stay in the pan until it was released from the pan by itself, instead of trying to turn it early. Then, according to the advice, it wouldn’t stick.
First attempt went bad. The fish stuck to the pan, I barely managed to turn it, in gazillion pieces. The opposite side of the steaks, after turning it, didn’t stick at all. Obviously, this might be because of all the extra fat in the pan after frying the first side.
By salmon steaks I mean what you see in the first picture here, that is, the flesh and not the skin had direct contact with the pan:
https://www.chabad.org/recipes/recipe_cdo/aid/4520/jewish/Salmon-Steaks.htm
Next time I tried pork cutlets (from the neck). In the meantime, I had found more advice, namely that I shouldn’t put the food into the pan before it was hot, but I didn’t know how hot it had to be.
This time, it worked exactly as the first advice had predicted: At first, the cutlets stuck immediately to the pan, in a tiny fraction of a second, like it had been glued with superglue. Then, when the time came to turn it, it wasn’t even the least bit stuck! It was completely loose, I could have easily turned it with one finger, without any residue, if it hadn’t been hot. Just like non-stick. But this time it was the other way around, after turning them, they stuck and when they were past done, they were still partly stuck. Despite way more fat in the pan, from frying the first side.
So, I decided to season the skillet. For three days I seasoned it according to the best advice I could find. Surface now dark, smooth and shiny.
So, I tried again with trout steaks this time. I used exactly the same oiling technique and amount as with the pork cutlets, and tried to replicate the frying technique w.r.t. heat and when to put it in the pan. This time it was glued to the pan when the time came to turn it.
So, this is not a question about seasoning, because there’s tons of advice about that on the internet. But the initial success with the pork cutlets was in a completely new unseasoned pan.
The question is:
What is the correct frying technique, as in, how do I know how hot it should be when I put in the food, does it matter w.r.t. sticking, basically, what are the details to achieve that effect that the food suddenly becomes released from the pan, that I had with the pork cutlets?
Finally, could it be a good idea to get one of the IR-thermometers, that measure the temp of the pan without touching it, to achieve the same level of control as with an oven?
There are a few things to keep in mind when cooking with cast iron:
It must be seasoned properly. The biggest mistake people make here is to have the oil too thick when seasoning. You need to wipe the cast iron with a dry paper towel to remove as much oil as possible. If your pan feels sticky when clean you've used too much oil and should start over.
Yes, you want your pan hot before adding fish (see below).
You want your pan evenly heated. Cast iron is a very poor conductor of heat and it takes a while to fully heat evenly. You're best heating it a lower flame/setting for a longer period before putting in your food.
A little oil rubbed on both sides of your food will help.
The advice you got about letting the fish release is 100% correct. That's a common mistake people make. As you found, it works like magic. Some things, like eggs, will always stick and are best for a non-stick pan rather than cast iron (even really well-seasoned cast iron).
In terms of temperature, I would suggest maybe 400-425° for the flesh side and 450° for the skin side. I generally cook the fish first on the flesh side long enough to leave the perfect color marks and then cook mostly on the skin side. If you score the skin it will be crispier (and salt also helps). A temp gun is really useful, and I highly encourage you to purchase one, but flicking some water on the pan will also give you a pretty good indication of how hot it is. If your water evaporates slowly it's too cold. If it evaporates quickly then the pan is hotter, but not hot enough. If it rolls around the pan and takes some time to evaporate, then your pan is hotter still (at least 380°F), and probably about the range you want. The reason it takes longer to evaporate when really hot is that steam under the water droplets is insulating the droplet from the pan, causing it to take longer to evaporate. (This is called the Leidenfrost effect.)
I agree with all of the above, except this: "Some things, like eggs, will always stick and are best for a non-stick pan rather than cast iron" -- I have several cast iron pans, which I regularly use for cooking eggs. Scrambled eggs occasionally leave some residue, but nothing worth worrying about, and things like fried eggs and omelettes come out perfect. No problem with sticking at all. A "really well-seasoned cast iron" pan not only works for eggs, but it works really well. My only complaint is that they are so darn heavy (the pans, not the eggs).
@Peter, agreed that you can cook eggs in properly and well-seasoned cast iron, but most people don't achieve this level of nonstick for some time, or ever. As general advice people are best off cooking eggs in a traditional non-stick pan. Carbon steel is also a good choice if properly seasoned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.185267
| 2020-04-04T17:50:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107286",
"authors": [
"Peter Duniho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"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
}
|
40616
|
What causes changing blue and purple pigments in food?
I've noticed that many foods, such as cabbage, garlic, and ginger, either turn blue or purple in certain conditions, or that, like purple string beans, they lose these colors when cooked. Why is this?
You may find Why are so few foods blue? from Biology.SE helpful.
Anthocyanins are antioxidants that are a very common water based pigment in plants. There are over 500 varieties that have been isolated from plants which are are responsible for many blue, red, and purple pigments in flowers and fruit. It is thought that the colors serve to attract pollinators to flowers and camouflage leaves from herbivores.
They are the naturally occurring in purple snap beans, garlic, some ginger, many berries, red cabbage, as well as many other common foods. When added as a food coloring, they have the E number E163.
