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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
69424
|
Can "Canning" be achieved with "vacuum sealed" bags?
Upon reading the question If I vacuum seal a food product like beef stew then boil it in the bag, would it keep un-refrigerated? and the answer provided https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/69423/6279 I agree that 'normally' it would not result in making something shelf stable. But My question is COULD you (by putting the vacuum sealed bag into a pressure cooker) achieve the results of canning in said bag? I found some speculation on this question here but I am unsure of the conclusion...(given the sources)
(disclaimer: I've only heard of people doing this, not done it myself.)
Yes, it can be done. You're looking for retort pouch canning. Various places will sell you the bags, and you can vacuum seal them with a chamber vac, though you may need an upgraded heat bar. Then you can process them in a pressure canner (or preferably autoclave).
I'd definitely follow the normal reheating recommendations (the boil it 10 minutes bit) before eating. I don't think USDA has home canning guides for retort pouches.
Cool! @CosCallis, let us know how it turns out!
The safety of pressure canning depends on reaching a sufficiently high temperature (generally 240-250F), holding it for long enough, and having a good vacuum seal in the end, and using a trusted recipe that's actually safe to can with that process. The jars typically used aren't magic, they're just something that can take those temperatures and reliably produce a good seal.
So if hypothetically you have a vacuum bag that you know can survive the pressure canning temperatures with the seal completely intact, it would work.
But it seems difficult to find out if vacuum bag materials can actually do that. As far as I can tell, vacuum bag manufacturers don't generally publish upper temperature limits. I would be concerned about the heat seal degrading, the bag weakening and possibly bursting, and so on. I suppose you could try it and see, since it should be fairly obvious if a vacuum bag is no longer airtight. (I'm assuming the plastic is heat safe in terms of food contact to those temperatures, since it's apparently safe to make the heat seal in the first place.)
And for emphasis: you really do need a trusted recipe. The heat needs to penetrate sufficiently into the meat for it to be safe, so if you change the type of meat (different cut, different size, etc) you're potentially making it unsafe. See for example NCHFP on canning meat, and Carolina Canning (from Clemson) on why the list of what you can do is limited.
any thoughts on what a good candidate for testing would be?
what if we started with raw meat and allowed the pressure cooker to work as a "sous vide" cooker?
I wouldn't use anything but a trusted canning recipe, testing or otherwise.
I'll add to what Jefromi said.
I think you're going to have a hard time finding a heat sealable bag that can handle 252F in a pressure canning process. A quick look at mylar bags and HDPE shows a melting point of right around 250F. I'd be afraid they would leak or leach unpleasantness into the food.
There should be a process for this because you can purchase tuna and other meat in shelf-stable foil pouches. I don't believe it was irradiated.
Another option is to do lower temperature canning. Food stuffs that are high enough in acid to prevent botulism can be simply boiled instead of pressure canned. Jellies or tomatoes recipes will have acid added for this reason.
Given your history, I suspect you may want to bottle beef. I don't know of a high acid beef canning recipe.
Yep, I currently mostly can my chili, putting it in pouches might be more convenient.
Mylar actually melts at around 250C, which is around 480F. It is absolutely used for canning, which is called retort canning.
Note that in pressure canning (and regular canning) the material in the jar BOILS, and the lids vent excess pressure, then seal as the jar cools.
A sealed vacuum bag would presumably burst, as it has no relief mechanism (which the properly tightened canning lid does, even if many are blissfully unaware of it.)
As such, I don't think this it at all practical in the home kitchen. "Pouch tuna" seems to indicate that industry can manage something like it. Presumably industry is sealing the pouches inside the pressure vessel, which is a bit out of reach for home production.
I think the jars vent more due to the air than the steam. Sure, the contents are boiling, but the water they're immersed in is too. If it's just water inside and out, I wouldn't think there would be much pressure differential - if anything, it'll be cooler inside the bag, so the pressure will be lower. That does depend on having a good vacuum seal with minimal air left in the bag though.
There are microwavable (non metallic) retort pouches designed to withstand 130 degrees C which exceeds the required temperature for full sterilization in an autoclave / pressure canner or perhaps even a pressure cooker. These effectively become MRE's once they've been processed properly. You will need to ensure thet the cold point within the pouch reached the required temperature for the required amount of time to kill off all hazards. Pouches such as this are very widely available in boxes of 1000 in the UK, in the US - not so much but they are out there.
you can can in mylar pouches, despite the fact that when canning the food in the pouch exceeds the boiling point of water, the pouch will not burst because it’s in a pressure canner. The pressure in the canner is higher than the pressure in the pouch. That’s the whole point. Just make sure that you let the whole canner cool down to below the boiling point of water and you’ll be fine of course if you open it before then it’ll be a steam explosion and you’ll probably die.
Retort pouches are boilable now the when pressure cooked it will expand and a possibility of bursting during the process is not impossible but if you put enough pouches in the pressure canner it will prevent pouches from expanding too much and avoid bursting
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.189832
| 2016-06-02T16:37:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69424",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Peter DeWeese",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"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
}
|
32877
|
Getting the bowl out of the mold
This is the "Cook's Choice, Better Baker Edible Bowl Maker" which I received as a gift.
Now the idea appears clever enough, but everything I try to do with it either comes out too hard to be enjoyable (not 'Good Eats') or it comes out like this: (the finished product won't come out in one usable piece.
I've greased/floured the bowls, I've allowed the product to cool thoroughly...
What techniques or recipe adjustments will help me get a usable cake out of the mold?
(note: I would also like to be able to use this for breads, but I'll settle for getting a usable cake out of the mold for now...)
[Follow-up]: With thanks to all who contributed..
So I found some Pam Baking spray (yea, right next to the stuff I always get, just hadn't noticed it before...) and tried releasing the cakes before they were fully cooled:
Have you tried non stick cake spray?
You might try breads first. In my experience they have more crust and more structure overall so they are easier to get out of containers in one piece.
I've tried both, I just have ideas I would like to explore with cake. (think-caramel-pecan-rum cakes...)
@ElendilTheTall, just to clarify I have tried Non-stick spray; Is there a "non-stick cake spray" that is particularly effective for cakes?
@CosCallis there are baking non-stick sprays which contain flour... Common US brands include Baker's Joy.
@derobert, have you found these to be 'better' than 'regular' spray + flour?
I've never tested the difference. Though I think I'd give it a try, before my next idea, which would be to somehow get parchment between the pan and the batter... I'm confident the parchment will work, and also confident it looks like a PITA to do. (I've never used a pan like that.)
Can't hurt to try it. Thanks to both derobert and ElendilTheTall. (yeah, thought about parchment paper...just looks like too much trouble...)
Not all cakes want a floured pan. My favorite hazelnut torte requires a well-greased pan (with unsalted butter, preferably), but not a speck of flour. In any case, more fat might be the answer: put on twice as much butter as you think is sufficient, then double it. Also, did the pan itself come with any recipes? Those might be optimized for better releasing vs. a traditional cake. And as others have said, don't wait for the cake to cool completely: give it a few minutes to set after coming out of the oven, and then turn it onto a rack.
I would go with the bread suggestion, plus other pastries. Gluten is what holds doughs together, so if anything has a chance to get out of these whole, it is high-gluten. Cakes are supposed to be tender, they don't have much internal cohesion if they are good. There you face a trade-off: the better the cake, the harder to get it out. For sweet creations, try shells out of danish pastry or millefeuille. They will all release much easier than cakes. Another option to explore would be to find the same pan but with silicone molds within the sheet, it would work with cakes then.
@rumtscho To clarify, gluten holds kneaded or long resting yeast doughs together. Most muffins, quick breads, and cakes have very little gluten development, and their structure is based on a foam of gelatized starch.
Search for recipes for 'cake release', which is typically a mixture of equal parts solid shortening, flour and oil. You can then paint it on with a pastry brush.
You also don't always want items to cool fully before removing from the pan; you might need to warm the pan back up some for the item to release.
While it is not traditional, I have had excellent success with cakes, breads, and muffins by liberally spraying with spray oil. I use my store brand's grapeseed oil, but any will do. I use the kind without additional flour.
An additional advantage is it is very easy to do individual cups or molds with the spray.
I usually do my spraying over the sink to save mess on any overspray. A tip I have read is to do it over the open door of your dishwasher for the same reason.
I like to grease with butter - same basic idea, my theory is that butter has more flavour and doesn't bead very easily. It does burn, but the dish is rarely in the oven long enough for that...
So true, I used to do that. I use the spray oil for laziness.
Your pans look like they're "non-stick". Did the pans come with any directions on whether they need to be greased (probably different instructions for cakes and breads) or "seasoned" first?
Follow the manufacturer's instructions regarding greasing or prepping the pan
I would do is what is recommended on many US cake product packaging: cool the pan for 10 minutes
Use a pointy knife to carefully ease any sticky parts of the cake from the pan. It's not a cutting motion (you don't want to scratch the pan), but rather a gently finessed motion around the inner edge of the individual cups
When you can gently wiggle the top of the cup (the part that is sticking up from the pan, GENTLY try to lift the cake. If you feel resistance, repeat the knife routine
To release around the edges, I like either a really narrow blade (I use a boning knife) or a plastic knife so I don't scratch the surface for non-stick pans. Once you've gone around, you can sometimes use the knife to press inward at various points to get it to release from the bottom ... but I don't know how well it'll work with this mold.
@Joe, thanks for the input but I have already tried this approach. The clinging appears to be happening on the bottom and along the center post.
@CosCallis : try a solid fat (or blend, like cake release), bake it, let it cool some, then take a torch to warm up the post in the middle, and see if that'll get it to release. (once the fat cools, it stick again, so we need it liquid when it's time to release)
@CosCallis, Joe's point about the fat being still more liquid than cooled in order to release from the pan is a good one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.190334
| 2013-03-20T20:11:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32877",
"authors": [
"11 Equals",
"Aaronut",
"Cheryl Johnson",
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Marti",
"Mike Stephens",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SergioLeone",
"Snow",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76438",
"rumtscho",
"user76003"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114374
|
Can “quick cook” brown rice be cooked in an Instant Pot?
I have a package of “quick cook brown rice, and I am hoping I can cook it with my 2 quart Instant Pot. Will this work? How long should I cook it, what pressure level should I use, and what release should I use?
I’ve been able to find plenty of good information on cooking rice that is just normal raw rice or soaked, but not on “quick cook” rice.
Here is the package in question:
Instant or Quick Cook rice (whether white or brown) is partially precooked, meaning part of the cooking time is already completed to cut down on the wait time for the end user. So it can be cooked more or less the same way you would regular rice in an Instant Pot... just for less time.
There's a blog post that goes into a great deal of detail about parboiled rice in an Instant Pot, but the instructions boil down to:
Parboiled White Rice: pressure cook on High Pressure for 6 minutes.
Parboiled Brown Rice: Pressure cook on High Pressure for 8 minutes.
Once pressure cooking is complete, do a natural pressure release (NPR) or a 15-minute natural release if you're short on time.
Well-known brand Minute Rice has a shorter time recommendation:
Brown Rice: Use equal amounts of rice and liquid. Stir. Use the “manual” setting with High Pressure. Set timer for 5 minutes. When cooking time has elapsed, use the “Quick Release” to vent all the steam. Remove lid and fluff rice. Serve.
It looks like in the case of Minute Brown Rice, the stovetop cook time is 10 minutes, so an Instant Pot on High Pressure would cut the cook time in half. Since your rice's instructions call for 15 minutes, an 8 minute cook time would be more appropriate.
How long does it take to get to pressure ? 8 minutes when the pressure is set ? or total time ?
Total time is going to include pressure buildup and release, so will be greater than 8 minutes -- but the Instant Pot should handle all of that itself, the user would set it for 8 minutes and let it do its thing.
but does it take less total time compared to the traditional stove top cooking (quick cook rice) ?
Is the method used to pre-cook the rice parboiling? Also, “the instructions boil down”—nice.
@Max It might depend on pressure level, but I think it takes about 10 minutes for the Instant Pot to get up to pressure and begin the cooking timer. So no, by these directions the rice will take longer in the Instant Pot than on the stovetop, but it might be easier and more convenient sometimes to use the Instant Pot. I live in a residence hall, so if I just need rice it’s much simpler to put in the Instant Pot than go to the kitchen, take out a pan, and babysit the burner.
@ElizaWilson Yep, the parboiling is what's done by the company before packaging it for you to finish cooking at home.
I used this exact brand and type of rice. 10 minutes in the instant pot at high pressure with a quick release was perfect!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.190943
| 2021-02-18T06:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114374",
"authors": [
"Eliza Wilson",
"Erica",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108086
|
How long to sharpen Japanese knife with whetstone
I'm a fairly experienced home cook and I'm looking to upgrade to a good quality chef's knife. I'm thinking about getting a Japanese knife (e.g. a Shun Classic) but I've heard they can take a long time to sharpen using whetstones, on the order of 45 minutes to an hour.
So if anyone out there has experience with one of these knives I'd like to know how often and how long you sharpen them. I know there are a lot of factors that determine the answer, so you can make the following assumptions:
Japanese style knife
Rockwell hardness in the 60 - 62 range
I'll probably be used a total of 1 - 2 hours per week
Mostly cutting fruit, vegetables and soft meat, no bones
I'll be using whetstones of 1000 grit, 3000 grit, and a leather strop
I want the knife to be pretty darn sharp
I don't plan to let it get all that dull. I'd rather have frequent, shorter sessions than fewer long ones
Update
If you're not comfortable with the above question, how about this one?
Do any home cooks out there own a Japanese knife that they sharpen with whetstones? If so, about how often do you sharpen it and how long does it take to get it pretty sharp?
Does this answer your question? How to know if I am stopping sharpening too early?
No, not really. I'm not asking how long it will take me specifically in the beginning or how long it will take me to get good at it. Obviously that depends totally on me. I just want to know what people who have done it for a while think of a reasonable time to sharpen a knife would be given all the parameters I listed.
Well, re my comment on the other question, it's still a 'how long is a piece of string?' question. It took me 20 years… before I gave up & bought a 200 dollar electric ;-)
I'm not really so sure it's a how long is a piece of string type question. If somebody asked me how long it took to change the oil on my Toyota Camry it would not be unreasonable to say "with a bit of practice most people could get it done in 15 - 30 minutes". There are always going to be outliers but I just want to the top of the bell curve.
That would mean about 200 different answers from different people stating their experience, from that you could see a pattern. That would still be not in the scope of the site.
Even with your edit "pretty sharp" is subjective. I personally keep my knives razor sharp so my "pretty sharp" compared to your's may very well be different.
It does take roughly that time (45m) to sharpen a knife with a sequence of whetstones.
However, you should not need to do it often. With a 60+ hardness, just some gentle stropping once a week is enough to maintain a sharp edge for at least 6 months. Stropping takes a few minutes.
You will only need to sharpen after lots of heavy use, or if it has been damaged or poorly looked after (left in the dishwasher, used on glass etc)
The answer partly depends on how dull the knife is when you go to sharpen it.
Most electric knife sharpeners have 2 or 3 different wheels with coarser and finer grinders, the coarser allow you to establish the angle of the edge and the finer grain refine it, similar to coarser and finer sandpaper.
The two disadvantages of sharpening with a whetstone are that you generally only have one grit or fineness to use (though some whetstone kits have more), and if you are freehanding the sharpening, it may be difficult to hold the right angle if you are sharpening for a long time.
So if you are starting with a very dull knife where the angles of the edge are off or if there is damage, it might take a lot of sharpening to establish them, and unless you're holding the stone at exactly the right angle all the time, you might not end up with a good edge.
On the other hand if the blade already had a good edge and you sharpen it frequently with a whetstone, like every few uses, then you are just fine tuning the edge and this should be fairly quick. I would say somewhere between 10 and 50 strokes depending.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.191221
| 2020-05-03T19:26:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108086",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"Johannes_B",
"Tetsujin",
"d512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108142
|
Using pastry flour for standard sourdough bread recipe?
I am trying to make sourdough bread, but was only able to get whole wheat pastry flour (due to covid). Characteristics of this flour (from Bob's Red Mill) are: 1) low protein content 2) stone ground 3) super fine/densely milled. So far, my results have been very bad: both starter and dough are rising very slowly, and after reshaping, dough will not rise much. Standard (i.e. not for pastry flour) recipes I tried so far are:
Sourdough focacia
Beginner sourdough bread
How can I do to use this pastry flour for a sourdough bread? Are there specific recipes? Any parameters I should adjust, such as water content, rising times, starter feeding, etc?
Thanks!
What recipe are you using? It's hard to say what could be going wrong unless we know what you're doing
Do you have access to vital wheat gluten?
@GdD I mentioned the two recipes I used, thanks for the comment
@moscafj I could try to buy this if avaiable on line (in the US). Is that to be added to the actual flour, or as subsitute?
Sounds more like sour-DOH!
The issue is the protein content of your flour. For bread recipes, you typically want higher protein for the development of the gluten structure. Bread flour can be in the 13 to 14 percent range. Whole wheat pastry flour has a protein content around 6 to 7 percent. If you have access to vital wheat gluten, you can use it to increase the protein content of your pastry flour. It won't be the same as using bread flour, but it will be better than using pastry flour. This question will help get you in the ball park.
I have been making sourdough bread with a few kinds of flour. In my experience, bread flour (higher protein) really does make a difference in many qualities of bread that you look for -- texture, rise, chew, etc. However it is incremental, maybe like 10-25% better, so it should still be possible to create good bread with lower protein flour.
I can give a few tips for your starter that I recently learned. The starter should be at least doubling if not tripling or quadrupling in volume each time you feed it. When I feed my starter I add 1/3 starter to 1/3 fresh flour and water. So for example if I have 100g of starter, each time I feed it I take 33g of that starter (discard the other 67g) and add it to 33g of each flour and water. After 2 or 3 of these feedings it at least triples in volume each time. If it is sluggish, I make sure it is in a warm spot, ideally about 85F. There can be a big difference in activity between this and a cool room temp of 65F.
Also the starter should be peaking in activity at the time it is added to the dough. For me that's usually about 3-4 hours after feeding but it depends. If it has fully deflated before you use it the activity will be less.
Something I have started doing is overnight fermentations of the dough, usually about 18 hours, at room temp. This results in bread that is much more sour and has a wetter, stickier texture that I like, so might not be for everyone. However it makes it easier to get a good rise. My dough will double or triple in volume overnight and there is not much harm in having it sit for a few more or less hours. The activity and strength of the starter matters a bit less because it sits for so long. When I'm ready to bake, I will "stretch and fold" the dough and it usually rises back up within an hour or two and is ready to bake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.191551
| 2020-05-05T18:53:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108142",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Matifou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84134",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108445
|
Roasting small chicken
What's the best way to roast small chicken (500g or one pound) in the oven so its skin has enough time to get crisp? I have broiler and convection and familiar with spatchcocking (usually do it for regular-sized chicken but not sure if it's a way to go in this situation). Other tools that I have that could potentially help with it is cast iron pan and a blowtorch.
UPD. Did the first one by spatchcocking a straight out of package chicken, separating the skin from the meat and putting it into a 200C oven with convection turned on for 15-20 minutes. The meat was great, the skin underwhelming.
There are a couple of easy steps you could take to ensure crispy skin:
Let the chicken dry uncovered in the fridge overnight (or at least for a couple of hours). This desiccates the skin which will lead to much greater browning on the skin, and if you stuff the cavity with something that will let off steam during cooking, like lemon and herbs, this will not dry the meat out.
Make sure you season the skin generously and add a small pinch of baking soda to the salt before applying. The alkaline property of baking soda speeds up the Maillard reaction, which will lead to more browning in the short cook time.
Lastly, I would stay slow and low with the cook time, although that applies to all roasts.
I have never used a blowtorch and I am curious what effect that would produce. If you do use one please let me know how well it works!
As far as I know it's a myth that putting liquid into a cavity produces more tender meat. Also, for "slow and low" what temperature do you mean exactly?
I have found meat generally more tender when roasted when I have filled the cavity, although this may not be replicated in the scientific literature. In regards to the temperature, I follow Heston Blumenthal's method of 3-4 hours at gas mark 1/4. However this is for a ~2kg bird, and if you are going to roast anything you won't get reliable results without a temperature probe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.191817
| 2020-05-17T12:57:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108445",
"authors": [
"W M Seath",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84452",
"synapse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67529
|
How to make cappuccino coffee at home without a machine
I do not have any form of a coffee machine. The closest is a kettle… I have tried to use strong/good quality instant coffee, filling half a cup then hot boiled milk in the other half. It just tasted like coffee.
So how do I make a cappuccino at home without all the fancy tools?
After searching the web today also for more ideas came across this one for anyone else who would want to try this. http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Cappuccino-with-Instant-Coffee
That wikihow is making, at best, a latte. There's no foam that I can see.
Do you have a French press? If so, you can make coffee that is quite strong in there and you can froth your milk.
For the coffee, grind it course. If it's too fine, too much will go through the mesh and your coffee will be murky and over extracted. Buy a very dark roast, but something that isn't too smoky. Italian roast is too smoky. Espresso beans typically have more of a caramelized flavor vs. smoky.
For the milk, warm it a little more than you want for your cappuccino. Put it in the clean press. Vigorously pump the plunger up and down. This will make luscious, dense foam. If there are too many large bubbles pump longer, or you can stir it a little.
I don't love specialized or expensive equipment either. French presses are inexpensive and useful for steeping many things. They are also small, and you can use them when you are away from electricity (camping/zombie apocalypse/etc).
Yes I do. Gosh, thank you for the great advise will be sure to give it a try.
Quick follow-up: Should I brew the coffee normally first in the press and then pour the milk there, with all the coffee grounds still there?
@manabreak I would make the milk first (in the clean, empty press). Then, brew the coffee. You could do the coffee first, clean the press, then make the milk. But, either way, the milk should definitely not be made with the grounds in the press.
This isn't no fancy tools, but it is no expensive fancy tools and the results are pretty darn authentic.
I make pretty reasonable cappucinos with:
A cheap moka pot for the coffee. Makes strong almost-espresso shots of coffee, and doesn't need any electricity, just sits on the stove (good for me because power blackouts are common here)
A cheap battery-powered hand frother.
Any kind of metal container to heat and froth the milk on a stove. A small saucepan would do, but I find a little pot like the third pic below more convenient, and the shape seems to help with the frothing. Probably, a second mug or a small jug in a microwave would work too, though I've not tried that.
Image credits: 1, 2, 3
Make a shot or two of coffee the normal way in the moka pot on a stove burner.
On another stove burner, heat the milk. I find that if I start preparing the milk after setting up the moka pot, they're both ready at around the same time.
Froth the milk when it's hot
Pour the coffee in a mug
Pour the frothed milk on top, using a teaspoon to get any stubborn froth that doesn't want to come out. The hot milk will mix, the foam will stay on top.
I'm no coffee connoisseur but to me it tastes almost the same as a cappuccino from a coffee shop.
Well, if you want to make the Viennese original, all you do is combine coffee and sweetened cream, the latter possibly whipped. The coffee can be brewed however you wish, although instant is probably not entirely authentic. :) You can add cinnamon and/or shaved chocolate, if desired.
If you want to make the modern definition of cappuccino, it's based on espresso coffee, which, despite all those labels on coffee packages, is not a particular grind, roast, or variety of coffee bean. Instead, it's a particular brewing method, and one that you're not going to reproduce without the specific equipment. However, there's a pretty close substitute available in the form of instant espresso granules. Unfortunately, that still leaves the steamed milk, which again, you're not going to reproduce without the specialized equipment of a steam wand or a milk frother. You can get sorta-kinda close-ish by scalding milk and then whirring it in a blender at the highest speed you can manage. (A food processor won't work, it has to be a blender.) Careful you don't end up scalding yourself as well as the milk! You can also use whipped cream instead of the steamed milk, but then you might as well call it a Viennese coffee.
The third option is to buy a cappuccino mix - a couple years back there was a brand that advertised itself by having a woman make espresso-machine noises in the kitchen while she simply poured hot water over the mix, after which her friends remarked, "We didn't know you have an espresso machine". I don't know how those mixes get the foam to develop, and I probably don't want to know.
I've had success with making milk foam using a mason jar. Put a cup of milk (whole, skim, 2%, whichever you prefer) in the jar and close it tightly. Shake the jar vigorously until you have the amount of foam you want. Immediately place the jar in a microwave (removing the metal cap) and cook for 30 seconds on high. Now you can scoop the foam out with a spoon and pour the warm milk out of the jar. It may not be authentic, but it is sufficient for a home-made cappuccino and requires no extra tools!
You can, somewhat surprisingly, froth milk with a (clean) French press (aka Cafetière) too (OP says he/she has a French press). So much so that some friends who drink milk in coffee (I don't) have miniature French presses for this purpose. Simply heat a small amount of milk (if you can remove the glass from your French press, microwave it in that), sufficient to fill about a third of the glass, then rapidly plunge and withdraw the plunger, repeating many times. Frothy milk results.
You of course also need to make the coffee. A French press can be used for that too.
You need something to froth the milk. You can't really do it without some sort of specialist tools but there are some cheap handheld things (e.g. battery-powered whisks - which don't work very well; hand-pumped frothers which look rather like a cafetiere - I've never tried one). "Milk frother" looks like a good search term.
You're not going to get an authentic cappuccino flavour with instant coffee, but if you insist on using instant or have no option, try instant espresso powder.
Cappuccino should be 1/3 espresso, 1/3 hot milk and 1/3 foam. Ideally the foam is made and the milk heated by pushing steam through the milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.192017
| 2016-03-18T06:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67529",
"authors": [
"Angie McCane",
"BJ Perry",
"Chris Crowley",
"Danette Miller",
"Deanne McGuire",
"E. Crosland",
"Gene Zydyk",
"Gloria Scott",
"Julie Innerd",
"Julie Jacques",
"Katharine Sheldon",
"Katie Crane",
"Leke Taiwo",
"Marti",
"Nina Leask",
"Pork Chop",
"Tamara Dietlein",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44345",
"luckynumber3.com",
"manabreak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61714
|
Moldy bread smell but no mold?
I have Nickles brand multigrain bread. 2 slices of it are just stale. The others though smell moldy but I don't see any mold whatsoever on any of the slices. They taste strange too. This I know because I ate one of them to releive my heartburn last night.
So why would my bread smell moldy when I don't see any mold? Usually if it is dry and has no mold it just smells and tastes like stale bread.
The mold is growing and producing that smell. Mold spores form on ALL bread when it is exposed to air. That's why it takes a few days for the mold to actually be visible. The mold doesn't just instantly grow, it "forms" over a few days and when enough of it accumulates, you see it.
Bread with preservatives, have a longer shelf life because they contain a mold inhibitor. After the expiration date on the bread, that "inhibitor" will no longer keep the mold from "blooming" and it will rapidly appear and multiply.
If the bread smells bad/moldy, DO NOT eat it! You can get sick on moldy bread.
My daughter(we) did a Science Fair Project on Mold Growth in Bread and this was some of the information we found.
Hope this answers your question.
An added note: Storing sealed bread in the Refrigerator does NOT extend the expiration date.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.192579
| 2015-09-13T19:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61714",
"authors": [
"Alisha Rosin",
"Kathleen McDonnell",
"Rob Neely",
"Sarah Corbett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146513",
"morris grosinger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110395
|
Bacteria in steak from cutting with household scissors by mistake?
I cut a steak up into small strips with a pair of scissors.
Fried it in a pan with olive oil and onions.
Tasted great.
Until my wife told me I didn’t use the food scissors. I used the “house” scissors. We open packages, plastic, zip ties, etc all with the “house” scissors.
Should I be worried that I cut the steak with these? Will bacteria from the house scissors pass onto the steak? Or will the heat from frying kill it?
If anything, the problem would be that you cut non-food-grade plastic and other materials with those scissors. But the amounts you ingest that way should be negligible unless you cut really toxic stuff with the scissors.
Your first mistake was using scissors to cut steak! What did that poor steak do to use to deserve such mistreatment??
User was last seen: yesterday. If he doesn't come back, I think we can assume that the steak proved to be fatal
The real risk is that the steak would contaminate the scissors.
Why not sign up for an on-line course in basic food hygiene? Nothing there will be difficult…
It can't matter what scissors you use; only whether they're cleaned properly.
It matters very little what happens in preparation, if the food is cooked properly.
You will be fine.
The food was cooked...
Just clean the "house" scissors with soap and hot water and dry them so that there is no rust.
Why would rust in itself be dangerous?
@l0b0 It's not dangerous, but it will ruin your scissors for future use as scissors.
Using rusty scissors can be an invitation to tetanus?
@RossPresser Not likely unless you've also used the scissors for gardening tasks (and even then not very likely as C. tetani is anaerobic (oxygen kills it)).
@RossPresser Rust doesn't invite tetanus, but the conditions conducive to tetanus are also conducive to rust. Failing to dry the scissors after washing could bring rust but not tetanus; burying the scissors outside for six months could bring both.
Ah yes the point of cooking food.
@AustinHemmelgarn and Tashus, I thank you both for your comments that cleared up my misunderstanding. I'm really glad I used a question mark.
You're right. I turned out fine. Haha.
The concern for non-food scissors is generally not bacteria, particularly as you cooked it immediately after cooking, assuming you cooked it thoroughly.