The color is dependent on the pH of the fluid around them. This causes many plants (such as purple beans) to lose color as they are cooked and their cell walls begin to burst and release water, diluting fluids the anthycyanins are in or absorbing cooking liquids of a different pH.
Some varieties of ginger contain anthocyanins which can turn blue when exposed to acids. Varieties of ginger originating in Japan contain these compounds, but varieties originating in China do not, which explains why this only happens to some ginger. The pH of ginger is slightly acidic, so that probably starts the reaction.
Anthocyanins are also responsible for garlic turning blue when in an acidic solution. In the case of garlic, the color is sometimes enhanced by reactions between the sulfur compounds naturally occurring in garlic and copper that may be present in water or cooking vessels. This creates another blue pigment, which is still perfectly safe to consume.
More technical information can be found in Colorants in Food.
Wow, @sourd'oh, your knowledge of anthocyanins is surpassed only by your good looks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.185783
| 2013-12-27T19:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40616",
"authors": [
"Solosoli",
"SourDoh",
"Susan",
"gamesguru",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94518",
"puertoportopoio",
"theforestecologist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113338
|
Why is beef butchered in small scale almost subsistence farming so tough that even tenderloin is only good for ground beef?
I just bought a whole beef tenderloin on a wet market in a small rural place in a developing country in Asia. I noticed something is wrong with it regarding tenderness from the first moment I touched it with a knife. It felt tough, way too tough. I only know its a tenderloin because I bought it whole, and it looks like a tenderloin, though its quite big (3 kg). I've cut a steak from it, and tried searing it on hot butter for a minute or two, very rare. I've cut a piece, and when I put it in my mouth, its like the toughest cut of beef. Its so tough, its not even edible in any other way then grinding. I tried cutting more steaks and cooking them a bit longer, on less and more heat, and the results are even worse. Had to make a stew out of it in the end. I am very surprised a tenderloin can even be so tough, I thought no matter how bad the cow is, you can make a somewhat edible steak out of a tenderloin. I was wrong.
My question is what causes it to be so tough?
Was it something in the way the beef was raised? It's a very small rural place, here they butcher about one cow a week usually, and they come from the local population where it is common for a family to keep a single cow, and slaughter it after a year or two, take some meat for themselves and offer the surplus for sale.
Cows are probably 100% grass-fed, or rather fed whatever the cow can find roaming around the village. People are very poor and they don't feed them grains, cereals even if they would want to, because they can't afford to buy any feed.
Is it about the way its butchered? Butchering process is very basic, no stunning, they just cut the throat of a fully conscious animal. There is no ageing of any kind, no hanging for a few days, as there are no facilities for that. There is even no refrigeration available. Cows are butchered around 2-3 AM, and the surplus meat is sold at 6-8 AM the same day.
Surprisingly, the tenderloin is not more expensive then other cuts of the cow, which means it's likely not in very high demand. The price the same for almost any cut of beef, equivalent to about 6 USD/kg (3 USD/lb). Interestingly price for beef shank with bone is 5 USD/kg, so the tenderloin is only 20% more expensive then the shank. Most local people who buy the beef from this rural source, probably don't even know what a steak is or own a pan. For them 1 kilo of beef is 1 kilo of beef, doesn't matter much which cut. They usually just put it all in a stockpot anyway, it makes no difference if its tenderloin or shank - this is my impression from talking to the local population.
In the same country, a tenderloin from a big city supermarket (where beef comes from completely different sources, more large scale commercial operations and professional abattoirs), is tender as any tenderloin normally is, and costs about 20 USD/kg.
This is not the first time I experience unusually tough beef from very-small scale farmers. A few years back I was living in a developing country in Eastern Europe and several times got into a cow-share buying part of a cow butchered in a similarly basic operations, outside of the normal commercial distribution channels, and the beef was also unbelievably tough. I didn't get the tenderloin there, but for example got meat from entrecôte (rib-eye), and also the only thing that could be done with it was to grind it, trying to fry it ended up inedible.
I don't think its because of being 100% grass-fed, as I bought some 100% beef from a bit larger, medium-scale farmer in western Europe, who has maybe 50 cows and hangs them after butchering and the meat was as tender as most beef. I know grass-fed beef doesn't have much marbling, so some cuts won't give as good steaks because of lack of fat, but for the tenderloin there should be no difference as there isn't any marbling anyway.
Also I don't think its because of the breed, as the super-tough beef from small-scale farmer in Eastern Europe was Salers which is a well known quality cattle breed, and the farmer was even certified organic.
In both the Asian and Eastern European country, any beef from a supermarket is reasonably tender, only when I buy beef from very small scale operations, its so tough. Does non-professional butchering, not in a abattoir, without hanging the carcass to age a little, is the reason the meat ends up so tough that even the tenderloin is only good to mince for ground beef, and you can't make an edible steak out of anything from the cow? Or is there another major reason for the toughness? I know many factors have some impact on tenderness, like the cow's breed, diet, but I I want to what is most likely the major factor in the situation described above, which make the beef tough even if everything else is done right?
small scale farms may be using their livestock as work animals (e.g. pulling ploughs) as well as raising them for meat. It wouldn't surprise me if that produced tougher meat (in the same way calfs raised for veal used to be prevented from moving pretty much at all because allowing them to move made the meat less tender). Larger scale farms will usually have their livestock raised only for meat (or dairy, wool, or eggs) and use machinery or other animals for any heavy work needed
@Tristan Good point, but over here they mostly use water buffalo (carabao) for pulling ploughs. I have seen many carabao working the fields, but never a cow. Though I will ask locals though if the cattle is sometimes used for work too.