The only real health concern would be what else you might have on the scissors. You might use non-food scissors to cut things that contain toxic chemicals, for example, or something else that could leech substances into your food that could be harmful. We can't advise you on that, given we don't know what you've done with your scissors. If you have any concerns, call your local Poison Control and they can give you advice for how to determine what the risk is.
The biggest definite problem is the scissors themselves - non-food scissors will be difficult to clean properly. Food scissors usually are able to be taken apart and put in the dishwasher, so the spot in between the blades can be fully cleaned (basically, two knives with a locking mechanism). Non-food scissors won't be able to be taken apart like that usually, and so will be very hard to fully clean. That may lead them to grow bacteria which could then cross-contaminate other things, going forward.
Given the random amount of stuff I cut with the "house scissors", I'd definitely first wipe them down with isopropyl alcohol, and then rinse off the poison alcohol...
Neither my kitchen scissors nor my poultry shears are designed to be taken apart (they're rivetted). Are you thinking of ones designed for commercial use?
@ChrisH Not sure about your kitchen shears, but certainly most of the good ones come apart. In this list for example, only the $8 cheapies don't come apart.
@JoeM my shears are IKEA, so cheap but probably an order of magnitude more common than most of those. My best scissors look like Fiskars though made and badged for a shop in the UK, others are supermarket or IKEA cheap ones. All rivetted, all mass-market.
Well, all I can say is kitchen shears that are separable are amazing, especially all-stainless-steel ones that can go into the dishwasher without a second thought. :)
Fair enough. Mine go in the dishwasher anyway, and one cheap pair of scissors has picked up a little rust (suddenly after several years). I don't use the shears much as I rarely cook meat; they're more often used for picking fresh produce.
Bacterial (and other) infections are much more probabilistic than you appear to consider them. A few basic facts:
All pathogenic bacteria (and other pathogens) have a minimal infective dose, i.e., the minimal number of bacteria required to enter your body in order to start an infection. Fewer bacteria will not be able to cause an infection as your immune system reacts faster than the bacteria grow. The minimal infective dose varies strongly between different types of bacteria and depends on factors such as your immune system, but it rarely ever is 1, i.e., a single bacterium hardly ever suffices to infect you.
Bacteria are all over the place. They live on our skin, we carry around kilograms of them in our gut, they float around in the air, etc. I happen to know that there are roughly 10⁴ microbes (mostly bacteria) in each millilitre of my tap water (and I have no qualms drinking it as it is).
Most bacteria are not pathogenic, but are somewhere between not interacting with us at all and being symbiotic with us (the aforementioned kilograms of bacteria in our gut are an important part of our digestive system). In particular, to be pathogenic, a bacterium needs to be able to cope with a human as a host.
Cooking does not immediately kill all bacteria. Depending on the details of your process, a small fraction (something like 1 in 10⁶–10⁷) will survive the process (see this for some numbers). In particular, frying is not a very homogeneous process and thus there will likely be some bits that have non-vanishing probabilities of surviving bacteria.
The problem with your usual meat is that it is not sterile (free of microbes) and it is a perfect breeding ground for many bacteria, in particular those that like mammals (or at least vertebrates) as a host. Before your meat enters your pan, it will gather bacteria from the animal that provided the meat, the butchering process, etc. Those bacteria then have some time to multiply before you cook the meat, thus potentially reaching their minimal infective dose. By storing the meat in a fridge, you reduce this reproduction rate. By cooking the meat you ideally kill the vast majority, if not all of those bacteria, but even if a small amount survives or gets onto your food after cooking, it will probably not reach the minimal infective dose.
With all that being said, let’s finally turn to your scissors:
Usually, they are far from a perfect breeding ground for bacteria, particularly those who like humans as a host, so any bacteria that got onto them due to whatever you did with them could not multiply.
I presume you fried the meat immediately after cutting, so they had no time to multiply on the meat either.
Finally, the frying process should kill of most, if not all of those bacteria.
Thus, you will most likely be below the minimal infective dose.
With respect to bacteria, the scissors are probably not much worse than any other of your kitchen utensils, let alone you.
(As already noted, you should consider toxic substances on your scissors.)
Now, the above assumes that you had not done anything with your scissors that would expose them to a lot of pathogenic bacteria or make them a good breeding ground for them – such as cutting a steak with them:
After your stunt, your scissors would be covered with liquids from the meat providing a perfect breeding ground for (pathogenic) bacteria.
They are also likely to have acquired some pathogenic bacteria from the steak, you, or your household.
Finally, you probably do not store your scissors in the freezer (not that this alone would help).
Thus, you should really make sure to thoroughly clean your scissors afterwards, lest you contaminate other things or infect somebody with them later.
Just a note: After your stunt, your scissors would be covered with blood[...] they really won't be; there should be no blood left in any meat you buy as that would be potentially highly toxic and cause the meat to spoil very quickly. The "blood" in raw (or rare) meat is a protein called myoglobin. Still clean your scissors (scissors? Really?) but don't lose any sleep over getting icky blood all over your kitchen when you cut meat.
@Spratty: Corrected, thanks. Still, even if its not blood, it’s rather nutritious for some microbes and you don’t want it all over your kitchen.
Absolutely - it's always worth clearing up thoroughly when the myoglobin has been splashing around (my kitchen often looks like it's been sprayed with the stuff) but it's good for people not to think they're handling old (but strangely still liquid) blood, which would be off-the-scale unpleasant and hazardous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.192754
| 2020-08-24T22:24:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110395",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Chris H",
"Jeff George",
"Joe M",
"Jon P",
"Joshua",
"Nobody",
"Richard",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"RonJohn",
"Ross Presser",
"Spratty",
"Tashus",
"Wrzlprmft",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87340",
"l0b0",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63514
|
Glazing bread pre-baking
I was at a restaurant for brunch this past weekend and had a pastry basket that included, among other things, a dried fruit focaccia. It was much lighter than a typical, savory focaccia, almost like a yeasted cake. The top was glazed with what tasted like honey and some sliced almonds.
My question is, when I try to duplicate the dish for an upcoming brunch I'm hosting, how do I handle the glaze? It seemed like it would have been added before the baking, but if that is even accurate, would I have to dilute the honey with water before brushing it on? Or am I crazy and this would only work if applied after baking. I certainly don't want the sugars to burn during baking.
I would not use water. I would mix the honey and almonds with some butter. If you were going to bake at 350F or lower, you could brush on before baking. Focaccia is typically baked at significantly higher temperature and the honey and almonds would surely get too dark. There is a honey glaze on these dinner rolls. You could add the almonds and glaze during the last couple of minutes of baking, just keep an eye on the almonds so they don't get too dark.
I would simply add it near the end baking. If you add it at the beginning it will almost certainly burn, as you said. Pop it on 5 minutes or so before you need to take the bread out and the honey will have a chance to 'bed in' and the almonds will toast a little (if that's what you want).
Excellent I'll give this a shot. But would you use pure honey or would you dilute it / heat it up to make it thinner before applying?
@JShweky Depends on how much sweetness you want (you tasted the bread). Pure honey will be very sweet and sticky. I suggest at least warming the honey to make it easily spreadable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.193587
| 2015-11-16T15:45:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63514",
"authors": [
"Deanna Milne-Azzolina",
"Donnalou Hirashima",
"JShweky",
"Kiat Chan",
"Melanie Casares",
"Paula Lawton",
"Rosie Loki",
"Stephie",
"ThatBlueR32",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37318",
"laura poettker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16670
|
What is the purpose of vinegar in this lollipop recipe?
I found a recipe for lollipops. It uses 2:2:1 ratio of sugar:water:vinegar. What exactly is the role of vinegar in it?
The recipe was:
10 spoons of granulated/crystalic sugar
10 spoons of water
4 spoons of vinegar
food coloring
Combine ingredients and cook approx 10-12 minutes since water has started to boil. All water has to boil out. You can test if it is boiled enough by making a drop.
It is simply to add tartness to add some balance against the sugar. The water from the vinegar will evaporate and leave behind acetic acid. There is an old fashioned type of hard candy known as vinegar candy. Your lollipop is essentially just that candy on a stick.
Thanks. :) So I can exlude it and it will have only slightly different taste?
You can exclude it and you'll have a plain sugar candy; you might want to consider adding some flavoring or they might be rather boring. But they will work fine, yes.
I think it can have another purpose. Sugar syrup will crystallise when cooled down. Acid prevents this. If you don't want vinegar smell, use cream of tartar and change your water ratio to account for the liquid from the vinegar. Or you can do it without the acid at all, but take much care against early crystallisation.
Sugar syrup cooked with acid can undergo partial inversion, which changes texture ...
Actually, I think Mr. Natkin is more correct. The vinegar does help to give the lollipops a more balanced flavor, but more importantly, it prevents the sugar from crystalizing. When I make lollipops, I more often use fresh squeezed lemon juice because I prefer the taste. But sometimes, like with a caramel lollipop, vinegar tastes better to me :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.193795
| 2011-08-05T21:06:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16670",
"authors": [
"Cujo McCloskey",
"Henri Normak",
"Ixrec",
"Jool",
"Michael Natkin",
"Owen Blacker",
"hollsk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6468",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user712092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110478
|
forgot the shortening (1/2 cup) in banana cake. How can this be served, or rescued?
We forgot the 1/2 cup shortening in banana cake mix. Can this error be fixed out of the oven?
It seems to be a wee bit heavy, as in unleavened.
Removing fat from a cake recipe does not generally make it "heavy". Fats weigh down batter or dough, impeding its rise. In fact your basic sponge cake (sometimes called a fatless sponge) has no added fat other than egg yolks and rises quite nicely regardless. I suspect there is another problem with your cake; perhaps expired leavener or inadequate incorporation of air.
(Cake without fat can be tough, but from your question this does not seem to be be your problem.)
If the textural problems are minor enough to still serve your cake, there are plenty of options to add fat and flavor. Fatless sponges are often paired with flavorful fillings. For example, a Victoria sponge is filled with jam and whipped cream. But you can be more creative with flavors to complement the banana: pudding, buttercream, and ganache are all great cake fillings or toppings with plenty of fat and flavor.
Even if the texture is unappealing, the cake can be repurposed to some degree. Cake pops are a dessert where crumbled cake is mixed with frosting, formed into balls, stuck on lollipop sticks, and dipped in chocolate or ganache. This project re-purposes your failed cake and hides both leavening issues and missing fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.193974
| 2020-08-29T19:53:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110478",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103714
|
Can I double a pumpkin pie recipe for 10 x 2 inch pan?
Can I just double the Libby's recipe and bake the pie in a 10 inch by 2 inch pie pan?
As not all of our users are familiar with the Libbys recipe, could you please edit your post to include it, especially the instructions about pan size and baking time?
Here's the classic Libby's Pumpkin pie recipe (makes one 9-inch pie):
1 can (15 oz) canned pumpkin
1-1/2 cups (1 can or 12 fl oz) evaporated milk
3/4 cup granulated sugar
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1/2 tsp ground ginger
1/4 tsp ground cloves
2 large eggs
1 unbaked 9-inch (4 cup volume) deep dish pie shell
Combine everything but the pie shell, pour the filling into the pie shell.
Bake at 425F for 15 minutes, reduce temperature to 350F and bake 30-40 minutes
or until knife inserted near center comes out clean.
Source: the label on a can of Libby's Pumpkin from my pantry (Instructions paraphrased by me)
The note about the "4 cup volume" of the pie crust gives a helpful hint. This recipe should make about 4 cups of pie filling, so to substitute into a larger pie pan, you will need more filling. Based on moscafj's helpful information that a 10x1.5 inch pie pan has a 6.5 cup capacity, we can do the math to make a substitution.
The larger pan has the capacity for 1.625 times as much filling as the recipe makes. Since the recipe has two eggs in it, it can be easily scaled in increments of half a batch. Half-batch increments will leave you with some leftover pumpkin and evaporated milk, which can be frozen for later use. I have found from experience that this recipe is perfectly good made with regular milk of any fat content, so you could avoid having leftovers by using one can of evaporated milk plus 3/4 cup regular milk. If using all regular milk, bring it up to room temperature or the filling will be cold, which will make the crust underbaked on the bottom.
You can round down and make 1.5 times the recipe, and make a slightly shallower pie. Or round up to 2 times the recipe, and have about 1.5 cups of leftover filling. The leftover filling can be cooked in a smaller pan, with or without crust. Making it without crust is useful if you have gluten-free guests. Be sure to check on it and take it out of the oven earlier than the large pie, or it will burn.
Ingredients for 1.5 times batch of Libby's Pumpkin Pie (makes about 6 cups of filling)
22.5 oz canned pumpkin (you will need to purchase two 15-oz cans or one 29-oz can)
2-1/4 cups (18 fl oz or one and a half 12-oz cans) evaporated milk
1-1/8 cups (1 cup plus 2 tbsp) granulated sugar
3/4 tsp salt
1-1/2 tsp ground cinnamon
3/4 tsp ground ginger
3/8 tsp ground cloves
3 large eggs
1 unbaked 10-inch pie shell
Ingredients for 2 times batch of Libby's Pumpkin Pie (makes about 8 cups of filling)
2 15-oz cans canned pumpkin OR 1 29-oz can
2 cups (2 cans or 24 fl oz) evaporated milk
1-1/2 cups granulated sugar
1 tsp salt
2 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp ground ginger
1/2 tsp ground cloves
4 large eggs
1 unbaked 10-inch pie shell
optional: additional pie crust to fit a smaller pan with 1.5 cup capacity (such as a Gratin dish or small tart pan)
Instructions: same as classic recipe, except that the final baking time at 350F will be different. The increased pan width would make it longer, but if the filling is shallower that would make the cook time shorter. Actual bake time will depend on how deep your filling is. Start checking on the pie at around 20 minutes, by jiggling the pan. Once the filling no longer wobbles, start checking with a knife. Expect your first attempt to have many knife slits in it. If you align the knife slits with where the pieces will be sliced, you can pre-slice the completely cooled pie and your guests will never know.
Note: The edges of the crust often burn when I make it in even a normal 9-inch size. For a longer bake time, I highly recommend shielding the crust edges with strips of foil or a purpose-made pie crust shield. Remove the shield for the final 5-10 minutes of bake time if it's not adequately browned already.
This should get you in the ball park. While they don't specify a 10x2 pan, they do indicate that a 10x1.5 (25x4 cm) inch pie pan has a capacity of 6.5 cups (1540 ml).
It might take longer to bake, other than that there are no issues aside from personal preference (size and thickness of a slice, etc.).
Could you please include/explain the essential parts within the post? While interesting, that’s a candidate for link rot... Thanks!
@Stephie I believe I provided the relevant info. It is just a list of pans and their capacities. There are plenty of similar sources on line. I read the initial question as "how much filling will I need for a 10X2 pie pan?"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.194127
| 2019-11-26T12:30:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103714",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43057
|
Making my cocoa mix into instant cocoa mix
Yes, I have read the answers to this question, but none of them are what I am after. I even posted an answer there, but it is an expensive, if delicious one. The key word I am after is instant cocoa mix. Please don't suggest a blender.
I came up with a cocoa recipe I quite like (1 Tbs sugar, 4 tsp unpacked cocoa powder, 2-3 cups of milk - yes, I generally prefer more cocoa powder than sugar). However, I would like to make it an instant mix, rather than having to mix a small amount with hot water, mix that first, then add milk (or use a blender I don't want to wash).
Obviously this is achievable as cocoa mixes off the store shelf don't require this extra step. What are my options for making my cocoa mix truly "instant" (I don't care if it becomes syrup instead of a mix, just as long as there is no powdered milk in there - ugh, who in the world decided there could be gourmet cocoa with powdered milk, there is no such thing as gourmet powdered milk)
Hmmm, Alton Brown's mix doesn't require an extra step.
"Obviously this is achievable": nothing obvious about it. Store bought mixes contain more sugar than cocoa. The sugar separates the cocoa particles, and when it dissolves, the cocoa doesn't clump. There may be a different method which might work for your mix, but between your different ratio and the impossibility to do industrial processing at home, there is no guarantee that what you want is achievable.
Looking at the ingredients for Nesquick for example:
SUGAR
COCOA PROCESSED WITH ALKALI
SOY LECITHIN
CARRAGEENAN
SALT
ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS
SPICE
VITAMINS AND MINERALS: CALCIUM CARBONATE, ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C), ZINC OXIDE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B6), COPPER GLUCONATE, MANGANESE SULFATE, BIOTIN.
The key elements are soy lecithin, which is an emulsifier, and carrageenan, which is a thickener especially effective in dairy products. The lecithin will help the cocoa to become suspended in the liquid phase, and the carrageenan will help the particles not stick to each other.
What does not appear on the label is how some of these ingredients are processed. It is likely that the cocoa is modified by being pre-gelatinized, so that it will have reduced clumping properties, and then reground quite fine to enhance how well it dissolves. This is not something that you can achieve at home.
As you mention, you can probably create a syrup from your ingredients, but it may settle over time and have to be shaken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.194771
| 2014-03-26T21:00:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43057",
"authors": [
"James Orr",
"Jessica Williamson",
"Jolenealaska",
"big schwinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jjr90",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13066
|
How do I use up my canned tomato paste?
Possible Duplicate:
What do you do with left over tomato paste?
I have many cans of tomato paste, and I just want to get some ideas about how to use them up.
Hi Pollyanna, welcome to Seasoned Advice! You should find the answers you're looking for in the linked question.
To store tomato paste..
Tomato paste can be stored in fridge for a long time as Doug pointed out. You can try to use the ice cube trays and spread it out into it, then freeze it and take it out and put it into resealable ziplock bags.
Easy recipe concerning tomato pastes..
1/ Spread on french bread, Add plenty of cheese, Sprinkle herbs mix on (Basil comes to mind) and you have a mini pizza
2/ Mix olive oil (4 tablespoon) : Tomato paste (2 tablespoon) : Minced garlic (2 teaspoon) together in that proportion. Stir-fry until garlic become golden brown. Then store in fridge. Toss with spaghetti (salted with kosher salt when cooked) when needed.
3/ Pizza!!!!!!!
If you only use tomato paste infrequently, then you could do as I do: when opening a can (typically only to use a tablespoon full for a recipe), I divide the remainder of the can into tablespoon-sized portions, wrap them individually in plastic wrap, and freeze them until required.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.194997
| 2011-03-12T22:21:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13066",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AndrewS",
"MNR",
"Sektor",
"Tom Chantler",
"cansadadeserfeliz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"jnovacho",
"rsanchez",
"wilson0x4d"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63685
|
How to get that crispy skin on a roasted turkey or chicken
I love making roast chicken, but I don't seem to be able to get the skin to crisp to that nice mahogany color, like this:
Some of the things I have tried:
butterfly and roast at 500 (Alton Brown method)
pat dry and brush with oil before roasting at 375
flash under broiler
brown breast on the stovetop in a very hot cast iron skillet before placing in oven
results: #1 & #2 don't seem to work at all -- The skin cooks but it doesn't crisp. #3 only the peak of the breast gets seriously brown. parts further from the broiler are less and less brown. #4 just the parts touching the pan brown
I do have an in-oven thermometer, so I know the temps are correct
UPDATE: added #4
Place bird on a rack over a pan. Salt skin, do not add oil or marinade. Place in refrigerator, uncovered, for up to two days. This will help remove moisture from the skin, which will allow it to crisp more readily in the oven.
how do you do this in conjunction with brining? I usually brine my birds. maybe brining is the problem?
You could brine, remove, pat as dry as possible, then refrigerate as I suggest above. The idea is to remove as much moisture from the skin as possible. I find that if I have a good product, brining (particularly chicken) is not necessary...but that is personal preference.
bringing then drying seems excessive.
@rbp see my edit above...it is all about what you are trying to achieve. If you want crisp skin, you need to lose moisture.
One of the problems with using the broiler to brown the skin, is your chicken isn't equidistant from the broiler, so your breast will burn if the rest browns.
A few ways I've gone about ensuring properly crispy skin.
Separate the skin from the meat prior to cooking. This will let more of the fat render out and allow the skin to dry out quicker. I actually put oil and spices underneath the skin to achieve this.
Brown the chicken either before or after cooking it. If you have a cast iron skillet as in the picture there, that works really well. Cook the chicken to proper temp, get your skillet really, really hot add some oil when the oil starts to smoke, toss the chicken in (so you don't cook the actual meat much more).
Buy a blowtorch (a proper one from the plumbing section of a hardware store). Cook chicken slowly to right temp and then blowtorch the skin. Serious suggestion... Alton Brown suggested it even in one of his podcasts. Also see here.
Edit: Something else to consider. You mention that your mother never had this problem. The chickens today might have more fat than the ones your mother used. The skin won't brown completely till the fat itself renders out. Giving it time to do that, separating the skin, and making sure the surface is really, really dry may help. You really want to reduce the amount of moisture that is on/around the skin.
I always lube under the skin, and I have tried #2 (updated OP). #3 seems excessive: my mother never had a blow torch and her skin came out crispy
I've used the blowtorch simply because it's convenient for me and it works. I suspect that's why Heston Blumenthal (the chef in the linked article) does it, is he can easily control the browning easier. He roast the chicken low and slow for 6 hours, then just quickly browning the skin with the torch at the end. The alternate technique mentioned is quickly frying it afterwards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.195146
| 2015-11-20T19:50:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63685",
"authors": [
"Adrienne Urban",
"Angelina Simon",
"Cliff Sykes",
"Ilya Cherevkov",
"Jan Hezlett",
"Samuel DeNicola",
"Steve Davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"moscafj",
"rbp",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40278
|
Pumpkin puree refreeze
Can I freeze a cheescake made with pumpkin puree that was previously frozen? I used it in the cheesecake but the event was cancelled to another day. How long will the cheesecake stay fresh without freezing?
What kind of crust on the cheesecake? That will usually take the first hit.
Are you asking about freezing the pumpkin, or the cheesecake you made from it?
Graham cracker crust. Pumpkin purée was frozen. Made cheesecake with the purée and now want to freeze the cheesecake.
I'm not sure what your question is. Is it that you want to freeze the whole cake but you're not sure if the pumpkin purée can be refrozen? Or rather how long you can keep the cheesecake in the fridge? Or are you thinking about scooping out the pumpkin part and put that in the freezer?
I edited your question to make it more clear what you're asking (based on your comments). If I didn't get it right, feel free to change it back.
The inner part of the cake will be fine in the fridge for about 3 days if covered and uncut. Unfortunately, the crust will start to get soggy after about 24 hours. The cheesecake can be frozen now and will be fine for at least a few weeks, but the crust will be soggy as soon as it's defrosted. I don't know of any way to keep the crust's just baked texture.
it's a little late for it, but one could bake the cheesecake in a pan on parchment, sans crust and bake a crust separately, then put the cheesecake on the crust as it's served.
@sourd'oh - Wow! Or you could just eat out :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.195456
| 2013-12-15T20:09:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40278",
"authors": [
"Ger",
"GiH",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin",
"Lorena Sánchez",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"brianTheam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93683"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40093
|
Why should we add alcohol to make extract
Why is alcohol used to prepare extracts, such as mint extract?
The solubility of some flavor components in alcohol is the root reason. This is directly related to why alcohol is useful in cooking in general, such as vodka or wine in tomato sauces.
Simple. The compounds that give mint its minty flavor are alcohol soluble, so with alcohol present you can "extract" them.
There are other things use can use, propylene glycol is one. Basically you need a solvent that can also serve as a carrier for the flavor you want. Water doesn't work, most flavors are not water soluble. Many are oil soluble, but using oil gives you a different product entirely, as does using vinegar for the acid, which is also a solvent.
If your final product is high in alcohol, propylene glycol or acid, it will also be well protected against quick spoilage.
Is propylene glycol really safe?
@ashes999 Like most chemical compounds used as food additives, propylene glycol has its detractors, but it is FDA approved. Don't confuse it with ethylene glycol which is the deadly poison in antifreeze.
There are two main reasons:
Some flavors are soluble in alcohol, but not in water
Alcohol is a preservative, helping make the extract shelf stable
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.195729
| 2013-12-09T08:46:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40093",
"authors": [
"Carol Lo",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mynul",
"Shuri2060",
"Tim Sylvester",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93108",
"renegade"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41276
|
Are there any tricks to making a light-textured "whipped cream cake"?
During a web search, I found a cake recipe that uses heavy cream instead of butter.
However, when I made it, the cake texture was terrible; thick and doughy even though I tested the cake with a toothpick and the toothpick came out clean.This is the recipe I used:
2 cups cake flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
dash salt
1 1/2 cups heavy cream
1 1/3 cups white sugar
2 eggs (room temperature)
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Grease 2 8" cake pans; line with parchment paper; grease again.
Sift cake flour, baking powder and salt in a medium bowl; set aside.
Using an electric mixer, whisk the cream with the sugar until stiff peaks form. Add the eggs, 1 at a time, whisking well after the first before adding the second. Stir in the vanilla. Fold in the flour mixture until just incorporated. Divide batter between the prepared cake pans. Bake 25 to 30 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center of the cake comes out clean. Cool cakes in pans for 10 minutes, then invert on to cooling racks; re-invert so that the tops of the cakes are facing upwards. Cool completely.
I live in Boulder County, Colorado, so I decreased the sugar to 3/4 cups (I do this routinely, eve when I lived in southern Indiana, because I believe excessive amounts of sugar are used in American baked goods (leavened without yeast).
I WEIGH all ingredients and mixed the cake according to the directions; I folded the flour mixture just until there was no dry flour. What did I do wrong? Are there adjustments that should be made to the recipe, such as increasing the baking temperature? I understand that this type of cake should have a velvety, melt-in-your-mouth texture. How can I make this type of cake successfully?
Did the recipe suggest any high-altitude adjustments? Did you make any? (Leaving out nearly half the sugar doesn't really qualify in my book.)
The excessive amount of sugar is not only there for taste, but also for texture. Some recipes can work with reducing the sugar, others are more sensitive and won't work. I would try making it with the complete amount of sugar next time and see if it helps.
If the directions say that you should beat your cream and sugar until you have peaks, then whisk in eggs then that may be a possible cause of your results. You've just put loads of air into the cream, then you're supposed to beat eggs into it, which will punch some of the air out. What I would do is beat the eggs separately (I'd not just beat them until mixed but beat them until they start to turn pale, that adds more air), then fold them and the flour into the cream.
Be careful not to overbeat the cream as well, if you overshoot stiff peaks you'll start to turn it to butter, and then you've lost your lift. I'd stop a bit short of stiff peaks, leave it a bit looser.
Leaving that much sugar out without reducing the amount of cream would mean that you've got too much liquid in your cake. If you have too much liquid it won't be able to crystallize and the cake, while it will rise, will not be able to hold shape and will collapse. I would compensate by leaving some of the cream out. If you weigh all the dry ingredients you can work out a ratio of dry to wet ingredients (the eggs and cream separately). Then if you weigh the amount of sugar you plan to remove you can work out how much of a percentage of each wet ingredient to take out. Or you could just wing it and use 1 1/4 cups cream and 1 3/4 eggs and see how it goes, that's probably about right anyway.
Thank you all, for directions all of which I will use. I've also been studying carrot cakes and other cakes made oil instead of butter.
If the texture is thick and doughy, it might be because you overmixed the batter. Try divvying up your flour into several portions and sifting those portions onto the batter, then fold (then the next portion, then fold etc). As opposed to dumping all the flour (2 cups is a lot!) and folding like crazy - which is what the text in your question seems to imply that you're doing/the recipe text seems to imply.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.195874
| 2014-01-19T19:17:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41276",
"authors": [
"Bertoncelj1",
"Christine K",
"Marti",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96207",
"rumtscho",
"securebollardsuk",
"therealkevki",
"user96181"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108644
|
Why is ciabatta poolish usually made with instant yeast?
So far all the "classic" ciabatta recipes I have found propose using small amounts of instant yeast.
But I'm pretty sure that ciabatta predates invention of instant yeast so why not use sourdough instead?
It work pretty well for me except the poolish doesn't get bubbly overnight in the fridge (6 degree Celsius) but if I keep it for like 3 days it looks like gluten gets over-fermented. On the other hand, if I add more sourdough to the poolish it probably will get too contaminated with over fermented whole wheat and rye (I use it to feed my sourdough). So is it the reason?
Ciabatta probably predates the electric and gas ovens as well, but most recipes will still tell you to use one.
It's likely because most people don't have sourdough sitting around, and when you're writing a recipe for a magazine, cookbook, or website, most people are just going to ignore a recipe that requires a month to make. So they tell people to use yeast, instead. But I've always thought of really good ciabatta as kinda a half-way sourdough ... maybe a hint of sour, but not so much that it's blatantly a sourdough. (and this is conjecture, not an answer, before people complain yet again about me putting things in comments, I really have no idea why)
@AvnerShahar-Kashtan As GdD's answer says, Ciabatta was invented in 1982. Gas ovens (1826) and electric ovens (1891) are a mite older than that...
@Chronocidal True, in this case (and interesting to learn) but the point still stands. Were he to ask about an older bread, like this 12th century Tuscan pane sciocco, he would still find recipes using commercial yeast, modern ovens, and even plastic wrap. Recipes are modernized all the time. http://thehumbledish.com/simple-tuscan-bread-recipe/493/
@Joe people complain about comments like that because comments are for clarifying and improving the question. Having partial/guesses at answers in a comment is bad because they can't be downvoted or edited. If a few people agree you're right but you're actually wrong, the handful of upvotes will make you seem correct, since the people who know you are wrong can't downvote, and any comment they leave in response could easily be missed. Not a statement on the quality of your current comment, just an explanation in general of why that's the rule about comments.
@Kat : fair enough. Not sure it'll stop me completely from posting suspicions as comments, but there's also the counter-argument of SAJ14SAJ ... who would post plasuable sounding stuff so quickly that other people wouldn't bother answerinf. And I knew it was conjecture and not posting from experience based on the number that were just flat out wrong. (some of which were deleted, but many of which were automatically accepted as correct answers, and then seemed to just attract upvotes ...or you have a +9/-2 edge out the +6/-0)
Commercially produced yeast has been around since the mid-late 1800s, and the commercial strains we use today have been around since the 40s while Ciabatta was invented in 1982. So while ciabatta seems like it's a very old traditional thing it is relatively new, and commercial yeast was widely available.
The question wasn't asking for a categorical list of yeast @Chronocidal, it was making the assumption that ciabatta is on old type of bread.
You might want to link this Guardian article or Wikipedia as your source for Ciabatta's invention in 1982. (A source for commercial yeast isn't a bad idea either, though it's not as much of a surprise...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.196221
| 2020-05-27T05:26:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108644",
"authors": [
"Avner Shahar-Kashtan",
"Chronocidal",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113888
|
How to scale Indian cooking?
What are the best practices for scaling up Indian dishes such as chicken curry, butter chicken, palak paneer, etc. that follow these generic steps (albeit with different ingredients):
oil -> whole spices -> onions -> ginger garlic -> tomatoes -> chicken/veg
The process above yields extremely tasty & authentic dishes that serve 4-6 people and I have used various recipes with good success.
But when I double/triple/quadruple the quantity (i.e., the amount of chicken or spinach) things go awry. I increase the base curry ingredients (onions, ginger/garlic/tomatoes/spices) but not necessarily twofold, threefold, or fourfold, etc. The result is a dish that lacks flavor or balance.
The question is, should all ingredients proportionally increase?
The biggest mistake that people make when doubling or tripling a recipe is that they don't have a good way to double or triple the surface area of the cooking vessels and double or triple the amount of heat going into it. Which I would give as an answer, if someone hadn't closed the question.
@bigbrownbear00: rumtscho is just following the rules of the site. Personally, I find it odd that mod's put in so much of their personal time and care for free. And yes, this community needs more Indians who can answer questions. I've introduced the site to friends and they loved it. I haven't had any trouble scaling. Specifically chicken curry, mixed veggies and palak dishes. The onion, masalas etc. were proportionally increased. For cooking time I recommend checking periodically to see if it's cooked, rather than depend on a number.
Cooking is as a rule of thumb more forgiving when you tinker with the ratios than e.g. baking. That said, if you have a recipe that works and you want to increase the number of servings, the first step is to increase all ingredients by the same factor, keeping the ratios consistent. This should bring you at least into the vicinity of the desired results.
Unfortunately, this can still be somewhat off target, as recipes depend not only on ingredients, but on basic physics (and chemistry), e.g. evaporating a percentage of liquid, or heat transfer to and from a body of food, may it be a roast or a pot with a given volume. A shallow layer of something in a wide pan will cook differently than the same amount in a tall and narrow pot. Whenever you scale up or down, you need to take these factors into account. And yes, this can influence not only the cooking time, but also the flavor profile. Just think of frying a small amount vs a large amount in the same pan - there’s a reason some recipes recommend searing some ingredients in batches.
It’s almost impossible to give a generic answer, but if you follow the principles of
scale proportionally
determine cooking time by doneness or desired intermediate states, not time alone
optionally, adjust liquids according to surface area
you shouldn’t be too far off and only need minor tweaks. Everything beyond that would need looking into the specific recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.196514
| 2021-01-22T13:26:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113888",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Nav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42717
|
How long is too long to cook meatballs in sauce?
We use ground Chuck for the meatballs when making meatball subs. No spices or chopped onion, just meat and the meat sauce is a basic tomato based concoction. Then we cook the meatballs(raw) in the sauce in a crackpot for about 10 hrs! When we serve it, the sauce has cooked away by 95%. What I need to know is can you overcook meatballs and/or sauce (on low setting)? They always have a terribly strong and bitter taste that ground beef shouldn't have.
A covered crockpot on low shouldn't cause a sauce to reduce by much. The only way I can imagine what you're describing happening is if the lid is left off and the power level left on medium or above for 10 hours. The method you describe isn't too off the mark for meatballs that should be just fine. sample recipe So what are we missing here?
Interesting question and answers about why this way of cooking is a culinary disaster. The only improvement I can imagine is a more specific title so others who might be interested can find it.
That long time in the crock-pot sounds bad to begin with. Ground meat should be just cooked to a safe temperature -- any more and it will lose moisture and get tough.
The bitterness could come from prolonged exposure to the acidic tomato sauce. If you've ever made ground taco meat and over-seasoned it with lemon or lime juice, it will often taste bitter or astringent.
Bitter flavors sound like something is burning. Your description indicates the sauce is reducing by an extreme amount. It seems possible it is burning on the bottom of the crock, and the burnt flavors are infusing throughout the dish.
You are not describing a method which is likely to produce outstanding results. The lack of seasonings, breadcrumbs or similar (which change the texture to a more... well... meatball... consistency), the lack of browning (to develop beefy flavor), as well as the possible over reduction of the sauce all seem to lead towards a poor result.
The 10 hour cooking time may be the least of the issues, although it is longer than required by a considerable margin. Even so, if the sauce doesn't over reduce, and the temperature is well maintained at a very low simmer, it should not be excessive.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.196761
| 2014-03-13T02:03:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42717",
"authors": [
"Ashley north",
"DarenW",
"Jolenealaska",
"Korey Penn",
"Mad Chad",
"Mathias Poujol ROST",
"Pentru spam",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99843",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37880
|
Is it ok to use plastic containers to bake in an electric oven?
Can I use a microwave safe plastic container to bake in an electric oven?
Here is a list of common plastics found in kitchen containers. You will find this information on the bottom of the container, in a triangle with a number inside.
While some plastics used in microwavable applications appear to have a high melting point, PET for instance melts at 510ºF, please remember that the material will soften, weaken and otherwise degrade long before actually melting into liquid. Other plastics labeled microwave safe, like HDPE, melts at a mere 265ºF! While microwave safe plastics may have a relatively high short term temperature resistance, sustained temperature tolerance, as in leaving it in an oven for baking, is much lower.
Silicone bakeware, by contrast, has a melting point of 935ºF, but is only rated for use at sustained temperatures no greater than 675ºF. Above that point, and the material will soften, warp and degrade. Thermoplastics have a much lower melting point, and it can be expected that their sustained temperature resistance is likewise much lower, to the point where using them as bakeware is unadvisable.
Bakelite, often found in pot handles even today, is good in the oven to about 350°F. I've seen casserole dishes made of the stuff in the past, but not for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite
@WayfaringStranger : and if you put a bakelite handle in a hot oven (I didn't know, they were hand-me-down pots from a deceased relative) ... gasses will bubble up from inside, resulting in a dull, slightly pock-marked handle. And it will stink horribly.
@Joe Never had that happen to me, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were quality variations in batches the plastic depending on manufacturer.
@WayfaringStranger : I don't remember what I was making ... so it might've been over 350F ... and it was a rather odd, 3 burner stove (in an apartment kitchen that was smaller than either of the two closets in the place) ... so I don't know if I'd trust the temperature it said, anyway.
Tonight I turned on my oven to preheat to 425 degrees for a pizza, and ten minutes later every smoke alarm in the house went off. I dashed upstairs and discovered that I had forgotten I had put a plastic bin of dishes from a neighborhood party in there to return them. (I don't have a lot of spare room.) There was a fire in my oven. Black smoke was billowing out the top. (I thought ovens were supposed to be airtight?) The whole plastic bin was melting and there was black all over the clean dishes that were in it. There were flames on either side of the melting bin. I've moved recently and had to leave my fire extinguisher behind because of a moving van regulation. So the one time I actually needed it, there was none there. (I'm buying a new one tomorrow.) I didn't know what else to do so I grabbed my wok, filled it with water, opened the smoking door and threw the whole contents all over both sides. That seemed to put out the fire, but for good measure I also filled the wok a second time and again hurled it inside the over. I see that there are hard little gray pools of plastic everywhere in there, and I suspect I have wrecked my oven. This is more than a hypothetical -- this is a PLEASE don't put any plastic in the oven!!!!! My ears are still ringing from all my smoke detectors, but they did their job. And I am shaken, every window and door in my house is open, but I'll never forget that again!
Ovens aren't totally airtight; they have vent, often under one of the burners or at the back of the cooktop. The important thing is that they contain the flames, so as long as you don't open it, the fire can't easily spread to the rest of your kitchen.
No. It will most likely melt. Once this happens, inner surfaces of your oven will be coated with molten plastic which will smoke and smell foul, and probably never come off. Every time you use your oven it will smoke all over again until it's as carbonized as it's going to get. Don't do it.
It is OK to use oven safe plastic containers in both electric and gas ovens. Oven safe containers should also be "microwave safe," but not all "microwave safe" containers are oven safe. If it doesn't say oven safe (note temperature too), it doesn't belong in the oven.
And worth mentioning that oven safe plastics are still currently pretty rare. And for each one, you have to look at what temperature they’re good for. (I’ve seen Gladware pans that I think were oven safe, but more for warming than high temps)
@Joe I recall a flatmate from my student days (20+ years ago) who had a plastic lasagne dish that was clearly oven safe. Unfortunately he wasn't and tried to remove it from the oven with bare hands because he didn't think it would get that hot. He was studying engineering, but I reckon he learnt more from his various kitchen mishaps than the few lectures he woke up for
@ChrisH : yeah, ‘stay cool’ handles might mean something on a stovetop, but that means nothing as everything heats up in the oven, no matter the material
You get silicone based tuperware-ish plastic containers that are oven safe. Silicone melts at much higher tempratures than any household ovens ever reach.
According to some googling silicone melts at 1414 degrees celsius. Even at 400 - 500 degrees celsius it looses no physical properties. Which is comfortably double the max temprature that my oven reaches.
No. No matter what kind of plastic you are using, don't use it for oven use. It will melt from the inside or it might melt completely.
For safer use, don't use plastic 'cause your oven might catch on fire.
Btw., there are companies that market special plastic containers as oven-safe (within certain limits) for baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.197002
| 2013-10-24T21:53:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37880",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Chrissi Tsourouttis",
"Eugene Tobolski",
"Jerry Starfield",
"Joe",
"Lawnmower Man",
"Pelican Drones spam",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zacq Anyair",
"cleve hubbs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89177"
],
"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
}
|
54474
|
Substituting Lard for Soy Shortening
how do I convert my cake recipes from shortening to lard-I live at 6000 ft altitude. The lard is hydrogenated and has more water so it needs adjustment. I'm at altitude and that requires adjustments which I can do. BUT do I use the same amount of lard as shortening as listed in the recipe?
Another thing you might consider is coconut oil or soy-free shortening
I edited your title to make it clearer what the question was about. I have some other questions though: Is this plain lard that you're using? How does it have more water in it?
I'd just suggest replacing the fat for fat in equal amounts. If required you can just modify the recipe next time round.
Can you clarify your statement that the lard "has more water"?
Yeah, lard and shortening should be about the same... and will probably taste better. Butter certainly has more water content than lard. Also... shortening in cakes? This is new to me. Every recipe I've done uses butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.197471
| 2015-02-06T18:13:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54474",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Didgeridrew",
"Doug",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie Higginson",
"Julie Winkelmann",
"SourDoh",
"Terr Wes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"karen abery"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32076
|
Is there a releaseable mold/pan for bread?
I am looking for a bread mold (or is it a pan?) that can be removed prior to baking. The reason is that it will lose the shape if I rest it before baking too long, but longer resting time in my experience makes bread more airy. I do not want to bake the bread in the mold itself - there are too many chemicals that can be released during baking cycle, and I like free-form loaves anyway. I know the loaf will keep it's shape better if it's drier but I dont like how the bread turns out in this case.
This is about yeast bread, and I am referring to resting (not rising) time, immediately prior to baking. Regular round/oval shapes will work. My bread is adapted version from 'Artisan Bread in 5 minutes'.
Any suggestions how to do this?
Are you talking about yeast raised breads? By resting, do you mean proofing or rising time? What kind of mold or pan are you thinking of? Fanciful shapes?
i think i get what your asking about but unless the bread is baked in a particular shaped pan it's going to turn out round or oblong like a boule or baguette since there won't be any supporting structure. The part that confuses me is that you say you like free form loaves but you are asking about a mold.
Added clarifications to the question. I want to remove the mold before baking - this will let me to rest the bread longer without losing it's shape. The mold would be removed immediately prior to baking
I still don't understand this "resting". There are only three reasons I know of to hold yeast raised doughs: 1) to allow the gluten to develop slowly over time (as per "no knead" bread); 2) to ferment, slow or fast, depending on temperature; 3) to relax the gluten network that exists to make it easier to handle. None of these seem to apply to your description.
This is no-knead bread. I leave it to rise overnight, refrigerate, form loaf, and let it rest before baking. Forming the loaf compresses the bread somewhat, so I rest it before baking - which in turn causes loaf to lose shape. I want to hold that shape during resting time
No knead bread tends to be high in hydration, and is not amenable to carefully controlled loaf shapes. You need to accept that it will not be an exact process. See http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/06/the-food-lab-the-science-of-no-knead-dough.html for some instructions with pictures--no loaf pan required.
The only time I've ever made the no-knead bread I put it in my dutch oven and cooked it in there as well. As @SAJ14SAJ noted, this is an inexact method and designed for quickness not precise beautiful loaves of bread.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned brotforms, baskets designed to shape loaves during the final rise. http://www.sourdoughbreads.com/Brotform.htm
Thanks Anne! Amazon has quite a selection of bread baskets as well. My only concern would be flattening the loaf as it gets transferred from the basket to oven
You don't need a pan or mold at all to create round or oval loaves or rolls. Properly formed loaves/rolls can be baked directly on a sheet pan or stone. They will not loose their shape if the gluten network on the outside is stretched tight. This is part of the craft of bread making. Almost all books on bread making describe this, and there are many videos easily found by googling.
The height you can achieve (along with many other factors) is partially determined by the hydration of your dough. Typically, for a formless loaf, you would have a moderately low hydration--you don't want a dough that will flow under its own weight.
One trick that may help, although not terribly traditional is this: form your loaf on a sheet of cooking parchment. This will make it easier to slide into your oven without disturbing or deflating the loaf. Once the loaf sets, you can remove the parchment if you wish, to allow the remainder of the baking to occur directly on your stone (assuming you have one).
I can do that with low/moderate hydration bread. I want high-hydration dough but still keep the free-form loaf factor :)
See the link I put in the last comment to the main question. It won't be precise, but you can still make a formless loaf.
If you time the rise and get the water content right then you should be able to turn out a loaf from a basket and have it retain shape during the transfer to the oven.
It seems you are describing a banneton basket. These are commonly used to hold the shape of a loaf before it is transferred out of the basket and into the oven.
Good suggestion! To expand a bit: they are not "releasable" in the sense that modern silicon-baking cooks have come to expect. They need a well worked dough and sufficient dusting, else the loaf will stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.197612
| 2013-02-20T18:57:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32076",
"authors": [
"AOLX",
"BentChainRing",
"Brendan",
"Debi Mansour",
"Emily Anne",
"Hucklebarn Bobba",
"Joann Sarullo Brendler",
"Mick Sear",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73795",
"rootkit007",
"rumtscho",
"user73795"
],
"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
}
|
57447
|
Dough safety and viability after overproofing
We made dough using the below recipe last night, and realised this morning that we had left it at ~70°F (covered) for ~15 hours.
Questions:
What would be the symptoms of dough going "bad"?
How long would one expect it to take before dough went "bad" under the above conditions?
What should one expect the baked dough to be like after the above proofing?
Recipe:
Mix:
3/4c Luke Warm Water
1T Yeast
2c Flour
1t Salt
Proof for 1.5 hours
It is safe to eat? Almost certainly, especially if you bake it. Your dough doesn't contain anything that will "go bad" in 15 hours at room temperature. Many bread dough recipes containing only flour, water, salt, and yeast are left to proof at room temperature for 12-24 hours, though they generally start with a much smaller amount of yeast.
Could it "go bad"? That would only be possible if one of your ingredients was already contaminated with significant amounts of bacteria, mold, etc. If you saw weird things growing on the dough or it had a foul odor, I suppose that could be an indication that something was "bad," but none of that should be possible in 15 hours for normal bread dough, assuming your ingredients weren't contaminated to begin with. (Under normal conditions, it will probably take a few days or more at room temperature for bread dough to start actually "going bad" and growing mold, etc.)
However, the bread dough has probably "gone bad" in the sense that the bread produced will likely be inferior in flavor and texture. If you bake the dough "as is," it will likely collapse significantly in the oven and be rather dense. Chances are the dough will taste a bit odd after baking -- overly "yeasty" or "beer-like," with some "off" flavors. It won't be completely inedible, but it probably won't taste great. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time doing that.
The above answer I believe covers the specific question, but what can one do in this circumstance to "save" the dough?
It is possible to try re-kneading it for a few minutes and see if it will rise some more (re-kneading will redistribute the yeast and allow them to perhaps find more food), but that seems unlikely after such a long proof with so much yeast initially.
At this point, the likely only way to save it as bread would be to use it as a "pre-ferment" for another batch, that is to cut up the dough into pieces and mix into another batch of dough (perhaps tripling the overall batch size, while using no yeast or perhaps only a small amount). Then let proof, divide, and bake. But I personally wouldn't do this unless I were sure the dough didn't taste bad, because in your situation the dough might have acquired some less desirable flavors, and you'd be wasting more ingredients to produce bread that tastes a little "off."
If you were desperate to use the dough for something and didn't want to risk an even bigger batch of inferior bread, I'd knead the dough a bit, divide it up, and use some sort of fast cooking method, probably with some other food or flavorings where a significant rise isn't needed (e.g., pizza, flatbread, fried dough, etc.).
Good idea to mention possible uses like pizza!
+1 for preferment, people do this on purpose just to have bread made with preferment
Poke the dough with a floured finger. If the indentation stays behind with no spring back, it's over proofed.
With that much yeast, probably about 4 or 5 hours. Contrary to popular belief, a long, slow, cold prove is actually better in terms of flavour and texture than a fast one. You control the speed of the prove with the amount of yeast and the temperature of the water and the environment. So long proving can be done, but you have to adjust your recipe for it.
It will not rise in the oven - you will have a large bread puck.
Thanks for your answer ElendilTheTail, however Q1 & 2 was asked from a food safety perspective. Could the answer be adjusted accordingly (Seems like the current answer to Q1 & 2 could well be merged with the answer to Q3, however)?
@user66001: Will be safe (many low-yeast recipes proof on the counter for many hours) but not tasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.198128
| 2015-05-13T13:41:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57447",
"authors": [
"Boni Cottrill",
"Franklin Davies",
"J Hays-Zavala",
"Mariya Pathan",
"Michael Thompson",
"Ms. J",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user66001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62085
|
In a recipe, yogurt toughens potatoes but whipping cream does not
I have a favorite tried & true recipe that I simply call ‘foil potatoes’. recipe link: http://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/048c56cc-1481-48b2-89e6-88e897da651a/b0c036a6448b07e0a486f77acf2111cb
This has been made multiple times with consistently good results.
A few weeks ago I decided to try substituting the same quantity of home-made greek-style yogurt in place of the whipping cream.
They did not tenderize at all and although being fully cooked, were ‘crunchy’ and not desireable.
As an experiment yesterday, I did another batch with part of it done with the original recipe using whipping cream,, & the rest with yogurt.
All packets were done on the same grill side-by side with exactly the same time & temp.
The packets with whipping cream were done perfectly & again the ones with yogurt were tough.
My internet searches have not found any answers as to why this happened.
In addition to wanting to understand the science of this difference, can anyone suggest changes I can make to have this substitution work?
Welcome to Seasoned Advise! Can you post the whole receipe? I can't access the receipe via the given link.
Without seeing the recipe (permissions issue - it is not a public doc) it is hard to know if something else is going on, but at a minimum, the water content in cream is significantly higher than in Greek-style (strained) yogurt. I suspect that a non-strained yogurt would probably have a similar result to your cream version. You can also "reconstitute" strained yogurt by mixing water or milk in to give it a thinner texture which would also probably work. I doubt it is a chemical reaction, but the recipe would help.
Thanks for your willingness to help. I have edited my post to link to my Evernote copy of the recipe.
I suspect that part of the issue is that yoghurt is acidic. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/13327/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.198490
| 2015-09-27T13:28:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62085",
"authors": [
"Alfred Millar",
"Ching Chong",
"Joe",
"NadjaCS",
"Nancy Brunson",
"Ricky Gibson",
"Sage Wizard",
"Water Testing Inspection FL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109032
|
Black sludge, black flakes after seasoning
I recently purchased a new infrared grill. It has stainless steel emitters and porcelain coated cast iron grates above the emitters.
The instructions said to season it. So I put vegetable oil all over the emitters like it advised. I completed tbe seasoning process and turned the grill off and let it be.
I came back to the grill the next day and there are black flakes on the grates and there is a black almost sludge on the emitters.its not completely covering them but it’s like little flakes of black super soft something and the sludge is like a gummy residue.
My question is: the porcelain isn’t like flaming/flaming off or anything right?
I was thinking maybe the heat got to high in the gril and turned the vegetable oil into sludge and than into paper flakes as some of it evaporated or burned off. I’m just scared to use the gril and was looking for some reassurance of what it is or what I should do. I don’t want to call the company and sound horribly stupid so I figure I would come ask you all and get roasted here instead.
My gut tells me it’s the oil and to just clean everything and we are good to go but if it’s defective and dangerous I would rather be safe than sorry.
Thanks
How much oil did you put on? With seasoning cast iron/black steel/etc cookware, you really only need a very thin layer. Also, would you be able to share the user manual for your grill and/or a picture of the black flakes/sludge?
The cast iron is porcelain coated so it’s not truly cast iron. The emitter is stainless steel. That’s what they were having me season was the stainless steel emitter. I imagine I put too much on as well. I had a paper towel that I basically soaked in oil since the emitter is v snapped with tiny holes in it so I could get the oil all over it. I added a picture @LSchoon
Coated cast iron does not usually need to be seasoned. Neither does stainless steel, but it makes a little more sense in that case. Your updated question shows that you used way too much oil; you really need the barest of coatings.
So I can just wash it all off and be good to go. I’m not going to hurt myself by using it right. I figure the temp got to high, broke down the oil, and some of the molecules that broke off in the oil chains burnt to a crisp and become like ash while the parts with no real boil point turned to sludge and just burnt into the ooze.
A good scrub and you'll be fine, yes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.198681
| 2020-06-14T04:21:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109032",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"Washington state one",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85059"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32419
|
How can I rescue overproofed bread?
If I make a loaf and slow proof it in the refrigerator, I find that sometimes it will collapse in the middle. I know this is happening because there is a large air pocket in the cling film above the bread.
Is there anything I can do to rescue a loaf once this has happened? The objective is to let it rise overnight so that I can bake it first thing in the morning without having to knock it back and do a second rise.
There are plenty of answers posted, so I won't tackle that, but did want to make a suggestion, if you are looking for a bread which can readily be left overnights without overproofing ready to bake in the morning... have you explored the possibilities of sourdough? It also has the benefit that it will rise slowly in a cool place without needing refrigeration, so you aren't trying to get oven-spring from a fridge-cold dough.
I like it, this is a good idea. I love sourdough, but hadn't considered an overnight prove.
Basically i only make sourdough. I am out of the house for about 10 hours in the day which would make getting a round of yeast bread done quite tricky in the week, but I can basically let my sourdough hang around for the best part of 24 hours at this time of years, so I mix it one evening and bake it the next,
Normally, you would not be doing a final proof overnight—that is, the proof that you have done to form the loaf. Instead, you would do the first ferment or proof overnight, then form the loaf, let it have its final proof, and then bake it.
The dough won't be wasted, but you don't want to bake a formed loaf that has over-proofed and fallen. This is because the gluten network will have collapsed and you will have a very poor structure and strange texture. You will need to reknead the dough, form the loaf, and reproof it:
Per The Fresh Loaf, you can almost certainly just punch the dough down, and let it proof again. It may actually have an improved flavor.
Cook's Illustrated concurs:
Using your fingertips, gently punch down the over-proofed dough and reshape it into a ball, then allow it to proof again for the recommended amount of time although it warns your final loaf may be about 20% smaller.
Do you mean that I can proof it as normal, knock back, re-knead, shape, then do the proof overnight in the fridge and it should be ok? I'm using fast-acting aka instant yeast for convenience; the recipe provided has only one rise/proof.
One rise recipes are not easily suitable for overnight proofing. Normally, you would do a do two proofs. You would do the initial proof overnight in the fridge, then form the loaf, do the final proof, and then bake.
I just tried to rescue an overproofed sourdough loaf, but it was super sticky. The texture was literally like chewing gum--I think more ended up on my hands than in the loaf. I ended up putting a lot more flour into it just to make it workable.
I wouldn't try to save the batch as bread. Really, if it is completely overproofed, the yeast is spent and you can't get good leavening any more.
This doesn't mean that you should throw it out. If it is overproofed, chances are that it spent a long time leavening. In this case, you got some great gluten formation. In case you used a good (=low) amount of yeast, you also got some great fermentation taste*.
So the best you can do is to use the overproofed dough as a preferment. Make a second batch of the same proportions, and mix the old dough (cut in pieces) into it. Do it at the beginning of the mixing process, the way you would do it with a biga. Then proceed with the new, double batch as usual. You will have better gluten and more taste than if you used no preferment.
*There is a caveat here. If the overproofing is due to too quick a fermentation (which seems to be the case), then the tastes produced will not be as pleasant as if it were a slow-but-too-long fermentation. It can be that using the preferment in this case actually makes the taste of your dough a bit worse, rather than better, in relative terms (as compared to no-preferment). Still, you have good incentives to use it if the absolute taste is good enough for your palate: you don't waste the materials and the time you invested, and you get a better texture due to the good quality gluten in the preferment. But if you think that your fermentation was too quick, reduce the amount of yeast in the new mixture.
You can easily rescue overproofed dough if you just feed it, knead it, and let rise.
But OP wanted to rescue it "without second rise". That's not possible - unlikely to fix any dough without some flour, kneading, rising, etc.
Rescue: easy! Add new dough to overproofed and let rise (details bellow).
Use overproof like a starter (preferment) - it adds great taste and texture. Highly recommended. Thus, a mishap turns into an advantage.
Prevention: collapse is likely due to weak gluten mesh:
Knead more the night before, make the dough harder and rubber-like.
I add a bit [more] oil pre-kneading, it helps stabilize structure and traps microscopic bubbles, works quite well.
Yeast/starch are unlikely issues given the slow single rise; rather yeast bubbles up, but dough too weak to hold. Well developed gluten mesh is required, e.g. poorly kneaded doughs collapse with a slight shake.
For those who just want to rescue overproofed dough (which is how I reached that question):
I once forgot the dough outside 21C (70F) for 30 hours, covered. That's over-overproofed. It smelled like strong liquor but otherwise fine.
I've added a fresh mixture of just white flour and water (⅓ of original overproofed) to the overproofed dough, kneaded manually 7 minutes, 30 minutes rise, 1 hour in oven - and to my surprise it was delicious.
No need to add sugars, presumably enough starch in added flour. Nor yeasts, presumably enough left in the overproofed batch. Yeast inactivity would be an issue had the dough not risen at all, but a collapse signals a weak dough.
Noticeably, the dough rose rather well and its final texture was superb: firm build but fluffy inside, pores of even size and distribution, nice crust, and melts-in-the-mouth feeling when you take a bite. I had honestly feared it would be a waste of time (would flatten or have aftertaste). I've since done it successfully many times.
Nowadays I often 'neglect with intent'.. (overproof later add flour and knead)
Overproofed dough acts like a pre-ferment or bread starter, which is actually good and makes the bread better (overproofed dough is not a starter but similar in function)
I based my experiments on answers here, which were crucial to my rescue attempts. This just affirms the basic notions here, and expands on them: a rescue operation is easily possible even in dire conditions, provided second proof.
The overproofed dough was made with simple white flour, water, and minute amounts of black molasse, canola oil, and yeasts.
Obviously never use dough that was left outside if you have incorporated ingredients that may spoil (dairy eggs etc)
I was trying to find a lazy way of waking up to fresh bread so overnight prove seemed like a good idea. I've not tried since (it's been 6 years) but this all sounds good to me particularly the advice about perishable ingredients. As for 'without the second rise' I was hoping for some advice on how to prevent the collapse in the first place :-) particularly as it was a 5c prove for 12 hours, which didn't seem excessive. The discussion here has been very enlightening on strategies for recovering from an overproof situation, thank you.
yeah I got that 'leave-it-bake-it' take ;-) Did not answer that b/c u asked rescue not prevention, but it's easy to prevent collapse. I'll ammend answer so future generations will know.