I wonder about very slow growth due to limited feed at some times of year, and the animals being older at slaughter than you think, as well as leaner
@yannn, Can you be sure the meat you bought came from a cow and not a carabao?
@ThePhoton Unlikely, as supposedly they don't slaughter carabaos here at all, they are too valuable as work animals. Also wouldn't it taste different enough then beef for me to notice by taste? I only eaten a carabao once in Malaysia, bought frozen in the supermarket and it was very tough, had even trouble making edible stew, but it wasn't a premium cut, just some cubes. Don't remember any more how it tasted, it was a few years ago.
Have you tried to cook for a long time, as you would do with other cuts, rather than grinding? Almost all meat will get soft and often very nice if slow cooked.
@Willeke Yes, and ended up with ended up with somewhat edible, but not very good stew meat, actually shank from the same cow was much better this way. No wonder they sell shank with bone the same price as tenderloin, actually shank should be the more premium cut here, LOL! Tenderloin not worth the effort to slow-cook, grinding it is faster and makes a more pleasant meal if cooked very short half rare.
@yannn Ground beef shouldn't be cooked rare because you're risking any contamination spreading from the surface into the interior of the meat during the grinding process.
@nick012000 This only makes sense if there passes some time between grinding and cooking. If I am grinding and immediately cooking, the amount of bacterial contamination is going to be the same as if I made a steak. And how is steak tartare made? From ground beef!
@yannn No, you should cook ground beef thoroughly even if it's freshly ground, because the process of grinding it would mechanically expose the interior of the beef to contaminants that would have remained on the surface. I mean, think about it. By grinding the beef, you're turning what was the outside of the beef into the inside of the beef.
@nick012000 It's not a problem as long as you eat it right away after grinding, as the bacteria which were on the surface and now are mixed inside don't have much time to multiply, so the total amount of bacteria stay about the same. Raw pre-ground beef is a problem because when ground days before eating, the bacteria spread inside had time to multiply many times. Anyway, steak tartare is made from ground beef (or finely chopped), but must use beef just ground, not days before. Steak tartare, which must be made from ground/chopped beef, proves you are wrong, and eating raw ground beef is OK.
@yannn "It's not a problem as long as you eat it right away after grinding, as the bacteria which were on the surface and now are mixed inside don't have much time to multiply" But the total amount of bacteria is significantly higher than a rare steak, because the process of cooking kills the bacteria on the surface of the steak. That's why you have to cook ground meat all the way through, the same way you need to cook chicken all the way through.
@nick012000 Just please realize how is steak tartare made?
@yannn Googling steak tartare recipes, it looks like they also involve uncooked eggs, so it's unsafe to eat regardless of the preparation of the steak.
@nick012000 What is "safe" is a subject of debate and a personal choice. In many countries in the world steak tartare, uncooked eggs (along with unpasteurized milk) are considered a perfectly fine thing to eat, served in high-end restaurants, passing all health regulations. There is a yet a large English speaking country in the northern hemisphere, where authorities and part of the population freaks out about healthy nutritious foods like raw milk, uncooked eggs and steak tartare, but considers pesticide laden soy and milk from cows taking rBGH (banned in the EU) perfectly safe.
@yannn I'd like to see you meet someone who got salmonella poisoning from eating raw eggs or food poisoning from drinking unpasteurized milk and say it's safe - because they're not, and that's just an objective fact.
@nick012000 raw eggs aren't especially unsafe outside the US because we don't wash our eggs leaving the protective coat intact (this is also why we can keep our eggs in a cupboard rather than in the fridge). Risk can also be reduced by not only ensuring the meat is freshly ground, but freshly butchered so even the exterior hasn't been exterior long. There is a higher risk associated with something like steak tartare (even properly prepared) than with a steak cooked well done, but the risk is not that great to most healthy people (those at increased risk obviously ought to stay clear)
@Tristan Raw eggs are unsafe the moment they come out of a chicken's cloaca, regardless of what humans do to them afterwards, because they came into being inside the chicken, and that's when they can become infected with Salmonella bacteria. https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/salmonella-and-eggs.html
again an instance of lax US food standards and not generally the case. The NHS even say infants, pregnant people, and the elderly can safely eat raw British eggs (the British Lion stamp is pretty universal here on supermarket eggs) https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/eggs-nutrition/#:~:text=Raw%20eggs%20and%20food%20poisoning,British%20Lion%20Code%20of%20Practice.
Having butchered thousands of animals since I was young (cows, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, emus, rabbits, snakes) the issue of toughness in meat can be caused by a lot of reasons. The main ones I have found are:
Breed of the animal (like you mentioned), cow in this circumstance.
Someone mentioned water buffalo or oxen type cows. This could be the
case.
Insufficiently bled out, if the animal is not fully bled out when killed the meat definitely can be on the tougher side.