I agree with the other responses - yes, you can resurrect over-proofed dough. I have done it many times! Just lightly knead, reshape, and wait for it to rise again. You could knead in a bit of yeast (the bread machine type) but I have found this is not usually necessary and could result in uneven results if the yeast is not distributed evenly throughout the dough.
Given that you are using a single proof recipe, your loaf will probably not be any smaller and you may find that it has better flavour. Another option is to cut back on the amount of yeast you use in your recipe. This will buy you some time (as in the no-knead technique) so that the chances of over-proofing in the overnight hours are less. Overnight retarding in the bulk fermentation and the final proofing stages yield different results. I prefer a bulk fermentation overnight. Just take the dough out in the morning, shape, proof while the oven is heating up (mine takes at least an hour to get to 450) and then bake.
Good luck and happy baking!
I make whole wheat bread and like to do a long slow initial proof - to enhance the flavor, as seasoned bakers advise.
Unfortunately, I also often don't get it right and over-proof it. Typically my over-proofed loaves do not recover; they do not get an oven-spring, and they end up either collapsed or very dense, not rising at all well for a final proof.
I have tried adding vital gluten, and that certainly helps with my home-ground WW flour, and, because I thought that maybe the yeast was consuming all the sugar in the dough during the first proofing, I have started adding a pinch of diastase (it doesn't take much!) to the ingredients.Diastase is the enzyme that converts starch to sugar, and by adding it, I hope to ensure that the yeast will never run out of food and/or die.
That works.
I make my bread in a bread machine on a program that does two knead and rise cycles, and I add 1/2 the yeast (SAF) at the beginning of each cycle. I'm not done experimenting, but I can say that the diastase (and gluten for the WW flour) has yielded some superb bread that survived over-proofing. If you want to try it, don't get a lot: an ounce should last you a lifetime.
I have resurrected my over risen dough by simply making another batch and including the over risen dough in it. And, as others mentioned, it tasted a lot better. I just let it rise again, and the texture was a bit thicker - though I quite like it. The next batch, which I allowed ample time to rise, was nice and fluffy. Soooo good.
Thanks for your comments,
Bv
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please don't add "thanks" as answers. Invest some time in the site and you will gain sufficient privileges to upvote answers you like, which is the Seasoned Advice way of saying thank you.
Overproofed dough makes a great thin crust pizza.
Could you explain why? On its own, this isn't much of an answer, since it doesn't elaborate or explain what "great" means (i.e. how it's different from pizza made with regular dough).
No problem...Punch it down,knead it and it it doesnt rise add a 1/4 tea spoon of sugar and yeast to it, and knead it again. cover and let proof.
It's going to be much harder to mix additional yeast and sugar into dough that's already developed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.198923
| 2013-03-04T22:49:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32419",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Antony Hutchison",
"Daniel E. Klein",
"Elizabeth Garcia",
"Ken Noble",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spagirl",
"Valerio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99736",
"rumtscho",
"stib"
],
"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
}
|
62713
|
Alternative to pan frying fish fillet?
I have a recipe that calls for pan frying fish and my goal is to find a healthier way to do it. I want to stay true to the recipe, i.e. I don't want to use breadcrumbs when baking the fish fillet in the oven, I want it to be cooked but slightly crispy, especially the side with skin. Could I possibly, lightly baste it in EVOO and then bake it in the oven? Will this turn out about the same but with less oil?
If you have another suggestion or method that would result in a healthier option, I'd love to hear them!
Edit: Fish is black sea bass
What is the problem with pan frying? The oven transfers heat in a drastically different way.
The recipe calls for oil then some butter and I just wanted to cut out as much fat as I could to make it healthier. The skin side of the fish is basically fried crispy (delicious but as I said, I'm looking for a healthier option).
What kind of fish?
Everybody, there is a reason we don't discuss the healthiness of food here. Doing it in comments is no better than in questions and answers. Please just accept the OP's decision and help him with the culinary question.
Grilling/broiling would be a good alternative to pan frying, as the more intense heat will crisp the skin much more effectively than baking. It is a generally healthier cooking method because the food is not sitting in oil; any fat will drip off into the grill pan.
You would still need to lightly coat the fish in both these options?
No, you don't really need to.
I often bake fish as an alternative to frying. Parchment paper is your friend!
Coat your fish with some olive oil, and season as desired. Line a baking sheet or other suitable pan with parchment paper, before placing the seasoned fish.
Bake in a relatively hot oven (about 425F or so) until the center of the fish flakes with a fork. The exact time will vary, depending on how thick your fish is.
Not only does baking on parchment paper eliminate the need to use extra oil, it makes cleanup trivial.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.199774
| 2015-10-21T21:10:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62713",
"authors": [
"Andrey Rubshtein",
"Angelique Hernandez",
"Captain Giraffe",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Puter Gal",
"Sandy Ketzeback",
"William Hardy",
"Zahraa Moosa",
"farina anwar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"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
}
|
60023
|
Is it safe to use non stick cookware over a flame?
I have recently started to learn how to cook. Whenever I am trying to make a chapati or to cook a vegetable, I start experiencing an acute headache, most likely because of the steam or maybe the flame in burner gas stove. I am using non stick cookware. Can this be the reason for getting the headaches?
Is your gas stove burning cleanly (e.g., for natural gas, flame is entirely blue, maybe with a speck of yellow every once in a while; for propane, blue except for the very tip), and do you have ventilation?
@derobert I am using LPG(also referred to as propane). The flame is like a blue wave with a yellow outline on the top as you mentioned. There is a large window in the kitchen but many things including the utensils and flower-pots are kept in front of it, so it almost blocks out the air movement, so yeah it's ill-ventilated.
Are you using non-stick cookware?
Beware because there is a well-documented medical effect caused by the fumes released when various non-stick components are heated starting at about 300 °F (149 °C) and beyond.
Polymer fume fever
You should always have something in a non-stick pan when it is over a flame.
I doubt this is the cause, because onset typically occurs 4-8 hours after inhalation (according to the source you provided). I think the post implies that the symptoms are rather immediate.
Yes, I am using non-stick cookwares but does it really reach above 149 degree Celsius? For making chapati, the frying pan has to get heated, so initially I leave it on flame for sometime.
@MHH : There are some chemicals that have a slow onset initially, but subsequent exposures have a quick onset. (which I only know because of the roofing being done at my place of work last year, and the complete lack of concern about the fumes developing in some of our office ... I have no idea if teflon fumes are this way)
The ignition temperature of paper is 451 degrees Fahrenheit, or 233 degrees Celsius.
Well I am not 100% sure when the headache starts. Like most headache's its difficult to trace the cause. To avoid the headache you need to know where it is coming from. It happens either while your cooking or after you eaten?
If its while your cooking, it could be:
1. Heat from standing at the stove. So if you get headaches generally from heat this is probably the cause.
2. Gas leak or the smell of gas if your kitchen does not have proper ventilation. See link on this. http://en.hesperian.org/hhg/A_Community_Guide_to_Environmental_Health:Indoor_Air_Pollution
If its after you eaten:
1. It may very well be your eating habits. From only eating once a day or it could even be certain food that could trigger the headache. Also see link http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56182
thanks! I didn't have the privilege of upvoting the answer while posting this question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.199993
| 2015-08-18T14:21:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60023",
"authors": [
"Bruce Justis",
"Carole Thomson",
"Em F",
"Gordon Brady",
"Janice",
"Joe",
"Jony Agarwal",
"Michelle noon",
"Susan Albert",
"WetlabStudent",
"Yevgeniy Afanasyev",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"robin miller"
],
"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
}
|
65388
|
How can I reheat oats in the minimal time without microwave?
I warm up steel cut oats I cooked and stored in the refrigerator.
To warm the portion I use 4x the portion's size in water. I.e. for 50gr I use 200gr water.
This takes me 15 mins.
Is there a faster way to do this without a microwave?
Update:
I fill a pan with water 4 times the weight of the oats I got from the fridge.
I wait until the water starts to boil.
Then I put the oats in the pan (they are frozen and completely solid at this point).
I use a spoon to break the oats and after 2-3 mins I lower a bit the heat.
I wait until the water is fully gone (stirring) and the solid oats appear fluid. I like them warm
Sorry, but I don't understand your current process. Could you elaborate, please?
@Stephie:Please see update
Have you tried adding the oats initially rather than waiting for the water to boil first?
@Catija:No because I assumed that the water would take more time to warm up
Possibly... but you don't have a significantly greater volume of water, so the icy oats would probably cool the water to a good degree... you could also pull the oats out of the freezer and put them in the fridge the night before... then they wouldn't be nearly so cold when they hit the pot.
So... I'm confused... you say "stored in the fridge" but you also say they're frozen. Do you really mean they're stored in your freezer?
@Catija:Sorry for the confusion. They are stored in the refridgerator not the freezer. What I was trying to describe that when I take them out they are like a solid shape.
No, I don't see how you can do better.
To heat something quickly, you need quick heat transfer. Water is the most efficient liquid in the kitchen to use for that, and its maximum temperature is 100 C. You're already using water -> oats heat transfer at its maximum speed.
If you were to use a liquid which can be heated to higher temperatures, you'd need to switch to oil. But then you'd be deep frying the oats, which is not only messy, but also changes the flavor a lot.
Then you could just try radiant heat + convection: an oven. But if you want the oven to work quicker than boiling water, you'll have to have a very hot oven, like a commercial pizza oven or an Aga, already running at full temperature before you stick the oats in. It's not practicable in most home settings.
There is one possibility: that you are already using the most efficient method available, but are using it wrong. I didn't understand exactly why you are adding extra water and then waiting for it to evaporate. Have you tried using less water and waiting for shorter time? Is it that your oats were cooked with too little water the first time, or parcooked to too early a stage, or what's the problem there?
I cook the oats originally with the analogy 1-4. When I warm them up I am using the same analogy as I am thinking that it is the best in order to get them warm and in a fluid form. My concern is that if I use less I might "burn" then instead. I mean to get stuck to the bottom of the pan
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.200387
| 2016-01-13T19:31:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65388",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Donald Mayes",
"Jeanette Thomas",
"Jim",
"John Carcara",
"Pat Kehoe",
"Stephie",
"Sue. Leech",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40441",
"tracey stowe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67186
|
Oats with milk without microwave
What is the best way to make oats with milk when there is no microwave available?
I am not sure how I can warm it up without either burning the milk or making it taste bad.
Do you not have a stove, either? When you say "warm it up" are you talking about already cooked oats that are cold or starting from oats and water/milk and making them into oatmeal?
@Catija:Right, start from oats and water/milk
A stove would be the traditional method for making oats and it doesn't require a microwave. It takes longer than the microwave but it works just fine, if not better (but this will vary by personal preference).
Add milk to a small pot, bring it to simmer, add oats to the pot, cook for recommended amount of time depending on the type of oats you're using (see package for times) or until they reach your preferred level of doneness. Some recipes have you add the oats and liquid at the same time and bring to a simmer together... either option works.
Make certain to keep the temperature low enough to not burn and stir occasionally to move them around. Milk is mostly water (about 87% in whole milk, higher in lower fat milks), so as long as you're not using extremely high heat and leaving it unattended for long periods of time, you should be fine.
Is there a combination of water/milk so that I am sure the milk will not be burned?
@Jim You would need a recipe for that... But, honestly, I see recipes that use milk only, it's simply a matter of not ignoring the pot for 20 minutes. Like I said, milk is already mostly water to start with. For more info, you can see this related question.
@jim you are overly worried about burning the milk. Just heat it on medium and stir it more or less constantly: the latter both prevents it catching and gives the mixture a creamy texture.
Yup, this is how I do it. Medium heat, lots of stirring, works like a charm. Just don't go off and leave it alone!
Contrary to what most people believe, it is not necessary to cook oats.
There is a type of oatmeal called "overnight oats" in which the oats are stored with milk and other fruits and spices for at least 8 hours and up to 2-3 days in the fridge.
The oats will soften overnight and have a nice texture the next morning. The main difference would be the fact that the oatmeal is cold rather than hot. Check out this site for more details and some ideas.
Bake it. I cook milk-based oatmeal that way a lot (I might even do it for my next meal), and I even prefer it to the stovetop. It doesn't bubble nearly as much as on the stovetop, and it shouldn't burn the bottom of the pan at all. The oats seem to absorb the milk faster, this way. The flavor, aroma, and texture is somewhat different this way, but I prefer it, personally.
I use a glass or ceramic baking pan (like a casserole-style one). Rounded, rectangular or square. I usually add 1.5 to 2 cups of oats (2 is a lot for one person), and add however much milk I think will be good with it (about the same amount as I add on the stovetop, or even more if I just want to use up more of it). I haven't tested particularly more milk than filling it half-way (in an 8"x8" glass pan). I usually bake it on 450° F. for about 25 minutes, but I imagine less time is required, since all the liquid is gone by then (I know soupy oatmeal has its merits). I also add brown sugar to my oatmeal.
Could you please add a few more details? Any specific vessel, what temperature or oven setting... This answer sounds interesting, I would like to know more about the method.
Thanks! We don’t allow recipe requests, so in questions, but answers with basic ratios and methods are very welcome (if they answer the question, obviously).
A completely different approach I've used successfully in work and when camping needs only a source of boiling water:
Mix oats, milk powder and any dry flavours you like. This can be done in advance.
When you want to eat it, add boiling water, stir well, and cover. Insulate if you're out in the cold (or carry to your desk on top of a large steaming mug of coffee).
Wait about 5 minutes, stir, wait another minute or so, and it's ready to eat.
The quantity of water takes a little experimenting for your tastes and the exact oats you're using, but I use about 60g of oats to 30g of milk powder, with a little brown sugar, a pinch of salt, a pinch of cinnamon and some raisins. The dry mix nearly half-fills my lidded plastic bowl, then I add water almost to the top.
I regularly eat steel-cut oats for breakfast, but I don't nuke them. Instead, I dry toast the oats in a saute pan and eat them either in cold milk or over Greek yogurt (sometimes with honey and frozen fruit + a teensy pinch of salt).
Yum!
dry toast means no oil, butter etc right? How do you dry toast them?
@Jim, you are correct, sir. There's nothing wrong with melting a little bit of butter in the pan before adding the oats (it adds a wonderful nuttiness to the oats), but I skip the calories and just cook to oats in a hot steel skillet until they brown.
I am interested in that, but how? What temperature? Do you preheat the pan?
I don't usually measure the actual temperature in the pan, but I do use my largest burner on the highest setting and add about 1/4 cup of dry oats. I shake the oats out into an even layer and let them sit for about 20 seconds, then give a toss and a shake. I repeat this process until the oats are slightly burned, but you may toast them for less time depending on your taste. Heat output varies from one range to the next, so you'll have to learn by trial and error. Fortunately, oats are fairly cheap :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.200690
| 2016-03-07T19:31:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67186",
"authors": [
"Amy C",
"Annette Sanger",
"Catija",
"ElendilTheTall",
"George O'Donnell",
"HandsomeGorilla",
"Jim",
"Matthew Walton",
"Mick King",
"Sauleha khan",
"Shauna Cress",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"suvek verma"
],
"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
}
|
63164
|
What's a good fondue alternative that would fit in a social gathering of fondue eaters for someone who dislikes all kinds of cheese?
We're hosting a fondue-gluttony outside in the snow with friends, and one of them doesn't like cheese at all. Do you have any ideas what we could offer him instead and still would fit in the concept of the event? That would be people in thick clothing snuggling up outside around the warm pots of fondue.
Edit: I meant more an alternative, that fits into the event (e.g. friend makes cheeseless mini pizzas in a raclette set) , than a literal alternative in terms of consistency and manner of consumption (even tough those suggestions are great as well).
Are we talking "cannot contain any cheese" level dislike, or just something that doesn't primarily taste like cheese?
You could also use satay sauce; in this way you could use similar ingredients.
the latter. if he doesnt smell or taste the cheese, it doesnt matter if there's some inside.
Personally, I very much dislike many kinds of cheese, and abhor fondue in general. But your fondue-gluttony sounds like a great plan, composed primarily of friends having fun, and secondarily foody. If I were at such an event, I wouldn't touch the stuff, fill up with bread, and have an amazing time with friends.
Sorry, but I have to close the question, based on both the edit and the kind of answers which have been posted. We don't do "suggest which fits on the menu". because they produce a case exactly like this one: a hugely popular question everybody wants to add an answer to, so that it's a long list of random dishes nobody cares to read through.
@rumtscho okay, no problem. I'm still a bit new to stackexchange, so i'm still figuring out on how far i can reach into the opinion-sphere.
Chocolate fondue is well known but not really an alternative, more like a dessert (if there is any appetite left!)
There are other dishes which involve having the guests dip some solid food in a mostly liquid component themselves and immediately eat the result:
Chinese hot pot (incidentally called “fondue chinoise” in French)
Fondue bourguignonne (beef) and bressane (turkey) use more or less the same principle but with hot oil instead of broth. Because hot oil can be dangerous, you need another type of fondue vessel.
Another type of meat-based “fondue” involves cooking meat in hot spiced white or red wine (I've personally never tried it and just found out about it while researching this answer), cf. the French-language Wikipedia articles on red wine fondue (usually with red meat) and white wine fondue (with fish) and some info in English.
While they are very different in terms of taste and ingredients, it could fit the concept of the event and offer an alternative for people who cannot or do not want to eat cheese. The setup is somewhat more complex than a cheese fondue though.
@MichaelT I added a few links, hope that's useful.
There are many ways to fondue. I like Escoce's chocolate answer. Really, you just need any liquid in which people can dunk their food. Cheese is a popular choice because it goes well with so many foods, but you have a whole world of other options.
I went to a fondue restaurant once and they had pots of oil, broth, wine, etc. available for guests to cook their own beef, chicken, fish, etc. Just impale the protein on a fork and leave it in the hot liquid until it's done to your liking.
There's no reason why you couldn't use gravy, white sauce, marinara sauce, or anything else that would taste good warm. Then pick some solid bits of food that would match the sauce(s) and have fun!
And, don't forget the chocolate fondue at the end. :-)
IMO, Unless you have extra fondue "setup", it will be hard to accommodate your friend.
You could do a Chinese "hot pot" (hot broth) with thinly sliced meat (beef, chicken...)
You could do a fondue "Bourguignone" (with oil) with cubed meat (mostly beef).
Unlike the other answers, I'd completely skip the part where it has to work like fondue. It's more important that it matches the food you already have.
You already have bread and white wine. Have some slices of bread ready, add some grapes and nuts, something to put on the bread (thinly sliced smoked bacon?) and self serve salads which some of the other guests will enjoy as starters or as a much lighter alternative to the fondue.
Chocolate fondue would be great to offer AND many of your other guests may end up on the chocolate fountain instead of the cheese.
I recently made a thick cauliflower soup, and I think it would make a good proxy for a savory fondue. If you use a rich chicken stock and a few potatoes, it will have good thickness like a fondue and a similar color as well.
There are several other foods that can be made to a similar consistency. However, I am not sure I would call these fondues and it would require some invention.
While neither of these are traditional (and hopefully they don't offend anyone), they may have the ability as a base to give a similar consistency to cheese fondue (similar, obviously cheese is awesome and has that gooey thing going) while not actually using cheese.
Potatoes
Potatoes are very starchy, if boiled and then mashed, these could form the basis for a fondue. It wouldn't require any dairy if your friends were lactose intolerant. On the other hand, if they were simply cheese adverse specifically some butter would go a long way here. Perhaps make a simple roux (flour + butter) as the base and add in some garlic and onion, along with the mashed potatoes. This would be rather thick and should work to mimic fondue.
Refried Beans
This may be more akin to making a bean dip though, so I am not sure if that works. It could almost be like a bean dip chili if you wanted, where there was some sort of shredded meat in there for flavor along with a pepper for some bite. It would definitely have that thick consistency that one expects with a fondue.
Since you said some cheese is acceptable, you could try looking for recipes for Onion fondue, which generally contains a little bit of cheese and a lot of onions. Other than that, it's also a French style recipe and will probably fit quite well with your existing fondue dippers.
Alternatively, soup has been mentioned before. There's a lot of recipes for very thick soup, like cauliflower, zucchini, brocolli, carrot, etc. Any soup that is made mostly from vegetables with very little water added will be nice and thick and works quite well, but unlike the onion fondue might feel more like a first course instead of a main course.
I recommend a butternut or other winter squash puree. Roast squash with fresh garlic, shallot or white onion, and oil. Cool. Puree until smooth. Season to taste with salt, lemon juice for slight tartness, a dollop of dijon mustard, cayenne pepper, and fresh herbs such as thyme or sage. If you have miso or vegetable stock/bouillon on hand, a little bit would add amazing savory flavor (personally I always use both). I prefer Edward & Sons or Rapunzel brand broth cubes.
I found this recipe, which looks pretty good to me. I've made similar things in the past and really enjoyed them:
http://www.thefirstmess.com/2014/09/24/omg-vegan-butternut-queso-recipe/
I am vegan (8 years) and have a lot of experience making alternatives for cheese sauces. I am also a chef.
My mother used to make canned tomato soup with a canfull of shredded cheese (cheddar, typically) instead of milk, producing something like extremely thick, rich tomato soup, served as fondue. This is a long shot because it's still got a lot of cheese in it, but the taste strikes me as more creamy and tomato-y than cheesy, so it might be worth serving as one of the options.
If it sounds bland on its own, cayenne, basil, oregano, and/or rosemary are good spices. It's also good over toast.
Slightly unrelated to the original question (that's why I put it as a comment), but I know this as tomato fondue, where we use normal fondue cheese, a couple of fresh sliced tomatoes (about half the volume of the cheese), and dip potatoes instead of bread. Just cook the tomatoes into a sauce first for about 15 minutes, with spices and all, then add the cheese.
Try using a thick soup, chocolate, and/or a thick sauce like tomato or gravy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.201450
| 2015-11-04T17:48:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63164",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Annie Moore",
"Beverly George",
"Brendon Fallows",
"Cat Edmonds",
"Chris Coirier",
"David Craig",
"Donnie Fellers",
"EJ Harmon",
"Erik",
"Jackson Makofu",
"Janet Steven",
"Joe",
"Kevin Beadle",
"Lars de Bruin",
"Lezlie Hartwick",
"Marc Eagles",
"Mark Wincek",
"Martijn",
"Peter",
"Piers Field",
"Relaxed",
"holly franco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jtm5636",
"judith bustard",
"rolfrudolfwolf",
"rumtscho",
"terry",
"zcook"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109716
|
Processed cheese in pesto
I have a full grown Basil plant at my home. So I am planning to make a Basil recipe, though I have never made one. So I decided to make pesto pasta. However due to the pandemic, the nearby shops have very limited products hence I wont be able to add Parmesan cheese. So can I use processed cheese in its place?
As the chosen answer suggests, replace the cheese with other nuts. I made a recipe yesterday where I used a mixture of pine nuts (50g), walnuts (15g), macademia nuts (35g) and cashews (50g). (+150g basil, 1 clove garlic, 1tsp vegeta, 40g water, 40g lemon juice, 80g olive oil). It's incredibly tasty (especially after it rests in the fridge).
Should the veins of Basil leaves be removed?
I didn't remove them from mine and I like the 'earthiness' of the result.
Processed cheese isn't a good replacement for parmesan, it's generally too soft from added oils, and it doesn't have the right flavor. Instead, add more pine nuts, and salt to taste, leaving the cheese out entirely. If you can't find pine nuts then cashews or almonds can be used instead.
If you decide to try it use a bit less olive oil to make up for the oils in the cheese.
I made the pesto yesterday, though I didn't add any cheese in it, but yes I garnished the pesto pasta with a cube of grated processed cheese. It tasted very good!
For texture, you’ll want to use a hard, dry and somewhat brittle cheese (such as Parmigiano, Grana Padano or Pecorino) which does not melt easily. The texture is right when you can break pieces off it with a Parmesan knife. If you can easily cut it into slices with a knife, it is probably too soft. The same probably goes for cheese which already comes in slices. Chances are the heat of the pasta will turn it into a viscuous mass almost instantly.
As for flavor, you’ll have to judge for yourself, as you’re about to enter the world of fusion cuisine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.202168
| 2020-07-17T15:18:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109716",
"authors": [
"Ojasvi",
"Tasos Papastylianou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85670"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83627
|
Good sauces for large Italian Conchiglioni pasta
I bought some packets of Italian Conchiglioni pasta (Brand Maestri pasti selection Giovanni Castiello). The Conchiglioni are really large: each shell is probably 5cm long.
I tried them with a traditional tomato sauce (tomato, onions, carrot, basil, olive oil) and it didn't feel right: I had to eat large chunks of pasta with not much sauce and had at the end some sauce left. So I'm wondering whether other types of sauces are better suited for pasta that large.
This is borderline opinion based, and also borderline asking "what do I do with this ingredient", however I think it can be answered so I'm going to give it a shot.
Large pasta shells are generally stuffed rather than used as a simple pasta and sauce scenario, the size and thickness of them means that sauces don't really coat enough to accompany that much starch, so the experience isn't as good as smaller or longer pastas. If you are going to fill them then you'd have a filling and a sauce, the filling would need to be relatively thick in order to help the pasta keep its shape. The most frequent fillings would be meat and/or cheese based, for instance ricotta or a thick meat sauce. The pasta will often be topped by another sauce, this one a typical pasta sauce, often contrasting with the filling. If the filling is cheese the sauce will be tomato, for example.
However, the possibilities are pretty wide open really, use your imagination. Fill them with small chopped sauteed vegetables and top with a olive oil drizzle and fresh parmesan, or fill them with mozzarella and top with pesto.
If you do want to just do a single sauce with no filling then thicker is better so you get as much to adhere to the pasta as you can. Think giant shells 'n cheese, or a thick and chunky tomato sauce.
Makes totally sense. Great, comprehensive answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.202339
| 2017-08-10T13:52:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83627",
"authors": [
"halloleo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17576"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33409
|
How to make the sour cream that some restaurants serve with quesadillas?
I live in Belgium and I can't find where to buy SOUR cream, which is amazing with quesadillas.
Is there a way to make it myself?
http://foodies.blogs.starnewsonline.com/files/2010/05/cosmic_quesadilla.jpg
Are you looking for the yogurt-like sour cream, that's thick enough to scoop and serve with a spoon? (This is what "sour cream" commonly means in the US.) Or is it the pourable, more liquid crema that's sometimes called Mexican sour cream (or crema mexicana) and has a flavor a bit more like creme fraiche?
@Jefromi I am looking to the sour cream that mexican restaurants serve with quesadillas. http://foodies.blogs.starnewsonline.com/files/2010/05/cosmic_quesadilla.jpg
@LuisValenciaMunoz if you have access to the restaurant and can take some of the sour cream home, (a take-home container with the sour-cream on the side) you can use it as the starter in cream per Tor-Einar Jarnbjo's answer.
@LuisValenciaMunoz I described and asked about two possibilities because none of us know what your Mexican restaurants serve. But the picture helps: that's definitely the thick, American-style sour cream, not the "crema mexicana" or Mexican sour cream that I also described.
As a fellow belgian, I feel your pain. However, I can find sour cream in Delhaize.
There are many variants of sour cream. I am not quite up to date on the naming of dairy products in Belgium, but don't you find sour cream labeled as "zure room" (Dutch) or "crème aigre" (French)?
Mexican sour cream (Crema Mexicana) has however a higher fat content than the sour cream commonly available in European countries. A close approach is crème fraîche, but it might not be just as sour. If you want to make it yourself, you can add living bacteria culture (e.g. from yogurt) to heavy cream (fresh cream with >35% fat) and keep it at roughly 37°C until it reaches the required thickness.
I am trying to understand the last statements, so I should buy a natural yogurt and add it to a heavy cream like this? https://www.google.be/search?q=verse%20room&aq=f&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=J3BoUb-1Fuun0wXghoGwDA&biw=1600&bih=695&sei=KXBoUfjgJuq60QXln4GQBg
keep ir roughly at 37 degrees? so I mix both things together and cook them? How else would I get 37 degrees.
Basically you need living lactobacillus. You can buy special cultures for yogurt making (probably very expensive) or use a yogurt with live bacteria. These are usually marked as such, commonly available and not utterly expensive. You add some of it to the heavy cream and either use a yogurt maker (designed to keep the content at 37°) or do the same thing without a yogurt maker, e.g. by heating it in a pot on the stove. Be careful to not warm it up way beyond 37°, as that would kill the bacteria.
If you're looking for American-style sour cream, which it looks like from your pictures, you would start with a light cream (roughly 20% butterfat content), and then add a culture containing lactic-acid bacteria, particularly Streptococcus lactis (and perhaps some other things like Leuconostoc citrovorum for flavor). Set this out at room temperature for 12-24 hours, until it thickens appropriately.