How the cow is handled before it is killed, if the cow is chased around before it is killed the cow's adrenaline with be up and the meat will be tough.
How it is killed, in your case with cutting the throat of the animal. If the windpipe is cut, the animal releases more adrenaline into the body as it struggles to breathe before it dies.
Hope this helps... also note that the majority of meat you buy in stores has gone through an ageing process (dry or wet) before it gets packaged. Usually 2 weeks to several months depending on the facility or the demand for product. This always tenderizes. The ageing of meat allows naturally occurring enzymes in meat to begin to break down muscle tissue and tenderize it. So if you are eating meat "fresh off the block" you could pretty much guarantee that it will be tougher than store bought.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.185991
| 2020-12-24T07:18:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113338",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"The Photon",
"Tristan",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84477",
"lowtoxin",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109756
|
What is this piece of fatty thing, inside a fish (a large snapper) which was near the roe?
I had a quite large female snapper, it had large amount of fish roe, but nearby it was an interesting piece looking like pure piece of fat, quite hard and solid.
Here is a photo, these are the two large white things taking up most of the photo. The reddish thing in the upper-right corner is from a different fish, but I suspect its fundamentally the same kind of thing.
What is this organ called and how do you eat it?
Do you have a picture you can post?
@AMtwo yes, just added a picture.
What makes you think it's not just fat? does it melt when heated?
Those look like the ovaries.
I don't know how anyone else cooks them, but I usually prepare them with a simple Japanese recipe: simmer in a water, dashi, sake, mirin, sugar, soy sauce, ginger mix. Great companion for drinking!
A quick search and I can't find any recipes for this in English... You could search "真子" and "レシピ" to find other recipes (in Japanese). There's a few videos on Youtube as well.
(Remember to remove the fibers and membrane and remove the blood gently, then wash with cold water/run it through hot water/lightly salt to remove the smell.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.186911
| 2020-07-20T05:40:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109756",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"lowtoxin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71010
|
Which fresh herbs goes well with an omelette?
I'm playing around with omelettes, and was wondering which fresh herbs (and fresh spices) are commonly used in omlettes? Also, are there some that are often avoided? I'm looking for personal experiences from people who like to experiment.
I'm sorry, but flavor parings aren't considered on topic here as they're largely a matter of opinion. See our "on topic" page for more info.
See also http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/a/1743/1672
Oh, and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67451/how-can-i-find-flavors-that-pair-well-with-a-given-ingredient !
Hi Baard, I've made a few changes that I hope will make your question no longer run afoul of the rules. If you don't like my changes, please feel free to undo them.
@JS. Thanks for trying to help out, but I don't think details of phrasing like that matter. We're not being picky about exactly how you ask, we just don't generally do "what goes with X?"
Plain omelette: parsely and chives.
I'd be careful with woody, stalky herbs like rosemary; not because of the taste but because I don't want to chew on the hard pieces. Keep in mind that the omelette does not get cooked as long as other dishes where these work well.
Then depending on the filling: anything with cream and fish may work with dill. Italian style with sage and thyme. (Not herbs, but for completeness: Paprika with mushrooms and red wine. Garlic with fried onions.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.187052
| 2016-06-28T14:16:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71010",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"JS.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85275
|
What is the fuzz on my homemade granola?
I made a double batch of my homemade granola and this morning I notice that the top of the granola was all fuzzy. I keep it in an airtight container. Does any one know what would cause it?
Sounds like mold. You could have picked up mold spores in many places during the process. For example, did you move the granola to the airtight containers with your hands?
Did you put the granola away while it was still warm? The inside of the container may have collected moisture while the granola cooled to room temperature, causing mold to form.
Toss the granola and sterilize or recycle the jar. Molds are from the fungi family and it is likely the spores either survived the baking process (you need heat to kill but too much burns the granola) or your batch got infected afterwards (the useful hands comment, or an opened or unclean container).
If doubling up the recipe gave less room on the baking sheets to spread out the batch that might be part of the problem. Make smaller batches and consume faster. If you are using a recipe and making substitutions the new items you are adding might be creating the problem. Many of the food preservation techniques for fighting bacteria (low pH, moisture, temperature and high salt or sugar) don't work for fighting molds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.187200
| 2017-10-27T15:21:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85275",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67877
|
Which is a better option for making dosa batter. Indian mixie or US blender?
Moving to US next week planning to avoid the Mixie as it weighs almost 3 kgs . Which is the best option in blenders for making soft batter and chutney? I have got few recommendations like Osterizer not sure if this can make soft batter
You can buy Indian style
Mixie's in the USA. What I found was Preethi brand. They sell for what looks like between $150-$250USD. From the description of the appliance, they are spice grinders in addition to being mixers, so a blender may not be quite a proper substitute, however we do have a lot of blenders, food processors and standup mixers to choose from, so you may eventually have a full set of Kitchen appliances up to the task, but I think you will either want to bring your mixie or buy a new mixie when you get here if you want an appliance that does exactly what the mixie does.
I may even have to buy one now.
yep, MG 198 on the long term shopping list too :)
Not much difference except the 'heavy dutyness' of the average mixie - a mixie is a blender. A good blender should be able to handle it though.