You may have trouble finding these exact culturing bacteria in Belgium. These cultures are easily found in the United States in "cultured buttermilk," which uses the same process and bacteria as sour cream production, except with milk instead of cream. As I discussed recently in an answer to another question, you should be able to find similar cultures in the German product Dickmilch. I don't know if a similar product is available in Belgium, but if so, it may be able to provide you with the correct bacteria to add to your light cream.
Again, this will produce American-style sour cream, which is my best guess for your situation based on the picture you provided.
(By the way, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo's recipe should also work. It will make a thicker and richer product, since it is using heavy cream, and will have different flavor notes, since the yogurt bacteria are active at different temperatures and produce slightly different byproducts. It's just another kind of cultured cream, which, from all I can tell from a photo, may be closer to the version you eat in Belgium. Also, note MandoMando's comment that it may be possible to use the sour cream from the restaurant itself as a starter.)
If a buttermilk equivalent isn't readily available, then I imagine Crème fraîche would use (exactly?) the same cultures as sour cream.
@ChrisSteinbach - I don't know. I did a few quick searches and couldn't find specifics on the exact bacteria used in commercially produced Crème fraîche. Traditionally, as I understand it, crème fraîche was produced by the natural fermentation of fresh cream (as was sour cream, for that matter). But cultured American sour cream today has a very different flavor and is thicker than crème fraîche I've encountered. Given the higher fat content of crème fraîche, I would think that one would get a thicker product than sour cream with the same culturing bacteria, rather than a thinner one.
@ChrisSteinbach - I forgot about the thickening agents generally added to American sour cream. According to this source, the main difference is that crème fraîche uses cultures that produce additional aroma elements which ultimately mask the sour taste (the fat content helps too). If this is correct, I would assume that crème fraîche as a starter would produce a "less sour" sour cream.
Most sour dairy products (be it yogurt, sour cream or crème fraîche) are pasteurized to increase the shelf life. The pasteurization kills the bacteria cultures and the products are not suitable as starters anymore.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo - I don't know what the European practice is, but this is not the case in the U.S. anymore. There is a lot of advertising and labeling about "live cultures" in many sour dairy products. I would go so far as to say that the norm for yogurt and "cultured buttermilk" in the U.S. is live cultures, which are perfectly suitable for starters. For sour cream, you may be correct -- I'm not sure I've ever seen "live culture" labels on sour cream, but I haven't looked (and I haven't tried it as a starter). Crème fraîche is rare in the U.S., so I don't know if there is a standard.
I have gastrointestinal conditions and a daily dose of cultured/fermented foods makes digestion easier for me. I'm also physically disabled so I try to keep things as simple for myself as possible. One way I achieve this is to put a dollop of a potently cultured sour cream on a lot of my foods. I even slather it on cornbread instead of butter. Taste delicious by the way.
This is how I achieve my super easy, thick consistency, extra tangy, potent sour cream the easy way. I blend in store bought Kefir and thick non flavored yogurt into a store bought thick consistency sour cream until I achieve the sourness that I like. (The more kefir you add - the more tangy tasting it becomes.) If the consistency becomes too thin for my liking - I add a teaspoon at a time - of name brand unflavored Gelita (instant gelatin powder that emulsifies in cool/cold ingredients while condensing into a thick viscosity.) I use a lot of sour cream so while I still have the remainder of the last the weeks batch - I make a new batch for the next week. Try one teaspoon of Gelita first, then return to refrigerate and leave overnight. If viscosity is still too thin - add another teaspoon and check tomorrow morning. Works like a charm without any undesirable, odd flavor undertones. Walla !!!! Super easy, extra tangy sour cream with no cooking !!!
This sounds delish, but the OP isn't able to find store bought sour cream for the starter :(
Mixing a couple of teaspoons of lemon juice or white wine vinegar into half a pint of cream will make a good approximation.
Wouldn't that just make the cream curdle?
Mix it in slowly, and it shouldn't, so long as you don't add too much!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.202528
| 2013-04-12T12:25:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33409",
"authors": [
"AlexW",
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Erica",
"Errol Amoriwalla",
"Luis Valencia",
"MandoMando",
"Mien",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"paul banks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33616
|
Fastest or most efficient way to cook rice in a pot with a lid?
Without using (read: buying) a rice cooker, what methods can I use to reduce active cooking time for brown rice? Does pre-soaking help? Should I add the rice before or after bringing the water to a boil? I'm interested in both fitting my cooking into a busy schedule and minimizing the amount of heat I add to my small un-air-conditioned apartment this summer.
I would like solutions that work for both weekend batch cooking and "need more rice mid-week" cooking.
How much time does it take you to make rice now? How fast are you aiming for? What kind of rice are you making? It only takes about 20 minutes for white rice, is that fast enough?
I'll go ahead and specify brown rice, because it takes a lot of time to cook (edited to reflect this). I'm looking to minimize time because I already get home late and I have a lot of other activities on weekends. And I have 25lbs of brown rice that are allowing me to eat inexpensively.
Harrold McGee indicates in On Food and Cooking that soaking brown rice for 20-30 minutes can speed the cooking. However, he doesn't give any specifics.
In looking to what I consider highly credible cooking web sites, I have not found any definitive answers.
Cook's Illustrated's recommended method for the fastest, best tasting brown rice (no link since it is probably on the pay site) is:
Boiling the rice for our brown rice recipe until it is almost tender
(about 30 minutes), draining it, then steaming it until done (another
five to 10 minutes) is by far the best stovetop method for brown rice.
Martha Stewart's recommended technique (50 minutes steaming, 10 minutes resting) is quite similar.
Alton Brown recommends baking technique which may be delicious but is almost certainly the one that will heat your house the most: putting rice in a casserole covered with boiling water, and baking at 375°F for 1 hour.
You have actually asked two different questions:
What is the fastest way to cook rice (duration)?
What is the most energy efficient way to cook rice (least heating of your house)?
These are not the same thing.
Something to consider: of all liquid non-metals (and I don't think any of us are going to cook in molten iron), water has the the highest capacity to transfer heat.
It is going to be very difficult to find a way to cook rice that is faster (at least for actual time cooking the rice, when not counting bringing water to the boil) than the traditional pasta method, as often employed in some parts of India: Bring water to a boil, add the rice, cook until done, and drain. However, the energy required to bring all of the surplus water to the boil and the enthalpy of vaporization will make this fast, but not efficient.
Your most energy efficient rice production method (and this is by the very laws of physics which govern our universe is also the one that will add the least heat to your home) is almost certainly a rice cooker, which will heat only until it senses the rice is done. (Of course, what the rice cookers are really measuring is the rise in temperature when the water is all absorbed or evaporated, and so the temperature can rise; therefore, starting with the correct ratio of rice to water is critical).
The bottom line: brown rice takes time to cook. Some rice cookers, however, let you set a timer so that the pot will have the rice ready when you come home. This might be your best bet.
I disagree that speed and energy efficiency are entirely separate questions. If soaking reduces cooking time without changing the cooking temperature, less energy is required. That's what I'm looking for--methods to optimize both at the same time, if possible. Right now it looks like soaking is the best (and maybe the only) option for that.
Being different doesn't mean necessarily being mutually exclusive :-)
In that case I completely agree. I asked the two questions together because I'm looking the overlap between them.
You might not have one, but for fastest, use a pressure cooker.
See this link for examples.
white rice, 1 cup/250 ml rice, 1.5 cup/350 ml water, 5-6 minutes under pressure.
Brown rice, 1 cup/250 ml rice, 1.5 cup/350 ml water, 12-15 minutes under pressure.
For most efficient, i.e. energy efficient, use a induction cooker.
I hear you! I didn't want a rice cooker either. I don't have a lot of kitchen storage let alone an appliance that only does one thing. But then I burned so many brown rice batches I almost gave up. I always ordered extra brown rice from the Chinese take-out and froze it.
Then I happened to buy a small Electric Pressure Cooker. I can now cook brown rice in under 30 mins. 30 MINITUES! No soaking or precooking. It doesn't add heat to the kitchen, the little pot is Teflon, comes out, I use it on the stove for a quick sauté (light duty) for dirty rice or brown garlic, then transfer back to the cooker and the best part, it can be used for other dishes. It comes out a little wet, but I fluff it up and by the time dinner is served it's perfect.
This one appliance stays on my counter, all the part and accessories store inside. It's a little bigger than the rice cooker however, you can cook so many other things in it so quickly.
See here: https://www.thekitchn.com/does-soaking-brown-rice-really-help-it-cook-faster-putting-tips-to-the-test-in-the-kitchen-219644
This says she tested and proved that soaking brown rice for 8hrs made it possible to cook in 20min.
Agreed on the pre-soak. Ming Tsai mentioned on his cooking show that he pre-soaks brown rice so he can then mix it with dry white rice in a rice cooker and they will be done in the same amount of time. (But I don’t remember if he’s ever said exactly how long he soaks it)
When I cook rice, I usually sautée it (Wiki article) and later boil it.
How do I do it (white rice, can be applied to brown but needs more time):
get a small pan, put 3 or 4 oil teaspoons
Measure the rice
Add the rice
put maximum heat
Stir constantly
wait 1-2 minutes (rice is starting to get toasted, a little bit)
Add water: two times the amount of rice
Water will start boiling almost instantly as the pan is very hot
Cover the pan, put the heat to minimum and don't touch. Don't stir. Let it rest for 8-10 minutes
When the time has gone by, you'll see the rice a bit dryer, that's good, taste it.
Remove from heat and let it rest for 4-5 minutes more
Enjoy!
This was a question about fast/efficient methods of preparing the rice, not a general question about rice cooking. Is this method particularly fast or efficient compared to other methods? Does sautéeing actually speed up the rest of the cooking? Please explain your answer.
Pre-soaking will help. But, try this:
1 cup of brown rice in a container.
Rinse and wash the brown rice, drain the water.
Put in 1.5 cup of water in to the same container.
Put it in the freezer overnight.
This will reduce the cooking time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.203230
| 2013-04-19T18:31:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33616",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Evan Johnson",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33869
|
Soy milk compared to other bean milks
Is there any reason why soy milk is so popular compared to other bean milks? I mean, there really aren't any other bean milks sold in grocery stores unless you make it yourself. For example, why not use garbanzo bean milk or pinto bean milk? Is it simply a matter of tradition or is there a specific reasoning behind it?
Take almond milk for example. The reason why it's popular is simple: it's typically less expensive compared to other nuts, it tastes good, and it's versatile.
But if you look at the price of soy beans compared to other beans, they are about the same price per pound in the grocery store. And soy beans taste pretty much just like any other bean, so it doesn't get any bonus points there.
If there is a unique property of soy that makes it truly distinct from other beans, please share.
Could you tell just from eating almonds and other nuts that almond milk would taste better or be more versatile than milk made from other nuts? (I think there are probably also historical reasons it's common.)
I suspect the differentiating factor is the ubiquity and high degree of productivity after many years of cultivation and selective breeding of the soy bean. They are plentiful and inexpensive at an industrial scale. They may not be inexpensive at retail, but they are not a common ingredient at retail.
Its all about protein.
Protein content (and to a lesser degree, fat) is what will determine the yield when making curd from milk. Obviously it is also important for its nutrition.
Soy has almost double the protein of most other beans. It is around 17% vs 9% for most other varieties.
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/beans-legumes-highest-protein.php
Because of its high protein and oil content and high yield it has become an agricultural staple. Because of this, as saj14saj said, it is very inexpensive at an industrial scale.
For these same reasons it has also been important in Asian diets for centuries. Soy milk also has a tradition behind it that I assume would make it easier to market than other milks.
I would like to point out that your chart is slightly misleading: the soy beans they reference are roasted edamame, while I believe that most soy milks / tofu are made using the mature soy bean, which has less than half that amount of protein. Nevertheless, your point is still valid because soy beans still contain more protein than any other bean: see http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/beans-legumes-highest-protein.php
It's also worth mentioning that soy beans are the only source of complete protein.
@Jonathan- good call. Updating the answer to correct my percentages.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.203779
| 2013-05-01T04:31:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33869",
"authors": [
"Aleja",
"Alison Liddle",
"Cascabel",
"Ivy Liew",
"Jonathan",
"Ph.D.Student",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sacho",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78727",
"terowth"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33945
|
Can I increase the cocoa content in fudge?
I've been using a standard fudge recipe that works great, and yet I only wish was that it was even more chocolatey, with more cocoa taste. If it was less sweet that would be fine, too. Can I substitute some sugar for cocoa to accomplish this? Or just add extra cocoa?
Recipe so far:
2 cups white sugar
1/2 cup cocoa
1 cup whole milk
4 tbsp butter
Bring milk, sugar, cocoa to boil.
Simmer until it reaches 234°F, do not stir.
Remove from heat, cool to ~125°F.
Add butter and stir until it starts to dull.
(Sometimes I add the butter as soon as I take it off the heat at soft ball.)
Looking at your recipe, the most obvious thing to me is that there is no salt. Adding a small quantity of salt (say, 1/2 tsp) will enhance the flavors of the ingredients already present.
The second thing you might try is switching to dutch processed cocoa; many people find this has a more intense chocolaty taste.
You could try enhancing the overall flavor by adding a small amount of cinnamon (say 1/4 tsp) or instant espresso powder (perhaps 1 tbl). While these ingredients do not, in small amounts, overwhelm the flavor, they do increase its complexity and the impression of how chocolaty the fudge is.
Of course, you can increase the amount of cocoa powder (at least by ratio): simply increase the absolute amount of cocoa, starting with small increments of perhaps 1 tablespoon per test run. The problem with this method is not only that it throws off the sweetness balance, but also that it will eventually change the chemistry, possibly influencing the crystallization of the sugar phase which is what provides the smoothness of the fudge.
Finally, and more radically, consider reducing the amount of dairy, changing the milk for water, or reducing the amount of butter. The milk fats and milk solids tend to mask the flavor of chocolate. While I consider these part of the overall desirable balance of the fudge, since you after an intense chocolate experience, it may be worth experimenting with.
Another possibility is a dash of cayenne.
@PeteBecker I thought about listing that one, but it tends to be more forward than either of the others... not saying it is bad, though!
It's what @user18178 really wanted, but didn't what to ask for. <g>
I was planning to experiment with substituting sugar and/or milk solids for cocoa, and I will. Seems no one has tried yet, so maybe I should come back and answer my own question in a week or two! Thanks for your other flavor suggestions SAJ and Pete!
I hope you wrote that backwards :-) Reducing the amount of cocoa will decrease the chocolate intensity of the fudge.
Er... seems you're right. I should have said substitute ... WITH cocoa. Tried an extreme version last night, ratio by mass of 2.4 : 1.3 : 1 (water : sugar : cocoa). The taste is absolutely amazing but I could only get it to the consistency of peanut butter before it threatened to burn... More trials to go!
Chocolate flavor depends a lot on fat, preferably cocoa fat. I would try using high-quality dark chocolate (70% to 99%) instead of the cocoa powder, or at the very least weakly de-fatted non-dutched cocoa powder (most cocoa powder in the stores is highly de-fatted). I would also throw out the butter and use chocolate instead. I would only try playing around with ratios if the substitution with 99% chocolate fails.
I cannot agree with you on this one, Rumtscho. Chocolate syrup packs plenty of chocolate flavor without additional fat, and cocoa powder carries enough fat for any fat soluble flavors (even the kinds with a comparatively lower fat level). The only way to increase absolute chocolate flavor is through more cocoa solids--that is, the cocoa powder part of chocolate. Unsweetened chocolate would be the best bet, then, to maximize cocoa solids. I note that CI's recipe uses 12 oz of unsweetened to 6 tbl butter and 4 1/2 c sugar.
Thanks for your input but if I had dark chocolate on hand I'd just eat that straight! :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.204037
| 2013-05-04T07:03:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33945",
"authors": [
"Dreus",
"JG in SD",
"Julie Ham",
"Lee K-B",
"Pete Becker",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"dtzeng",
"foll_person",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78905"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91984
|
Cooking "steak tips" on the grill - how to avoid making them tough?
Recently we bought some "steak tips" from a local farm, and cooked them on our grill and were very unhappy about the result - they were very tough, although the flavor was ok. I wanted to see if someone could see my mistake (I have lots of broiling / pan frying steak experience, but very little on the grill).
These steak tips (which I'm assuming were "beef flap") were like 6" long, 3" wide and 1/2 - 1 " thick. First time, no marinade. They came frozen, so we thawed them in cool water.
Preheat the gas grill to over 500 F.
Throw the steaks on
Cook 2 minutes a side, flipping frequently (as per Cook's Illustrated's advice).
Cooked to ~130 F in the middle, which was cool pink to hot pink, roughly what we like. (different sized steaks were done slightly differently of course).
Tent for 5 minutes in foil.
And they were very tough. Second time I tried an overnight marinade, and also attempted to slice the steaks across the grain (which is how we prepare skirt steak), and they were still very tough.
I've seen lots of advice, which is mostly where I came up with this basic procedure. Where did we go wrong?
(I'm hoping for some advice specifically about steak tips, but if my method is flawed I would like to know that as well!)
Tough meat boils down to 3 factors:
The way it's cooked, the way it's cut and the quality of the meat.
I know this is an old question, but next time you encounter tough meat on the grill, perhaps try pan frying it. If its still tough as rocks, I would question the quality of perhaps that batch of meat, provided it was cut properly.
Agreed. Absent other factors, I'd assume the meat was simply a tougher cut than expected or from an animal which wasn't the quality/type to produce a more tender cut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.204369
| 2018-08-30T23:46:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91984",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21830
|
What reading materials give in-depth coverage of baking with gluten-free ingredients and techniques?
There is plenty of reading material on what gluten is and what its function is in baking, so I feel like I have a decent understanding on that topic. However, I am not finding much on the reasoning behind gluten-free baking, as compared to "regular" baking. What are some good references that are detailed and thorough?
NOTE: I am not looking for recipes. For example, the following is more recipe-oriented:
What are good references for Gluten free baking?
I am looking for a detailed and systematic treatment of questions such as:
What ingredients can help replace gluten in gluten-free recipes?
When considering alternative flours, why choose one type of flour over another? For example, why choose sorghum flour over rice flour?
When compared to baking with gluten, what differences are there in technique (hydration, kneading, warm rise, cold rise, etc), and WHY do these differences exist? For example, should your dough be wetter or more dry? Should you knead for longer or shorter periods of time?
What differences are there in heat (temperature, duration), and what is the reason for these differences?
The second book you mention won't bring you much, it is an unstructured collection of publications which are connected to the topic, but not necessarily in an applied way. As for the first one, I don't know how you can explain the theory while being "less sciency" - but its problem is that it isn't very exhaustive.
After doing some Googling, I quickly realized that any "theoretical" resource would actually be way too complex. I've retracted that wording, and instead I'm looking for "systematic and practical." I have also deleted the list of books, as they were probably making the question confusing.
I am unsure what you are looking for. Are you just looking for a list of Gluten-Free cook books that have long compendiums of substitutions and science-y explanations in the margins? The only "reasoning" behind "gluten-free baking" is dietary sensitivity; otherwise, all standard logic and systematic resources about baking and gluten applies.
@mfg - I've edited my question. Basically, I'm looking to understand how working with gluten free ingredients differs from "regular" baking, and how gluten-free baking techniques differ from "regular" baking. Additionally, how do I choose from amongst the different flours?
@mfg I think you are taking the expression "reasoning behind gluten free" too literally; he seems to actually be asking for the reasoning behind details, for example "why should I use xanthan instead of guar gum in this recipe", not why he should be baking without gluten.
@anon so all you're looking for is something like this?
@mfg - Nope. There's no detail. It doesn't answer any of my questions: Why choose one type of flour over another? Why choose sorghum flour over rice flour? What differences are there in technique (hydration, kneading, warm rise, cold rise)?
The reason behind "Gluten-Free" as a buzzword? Humans can be allergic to gluten strands. Unless you are using a recipe that is having low gluten or high gluten content related problems (too soft or hard due to gluten bonds), the only reason to reduce gluten is to accommodate someone's food allergy. In which case you need to eliminate gluten altogether. Many people who have severe reactions simply will not eat food unless they know it was prepared correctly. In a very American twist, I have met some of those people who are not allergic to Gluten, have no sensitivity to it, and treat "going Gluten-Free" as if it were something other than a dietary restriction; more like a lifestyle or weight diet than one that keeps your body from attacking itself.
I can't offer more actual advice for someone with a gluten-allergy related disorder like Celiac's that go work with a physician and get instruction from a real dietician.
For a straightforward approach to learning to bake with gluten-free ingredients, Google has plenty of resources for you to use, like this primur.
For an explanation of typical ingredients, their uses, pros and cons, Living Without has a well-rounded article
Additional ingredients, techniques, and strategies for serving and preparing are covered in the cookbook Gluten-Free Quick and Easy by Carol Fenster, PhD, who develops products for Bob's Red Mill
You would be best served with any further requests for detail on specific ingredients asking about them in particular rather than holding out hope for a vague guide to all Gluten-free ingredients.
This is because items like xantham gum, agar and so forth are only Gluten-Free by coincidence, and you will be crowding out other helpful resources (i.e. if you look for tapioca starch uses, but in a Gluten Free article, you may easily crowd out the myriad vegan resources that reference it's use)
Like any restriction, best practices are input control-based: (1) referencing what contains wheat or gluten and (2) making sure you don't buy any by reading the ingredients. In addition to actual gluten-specific sensitivities, the Candida diet requires that adherents avoid grains due to immune reactions to gluten (this is semi-dubious in that this is applied above and beyond the scope of defined allergy). In terms of any guide to gluten-free'ing your foods, it isn't that complicated. Basically you need to develop a back-catalog of substitutions. There is less concept, more trivia.
The degree of elasticity in bread is determined by its gluten content. In many problem-solving questions you will see offered that vital wheat gluten or other 'hard flours' can be added to doughs needing more gluten, or that 'soft flours' with low gluten can be added where a dough is coming out too chewy.
In replacing gluten-containing ingredients, there are many substitute flours like Amaranth, Brown Rice, and Garbanzo flours that contain no gluten whatsoever.
To substitute APF, Grape Seed Flour is one, a combination of rice flour, tapioca flour, and corn/potato starch can also be made to replicate APF.
How to substitute; Each of the different flours has a different taste (garbanzo flour is nutty, corn flour tastes like corn) and texture (vital wheat gluten can replicate chicken flesh when cooked as seitan; or consider the difference to the tooth between white, whole wheat, and semolina flours). For gluten containing flours, each also has varying levels of gluten.
Assess the taste and texture characteristics of the flour you will be substituting, match them to one with the gluten-content flour you will be using (there are plenty of Google results for any flour). Don't be afraid to make a mix to get what you want.
Some flours will require more flour / less hydration to achieve the appropriate dough characteristics. You can research this, but time and trial are eventually going to be your guide so that you can tell by touch and look whether or not it is accurately mixed.
In dealing with Gluten in flour; for the purposes of food sensitivity, you can't diminish the gluten content by any technique. If it's there, then it's not going to be viewed by most people on a GF diet, and certainly much less anyone with Celiac's, as palatable. Here are some trouble-shooting points to consider with respect to navigating gluten;
Kneading creates the network of gluten strands, this helps the bread stand up on its own (exploratorium has video on this). Also, salt and yeast fermentation help to develop strand development.
The purpose of giving your dough a rest after kneading is to allow the strands of gluten (the bonds mentioned earlier, these strands are what hold the dough together) to return to their relaxed shape. If you are experiencing snap back (esp. problematic when shaping a dough for a pizza shell) either the dough needs a rest, the gluten content is too high, or you could use a dough relaxer.
Shorter fermenting, higher hydration, high fat (fat inhibits gluten formation), and lower-gluten content make for less elastic doughs. They will break apart rather than stretch. If this is problematic, introduce a flour that has a higher gluten content to the mix.
A good example of a dough that should not have a high gluten-strand formation would be pie crust. To inhibit gluten formation, and get a rocking crust, you should use small amounts of water, not knead very much, ice all of your ingredients somewhat, and use shortening; these things all inhibit gluten formation and give you that drift away crumb texture. Additionally, crumbly biscuits using unscalded milk are benefit from an enzyme that inhibits gluten formation (incidentally, scalding the milk inhibits the inhibitor)
mfg - I fear that my question was too confusing. I have clarified what it is I'm looking for. I'm looking for reading material (preferably online) that provides thorough coverage of gluten-free ingredients and techniques.
@anon I have revised; in my experience dealing with other peoples dietary restrictions you frequently don't need reading materials as there is less concept needed relative to vigilance. With respect to the science of gluten, I have laid out the overview, but its not that fantastic a structure. Like yeast or anything else, it is only as complicated as you make it. As you have defined the scope of the question, I believe I have responded to the major areas of concern. Let me know if there's anything I left out.
@anon good luck with your search. I have added a page 1 Google link, to find more just search "an explanation to baking without gluten"; that said, when you have questions about specific ingredients or techniques, remember that added the keyword 'Gluten-Free' can crowd out helpful results from other resources
Thank you for all your efforts. I'm starting to think that the information I'm looking for either doesn't exist, or is in a book somewhere. I'm wondering if I need to find specific gluten-free forums. If I find anything, I will post it here!
@anon I found one cookbook author who tends to deal with Gluten-Free the way Isa Chandra Moskowitz deals with Veganism, as a series of problems to be solved with a backend of information. I find this way of approaching any given subject more helpful, and I think this is basically what you mean by strategy. I haven't read more than some of the pages, but it might be worth a look on Amazon. My guess is that there is no aggregated resource that non-GF bakers would immediately know to reference, but in terms of disparate articles they are in abundance. Looking forward to any future followups
Coeliac disease is not an "allergy", common misunderstanding. Things such as wheat-intolerance and coeliac disease (where body attacks own cells) are separate things and not well understood yet. -1 due to careless or misunderstood writing "the only reason to reduce gluten is to accommodate someone's food allergy", -1 will be removed if proper fixes done.
I found a somewhat detailed overview on the Colorado State University site. Their server is down, so here is the Google Cache:
Gluten-Free Baking by F. Watson, M. Stone and M. Bunning
It's a very good starting point that has a good amount of detail on the following:
Each flour substitute / additive, with flavor descriptions and uses
Tips on how to adjust texture
How to adjust baking temperatures and times
(As I find more resources, I'll put them here.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.204552
| 2012-02-28T21:12:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21830",
"authors": [
"anon",
"hhh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7518",
"mfg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27867
|
When to use "wine vinegar" vs just wine?
How do you choose between red wine and red wine vinegar in cooking? Likewise, how do you choose between white wine and white wine vinegar?
The specific example I am thinking of is deglazing a pan, but I'd love to know the general "do's and don'ts."
I did a fairly thorough search of this site, and I'm a little surprised this question hasn't been asked yet. This is the closest one, but it asks about vinegar vs wine vinegar, not wine vinegar vs wine.
Don't wine and vinegar have drastically different tastes to you? Vinegar is substantially more acidic, and there's that distinctive vinegar taste/smell.
Don't deglaze a pan with delicate aroma liquids such as wine or wine vinegar. Use water or stock
I suppose between the two for that purpose, wine would be better, since the vapor from vinegar boiling off is a bit unpleasant. But yeah, I'm not really sure how to answer this, beyond neither for deglazing, and they're completely different.
@TFD Where on earth did you get that idea?
@ElendilTheTall deglaze with water to ~half of required liquid volume, then add your wine or other delicate aroma liquids to bring up to required liquid level, then gently reduce. Deglazing with a good wine, turns it into crap wine
To be fair, I think deglazing with wine mostly just causes you to lose flavor from the wine, not actually make it taste bad. (And it does smell awesome for a moment.) But generally you might as well use something a bit cheaper, then add the wine in later so it can keep all the flavor.
@Jefromi Yep I love that smell of good wine vaporising in a hot pan, pity it's such a waste!
Wine vinegar and wine are very different although are produced from the same thing. Wine vinegars are vinegars produced from fermenting wine by acetic acid bacteria which convert the ethanol in wine into acetic acid.
Being a vinegar, it is much sharper than wine although like wine many flavours can be detected beyond the generic sharp lemon-like flavour, particularly in the premium aged varieties such as balsamic vinegar from Modena.
Wine vinegar has no alcoholic content in it and so there is no need to 'burn off the alcohol' which you would do when cooking with wine.
Wine has a much subtler flavour and so would use it in things like gravies, sauces, etc. Likewise, vinegar is much stronger and I would mainly use it in vinaigrettes or in small quantities in cooking (ie finishing of a dish with a small drizzle of vinegar)in much the same way as you might use lemon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.205462
| 2012-10-17T02:42:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27867",
"authors": [
"Andrew McNamee",
"Bread",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Esteban Julio Ricardo",
"Marcelo Estriga",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64003",
"rbrass33"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18016
|
How to learn to cook?
Possible Duplicate:
Resources for a beginner learning to cook
What's a good way to learn cooking and avoid the current trend of my life that is best summarized by this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/854/ ?
I'd have chosen How do we escape the cycle of bad college eating? as a duplicate instead; it even quotes this exact comic.
1) Watch Good Eats.
2) Practice
3) Goto 1)
In order to learn how to cook one must practice. This is self evident.
But - what to cook and where to begin?
Well, I'd recommmend watching a few episodes of Good Eats (pick a few
episodes on food you enjoy). Pay notice not only to the steps he use, but
also his explanations on why he has chosen the various steps.
(Concrete suggestions: Episodes on eggs.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=good+eats+eggs
)
The why is important, because in due time, you'll be able to modify
recipes based on previous experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.205684
| 2011-09-26T16:13:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18016",
"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
}
|
22639
|
How important is RPM in a blender?
I'm looking at getting a new blender, basically the main things I want to be able to do with it are make curry pastes, ultra smooth restaurant quality purees and soups and grind small amounts of spices (I'm talking 1-2 teaspoons). This leaves me with two choices (possibly three of which I'll get too): the Blentec or the Vitamix. The former goes to 27,000rpm and the latter goes to 37,000. I'm wondering is there much of a difference once you get up to crazy speeds like that.
The other option is a Thermomix, which from my reading only hits speeds of 11,000rpm. Unfortunately, given that many Thermomix owners also sell them, it's pretty hard to get unbiased information online so I'm wondering if a speed drop of nearly two thirds will make a difference to the smoothness of my purees. From demos I've seen it think the Thermomix will do a better job with curry pastes and spice grinding as the blades nearly touch the base of the container unlike the other two units: my thinking being that however high the rpm of the Vitamix/Blentec, if the teaspoon of spices can't come into contact with the blades, it's useless.
I read the What to look for when purchasing a blender? question and found no mention of rpm so maybe it's a parameter that isn't very useful, if so then it would be nice to know that at least.
I believe this answer is most accurately described as 'it's hard to find a blender that doesn't easily hit the maximum RPM you are likely to need, thus it is not important'. I only suspect, not know, so I'm just commenting.
tiny spice grinder might be best bet (why stain up blender anyway?)
speed is nice but less so than a cool running motor that can go 30min -how restaurant kitchens get super smooth results (they also strain)
Related question http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/7483/what-is-the-appropriate-blender-speed-to-maximize-nutrition-and-digestion-of-fru?noredirect=1#comment9302_7483
@PatSommer - "tiny spice grinder" = "cheapest blade coffee grinder you can find," for me. On another note, I've never been aware of the rpm of my blenders. I'm more concerned about the construction and materials the pitcher is made from, and the configuration of the blades.
I seriously doubt any blender will be successful in grinding two teaspoons of dry spices. The blades would have to be so close to the bottom of the container as to be useless for most other things, unless the container was so narrow at the bottom that two teaspoons would fill it. Blenders work on a vortex that is usually liquid-based so a blender is probably the wrong tool.
High speed blenders levitate small amounts of solids, like your spices. Running them dry also heats up the bearing or bushing, or whatever is holding the blades in position. That increases wear, and burnout of the blade assembly. All the high speed, 20-30Krpm, blenders I've seen are designed with liquids in mind. Two minutes with dry seeds on my Ninja, with an old, and wobbly blade will make smoke in the blending chamber, as solids work their way into the bearing, and heat to ignition temp. Grinding dry stuff is the very best way to wreck a high speed blender blade assembly. Use Spice Grinder!
I've used both a Vitamix 500 (not extensively) and a Thermomix TM31. I didn't know there was a difference in RPM, but I didn't notice too much difference in end-effect when both were turned up to full power. So I think it doesn't make much difference at those speeds anymore.
If you're having trouble milling spices though, it helps to heat them a while in the oven, to get rid of humidity and therefore make them more brittle.
With a 1 inch (25mm) radius blade, the 27kRPM blender is pulling 20412 g units at the blade tips, while the 37kRPM unit pulls 38332 times gravity. https://www.msu.edu/~venkata1/gforce.htm?box0=&box1=&box2=&result2=&box3=&result1=&TextBox= That later value is enough to make me wonder about the bearing lifetime of the unit. 25kRPM is enough for routing wood, it should be enough for pureeing foods. http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/variablespeedrouteradvice.aspx
Has the Thermomix longer blades than the Vitamix? So the speed (and gravity pull) of the Thermomix might be similar to the vitamix?
The thermomix is afaik stronger than the vitamix. What I know for certain is that it is built with very high quality and will last a long time. The motors are still manufactured in Germany.
With sharper blades, you don't need as many g's to make the cut. I remove, left handed thread, and sharpen the blades on my Krups coffee grinder. Have not yet done so with my 20krpm blender, but being off balance by a gram makes a lot more difference in high rpm devices. Also, blender blades are not usually constructed with easy balancing in mind.
I've been researching blenders and realize this is old thread but just adding what I found. It seems operating horsepower(torque) is the main criteria to focus rather than RPM. A bunch of blenders advertise peak horsepower but the blenders don't sustain peak horsepower when they are blending. RPM seems to matter once the ingredients are blended. Cnet had a decent article explaining HP for blenders https://www.cnet.com/how-to/the-truth-about-horsepower-in-blenders-and-food-processors/
Ideally you want rpm to be independent of load. In the real world, achieving that will result in tripped breakers or burnt motor coils.
RPM is an important factor when selecting a blender, but it's not necessarily the most critical. A blender with high RPM will blend faster, but it may not actually be indicative of how well the blender blends. In general, a powerful motor is more critical than one that simply spins fast. The higher the horsepower, the more consistently the blender will be able to run after continuous use. The torque of the blade/motor is also an important factor to consider. Higher torque means that the blade will be less likely to stop or slow upon impact with tough or dense items like banana slices or chunks of pineapple.
So while RPM is definitely important (you obviously don't want a blender that takes forever to blend up your food), it's not the only determining factor. Most professional-grade blenders will have much higher RPM ratings than standard residential blenders, but at the professional price level, horsepower and torque are just as important when making your decision.
I see you are the author of the linked to article that reads like an advertisement for a certain brand. I downvoted this as it reads like an advertisement for that product.
RPM is an important factor. Although it blends the food more smoothly and much faster if it has a higher RPM, it also uses more power and does not blend harder objects as efficiently/well. Although it is important, it is definitely not the most important factor when choosing a blender. If you have the power supply, I definitely reccomend having a high RPM blender.
The higher RPM is better. Provided you can control that from the lowest RPM to its Highest. The kind of stuff you want to mix will determine the correct RPM to use.
The torque is also important. This means for a layman point of view the strength of your motor. Example: You are to mix a thick dough, would your motor sustain the mixing at a given RPM? If your RPM slows down, it means your motor cannot sustain the RPM given the thickness of the dough.
Chef has a feeling of the performance of their mixer motors, however I doubt if they can tell at what RPM their mixer runs.
The speed of mixers let us say, 5 speed. The manufacturer should indicate the RPM of speed 1= 450rpm, speed 3, 550 rpm, speed 3= 650 rpm etc..(only an example figures but not the actual so you may understand)
Higher RPM is better for smoothies. If you've ever been to Jamba Juice or some other smoothie shop, that great texture mostly comes from the high RPM of the blender
How do you know it is because of the RPM of their blenders and not, say, the torque of the professional blenders' motors or the sharpness of their blades?
@rumtscho good point
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.205819
| 2012-03-29T09:36:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22639",
"authors": [
"Geore Shg",
"Jabir Mowla",
"Martin Dürrmeier",
"Merci",
"Myrddin Emrys",
"Pat Sommer",
"PoloHoleSet",
"RankoChan",
"Sam",
"Steve Heim",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wayne",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9750",
"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
}
|
63823
|
Is pickled herring cooked?
With respect to pickled herring, is the herring cooked before being put into the pickling solution?
If not, what safety measures are in place to ensure bacteria are within safe limits?
No, it is not.
Traditionally it is first cured with salt to reduce the water content of the meat, then placed in a vinegar-based brine.
Recipes vary a bit, but for classic Bismarckhering 14% salt and 7% acetic acid are used. Additionally, today pickeled fish is stored in refrigerators (as opposed to the 19th century), providing additional safety.
This is sufficient to stop the growth of harmful microorganisms, including the feared clostridium botulinum.
Yep, I do have to add one bit of information here since I eat pickled herring regularly. An openness jar can spoil, even in the fridge. However it may take a while for it to happen, but It is not immune to spoilage because it's been pickled. I know from experience.
@Escoce, good point. I ignored the "stays good for X time" part on purpose: OP didn't specify whether he asks about home-made or commercially sealed pickled fish. The process and the results differ significantly from classic "canning" where you give food a shelf life of years at room temperature. One of the reasons for the limited shelf life is the missing "heat enough to kill all bacteria that might be present" step.
Some talk about "chemically cooked". -However, that's not usually what's meant in questions like this.
Properly commercially sealed herring in vinegar brine can be stored for VERY long time in the fridge, and possibly at room temperature. Some brands "Noah's Gourmet" for example, I'm pretty sure they hot seal the herring because it is ALWAYS white and mushy upon opening. Almost mashed potato mouth feel. Or maybe not. The ones that aren't mushy, and have a pleasant texture, always (from what I've seen) have a preservative such as potassium sorbate or sodium benzoate added.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.206460
| 2015-11-25T04:16:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63823",
"authors": [
"Alison Veness",
"Angie Burnham",
"Escoce",
"Paula Melton",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yishai Fried",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"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
}
|
70811
|
Is it possible to fry breaded or flour covered chicken with only butter?
I understand that I would be using a lot of butter, but my only concern would be burning the milk solids.
So would clarifying the butter be key?
Would it take better than using oil?
I assume you mean deep fry? Shallow frying chicken in a little butter is common.
Yep, you can fry anything in just butter. You only need to know that whole butter has a lower smoke-point (~350F,177C) than a lot of other oils, so it needs to be done a bit slowly.
See this Smoke Point Chart: (the last column involves fatty acids, not relevant here)
Higher smoke points of course mean the oil can get hotter without burning. For what it is worth, slow frying in butter is often an awesome way to cook anything. It tastes great.
Clarifying butter brings the smoke point up to over 400F (205C), but you sacrifice some flavor that way. Exactly how hot you can get clarified butter (or unclarified butter, for that matter) depends upon several factors, including how it is manufactured and/or clarified.
If you're looking for breaded, bone-in fried chicken ala KFC, don't try to use butter, it would be problematic to keep the breading adhered at such a low temperature. It would have to fry for a very long time. I suspect the breading would get greasy and fall off. Plus, that much butter would be really expensive for cooking oil that can't handle multiple uses.
If you are looking to deep fry whole (bone in) breaded chicken thighs, for instance, it's pretty much unheard of (but not impossible) to do it it butter. However, butter can be great for breaded, boneless chicken breasts.
Actually, I was thinking more of frying breaded or flour covered chicken, or as you would put it, KFC type chicken.
I think 350 degrees might be hot enough to to fry breaded chicken. On MasterChef season 3 episode 13, I just now remember seeing breaded itself deep fried in butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.206651
| 2016-06-19T07:48:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70811",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Danny Rodriguez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41109"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81292
|
Is there a way to steam rice(Asian style, like steamed rice that gets served at P.F. Chang's) without a rice steamer?
I have several sauce pans and a 3qt saucier. I was thinking about buying a rice steamer, but thought maybe I can save some money.
What do you mean by Asian style? Like for sticky (glutenous) rice?
A Google check says that P.F. Chang's serves steamed jasmine rice. Jasmine rice doesn't need a steamer at all, just a saucepan with a lid. Like the steamed rice method here: Rice gets burnt and watery.
I feel that it should be obvious, but to be safe: for "Asian" style rice, do not add oil or salt.
.... I will actually disagree a little with the great Jolenealaska here. I've found that the single most important thing when making rice is to follow the package instructions. The answer she links to is a solid technique. That's how my mom has always done it, and people are always amazed at how well it turns out. But I got obsessed with kimchi just in time for the hallyu wave a few years ago and I experimented altogether too much with rice.
.....and to reiterate the comment I left above, never add butter or salt to cooking rice. For me it ruins the flavor. I'm all grown-up with two opposable thumbs. I'll get butter if I want it lol. But usually I don't.
If your rice needs to be rinsed, it should say so in the cooking instructions on the package. (Barely add enough water to wet all the rice and you'll be able to get most excess starch off quickly. You'll have to rinse it 3 or 4 times at least.)
I rinse rice by default now. My mom makes fun of me, but she doesn't think the rice turns out badly at all.
Some varieties of rice call for soaking before you drain completely, measure out the water, and cook. Others don't call for a soak, but do expect you to heat the rice with the water just to a simmer.....While you can cook these using Jolene's method, they might not be as fluffy. It's a subtle difference though.
I've also had rice that came out markedly better on the stovetop than it did following rice cooker directions, and vice versa. I can't tell you why, but it's something to be aware of.
All of which is to say that if your rice doesn't turn out right the first time, you can try different techniques and also try different rice.
There are also tons of general techniques that are completely different from Jolene's that are worth looking into. This site for example...looks promising? I might try it just to see how my own medium grain rice turns out:
https://thewoksoflife.com/how-to-steam-rice/#:~:text=Place%20in%20a%20steamer%20filled,at%20least%205%20more%20minutes.
The ratio for long grain rice to water is 1:1.3. The instructions say to soak your rice for at least 10 minutes. Place the rice and water in a heat proof bowl, then place that bowl in a cold steamer. It says specifically not to preheat. Then turn the heat on to high for 20 minutes with the lid closed, heat off, and let sit for at least 5 minutes or until ready to serve.
I don't have a commercial steamer either, so what I'll do is put down a cheap vegetable steamer tray in my big pot and set my bowl on top of it. You might be able to rig something workable with metal cookie cutters or silverware as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.206814
| 2017-04-29T08:51:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81292",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"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
}
|
109829
|
How to extract mouth numbing effect from Sichuan peppercorn into a syrup?
I tried following the recipe here to try to create a Sichuan peppercorn simple syrup. The recipe is basically to add slightly crushed peppercorn to sugar and water, allow to simmer, take off the heat, and repeat. The end result was tasty, but it did not have the same mouth numbing effect that I was hoping for except for with the leftover peppercorn in the syrup.
How can I get the mouth numbing effect into a syrup, and why did the above method not work? The Wikipedia article on hydroxy alpha sanshool suggests you can extract it with a distillation method although that seems like a bit of overkill when I am just trying to make cocktails at home (and when I don't own a condenser or distillation flask).
Green Sichuan peppercorns tend to have more numbing effect than red peppercorns, so you may want to consider looking for those.
I don't know why but I have a feeling that in the linked recipe they didn't mentioned puting lid on. For me that would be the distilation that goes right back to the brew.
I would first verify the peppercorns are going to give you the numbing effect to begin with before you spend a lot of time on your method. You could be doing everything right but the source material doesn't have the properties you're looking for.
@GdD they definitely did, part of what confused me was the peppercorn left in still very much does numb my tongue, it apparently just didn't impart that upon the liquid
@SZCZERZOKŁY you're definitely right, it did not. Given that distillation method I'll definitely leave the lid on next time
@qfwfq, that makes perfect sense to me as the 'active ingredients' in pepper are all oil based.
Looks like you picked a tough one to go after at home: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102690208A/en and https://patents.google.com/patent/CN103099163A/en
The reason you didn't get the numbing effect is because the hydroxy alpha sanshool is an alcohol that is largely soluble in oils not water.
When boiled it will come off in the steam and escape the boiling process in that manner. If you distill it, it will collect as an oil not as an ethanol/water soluble product. I doubt that putting the lid on the pot will collect significant amounts, or if they do collect enough to form droplets, they will be as fine oil layer on the surface of the liquid or on the lid of the pot.
I note that the extraction protocol mentioned on its wikipedia page includes ethanol and notes that the yield is low (~60%) of the available chemical. Boiling alone in water is not sufficient to extract any significant quantity.
Yeah, if the extraction with water isn't working, the obvious next step would be different solvents; one might try making an infusion using room-temperature vodka or grain alcohol, or, failing that, take a cue from actual Sichuan cooking and infuse some oil with the peppercorns - the trouble with that last part would be figuring out how to actually incorporate a flavoured oil into a cocktail.
A room temperature infusion in neutral alcohol has the advantage that it could be left for days or longer in a sealed jar. You may want to use the strongest neutral spirit available, to maximise extraction. Then that would be easy to incorporate. Whether the crucial compound would survive a subsequent reduction of the infused spirit would be an experiment worth trying
https://foodb.ca/compounds/FDB000722 says it's not water soluble anyway
@ChrisH it survives a wok so I'd think it should survive a reduction in alcohol, although I do think that you usually add it at the very end in things like stir fry. I definitely have a set of chemistry experiments to try, and honestly am now a little tempted to get a distillation setup. Thanks for the help all
After reading @bob1's very helpful answer I ran a couple tests and found that the hydroxy alpha sanshool does seem to be soluble in alcohol such that it could be infused. In my first test I left a pinch of peppercorn in a splash of 80 proof vodka (didn't measure either) and left it for around 6-8 hours. It tasted horrible but did numb my mouth. In my second test I left a tablespoon of red peppercorn in 80ml of 84 proof mezcal for about 18 hours, which again did numb my mouth although not as strongly. I also chewed on a couple of the leftover peppercorn which had no effect, leading me to believe I did successfully extract the hydroxy alpha sanshool.
My final conclusion to my question is that trying to get the mouth numbing effect into a water and sugar based syrup is not worthwhile or really even possible, but you definitely can get the effect into a cocktail by infusing alcohol.
Nice. The next step is to see how concentrated you can get it by this method. If you could get it concentrated enough you might be able to add small amounts to a water based syrup and still get the effect you desire. This would be similar to adding something like vanilla extract - which is also ethanol based. Ground pepper will probably give you biggest bang-for-buck as well as being quickest.
If what you want is "Sichuan peppercorn numbing in a cocktail", see if a local distillery makes an amaro using Sichuan peppercorns as a flavorant. I have a bottle of one so they certainly exist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.207096
| 2020-07-24T05:05:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109829",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Silenced Temporarily",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85795",
"mbjb",
"qfwfq"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109894
|
What is the difference among these 3 food items: Flattened Rice, Chiwda and Poha?
In India, Poha is a famous dish especially served as breakfast.
I would like to know if Poha is the name of the dish or Flattened rice or Chiwda.
In India, flattened rice are Poha. Now poha/flattened rice come in packets with the picture you have put. There are a lot of recipes which we make from flattened rice.
Interestingly the most common recipe is known as 'poha'. Here the flattened rice are soaked in water and then they are heated in oil with spices, onion and/or potatoes.
Here is the recipe
This is a very popular recipe in Maharshtra and basically almost all Indians prefer this recipe for breakfast.
Now flattened rice are also used to make chiwda.
This is rather crunchy, unlike poha.
It is used as an in between meals' snack.
Here generally, the flattened rice are roasted or fried.
Now interestingly the varieties of flattened rice for making poha and chiwda are different.
For making poha and fried chiwda the flattened rice are long narrow type.
And for making roasted chiwda flattened rice is wider.
Hence, to summarise, the term 'poha' is both flattened rice, as well as a recipe made from flattened rice. Chiwda on the other hand is different.
If you go to an Indian restaurant and ask for poha, they will give you a dish made from flattened rice/poha.
On the other hand if you go to a grocery shop and ask for poha they will give you flattened rice.
I hope your doubt is solved.
Looks like Flattened Rice also known a Poha is an ingredient in making Poha the recipe.
"It is also called "beaten rice", not to be confused with poha, a Central-West Indian dish prepared using this flattened rice as the key ingredient."
It also seems to be one ingredient in Chiwda, at least in one recipe I found.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.207836
| 2020-07-27T17:31:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109894",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112664
|
Is it okay to wash a plate at a later point?
After reading:
Do the dishes: Why you should keep up with the washing up - ABC News
And especially:
"You will end up with a lovely bacteria soup, then you will stick your
hand in the sink to pull the plug out and do the dishes, and if you
don't wash your hands properly you are going to cross-contaminate the
kitchen."
I started wondering if it's okay if I leave a plate unwashed in the sink (the sink itself, not filled with water or anything like that, as described/hinted at in the quote), before leaving/rushing for work; in order to save time and wash it later with some next plate, when I return back from work (can be a bit late sometimes).
I usually always clean/wash things that have stains right away, but I only eat oats and milk for breakfast, which perhaps might make this seem like a non-issue; though I've honestly had this on my mind, for way too long at this point. Hopefully it is indeed a non-issue, but I'd love to hear what people think...
EDIT:
Basically my primary concern is the bacteria spread on the plate/invisible bacteria becoming harder to wash off, in regards to my prior use case...
"my primary concern is the bacteria spread on the plate/invisible bacteria becoming harder to wash off". Soap, hot water and a scrub brush are quite effective.
That quote sounds like they're assuming you fill the sink with water and leave dirty dishes sitting in the water. That seems gross. And of course you should wash your hands after doing the dishes, regardless of whether you washed your dishes immediately or let them soak first.
I frequently leave dishes to soak and wash them later, but I don't fill the sink. Just fill the dish with water and let it sit in the sink. When you come back to wash it, dump out the soaking water, and wash as normal with soap and hot water.
Some dishes work best if you rinse them right away, then let them soak after rinsing. Oats tend to dry on rock-hard, so be sure to wipe off any smears that are above the water level before leaving it to soak.
Thank you for your reply! Should've definitely among other things, made the fact that I always leave the plate in an empty sink, before getting to washing it later...
@ValeriLagunov Honestly, I think the author is being snobbish and judgmental about people who don't wash their dishes immediately, without really having much factual basis. They make a few reasonable points, like that you should be sure to avoid splashing the dish-soaking water all over your kitchen. But if you wash your dishes in soap and hot water after soaking them, they should be fine.
@csk : they might also assume that people are like some of my past roommates -- leave stuff in the sink until I finally got around to doing the washing up on Saturday. Luckily, they didn't tend to leave it in water, as yes, after 3 or 4 days, you get this interesting layer of slime (biofilm) on things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.208000
| 2020-11-15T19:14:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112664",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"RonJohn",
"Valeri Lagunov",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51955
|
How long to bake lasagne at lower temperature?
My recipe states that I need to bake my fish lasagne for 40 min at 180 degrees Celsius. I will go out and want the food to be ready when I return but will not be back within 40 minutes. Is there a way how I can extend the cooking time at lower temp without drying the lasagne out?
Adding a bit more water may help prevent it from drying out. Or having it covered, as with foil, can prevent some moisture loss.
Missing information needed: size of dish, starting temperature (frozen, room temp?), and weight, as well as how much of a delay you wanted.
Yes. Use a thermometer. Your lasagna will be done at an internal temperature of 165F (74C). Just lower the baking temp appropriately. I can't know the time and oven temperature that will actually work for you, because you didn't present them, but I hope this helps.
You have not said how much more time you needed or how big a dish you are using or whether you are cooking from frozen or room temperature.
Without such important information, I can only guess. If you are looking for a 5-10 min extension, you may be able to lower your temperature to 155-160C. Anything longer than that, your lasagne could come out different if you were to cut temperature further.
You might want to use a delayed start function if your oven has one, but I would probably not want to delay for a hour or more (assumed frozen) for food hygiene reasons.
Alternatively, you can cook it earlier so that it finishes cooking before you go out, keep it covered inside the oven with its temperature reduced to 50-70C to keep it warm while you are out.
Most modern ovens retain heat very well. I know mine takes more than half an hour to cool from a normal cooking temperature to a temperature which is still hot enough to cook at, just more slowly. If yours has a timer to switch it off you should be able to set the normal temperature or just a touch lower, preheat, and have it cut off 1/2 to 2/3 of the way through the stated time. Then residual heat in the oven will do the rest but more slowly.
However, the first time you try this I would suggest being in the house, to look through the glass of the oven door in case it's doing too quickly, and to test when you think it should be done. A (meat probe) thermometer is a good idea at this stage. On ovens with an analogue dial to set the temperature, you can get a rough idea of the air temperature by seeing where the dial clicks. 120C will cook slowly but not brown, for keeping hot you don't want to go much below 100 given the margin for error, though it will still dry out. Don't forget that opening the door when cooking in residual heat lets a lot of heat out, so only do it when you think it's cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.208255
| 2014-12-25T08:13:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51955",
"authors": [
"Charles Arokia Das",
"John Bartolino",
"John Morgan",
"Megha",
"Nicole Rivet",
"Pierre Du Plessis",
"Ronald Hlinka",
"frank napagal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"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
}
|
29021
|
what happens when you whisk sugar with oil?
So far I have tired four different carrot cakes recipes, everything ended up too oily (The oil drips from the cake when pressed). I was wondering and found all of these recipes calls for "whisking sugar with oil until the sugar dissolves" as the very first step. I am sure, I am missing some basics here, since I don't know what is the consistency needed.
Can anyone shed light on what happens when you whisk sugar with oil? Like creaming sugar and butter to incorporate air into the mixture. What is the concept behind it? How the consistency should look?
I am using 135g white caster sugar and 100ml sunflower oil, if this information is of any help.
How much oil and sugar? Also, oil doesn't really "dissolve" sugar. The best you're going to get is an even-density sludge.
I would suggest that if your cake is too oily then you might need to add more flour. The absorptivity of flour can vary by brand and even batch within a brand, so it is often the case that the amount given in a recipe may be slightly off. In my experience, for example, American recipes always need more flour than stated to achieve suggested consistencies.
So are there eggs and liquid in the recipe? If so, I would beat the eggs, dissolve the sugar into the eggs, slowly incorporate the oil (as if making a salad dressing) and then add the liquid. Note:I'm adding this as comment since it doesn't really answer the question)
are you trying to scale the recipe at all? sometimes recipes can't be a 1:1 scaling
@ElendilTheTall: American recipes usually specify the amount of flour by volume, which is usually the major problem: As you imply, measuring flour by volume is very inaccurate.
Does the formula you are using actually call for sunflower oil or are substituting. Posting the whole formula and instruction would help.
Oil doesn't really dissolve sugar. The main purpose for the mixing is that in many recipe techniques, especially the muffin method, sugar is treated as a wet ingredient. By premixing the wet ingredients, and premixing the dry ingredients, when the two are combined, you require much less additional mixing to get a homogeneous total batter.
Creaming sugar into butter or shortening helps leavening because the sharp edges of the sugar crystals cut air into the solid fat medium, essentially creating a foam. This then serves as seed air bubbles for the chemical leavening to expand. This effect cannot occur with liquid oils.
Many carrot cakes are pretty dense and oily, although I don't think they should drip when pressed. You might have something else going on in your recipes or technique.
You get a slurry. Depending on the ratio of oil to sugar, you can end up with oil occupying the "voidage" between sugar crystals (think about damp sand) or sugar crystals dispersed in a body or oil. If you have not much oil (determined by crystal size), capillary action would produce a stable "damp" mixture. Again, depending on the type of oil, and type and particle size of the sugar, the suspensions may settle out into two layers over time. Based on a very rough estimate, your 135g in 100ml should yield a very dense suspension, much like a gritty paste.
As pointed out by SAJ14SAJ, sugar is practically insoluble in oil. Your recipes are confusing dispersing with dissolving. You will always end up with a 2-phase 2-component soild-liquid slurry, unlike dissolving (2-component, 1-phase). With butter however, there is always some water in it to dissolve some sugar. After whisking, you end up with a 4-compenent 4-phase (oil, sugar solid, sugar-water solution, air) emulsion (strictly speaking not a foam) or 4-component 3-phase if there is there no excess sugar beyond what is soluble in the water inside the butter. The main difference is that by heating the butter, you will increase the amount of dissolved sugar and vice versa. With just oil and sugar, temperature change would make no difference to the slurry other than the oil viscosity.
I doubt very much if this sugar-oil step is the cause of the dripping oiliness of your cake. The recipes are clearly wrong about dissolving and extending from that, the hope of better mixing using a sugar-oil slurry is flawed. Efficiency of mixing sugar into your dough is about shear force, whether you add oil and sugar separately or pre-mixed would make very little difference, these ingredients still go in as two separate phases. The oil would add some lubricity regardless to aid mixing. If the sugar were actually dissolved in a solvent, one phase, that would make a difference.
I agree that you need to emulsify the eggs and oil like when you make mayonnaise. It works every time for me and no oily cakes or biscuits. First beat the eggs until fluffy. Drip the oil in literally drop for drop until it emulsifies. It will emulsify after about 10 drops. If you skip the drop for drop method your egg and oil will seperate (split). Once the oil and eggs emulsify you can start adding oil faster but still beat in between adding the next lot of oil. Once all the oil is incorporated add the sugar bit by bit until all is used up. Flop proof.
i make carrot cake. My recipe does not call for whisking the sugar and oil together. It says to beat together.
try that , it might make a difference.
Can you explain why that would make a difference? It would really help your answer to explain a little more. I don't know how the effects of "whisked" vs "beaten" oil and sugar differ, since these ingredients don't react with each other much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.208506
| 2012-12-07T20:51:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29021",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Bee Baker",
"BigRon",
"Brendan",
"Chode",
"Chris",
"Craft",
"Debbie Ann Carey",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Griffin",
"JudyGG",
"MOhamed Farahat",
"Megha",
"MsBsmoove",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69432",
"jscs"
],
"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
}
|
128816
|
What causes my Sourdough bread to bake up dark brown in color?
What causes my sourdough bread to bake up very brown, like a dark whole wheat color, inside and outside? It rises and bakes up beautiful but is very brown. Is it safe to eat? It tastes very good and sour.
To attempt an answer we would need to know your ingredients and preparation method.
A photo or two would help as well.