A wet grinder is superior to both - since its probably more powerful and dosen't heat up the batter. My mom's trick to perfect dosa in a blender or mixie was to blend an icecube or two with the batter so I'd look at models that can handle that, since something capable of crushing ice would likely do a good job on your dosa batter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.187332
| 2016-03-30T06:25:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67877",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60286
|
Does the fatty acids in olive oil convert into trans fatty acids when heated?
There is not much I can add on the title without going off topic, just was wondering about it. Any seasoned advice?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.187468
| 2015-08-27T13:55:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60286",
"authors": [
"Andrew Cussons",
"Daniel uche",
"Johannes Hechler",
"Maureen Davis",
"Sue Challis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144307"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105879
|
Are mushrooms with interior holes ok?
When I started to cut up these store bought mushrooms, I saw there were holes in them. There weren't any holes or spots visible on the exterior. Are they still safe to eat? They also started to turn a bit pink after cutting, maybe some oxidation but it seems unusual.
I buy these all the time and I've never seen these kind of holes in them.
Those holes are most likely caused by some kind of larva(pdf), such as mushroom maggots.
While disgusting, such larva are harmless to humans, and the holes they leave behind are equally harmless. Since you just seem to have the holes, I wouldn't worry about it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.187530
| 2020-03-18T04:21:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105879",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109170
|
Sticky, messy sourdough: overfermented, or ambient factors?
I've made the same sourdough bread a dozen times before, with small variations in parameters:
360g white flour
240g whole wheat flour
390g water
That's a 65% dough with 60% white and 40% whole wheat flour. I've been using the sponge method wherein the night before baking, I'm mixing half the flour (300g) with the water and 60g stiff (100%) sourdough starter.
The next morning I mix in the rest of the flour, 2% salt, and knead by hand.
This has worked well throughout March-May, but the last two times I attempted it I'm having trouble with dough that is sticky, stretchy, and a nightmare to handle.
Last time I ventured for 70% hydration and 1:1 white to whole wheat flour and it got very messy and I abandoned it.
Now, when I'm sticking to my tried recipe, I'm still having the same issue:
No matter how much extra flour I incorporate, the dough will not become more manageable... it seems it's ready to swallow an entire pack!
Do you think it could be:
the sponge, which was left at room temp. for about 10hrs, is overfermented? (I don't have a picture, but it looked normal, bubbles like a tapioca pudding, no signs of hooch)
the ambient humidity has messed up the recipe in a major way?
a combination of both?
It's warmer (25C) and wetter (55-65%) here this rainy June as opposed to ~22C / 40%.
If the sponge is overfermented, does halving the starter help in any meaningful way? Or should I give it less time?
If the flour has been soaking up water in the pantry, how much water should you add to get a predictable result? Do I just weigh a pack of flour and work out how much extra water it holds?
As for The Blob, do I continue to incorporate flour into it and hope it starts holding shape, or does an overfermented sponge preclude me from getting a decent loaf?
Update
I've been using the same brand of white and whole wheat flours throughout. Nothing substantial about the technique has changed. I knead the bread by hand 10-15 mins through a series of smear-scrape-twist motions, as shown below in the River Cottage Bread Handbook:
65% hydration with 60-40% flour mix was my safe space, and the dough just doesn't seem to come together as of late.
Glad to hear about your success. It would be better to post what you learn as an answer (it is perfectly fine to answer your own question), as opposed to adding it to your question.
Thanks! I thought I'd post an answer after I have something more definitive (I wanted to do that last experiment), but maybe I'll just add these insights to the answer as well.
Well, yes...your answer should be what you ultimately learn.
This is a bit unusual, but from your picture, I think your long rise at a high temperature (25C) has indeed overfermented your sponge. It's not so much that the yeast is used up: in fact it might still be active. The problem is that the gluten that developed in the first few hours has been broken down in the long fermentation. Hence the lack of structure. You can't fix this by adding any small amount of flour.
Instead you could use this dough as preferment. Then you will need to add plenty more flour and water (maybe matching the amounts already used) and knead again, or use a no-knead rise (but not 10 hours) to develop gluten.
A method for finding the moisture content of flour that's practical in a home kitchen is suggested here: https://bakerpedia.com/processes/moisture-in-flour/.
Thanks Mark! Since I also find gluten breakdown more plausible, do you know whether the initial amount of starter can make any meaningful difference, or is it more a question of time? I know there's probably not a definite answer, but I'd like to prepare another sponge tonight and I don't know whether it's enough to use less starter, or should I also set up the alarm...
I think it's almost entirely a question of time (and ambient conditions). E.g. if your starter doubles in volume in a hour after feeding, then halving the quantity you use only slows the process down by an hour. I have had good results making sourdough bread with a sponge (equal flour and water) left to ferment for 8+ hours, but my room temperature is 20C. I also then add further flour and water (to the required hydration) and mix it further before giving it an overnight rise in the fridge. So some of the gluten development comes after the first ferment.
Thanks! I'm going to test the overfermentation hypothesis by trying to wake up earlier this time, and otherwise keep the other parameters constant.
Sixty five percent hydration is not that wet in the sour dough world. Adding extra flour during the process, of course changes that. I would stop adding extra flour and concentrate on building the gluten structure, which, from the picture, it looks like you are lacking. Can you specify your process of mixing and kneading? My sourdough often looks like yours, until I build up the gluten with a series of slap and folds. I often use a higher hydration, as well. So it's not the result of being too wet. There are so many variables in bread making, that it is difficult to pinpoint what has changed. It is possible that the warmer weather has things moving along more quickly, but 25C (77F) is a temperature that makes sourdough pretty happy. Is it 25C where you bake, consistently, for the entire process? Is every other variable the same? No changes in flour (type or brand)? To me the dough in your picture looks salvageable. A few sets of stretch and folds (maybe 3), spaced out by 30 minutes should help. If it doesn't come together, add another set. Then let it ferment and rise.
I've updated my question to include the kneading technique. Nothing substantial about the ingredients or technique has changed, except maybe being lazier with waking up in the morning, so maybe the extra couple of hours end up breaking apart the gluten in the preferment. The temperature indoors is pretty constant and has been bumped by about 2-3C since my last success, and the humidity by 10-20%.
Unfortunately, I scraped it up and tossed it away, so I can't confirm how salvageable it was. But I'm trying another one tonight/tomorrow.
After a few rounds of experimenting, I think I have narrowed it down to overfermentation of the sponge. Adjusting the overnight rest time from 9-10 hours to 7-8 hours has produced reliably kneadable dough in the 60-65% hydration range, instead of a sticky mess.
The ambient humidity doesn't seem to make a noticeable difference.
Below are the experiments, for the curious
First experiment: more of the same
My intention was to leave the dough to ferment for a shorter time overnight, but an "alarm-clock malfunction" caused me to inadvertently repeat the scenario I originally posted about: 65% hydration, with half the flour added to the water and left overnight (~10 hours) at about 24-25C.
In the morning I mixed the rest of the flour, and started kneading. For the first couple of minutes I thought I had it sorted, the dough was sort of together and relatively kneadable. However, as I continued to knead, it collapsed to a very similar consistency to my original attempt: stretchy, sticky, like over-chewed gum. I persisted for another 10 mins, then I tried a few rounds of stretch and folds as per @moscafj's suggestion, and it did seem to make the dough tauter, but I ultimately ended up with what could be called a misshapen frisbee, with a dull, enamel-cracking crust. (I have next to no experience handling and shaping doughs this soft, s there might have been one or more other mistakes in the process)
Second experiment: stiffer dough
Intent on not wasting another dough / day, I bumped the hydration down to 60% and left the sponge (who'd now be at 120% hydration) at the same room temp for a bit under 8 hrs.
Following the same technique, the dough ended up being very easy to maneuver and, crucially, felt familiar for a 60% dough of this composition (i.e. a bit stiffer than the ideal).
The bread turned out great so, despite the ambient humidity being 24C / 70% RH last night (that is, uncharacteristically moist), I couldn't really feel a difference in the dough consistency.
Third experiment: back to 65%
For the final experiment, I baked two loaves, one at 60% hydration and one at 65% hydration, with a 8-hour sponge fermentation time.
The doughs were very manageable, and the loaves turned out great, if slightly underproofed — better safe than sorry, I guess :-)
It is very normal with high hydration doughs for it to be very sticky. This is why bakers use the ‘stretch and fold method’ instead of kneading (kneading is used for dryer doughs). Try adding the flour and water together and leaving it for at least an hour covered. This is called Autolyse and will help with the structure. Then add the salt and starter. Mix it all in with your hands and leave for 30 mins covered with cling film/plastic wrap. Now every thirty minutes for a Total of 2-3 hours do the stretch and fold method (google the method). Make sure you do the method in the mixing bowl and DO NOT take the dough out of the bowl. Once the stretch and folds are complete, the dough should end up sticking less and then you can leave it for another 2-3 hours to finish the bulk ferment. TOP TIP: water your hands when doing the stretch and folds and when dealing with the dough. The water will stop the sticking. Don’t add flour to try and dry it up. I hope this helps!!!
The OP’s hydration was only 65%. Not a high hydration dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.187629
| 2020-06-20T07:55:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109170",
"authors": [
"Dan Inactive",
"Mark Wildon",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83616",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60445
|
Why would the first few pancakes come out perfect, but only get worse from there?
I have never been a pro at making pancakes. I tried again yesterday making them, using this recipe:
Ingredients
1½ cups flour (375ml)
2 eggs
600ml milk
pinch of salt
Method
Mix all the ingredients until bubbles form on the top of the mixture. Then simply pour into a non-stick pan on medium heat. Flip the pancake once bubbles have formed on the surface.
The first 3 of 4 come out perfect: fluffy, slightly brownish and not breaking apart when flipping. From there it only gets worse, going to big black spots, not fluffy and the spots that aren't brown are undercooked. Why is this?
There is no leavener in your list.... Did you simply leave it off or did you forget it?
Any chemical leavening -- bicarb/soda or baking powder? Eggs will give you some leavening, but powder is common. It sounds like your pan is getting too hot (overcooked outside, undercooked inside). Do you pre-heat your pan? You may need to turn down the heat after the first few, if your pan heats up a little more... Traditionally however, the first pancake is not as good!