Without more information this isn't answerable. Voting to close until/unless we know more
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.208963
| 2024-07-16T00:39:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128816",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56863
|
Hot espresso poured into a cold cup - is that dangerous?
When making a flavored iced drink - for example a mocha - what is the correct steps to take in order to make the best drink. Is it ok to pour the hot espresso over the measured amount of chocolate at the bottom of a cold cup ?
Do you have specific concerns about the process or the outcome? You mention several topics. As for "cold cup," you might be concerned about the temperature change (e.g., I personally find that espresso in cold drinks tastes bad). You might also be concerned about order: pouring hot espresso over the chocolate, versus putting chocolate into the espresso (I'd suggest the latter because it will melt/mix better). What do you mean by "dangerous" in this sense? Also consider asking coffee-specific questions over at the [coffee.se] Stack Exchange site!
@hoc_age I edited the question to remove off-topic parts. The original ending was about health-related stuff (toxins in plastic) so I snipped it.
There are frequently conflicting opinions about coffee preparation, as everyone has their own way that they like it best. Keep in mind that these are just opinions though and you should prepare the drink however it most appeals to you.
That said, there are a few things to keep in mind: If you're using solid chocolate or cocoa powder, you'd want to add hot liquid directly to that to melt it. Most flavorings will dissolve best in hot liquid, but syrups can be stirred in to cold liquids as well. The main thing you'd want to avoid is pouring hot liquid directly over ice, as that will water down your coffee a lot. Generally my method is to pour the espresso over the syrup, swirl it to dissolve, add cold milk, then add ice last. If I'm making an iced Americano, I do add the espresso directly to ice and then omit adding water (or reduce the water).
When you say cocoa powder do you mean instant cocoa mix or something? Pure cocoa powder doesn't really dissolve well, hot liquid or not.
Good points... and please consider joining us at [coffee.se]! :-D
@Jefromi cocoa powder won't exactly "dissolve", but you can get it to disperse pretty evenly in espresso (especially a fresh shot). I'd say it melts more than dissolves. For an instant mix, I'd still recommend putting it in the hot liquid.
@sourd'oh Yes, instant mix definitely works best when it's hot. I've seen cocoa powder clump pretty badly even in hot liquid, so I'm surprised to hear you can get it to work well in an espresso shot!
My gift to you. Use a martini shaker. Measure your chocolate sauce into the martini shaker cup. Add hot brewed espresso or fresh brewed double strength coffee. Let this rest for 15 seconds. Then, add good amount of ice, cover and shake for about 30 seconds. Add ice to a serving glass and pour the mocha from the martini shaker over ice. Top with milk and serve with a straw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.209042
| 2015-04-22T16:50:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56863",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charlene Pearce",
"Crazy Life Homestead",
"Dan Buggins",
"Howard Bramwell",
"SARITA KUMARI",
"SourDoh",
"Zena Galley",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41829
|
Substitute yogurt powder for confectioners sugar when making royal icing
When making treats, I try to make them as appealing as possible and like to decorate them. I have been looking for an icing recipe that can be used for decoration that doesn't include sugar. Most of the ones I have found call for yogurt, however they do not harden. I recently purchased a mix which was yogurt based which worked really well however could get costly if I do a lot of treats. I was wondering if I used a royal icing recipe and substituted the confectioner's sugar in the recipe with yogurt powder, would it work?
I'm tempted to say: there's only one way to find out!
Sorry Pat, long time ago this community decided that pet food questions are off-topic. I personally disagree and find your question reasonable, but I am bound by the existing policy and have to close the question :( For what it's worth, I would say that the answer is no - it doesn't matter that they look similar, yogurt powder and sugar powder have completely different physical properties and won't behave the same way in a recipe. You cannot use them as substitutes. I can't tell you how to develop a suitable glaze, but just using yogurt in a sugar recipe won't work.
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about creating food for pets, not for humans. Here the relevant Meta thread, http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1108/would-a-question-regarding-making-homemade-pet-kitten-cat-food-be-considered-o/1109#1109.
@Pat in the time since the decision was made, our network for question sites got a Pets site added, http://pets.stackexchange.com/. I would suggest that you go there and ask them what pet-friendly ingredients will look like a glaze; they may know something about it. (Don't ask straight about the substitution, this would be off-topic for them, just ask them what pet food would be a good fit).
Couldn't we convert this question so it is for humans (and dogs) too?
I edited the question to remove the referral to pets. I think that pets or no, it's an interesting substitution idea.
Removing all references to dogs means that we should agree with any solutions which will work for humans and not for dogs, which is probably not what the OP intended. But now that sourd'oh invested the work in editing, I will reopen and we'll see what will come out.
I wonder what those yogurt covered peanut contain? They are sweet but a similar setting agent minus the sugar might do the trick? e.g Agar agar
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.209290
| 2014-02-07T14:01:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41829",
"authors": [
"BeanaInMyHead",
"Bert Berlin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jessa",
"KidneyBeanCook",
"Maleeha khan",
"Mien",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Williamsprobuilder spam",
"Yahotin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97911",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39857
|
brown sugar has gained some moisture, want to remove
I assume this question generalizes to items such as flour.
I kept brown sugar in the plastic bag it came in, in the refrigerator. Due to frequent use, it has built up clumps due to moisture. I've just recently gotten a glass container to store it in. Solutions I have considered to now remove the moisture are:
Use a little uncooked rice to pull the moisture out
but then I think I should use a mesh bag to keep the rice in, where would I find something like this?
coffee filter, too slow/cumbersome?
Give it a little heat to dry it out, such as:
place the glass on top of the oven with the oven on, as my oven top gets quite warm when the oven is on.
Any ideas?
Flour and brown sugar have completely different properties. Brown sugar normally has some moisture in it, or it turns quite hard. Why do you think these lumps are due to moisture? Can you press them apart with light finger pressure?
@SAJ14SAJ, yes, they crumble to some degree. There are some dark clumps here and there, which seem to suggest moisture.
I'm going to experiment with the rice in coffee filter and stovetop as above, and keep my eye out for overdrying, as is mentioned in related thread "http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8902/how-to-quickly-soften-brown-sugar?rq=1"
as @SAJ14SAJ pointed out, brown sugar usually has quite a bit of moisture in it. When brown sugar clumps, it's usually due to the sugar drying out. Most of the answers in the link you posted are regarding adding moisture back into the sugar. (and usually rice or the ceramic "sugar bears" work by absorbing moisture initially and then releasing it back into the sugar over time)
@sourd'oh, so my problem may not yet necessarily be excess or lack of moisture, but inconsistency/non-uniform-ness? Would the rice or ceramic help to make the brown sugar more uniform? Or perhaps vigorous shaking or folding?
@BradyTrainor They may help to keep it more uniform by regulating the amount of moisture. If your lumps are soft though, I would think shaking, or a brief spin in a food processor will solve your problem. Most solutions to brown sugar clumping are going to be aimed at when it forms the rock hard clumps that are a lot harder to deal with.
@SAJ The OP may not be referencing the same thing as the Americans know under brown sugar. The sugar sold in Europe under the name "brown sugar" is actually unrefined sugar without moisture, and it has the behavior he mentions.
Refrigerating things usually dries stuff out in modern refrigerators, which tend to remove moisture, rather than retain them. I agree with sourd'oh that drying is likely your issue.
It sounds like you are asking how to remove clumps. I use a sifter, or try to move the grains through a strainer with a fork. What are you using the brown sugar for? Will it dissolve during mixing anyway, removing clumps (as in when beating cake batter)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.209535
| 2013-11-28T21:35:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39857",
"authors": [
"Brady Trainor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21574",
"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
}
|
37731
|
Metal vs paper filter for Chemex?
What is the significant difference between using a paper filter over a reusable metal mesh filter for Chemex?
Aren't cone (kone) filters paper? Can you clarify a bit?
I edited your question so that it says the type of filter instead of a brand name so that more people may recognize it. If that isn't what you meant, feel free to change it back!
A paper filter is a true "filter" in that it basically only allows liquid to pass through. This means that you will have no sediment in your coffee, if that is a concern to you. Paper filters are absorbent though, so some of the flavor compounds of the coffee will be absorbed into the paper, and some other compounds as well (a chemical in coffee that causes a rise in cholesterol is absorbed by the paper). The paper can also lead to a papery flavor in your coffee.
Metal filters only filter out particulates of a certain size, so you will frequently end up with a layer of "sludge" at the bottom of your pot. Metal filters should be non-reactive though, so they will not add a flavor to your coffee and will allow everything extracted from your coffee to pass through.
If cholesterol isn't a concern, I'd say try both and see which you like better.
Types of Coffee Filters
Coffee & Cholesterol
In reading the Chemex fan sites, some of them seem to advocate the treated paper, others the metal mesh. Somehow I suspect that these issues are emotional as much as actual perceivable tastes.
Depending on how coarse you grind the coffee and the fineness of the metal filter you may not ever get sludge in your coffee. Ive used a kone and chemex for over a year and while there may be some small amount of fines suspended in the coffee (it looks a little cloudy) Ive never had anything resembling sludge.
AHHH! Now I get it! I've used both. A lot. The fact is, I don't taste a difference. I only pick one over the other for convenience or economics. It's cool to just dump a disposable filter, no muss, no fuss. But disposable filters cost money. The other one is already paid for. Funny thing, I've used nothing but the metal one for over a year. It would cost me $5 to replenish my supply of coffee filters, it seems I always have some other way I'd rather spend that $5. One tiny caveat is that the metal type will leave a tiny bit of sludge in the bottom of your carafe. Don't pour it into your cup and you'd hardly know it was there.
Paper filters, essentially allow water to pass through with the lack of sediment in your brew. They absorb well enough, but at the same time can absorb some of your coffees flavor. I've heard of many people complaining about a paper-like, or chemical-like taste to their coffee when using a paper filter. Everyone has their own opinion and tastes though when it comes to this.
Metal filters, or the stainless steel filter route can be handy for a number of reasons. The lack of waste after brewing is nice to have. The fact that they're reusable is quite handy and can save you a lot of money in the long run. One of the most important aspects of a metal filter is the retention of oils in your coffee. These filters can give you a nice full-flavored cup.
Hope this helps and happy brewing. Feel free to hit me up for any questions, recipes or roast suggestions.
@CrucialCoffee
I actually use both together! I prewet the Chemex paper filter and put it into a Kone S/S filter. The result is a no sludge/no paper aftertaste and a faster pour over. YMMV.
If you're using the paper filter, there's really no reason to use the metal filter.
Depends on the roast and bean. Sometimes I like to get the oily slush out of a certain variety. MY latest change is no more unbleached Chemex filters, they leave a 'paper towel' flavor the bleached version doesn't have.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.209883
| 2013-10-19T04:01:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37731",
"authors": [
"Barry Johnson Photography",
"Jolenealaska",
"Robert Camilleri",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"William Faulknor",
"alex-e-leon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31465"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41119
|
Any advantage to kneeding down pizza dough 3 times
I found though experimentation that while my pizza dough recipe said to only knead the pizza dough once then let it rise,
that the dough came out better if I punched it down, kneaded it, then let it rise a second time, like for bread.
Normally I don't have time for this.
I have some spare time, as I got the dough on its first rise around breakfast breakfast.
Punched it down around lunch,
and now it has risen again, and would have time to rise again. (Assuming the yeast still functions.)
Or would this be bad,
should I just leave it in my car (where it has been rising) til I prep it for dinner?
Maybe I should put in into the fridge?
The series of folds you're doing serve to degas the dough so that it can ferment longer (thus developing more flavor), and to help strengthen the gluten. A third fold wouldn't hurt most doughs, but in the case of a pizza dough it could make it too tight to be easily workable. I would suggest spacing out the other two folds longer in the future. If your dough looks like it will collapse if it rises any more, punch it down and fold it but be sure to give it a long time to relax before using it.
If you just punched it down, you could transfer it to your fridge at this point to slow it down. Just give it time to warm up again before using it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.210224
| 2014-01-13T06:25:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41119",
"authors": [
"MidTNDirtFarmer",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95787",
"theJayne",
"uncovery",
"user95787"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59703
|
Can I use cast iron on a hot plate?
I'm Jewish and need to keep foods heated during the Sabbath and holidays. I am thinking of getting 2, 5 quart cast iron dutch ovens for this purpose. Is cast iron a good choice for to keeping foods heated on a hot plate? Or should I get glass or teflon pots? The periods could be 1 day but could also be up to 3 days if the holiday is right after or before a Sabbath.
Im gonna put the pots on a long hot plate to keep warm for the length of time. I simply want to know if cast iron would be a good alternative to do this or do i need to get glass or teflon pots.
Are you looking for an alternative to using a hot plate or are you looking for something to put on a hot plate?
How strict are you? If you're just looking to avoid turning things on, then a crockpot (without the fancy electronics) set to warm is likely best. If you have to avoid electricity entirely, then something with thermal mass like what you suggest helps ... but it'll still go cold if you're trying to hold it for multiple days.
Thanks for clarifying. The one thing I don't understand is why you said "alternative" - what are you thinking of cast iron as an alternative to? It's a perfectly normal kind of pot.
Ok. So you are saying if i get 2 dutch ovens i would be able to leave them on hot plate for several days? Im reading your reply as, yes i can.
I'm asking why you're saying "alternative" because it's making it sound like there's something we don't understand about your question. But assuming you don't mean anything by that choice of words, I posted an answer.
You can use any kind of pot on a hot plate. I can't see any reason cast iron would be a problem, unless the hot plate has a less durable surface and you're worried about scratching it.
The only thing that matters is whether the hot plate is powerful enough to keep your food above 140F for the entire time period. That depends much more on the size of the pots than the material they're made of.
If possible, I'd suggest checking with a thermometer to confirm. You can always do a dry run, and you don't have to wait 3 days. If it holds steady at a safe temperature for an hour or two, it should be fine.
Thank you, this answer has put me at ease, cause my builgas line was just been complmized due to construction out side and management just gave everyone affected hot plates and most of my pots are cast iron and thought the hot plate won’t heat up hot enough for my pots.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.210372
| 2015-08-07T20:36:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59703",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica Grant",
"Jerry",
"Joe",
"Laura O'Melia",
"Leah Rangel",
"Michael Schaap",
"Mike Robinson",
"Panic",
"Randy Moulton",
"Ross Ridge",
"Si'mantra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"patricia Demay"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40130
|
Non-dairy ice cream
I love ice cream. I been trying for the past 2 years to come up with a good non-dairy ice cream because the one I liked is no longer available. I have many allergies so it's very hard to find things I can eat.
I thought this would be easy but I'm finding it's hard when you are working with artificial filler--locust bean gum, guar gum, xantham gum, tapioca starch, etc. During this process I have made some bad tasting ice cream and learn that heating these fillers changes how they interact with each other. I know when you heat tapioca it thicken things. But, I am not sure how tapioca would taste by itself with no other fillers?
I have done internet searches and looked at non-dairy ice cream recipe books. Nothing have told me how to use these artificial filler successfully. These recipes use coconut, banana or some other thing I cannot have.
I thought maybe a food chemist or a food scientist could help me to understand these artificial fillers and how heat affect there interactions with the other ingredient. Also, which ones would work better together and the proportions of each.
Which are the best fillers for ice cream & in what proportions?
EDIT:I'm allergic to so much it would fill up a paragraph. I have found recipes using bananas, dates, coconut, but I can't eat these. I need to use the thickeners and emulsifiers.
I'm making the ice cream out of almond milk, using agave as a sweetener, adding 1 T. of tapioca, some vanilla and salt, gaur gum and xanthan gum. The last time I made the ice cream, I boiled the tapioca with the almond milk and agave and let it cool. Then I blended the mixture and added gaur gum and xanthan gum. It was so bad I had to throw it out.
I know you can make good ice cream with these ingredients because I was able to purchase it--Heaven sent--before it went out of business.
Can you provide us with a list of things you can't have? It would be a shame if somebody puts a lot of work into an answer only for you to be unable to take the advice.
The things you're calling "fillers" aren't fillers - they're for modifying texture (thickening, emulsifying, preventing hard freezing). What are you actually trying to make the ice cream out of? You need a liquid-ish base to provide all the bulk, like the banana you mentioned.
Of interest: http://www.cookingissues.com/primers/hydrocolloids-primer/
Some good info here: http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/p-b-j-gelato and here: http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/pistachio-gelato-2
What was bad about your attempts? (I'm guessing consistency? It's easy to overdo it with these additives.) Are you freezing it in an ice cream maker?
Truly we can handle a paragraph. If I'm reading your question correctly, you want to make tasty ice cream within certain dietary restrictions. You've got some pretty solid culinary minds here, but I don't think there are any decent mind-readers amongst us. By not telling us those restrictions you are making it impossible to help.
I know there's a pretty good ice cream substitute that basically just contains oats and water. I don't have a recipe, but that might work? Also, with the hydrocolloids you're talking about (most of which are totally natural, by the way), only TINY amounts are needed. For instance, in recipes where I work, we use about an ounce of tara gum for 700 lbs of dough. You'd be using just pinches.
Whey protein makes an interesting additive to Almond milk. Without something like that, the stuff won't even gel instant pudding. You may well need a proteinaceous filler, im addition to all those gummy carbs.
The artificial thickeners cannot make the bulk of your ice cream. They are only there to give smooth consistency and reduce ice crystal formation in a combination of ingredients which wouldn't mix well otherwise.
The first thing which strikes me is that your recipe has no fat in it, except the little bit from the almond milk. This is a problem. Maybe a food chemist with access to industrial equipment can create a recipe which mimics a normal ice cream only with the ingredients you listed, but it would be exceedingly difficult for a home cook to get to the right proportions and process, and even then, it will be very finicky working with the stuff. Also, I haven't eaten the brand you describe, but knowing all the low fat ice creams I've had, the result is never as good as the real thing. So the first step would be to add fat. The type is not so important, although some will taste better than others. As you can have almond milk, maybe almond oil will be a good fat to use.
Then calculate the proportions of the ice cream body. McGee gives the ratio for good ice creams at 15% sugar, 10 to 20% fat (says that 17% fat are required for smooth freezing in a home ice cream maker), and 60% water. I suppose that the missing ingredients (to sum these figures to 100%) are solids which are neither fat nor sugar, regular ice cream gets them from the egg, dairy and fruit (or other taste carrying ingredients). He doesn't mention starch, I have never made a specifically starch-based ice cream, but have had good results when the starch just comes into the ice cream from ingredients added for flavor, such as pumpkin, chocolate or peas.
So, for 1 liter ice cream base, you want something like 170 g agave syrup (it is not 100% sugar, but a bit less). 150 g almond oil (or another oil) is probably a good place to start for the fat, the almond milk will contribute a little bit more to get to the those 17%, and besides using emulsifiers smooths the ice cream too. Around 2% starch should be sufficient, if you want to use it at all, that is 20 g tapioca. Add 660 g almond milk and you are up to 1000 ml.
I wouldn't use both guar and xanthan gum. They have a good synergy, which is used for making firm jellies, but an ice cream base should be soft. I would use only one or the other, in a concentration of a little below 1%, so something like 8 g would be my first guess. Just add it on top of the 1000 g above, the ratio of fat, solids and water I cited is not so sensitive as to be thrown off by the small addition.
I would start by cooking up the tapioca in the almond milk like regular starch based pudding. When it is ready and cooled off a bit, I'd add the agave, any aroma extracts you want to use and a pinch of salt. Then carefully add the xanthan while mixing with a blender or an immersion blender (they are better than mixers at emulsification). Once the xanthan has been blended in, add the fat, it will emulsify instead of floating on top. If you are using solid fat (coconut oil, shortening), you should probably melt it first.
Leave the prepared base in an ice water bath for a few hours, or overnight in the fridge, for the gum to bind. Then put through the ice cream maker.
I haven't tried the above, and don't know how much of tweaking it will need to become tasty. My knowledge just tells me that it should be close enough to a good recipe to use as a starting point.
The above is for vanilla ice cream, or to use some other extract in small amounts as the flavoring. I would only start experimenting with other tastes when the base recipe has been brought to a stable version. Then it is important to notice that they will bring in more sugar, water and other solids, and adjust the ratio accordingly.
Have you tried Swedish Glace? It is an Ice-Cream I use. I am lactose intolerant. Only Ice cream I have ever had. According to friends who've tasted it, it tastes like the top-range of 'normal' ice cream. I love it, it has several flavors: Vanilla, Chocolate, Strawberry and perhaps flavors I cannot remember.
I am in the UK, where it is sold in many supermarkets. I do not know if it sells in other nations [if you're from another nation].
Swedish Glace
First off, locust bean gum, guar gum, and tapioca starch are all natural thickeners. Xanthan gum is debatably artificial, but that's beside the point. All of the gums are normally used in very tiny amounts, like-1%-of-a-recipe tiny amounts. You'll also have the best luck getting them to blend if you blend them into your dry ingredients first.
Since those are all mainly used to minimize ice crystal formation in ice cream, not to thicken it, you'll have better luck if you just start with a thicker base. You could achieve this by using a more neutral, bulkier thickener in your almond milk, like cooking oats in it and then pureeing. You could also use something like cashew cream or coconut milk, which would be thicker on it's own.
Any ice cream base that is mostly water (like almond milk) is going to be very icy. The sugar (agave) that you're adding will help make the texture more fine, but it will still be more like a ... almond sorbet? You really want to get more fat in there somehow, be it by just adding a fat like coconut oil, or using a fattier base, like the creams mentioned above.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.210628
| 2013-12-10T04:23:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40130",
"authors": [
"Ari Fischer",
"Cascabel",
"Colin Stark",
"Cookie",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jordz2203",
"Mark Hawkins",
"Muhammad Usmaan Bin Khawer",
"Olivia Christman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandra",
"SourDoh",
"Stefano",
"V.L. Proud",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bchill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93321",
"rumblefx0",
"user7988440"
],
"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
}
|
62656
|
Can I use sous vide instead of pressure cooking
In a recipe, I have to pressure cook vegetables in mason jars in duck fat. I don't have a pressure cooker but I do have an Anova Sous Vide Immersion Heater - can I use that instead?
Any other factors I should be considering, or alternate methods to pressure cooking?
UPDATE:
Place vegetables in 500ml / 16 oz Mason jar no more than 3/4 full, cover with duck fat. Screw lid on jar tightly, and then loosen 1/4 turn to allow expansion of air during cooking
Pressure cook at a gauge pressure of 1 bar/15 psi until tender, about 20min
Strain duck fat through sieve and reserve
This sounds rather similar to the French confit method (slow cook in fat, and then let the whole thing set up & solidify, and stash it away) ... which is traditionally done around 200°F, which the Anova can do ... but it'd be better for holding them temp once the fat's already heated up. And there's the issue that if something calls for pressure cooking, there's typically a reason for it. If nothing else, you'd have to greatly adjust the cooking time.
It would be helpful if the OP could update to share the recipe to clarify what is actually intended.
If this is a recipe that will be served immediately, you may be able to use an alternate cooking method. If the reason is to store in your pantry, NO, do not use any method other than pressure cooking.
From Pressure cooking Wiki
The standard cooking pressure of 15 psi was determined by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1917. At this pressure, water boils at 121 °C (250 °F).
You need this higher temperature to safely process certain items for storage.
From Fresh Preserving.com
When preserving vegetables, meats, poultry and seafood, safety is key. To keep what your canning safe to eat, and fresh tasting, you’ll use the Pressure Canning method which heats the contents to 240º F eliminating the risk of foodborne bacteria. You should also know that if even you’re mixing high acid foods with low-acid foods you must use the pressure canning method
This is a good point. I was assuming this is a recipe for serving immediately, not preserving, but that is probably not a good thing to assume. :-)
moscafj, The temperature at which pathogens in spore form are destroyed is well above the boiling point of water. Unless the jar and its contents have been fully sterilized, it will not be shelf stable.
@SeanHart and others...I stand corrected!! It is precisely the combination of veg and oil that is the concern for the risk of botulism. If, however, this were going to be used in the short term, Douglas Baldwin explains that, after sous vide and rapid chilling, the product will be safe:
below 36.5°F (2.5°C) for up to 90 days,
below 38°F (3.3°C) for less than 31 days,
below 41°F (5°C) for less than 10 days, or
below 44.5°F (7°C) for less than 5 days See: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety_Pathogens_of_Interest
@Debbie M. I don't think this is entirely true. It is a factor of temperature over time. In commercial production lines with accurate temperature control you can use much lower temperature over a longer time to the achieve same result without destroying food textures etc
@TFD You are right it is a factor of temperature over time, but bouncinghippo doesn't seem to be in a commercial setting. When it comes to home canning/preserving I feel that food safety is the most important issue.
@Debbie M. The Anova can hold an accurate temperature, you just have to know the time?
@TFD this is where I was headed with my earlier comment (which I retracted). Everyone reading this should look at the Baldwin link I referenced above. While we can take care of most pathogens with longer times at lower temps in a water bath, botulism is always a concern when considering longer storage. Baldwin describes how to manage the risks.
hi guys, i've updated the original question with the recipe where i plan to substitute pressure cooking with an alternate cooking method (possibly sous vide?)
@bouncingHippo that is helpful, but more important from a safety standpoint is what you intend to do with them after the canning process. Do you want them to be shelf stable? If so, pressure cooking is the only way to go. If you plan on using them in the short term, see the Baldwin link in my earlier comment. If you are going to consume in the short term, use the circulator, chill rapidly and refrigerate of freeze. Baldwin explains shelf life.
@moscafj the vegetables are meant to be cooked confit in the duck fat and be stored only for a few days. if thats the case, how long and at what temp should i cook the vegetables using the immersion heater - with or without the mason jar?
@bouncingHippo 85-90C for an hour should do it. Cool and refrigerate.
Assuming, as Debbie notes, that this is not a recipe for preserved food, yes you should be able to, but I'm not sure it is the best/only option available to you. Choosing the substitute method should be based on what your best judgment tells you is the reason the recipe author chose the original method. (BTW, including your recipe in questions like this will help get you better answers faster.)
Most things you cook in a pressure cooker can also be cooked on the stovetop or in the oven as well with modifications on time and temperature, or, yes, adjusted to be cooked sous-vide. (Full disclosure -- I haven't yet tried sous-vide. I do cook a lot with pressure cookers, and frequently adjust and adapt my recipes so I can use my pressure cooker.) I think using a boiling water bath (if you have a large enough pot, such as for home canning) might be closer than sous-vide to the pressure cooker-canning jar method, but sous-vide should probably work, too. If you do want to do sous-vide for this, just use a reliable time/temp guide for the specific veggies in question.
Cooking in a pressure cooker increases the heat above boiling so if the recipe is expecting the duck fat or the vegetables to do something specific at a higher heat then this would not happen in the lower temperatures of the sous-vide method. If you need the higher heat to get the fat to penetrate the vegetables, for example, you might be better off oven-roasting at the same temperature.
I doubt this is the case. I suspect they are using the pressure cooker for decreasing the cooking time, although that depends on which vegetables and how long in the cooker. But use your judgment here -- if a recipe from a reliable source requires you to go through the hassle of setting things up in a canning jar in a pressure cooker for a very short time, then cooking speed IS NOT the reason, and probably sous-vide isn't the right choice as a replacement.
Cooking in a canning jar will prevent browning and caramelization; sous-vide would give the same results in this respect, as would cooking in a canning jar in a boiling water bath.
NOTE: Without having read the recipe, I am guessing that it is likely that the recipe is only partially cooking the vegetables in the pressure cooker and completing the cooking in another way with the rest of the ingredients. In that case, you'll need to adjust your cooking time accordingly for whatever substitute method you use.
Hi @NadjaCS i've updated the question with the original recipe. i believe the vegetables are meant to be cooked confit in the duck fat and be stored only for a few days. if thats the case, how long and at what temp should i cook the vegetables using the immersion heater - with or without the mason jar?
If you store it in the fridge and for only a couple days then the food safety concerns should go away. I find that a pressure cooker usually halves the cooking time for longer-cooking foods, so in the mason jar in a boiling water bath, probably 40 minutes. If sous-vide just check times for the specific vegetable. I think the fat won't change that much.
Have you considered using the micro-wave instead?
ChefSteps (which are very fond of sous-vide) seems to prefer this.
Quick and Easy Vegetable Confit
hi i've updated the original recipe, its for a modernist turkey stew
@bouncingHippo now I am really confused. Are you cooking the veg. to be part of a stew that will be consumed in the short term? Or...are you canning veg. in duck fat for long term storage?
hi sorry to be confusing, the veg are to be cooked confit in duck fat. it should be edible for the next 2-3 days
@soegaard im a huge fan of ChefSteps btw! also, i've got a phobia using the microwave ever since i used it to microwave a towel with essential oils and it ignited - in the microwave!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.211324
| 2015-10-19T16:05:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62656",
"authors": [
" Mays580",
"Barbara Del Polito",
"Debbie M.",
"HThan",
"Jean B",
"Joe",
"Jude S",
"Lisa Peluso",
"MICHELLE THOMPSON",
"Marta Adair",
"NadjaCS",
"Robert C. Roland",
"Sean Hart",
"Stacy Milanovich",
"TFD",
"bouncingHippo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40166
|
need to convert US recipe calling for tomato sauce to equivilant in UK
I have a wonderful chili recipe that calls for 16 oz. of tomato sauce and need help finding an equivilant for my dear friend in the UK who wants to make this recipe. Is there a way she could delute a tube of tomato puree (similar to our tomato paste) to get the proper consistency and flavor? I'd appreciate any help with this. Thanks!!!