Nope no leavener. Its an traditional way of making pancakes in south Africa. Found the recipe on the web last night: http://www.capetownmagazine.com/pancake-recipe .I do pre heat the pan for about 10 min on a gas stove on medium heat.
It sounds like the pan is getting too hot. A pan is also hotter in the center. If the surface gets too hot, a layer of steam forms a cushion between metal and pancake, preventing uniform cooking. The oil in the pan helps increase the contact between pan and food.
While in the US most pancake recipes contain chemical leaveners, internationally speaking many don't. Different approach, slightly different results, both are valid.
@Stephie - maybe but are those really pancakes? I have relatives over from France all the time and they want pancakes every other day because there isn't anywhere they can get the same thing...
@blankip. Ifcoure its pancakes. Small changes on a recipe to suit the taste you are looking for does not take away the pancake status. Some people dont prefer milk in there coffee. Tastes differant. Looks differant. But its coffee nevertheless. The main ingredients is what counts
Ah, the worsening pancake debacle. I know it well. We have all been there, even after training for countless hours to make the perfect soufflé at the Culinary Institute.
The pan is getting too hot.
You should cool the pan with a quick rinse. This will also have the effect of resetting the surface, to get rid of any built-up grime or grease.
Good luck and happy cooking!
Lol thank you. Reading the comments I started feeling I was the only one. Your answer makes sense. The built up grease and oil is what probably causes the increased heat, and the more the pan is used the more it builds up then. Thanks
The only down fall of giving the pan a quick rinse is that you risk warping the pan. This will bring down the pan's life expectancy. But yes, the pan is getting too hot.
@ChefPharaoh : it depends on how much water you're using. IF it's a quick rinse, you're not putting any more water on than if you were deglazing ... and the water's not staying on, so you're not going to ruin a pan unless it's really, really thin.
I definitely wouldn't give the pan a quick rinse to cool it down - just turn down the heat! You've got the heat set a bit too high, so the pan is slowly getting hotter and hotter - each batch has a warmer pan than the one before. If you're cooking on gas or induction this is easy - if it's old-style electric, you may have to fiddle with the temperature more. And there shouldn't be grease and oil building up - on the contrary, each batch you cook takes some of the grease and oil with it when you remove it from the pan. I usually need to add a bit more oil for each batch to make up for the loss.
I can't cook a whole lot but I make some mean pancakes and NEVER have this issue.
My griddle is on 200-250F depending on the type of pancakes I am making (blueberry and chocolate chip are options) and how fast I want the pancakes made. You should have your pan or griddle on and going and hot before pouring your first set. If anything your first set should cook faster because it is on a new surface.
If you are closer to the 250F range you will be flipping quickly (1 minute max on both sides depending on size) but you can still have golden brown pancakes. In the 200F range this will allow you to control the pancakes more but you might have a hard time getting the brown. Honestly for plain pancakes I like to hover around 230F. And like I mentioned before your first batch cooks quickest and the dropping of the batter cools down the surface for the rest.
The last thing I will mention. I don't use grease or any oils. I feel like this is impossible to even out and produce a consistent product. Also I don't want to be unhealthy (my pancakes are almost fat free) and I especially don't want the oils to taint the taste of my round deliciousness. Instead I opt for PAM. I use the butter flavored PAM and there is no oil taste or film on my griddle or pancakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.188714
| 2015-09-02T13:56:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60445",
"authors": [
"Arnie Sathiy",
"Bosh",
"Catija",
"Chef Pharaoh",
"Corinne Martin",
"David Cottey",
"Diane T",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Leeann Groves",
"Pork Chop",
"Sandra Isenia",
"Stephie",
"blankip",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"papin",
"sharon foster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60068
|
Sweet and sour chicken not sticky
I have been trying now for a while to make sticky sweet and sour chicken. It tastes great. But its not sticky. How do I achieve this?
I only use chicken wings for this. I make a sweet and sour sauce in a separate pan first, where I followed the recipe found on the internet.
•3/4 cup white sugar
•1/3 cup white vinegar
•2/3 cup water
•1/4 cup soy sauce
•1 tablespoon ketchup
•2 tablespoons corn-starch
Combining all the ingredients in a small saucepan over medium heat then when well mixed I boil and stir until thickened.
I then bring the chicken to oven pan, spice with chuckny spice, add some olive oil to pan. Turn oven to 165 degrees. When chicken slightly begins to grill, I add over the sauce. And then increase heat to 180 degrees until chicken is done.
Should I be doing something different to the sauce or chicken? Perhaps flowering the chicken? Or Thickening the sauce?
I would consider adding some soft brown sugar. The molasses content should increase the stickiness and thickness of the sauce overall. You may want to reduce the amount of white sugar to compensate.
You could also try adding a half ounce of pectin so it doesn't throw of the sweet/sour ratio. I use it in hot sauce all the time so it isn't runny or to watery. they sell it in the canning section of most stores.
Try Mul yeot (Korean corn syrup) or molasses (as suggested by ElendilTheTall). Consider replacing corn starch by potato starch which gives a texture stickier than corn starch.
They best way to get the exact stickiness is to try the ingredients in different quantities until you master your dish :).
Good luck.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.189181
| 2015-08-20T07:26:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60068",
"authors": [
"ALBERT IANNELLO",
"Amy Nicoll",
"Carol Banach",
"Caroline Buckley",
"Kelly Leclair-Brault",
"Moein Ganji",
"Paul Mcelhoney",
"Ville Ellila",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21716
|
How can I speed up banana ripening?
I need to make banana bread tomorrow, and the bananas I recently purchased with this in mind to not appear to be ripening fast enough. Is there anyway to speed the ripening without spoiling the bananas altogether?
(I have looked at this answer and it refers to how the fridge will speed up "blackening". @Sarge_Smith describes it as a different process chemically, so I am unsure that blackening == ripening for the purpose of making banana bread.)
Several other questions point out the use of a paper bag; did you try that yet?
@Aaronut I didn't find that link when I did a search but it did appear under the "Related" sidebar after the question was posted (and I didn't notice it until after reading Elendil's answer)
Bananas go from firm to over ripe by putting them in my lunch box for only a few hours !
I removed the [bread] tag because this isn't actually about bread; there was a long discussion about this in chat during the vegetarian/vegan week and this is a similar situation.
Bananas are imported unripe and then ripened in the country of sale. This ripening is achieved by forcing ethylene gas through the bananas in special pressurised rooms.
Bananas naturally produce ethylene as they ripen, so you could just put them in a sealable plastic bag to contain that gas. Tomatoes also produce ethylene, so you could pop a couple of those in as well, but be aware that they'll also ripen faster too.
Thanks for your answer but please clarify something for me. Your answer reads "Ripening Causes Gas" but the context suggests that you mean "Gas Causes Ripening".
@CosCallis It goes both ways. Ethylene is the mechanism by which a plant signals that it's time to ripen; it triggers the ripening, which produces additional ethylene in order to continue the ripening.
If you've an apple, put it in the bag with the bananas. Apples also emit ethylene, and to speed ripening, more is better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1tdZh9Pl_8
@Jefromi interesting, thanks for the clarification.
@WayfaringStranger: Apples emit significantly less than bananas (unless they're over-ripe, I guess), so unless you're also trying to ripen the apple, there's not much point; far better to put it in a bag with more bananas.
Aaronut: I use them for my green tomatoes in the the fall, in which use they do get quite over-ripe. Didn't know merely ripe value was significantly below that of bananas. -thanks.
Maybe it depends on the type of apple. But bananas ripen very fast on their own in a closed space, it's hard to imagine apples or anything else speeding it up.
When bananas are sealed inside plastic bag, the skin turns black and aesthetically it does not look good. Also, some times black banana may be not fully ripe. As ElendilTheTall says, its better to use ethylene so that banana can be ripened at a faster rate.
There are couple of ways wherein banana can be ripened on a domestic scale.
As Aaronut says, cover in paper bag and keep it in warm place, thereby self produced ethylene can be trapped whcih makes banana to ripe.
Coat the tip of the banana with some calcium salt, like slaked lime or quick lime, and keep it warm place.
Expose the banana to fumes (by burning some dry biodegradable material, like dry leaf, dry stem or such things) and cover the exposed banana tightly.
I know that this is a bit after the fact, but here is a trick I learned from the Produce Manager at the supermarket I used to work at...
Put the banana in a paper bag with an orange. Close the paper bag (roll it up). Leave it over night, and the banana will be ripe in the morning.
The paper bag was mentioned before, as was using an apple, but citrus works even better.
can you explain what you mean by "better" in this context? Is it just 'faster'? Less likely to spoil?
I mean it is faster - more effective. Can get you a ripe banana quicker. When you get right down to it, the OP asked how to ripen a banana faster, and using citrus in a paper bag is a great way.
There is also another method, that only takes 20 minutes. Heat it up in a oven.
Ripe bananas super fast in the oven:
Prepare the fruit with a few puncture holes and enclose them
150°C (302°F ; 130°C Fan, 266°F Fan)
mashed for Banana bread
80°C (176°F ; 60°C Fan, 140°F Fan)
soft but chunky
Put in the oven for a good 20 minutes, until the peel of the banana turns brown.
The heating of the fruit will make it soft and very sweet.
The images show middle ripe, slightly spotty, bananas.
Adjust time, when needed (less ripe / more ripe)
Ripe bananas super fast in the oven20 minutesGoal: small, soft chunks
213gpunch holes with fork
after 20 minutes heating with80°C (176°F ; 60°C Umluft, 140°F Fan)
138gslice into small,soft chunks
Ripe bananas super fast in the oven20 minutesGoal: very soft for mashing
225gpunch holes with fork
after 20 minutes heating with150°C (302°F ; 130°C Fan, 266°F Fan)
135gslit opened and spoon outor squize out
135gafter a minimal amount of stirring
Result after using the mashed banana as Jogart replacementand the chunks of the banana replaced the apples
20min at 150C you're for sure cooking the bananas, not just ripening them
@Luciano The OP is asking for a 'fast' solution without spoiling the bananas. This method does this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.189385
| 2012-02-25T12:19:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21716",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"J desola",
"Luciano",
"Mark Johnson",
"Mike",
"Sandra Massie",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91174",
"kevin",
"mrwienerdog",
"user48228"
],
"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.