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29174/what-is-the-difference-between-tomato-puree-paste-and-sauce?rq=1
Which kind of tomato sauce does the recipe call for? You can get either "tomato sauce" as in a seasoned sauce to put on pasta or pizza, or "tomato sauce" (usually in smaller cans) that's basically just cooked tomatoes, pureed, and very minimally seasoned.
Tell your friend to buy around a 450g jar of passata. This is finely crushed, sieved tomatoes. It comes plain, or most supermarkets carry versions with onions, basil etc.
Tomato puree is an entirely different thing and I wouldn't go down that route.
There are also various pre-made tomato sauce jars available from the likes of brands like Dolmio that have various flavour combinations. Depending on the ingredients in the tomato sauce you use, one of those may be more appropriate. They tend to be thicker and more heavily seasoned and flavoured than straightforward passata.
US canned tomato sauce is a fully cooked product, possibly seasoned.
In that case I'd go for the Dolmio or Ragu option.
Rather than buying a 'tomato sauce' or something close, you might just make your owns sauce from fresh tomatoes. This will inevitably improve the quality of the sauce and the chili.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.211985
| 2013-12-11T16:05:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40166",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jimmy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Santiago Pereson",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93378",
"slothropbodine"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17035
|
Removing turmeric stains from white plastic
Possible Duplicate:
How do I remove turmeric stains from metal/plastic cookware?
I had tried detergents to remove some light turmeric strains off a plastic but after it failed then someone told me to keep the plastic affected with turmeric strains under sun rays in the afternoon. So, I kept it for 15 minutes and the strains were just vanished! How did it work?
The sun's UV radiation breaks up the dye (color) molecules that have stained your plastic. As the bonds in these molecules break down the color starts to fade and eventually may disappear.
This is why some plastics, paper, and other items with color fade over time when exposed to a lot of sunlight.
Fascinating! I had no idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.212259
| 2011-08-22T09:40:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17035",
"authors": [
"Digital Trauma",
"Katey HW",
"Lenny",
"Marcus Blättermann",
"fStevens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29388
|
Substituting soy milk for regular (cow) milk in crepes/pancakes
I normally make my Swedish pancakes with soy milk because my SO has a dairy sensitivity. But today I used cow's milk, and I noticed that my pancakes seemed to brown a lot faster than they usually do, resulting in an unattractive dark brown shade.
Is there anything to this, or was I imagining things?
(I checked out this question, which pertains to baking, and this question, which focuses on pasta and mashed potatoes, but I figure that pancakes/crepes might have a slightly different answer.)
Browning depends a lot on available sugar: if soya was unsweetened and skim milk was now used (higher lactose than 3%), I could see quicker browning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.212360
| 2012-12-22T22:44:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29388",
"authors": [
"E. Douglas Jensen",
"Ian MathWiz",
"Jason Orendorff",
"Mike Maki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68308"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109199
|
Is there a way to quantify smoke in meat while cooking?
I've observed across multiple meats and cuts of meats that the other impact of smoking varies greatly. Additionally, while actually smoking my perception of the flavor is overloaded and doesn't return to normal until probably the next day.
The three variables I consider are the
meat itself, the time spent in the smoker, and the temperature.
Outside of extremes (like obviously too hot or too short) I find it virtually impossible to disentangle the individual variables' impact on desired outcomes (smoke flavor added, fat rendering, protein breakdown) and undesired outcomes (dry, tough, et cetera)
The goal is to adjust my recipes more purposefully and efficiently; not just to follow someone else's recipe.
Is there a proxy (not simply tasting) way to know the amount of smoke penetration or smokey flavor?
Edit: I'm thinking something along the lines of the charts showing sous vide eggs by temperature, or the doneness of a steak, or milk in tea. The intent is to known that "it's done enough" while smoking.
There's a reason there's so much variation in opinion on what the best things to do during a BBQ are, and much of it just comes down to subjective tastes. The egg chart works because it's easy to control the other variables -- this isn't possible with meat. Even if you manage to control for the meat geometry there's still huge variation in how nearly identical looking pieces can cook.
My BBQing colleagues use the cut-test - a ring of smoke penetration can be seen (in pork and chicken at least, I don't know about darker meats) in the meat that has some bearing on how heavily the meat has been smoked. I don't know if this is standard practice or just something they came up with (Edit: turns out it is something BBQ judges look for).
It seems that this is related to how long the meat was smoked, how hot the smoker and probably how the meat was pre-treated (brined?, marinaded?, rubbed?).
In response to @phil's comment, I have been to the source of all BBQ knowledge, amazingribs.com, where they combine science and BBQ and had a look for smoke rings: It turns out that the smoke ring is actually linked to Myoglobin - a pink protein in the meat, and its exposure to heat, nitric oxide and carbon monoxide, NOT smoke (particles in suspension in the air) per se, but gasses made by combustion of wood or charcoal in the presence of air. It only happens at temps below 170 F (~77 C). So it doesn't directly measure how much smoking has gone on, but rather how long it has been in the presence of CO and NO at relatively low temperatures - often in direct relation to how long it has been smoking.
So - TLDR, the "smoke ring" is not directly related to smoke, but rather to the presence of gasses found in high abundance in smoke.
Visually inspecting the ring of smoke as described is the closest answer to the direct question, and what I was hoping to find... Any citations pointing to something like this would be a preferable answer to the alternatives described in the other answers.
@Phil - added more info.
Well... yes. There are analytic chemistry techniques used to measure the concentration of phenols, which are the primary contributors to a "smoky" flavor. You could test samples taken from the meat at different depths to measure penetration. You'd need a reasonably well-outfitted chemistry lab to do a good job of this.
Honestly, though, objective measurements are not the right way to go about this. There's a reason food scientists do both chemical and organoleptic tests. Objective chemical measurements are always going to be an imperfect approximation of subjective experience. If the color of the test strip tells you something's not very smoky, and your tongue tells you it is, which are you going to believe?
If what you're looking for is a way to reliably compare the results of multiple attempts over time, just take small samples and freeze them, then compare them [using your tongue] once you're back at max taste.
I'm looking for a practical technique in part to avoid needing to cook enough samples to do what's suggested. I should probably update the question when I can wordsmith that.
@Phil recipe design needs tons of experimentation, always. You can never calculate good taste, you have to cook many samples, tweak and compare. If you don't want to do that, then recipe design is not for you.
@rumtscho I hear what you're saying, but "only a fool deals in absolutes". Some cooks may be able to "calculate good taste" on a new dish, as their own brand new recipe, strictly with enough experience in similar dishes and the same flavor profiles 1000's of times.
I know of no such scale, however you could use a Subjective Organoleptic approach, which is how the Scoville chili heat scale worked (although they use a chemistry based approach for the most part now). My understanding of it is that you dilute food and test how much of it you need to detect the quality you are looking for, like sweet, acidity or smokiness. Strong flavors will be detectable much more diluted than weak ones, so by testing multiple foods you can build up a picture of the subjective strength of each on that characteristic.
Use measured amounts of ingredients like smoke salt or liquid smoke.
If your current methods of introducing the smoky flavor to a dish can't be easily measured, you could consider using alternative methods to do so that could be. For example, you could measure out an amount of an additive like liquid smoke or smoke salt that you could add to the dish. That way, every time you use the additive, you'll be able to ensure that the same amount of smoky flavor is added if you use the same amount of the additive, and since you're not using actual smoke, you'll be able to taste the food to judge its flavor without having your ability to taste the smoky flavor drowned out by the smoking process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.212466
| 2020-06-21T17:56:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109199",
"authors": [
"Phil",
"TCooper",
"bob1",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107488
|
Should I top up pickling cabbage solution?
I'm making a first attempt at pickling cabbage. I compressed some cabbage in a suitable container, and added hot vinegar with spices to it, making sure to fill it right up to the brim. I put it in the fridge.
The next day I take a look at it, and presumably the cabbage absorbed some of the liquid, since there's a 5cm or so gap at the top.
Should I add more vinegar to it and top it up? Or just leave it as it is?
next time you make it, make certain all the air bubbles come to the top, I think this is what happened; you poured your vinegar solution and the cabbage trapped the air bubbles making it looks like your filled to the top.
Generally yes you should top up the solution, anything exposed to air even in the fridge will start to spoil. Many pickling jars have an insert and/or weight that you can add at the top to make sure the food remains submerged.
Are you making vinegar pickles or fermented pickles? Sauerkraut is usually a fermented product, which uses salt, not vinegar. So, I am a little unclear.
In either case, I'm doubtful that the cabbage absorbed anything, but your vegetables should always be submerged. Usually that is accomplished by weighing them down. If they are fully compressed you can certainly top off your container with a brine solution. The reason for this is that the cabbage above the solution will likely develop mold.
The refrigerator is not a typical place for fermentation to happen. Pickling usually takes place at slightly warmer temperatures (though, if you are just making vinegar pickles, which are not fermented, the fridge is the right place). I keep mine in a cold basement room, for example. Refrigeration will dramatically slow the fermentation process.
It's pickling, not fermenting, so I'm using vinegar.
In that case, because you are at refrigeration temps, the same advice generally applies, though you are at less risk of mold forming (as long as you keep fingers out of the container).
@haedrian- They are both pickling. There is vinegar pickling and fermentation pickling. You sound like you expected "pickling" to imply vinegar but that is not the case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.212916
| 2020-04-12T06:49:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107488",
"authors": [
"Haedrian",
"Max",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29758",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109857
|
Mustard Flavor disappears
I make my macaroni salad with mayonnaise and mustard, but the mustard flavor always disappears so I have to add more.
Why does the mustard flavor disappear?
The flavour of water-based mustard reaches its peak about 15 minutes after you make it. After that it declines quite rapidly. If you're making fresh, then you really should make just enough for 'today'.
The predominant 'hit' of mustard is very volatile & will quickly dissipate.
Store-bought mustard is vinegar- & oil-based, which makes the flavour last longer, but at a loss to the overall mustard hit.
It shouldn't degrade in anything like the short time water-based does… it will be as bland tomorrow as it was today ;)
I use store bought yellow mustard and after an hour or two the mustard flavor is gone ;and I have to add more
Maybe the type you use is still almost 'real' & volatile. That or you need to define 'flavour' more carefully.
The taste of the mustard. You don't know what mustard tastes like?
I know exactly what mustard tastes like… but which mustard? Premium Colman's English Mustard powder, or that glowing yellow stuff McDonald's dares to call mustard? The only qualities the two share are the name. if you can't describe what you mean without getting defensive, there's not a lot further this QA can go.
It is Gulden's American Bold Yellow Mustard sorry if I was defensive.
It's not a brand I've heard of, so I don't know its flavour profile or how that changes over time. Store bought stuff should be pretty stable, as it's got to last weeks or months.
A late thought - do you make this warm then allow to cool? 'Salad' implies cold, but macaroni doesn't start out cold...
I let the macaroni cool before I add the dressing
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.213117
| 2020-07-25T15:32:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109857",
"authors": [
"Christine DeNorio DeCastro",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85820"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60037
|
Carbon steel seasoning
I know there's dozen of posts and discussion everywhere, but I'm getting pretty confused. Everyone has something different to say : use rapeseed oil, coconut, olive oil, flaxseed, someone in the oven, someone on the stove..
I found two good videos, made by professional people, but they use a different process to season them:
here and here
The eggs are moving much better in the second video than any of my non stick pans, and I would like to obtain that result, and possible mantain it, without removing the seasoning.
Which one do you recon works better? I also have an electric stove, so it may be better using the oven instead.
My knowledge is never to wash them under the water. Just remove the sticky stuff using a spatula, put some oil to keep them well and if you need use salt and a paper towel to scrub.
I read that someone is deglazing using some water in the process, or scrub them with a a brush under the water (My old chef told me never to do that so.. I'm a bit confused)
I am seeking help from the experts... :)
Me think you will need to try them out; if one does not work, clean the pan and start with another one; I don't have a Carbon Steel pan, but I would do the salt/potato/oil method, it looks more fun than just oil.
Check the oil level on those fast moving eggs!
That's a good point TFD :)
It might be better for you to understand some of the factors involved, and make your own decision how to treat your pan. Below is some basic information I think you will find helpful.
Background: I've successfully reclaimed old, rusty pans, fixed a few that family put in the dishwasher (TERRIBLE IDEA) and so on, and maintain my own regularly.
Cast iron is "seasoned" when it develops a highly carbonized and oxidized surface. This surface coating is both harder and more slippery than the plain iron.
This surface only truly develops with 3 things: High heat, carbon and oxygen in the presence of your pan.
The heat can be provided by a stove, oven, campfire, grill, torch, etc.
The Carbon can be provided most effectively by some kind of oil. I prefer crisco/shortening most. Baconfat second, but that's just an opinion.
The third thing is oxygen. That's in the air, so it is both free and plentiful.
Now, other things to consider. If you have an unseasoned, rusty or poorly seasoned pan, it actually might be best to "start over". Using some kind of abrasive (steel wool, sos pad, even light sand paper) you can remove any unwanted coating, until you get to the grey, dull iron underneath.
Then apply oil, and apply high heat in the presence of oxygen.
Sometimes this coating may take several applications to develop, and will actually get smoother and darker with use. Rubbing with things like salt and whatnot can actually act to kind of polish the surface.
And the best part is, if you truly don't like how an application turned out, scrub it raw, and start over. You'll be removing almost immeasurable amounts of the iron. I have my GREAT GREAT Grandmother's skillet, and it has been seasoned and re-seasoned perhaps a hundred times in its life.
The rest is mostly guesswork, opinion and conjecture.
I hope this helps.
Thanks, I did a lot of research before posting in here, so I kinda knew those things.. I'm not able to find crisco in the UK, so I need to use something else. I have a bottle of cold press rapeseed oil (liquid). The pan is new so there's no rust in it luckily :)
That's good then. I think of cast iron skillets as being kind of an "old technology", so generally I think older methods are best suited. Oil is great, just a suggestion from personal experience, you don't need to much. Just enough to make the metal "shiny" is usually enough oil. Do you have access to a charcoil or gas grill? That's what I've been using recently with a lot of success.
Unfortunately, no access. But I've read some posts where people claim good results baking the pan for 90 min at 350/400, and I think I can give it a try, it should create a uniform layer
what oil do you think is best for this?
Honestly, I think the 'cleaner' the oil the better. I would go with a highly processed, highly filtered oil. Canola, generic 'vegetable' oil, etc. Also, so long as you have good ventilation, I would go even hotter. I would try wiping it down (no drips or pooling) with oil, then toss it in a pre-heated 450-500F oven. It should be ever so slightly smoking. What I might call "oxidizing" of the hydrocarbons (oil), others might call "burning"
I think I should preheat at 200 with the pan in to avoid bigger temperature leap. The pan may warp, as this is not thick cast iron but 3mm carbon steel. For the rest, I agree: i'll run this 6-7 times with a very thin layer of oil in it
Sorry, forgot about this being carbon steel. The same rule applies for the most part. 200F is simply too cool. It will take a temp of at likes 425 to get carbonizing of the oil, short of an synthetically high oxygenated environment (DANGEROUS). Also, warping really is only an issue with uneven heating, in fact you'd have more of an issue with a pan on the stovetop empty, on high heat. Ovens are typically used in the initial annealing process anyways.
yeah, sorry. 200 just to preheat, then I'll raise up to 450 or more.
The best surfaces I have made are with Peanut Oil baked on at 385 degrees for an hour or two for each layer of seasoning. Peanut oil has a higher smoking point than most other oils, but isn't as expensive as flax. This means it has better tolerance for high temp cooking without the seasoning polymers breaking down into smoke and ash. Additionally, it produces a harder surface than most oils, again with the exception of flax which is very expensive. I find it's the best middle of the road solution as a perfect oil that doesn't cost so much that it's expensive to maintain your seasoning.
For any plain steel; carbon steel, cast iron etc, but not stainless or non-stick
Remove previous bad seasonings, or on a new pan remove containments and manufacturing residues
Check the pan surface for any metal protrusions, usually a quick scrape with a hard metal spatula will remove these, if not, consider other methods to remove them. You should be able to run your palm over the surface without cutting yourself
I use a steel scourer pad and some dish soap and scrub it hard and thoroughly. Then heat on a stove or in an oven till it stops smoking. Best to do this outside if you can. Scrub clean again
Polymerise with high temperature oil
Use the highest temp oil you have in kitchen. I don't think it makes any difference which one you use
Apply a light coating and heat until it starts to fully smoke, let it cool a bit, then apply another layer, repeat until you get bored, or the pan is black
Finish by heating a complete layer of salt, until the salt has fully discoloured. The salt will have absorbed the non-polymerised oil from pan surface
When cool, the surface of the pan should be shiny black, and smooth to the touch. Any sticky bits need more work, any metal protrusions need to be removed
After the pan is uses to cook anything, wash it out with water and soap using a brush, oil very lightly, and re-heat until smoke starts
For Soft sticky things like eggs, do the salt treatment again, just before cooking the eggs
Thanks for your info. This is pretty much what I've seen in many post/videos. I think I'll try flaxseed oil for this, or cold pressed rapeseed.
+1 for the suggestion to repeatedly layer the coating, +10 for the word polymerize, +1000 for suggesting to repeating layering until bored.
I do the same for the cast iron or carbon steel.
Heat up on stove when new or stripped down.
Let it cool to room temp
Apply very thin layer of flaxseed
Place upside down to oven on high.
Do the cycle of coating and baking 3 times.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.213289
| 2015-08-19T00:39:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60037",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Schneider",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Christine Brooks",
"Deborah Rodriguez",
"Escoce",
"Max",
"Ortopediasuiza",
"Roberto Salizar",
"Sasha Laiter",
"TFD",
"Tom Holden",
"Vargan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37652"
],
"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
}
|
66180
|
The ultimate chapati
Most of indian housewives make chapatis like a boss! My wife misses her mom's chapatis, so I want to surprise her with "the ultimate chapati", so I would like to ask some questions about the process.
I've seen her mom make chapatis, and I can assure this are the ingredients she uses:
Atta flour of a brand I have.
Mineral water
Salt
Sunflower Oil
That's it. I know many recipes call for ghee instead of oil. What would be the difference?
What do you think is the perfect dough hidration to make a soft but also thin chapati? I've tried a few times, and sometimes my chapati becomes hard and crispy, so I have to make it thicker, just what I'm trying to avoid.
Mom doesn't let the dough rest for a long time, just half and hour tops. So if I want only 30 mins dough rest, it should be more or less hydrated? Also she does not knead a lot, the dough is kneaded in 10 mins, so what you think? Is soft and thin chapatis possible with 10 mins knead and 30 mins rest, or is mom a magician?
Then comes shaping.. what's better to let the dough rest before cutting? or cut the portions for each chapati and then let it rest? Mom lets the full dough rest, and makes the portions just when she starts rolling.
Rolling a perfect shape is just a question of practise, but I always find that putting dough portion into flour before rolling helps. Mom uses very little extra flour when rolling, only at the begining. Altough She puts few drops of oil, folds the portion, and the shapes it, round and thin. So what's better for rolling? Only flour or Oil? Do we put oil during kneading? How much, does it count into the hidration percent?
OK, once rolled, time too cook it. We have a "tawa" which is a flat pan. Guess gas stove is better but, can we do it with vitroceramic?. Just so you know, mom does not use the direct cook on the flame method, she only cooks on top of the hot tawa. Is it better to have tawa at medium high or at max temp? I think sometimes it became hard and crispy for me because of the high temp. Mom uses max temp on gas stove.
Mom's chapatis bubble up like a baloon.. Mine don't. Whats the secret of bubbling? I guess this is what makes the chapati soft, with those 2 layers. Why doesn't my chapati bubble?
Finally preserving softness. I eat mom's chapati half an hour later and it's still soft. Mine get's Harder after a few minutes. Why?
Please help me make the Ultimate chapati.
My understanding is that the puff comes from making sure that you have the cooking surface at the correct temperature ... but what that temperature is, I have no idea.
I know you're asking about one food type but you're asking a huge number of different, specific questions. You might have better luck getting good answers if you break this into separate questions.
As a side note, is it not possible for you to communicate with your Mother-in-Law to get her recipe/method so that you can make the exact same ones?
Hello Jack, you have some very good questions there! But we cannot really answer them all at once. If you would split that up and post it as multiple separate questions, that would work well. Not only does it make the questions manageable, it also allows people to more easily find the information about a specific problem, and you get more reputation, as each question will be upvoted separately. Also check if some of them are duplicates - I am certain we have had the "foll in flour or oil" before, for example.
IMO I can't break it out, as the full process is related. I want someone with chapati experience to guide me though the whole process of mixing ingredients/proportions/selection, resting, shaping/rolling, cooking and storing. That's it the end of the day. Just I want you to have this ideas in mind before giving an answer. The question is actually.. hey MasterChef! How do you cook your chapatis so they are perfect like my mom's? round, thin, soft and tasty!
Partial answer here: Water temperature has a definite influence, a few recipes use boiling water, and I found the chapati made that way excellent. What boiling water will do:
(definitely) inhibit formation of long gluten strands, so you get a texture that bites through more easily (that effect is drastic - try making seitan from a dough that has been mixed with boiling water...). This is a well known method for some types of chinese pancakes and wrappers, too.
(likely) partially cook the flour so you can get away with a short time on the griddle, without drying the bread out too much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.214169
| 2016-02-03T18:53:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66180",
"authors": [
"Angie Griswold",
"Catija",
"Jack Casas",
"Joe",
"Renee McNamara",
"Rose Marie Steffen",
"Sandra Walter",
"Stephen Mc pherson",
"Wendy Tate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pdxleif",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41501
|
Bread with no salt
I've been doing a lot of yeast bread baking as of late and I got to wondering what the salt in the bread was for. Upon doing some research it turns out (aside from perhaps some flavor) the purpose is to "Control" the yeast during the rise. This got me to wondering if it was possible to make a yeast bread with no salt at all. My first attempt was met with defeat, and upon some more experimentation I was able to get the salt down 75% with success. Its the last 25% that alludes me.
Is it possible to make a yeast bread with no salt?
What is the problem/symptoms if you leave out all the salt? I have done it (leaving all the salt out) frequently, and in general I find the result good enough. Also, how much yeast do you start with? If you are relying on salt to inhibit yeast growth, maybe you are just using too much yeast?
What I usually run into is the top of the load collapsing in on itself. The recipe I am using calls for 2 teaspoons of yeast.
"2 teaspoons" doesn't say much. What is important is the ratio of yeast to flour by weight, with usable amounts ranging from 0.5% to 10% of the flour weight in raw yeast (divide by 3 for active dry). Numbers at the edge of the interval are difficult to work with, 2% for lean and 3% for enriched breads are common, maybe 1% more for quick rises. (2% means 2 gram yeast to 100 g flour).
@rumtscho thanks! I'll have to do some more experimenting later today.
Look up Tuscan Bread which is traditionally made with no salt.
I normally use about 1/3 the salt in the breadmaker recipes I make (most frequently pizza dough or olive bread where it's not needed for flavour). I haven't found that I need to reduce the liquid (though I might try next time) but I do reduce the sugar to about 2/3 of the original value - sugar is a very accessible source of energy for the yeast and gets it going fast - my theory was that it was too fast. Not an answer as I haven't tried removing the salt completely, but perhaps somewhere else to look.
If you make a bread without salt, you will have to make the dough dryer as well. Salt (for lack of a better word) competes with gluten and yeast for moisture. Without the salt, the yeast will work a bit faster (this effect isn't that pronounced) and the gluten will be very soft. The effect on the gluten usually causes loaves without salt to fall flat as the gluten is overly extensible but not very elastic. This could be part of why your loaves are collapsing, as without salt it is very hard to maintain the tension of the outer gluten sheath.
As SAJ14SAJ points out, the lack of salt will make the bread taste very "flat". While there are breads traditionally made without salt, they are usually served with very flavorful accompaniments like olives and sardines. Depending on what you're using the bread for, I'd suggest using an enriched dough as the added flavor of eggs, butter, and/or sugar will also help to cover the lack of salt.
Edited to add links to a couple of articles describing salt's effects on dough and one on salt taste in general.
I have been successfully making yeast bread without salt for more than 3 decades.
There's really no particular difficulty in doing so.
If you are habituated to excessive salt levels, as in virtually all commercial processed foods, I suppose you might find that it tastes funny, but if you stop eating too much salt for a couple of weeks you'll discover that you don't "need" salt to make food (including yeast bread) have flavor.
Seconded, good one
In my experience, you can reduce the amount of salt more (up to 100%) in white bread than you can wholemeal/brown. Less salt in a wholemeal loaf and it doesn't seem to rise as much, and the consistency is different (I have not tried varying the amount of moisture as suggested above). In a white loaf, I can't see much difference in this regard.
As has been said above, salt does play a role in the process, but also the taste. I don't like things very salty, so tried leaving it out. I sometimes make a white French loaf with zero salt, and it's fine, although does taste very different. If you are putting e.g. salted butter on it, this may not be so pronounced. I generally reduce the amount by 50-75% for white, and 25-50% for brown/wholemeal. But if you are serving it with something sweet, saltiness can complement this well (IMO).
To prove it, see below photo of a white French loaf made in an automatic breadmaker with zero salt (just dried yeast, flour and water).
It is certainly possible to make bread without salt. You would adjust the initial quantity of yeast and proofing times to get the desired outcome (it sounds like your loaves are over-proofing).
The thing is, it would taste terrible. Enhancing the flavor is the more important role of salt in bread, not just governing the growth rate of the yeast.
I disagree with the "terrible" part. The enhancement in taste exists, but it is small, and while I can notice it, often I don't miss it when I decide to go without.
@rumtscho Okay, awful, flat, bland, boring, tasteless, dead, lifeless, icky.... :-) :-)
Certain Italian breads have no salt. The flavour comes from a long slow prove and really, really good olive oil for dipping :)
I would think its very possible to make a flavorful bread with no salt. Perhaps by adding something else to make up for it not being there as @ElendilTheTall suggests.
@ElendilTheTall Those would definitely be a fringe case, of which i have not previously heard :-) I stand by bland and boring for bread without salt. Prisons do that to punish prisoners for whom there is no other punishment.
I conclude that while salt certainly changes the taste, it is a matter of personal preference if you find this change necessary or optional. I have never met somebody who has found it unwanted, so bakers are on the safe side when adding it. And sure, this answer is right that taste is the main reason for salt in bread.
Tuscan bread is very bland on it's own but has a really good open texture. It's sort of like chewable water.
I make my machine bread totally saltless and usually add grains...seeds etc. according to taste and availability.
It is very important to reduce the amount of yeast!!! I only add 2/3 of the yeast in the recipe and add a 1/4 teaspoon of bread improver and a bit of brown sugar and oil, of course.
It tastes great as is when just baked. Once it is cool, I toast it and tastes great again because the heat develops the grains/seeds taste.
As with everything else: adjustment and compromise.
Use French's NoSalt instead of salt.
Now, how would that product interact with the yeast? OP asked not for substitutions, but whether leaving out the salt would influence the outcome. Welcome to the site, btw!
This is generally marketed as a salt substitute for seasoning, it'd be nice if you could expand your answer with information about its properties in baking. FYI for everyone else: This product is Potassium Chloride.
Which, if you're on a salt-restricted diet, it may be that you're also taking a high blood pressure medicine. Since potassium chloride interacts negatively with that, and you can't use this as a substitute.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.214671
| 2014-01-27T14:02:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41501",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Don Branson",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fattie",
"Gary Kruger",
"Greg Hilvers",
"International Shipping",
"Random832",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Thummper",
"Yifan",
"Zuha Shah",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97803",
"iamkrillin",
"rumtscho",
"user96744",
"vicky",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
38287
|
Heating up with steam
Recently I realised that if I don't have a microwave oven, I can use boiling water to heat up certain types of food by boiling water in a deep bowl, putting water and the food in a covered smaller bowl on top of the boiling water.
Is it a commonly used way of heating up? Also, which are the advantages of disadvantages of it, compared to microwave oven?
I tried to make your question a bit more clear, feel free to change it if you want.
This is very common. What you are describing would usually be called either a bain marie or a double boiler. It is normally used for things that you don't want to overheat, such as hollandaise sauce, ganache, and some other dairy based sauces.
As for advantages and disadvantages, it really depends on what you're heating. For the sauces mentioned above, the advantage is ensuring that no part of the sauce will get above 212F, the temperature of the boiling water. Microwaving will be faster for most things though.
The advantage of this method (which sourd'oh properly identified as a double boiler) is that it
is slow
has the food accessible in the open.
It is used for the sauces sourd'oh mentioned not just because of the limiting effect, because this would be too hot for most foods with which it is used. It is used because certain foods have to be worked in a certain temperature range. Egg yolks start binding at maybe 50 celsius, and are overcooked at 83-ish. You can't beat a hollandaise on the counter. But put it in a pan on the hob, and the part on the bottom will overheat. So the double boiler is much better. Besides, you want a round bowl for proper beating, and heating a round bowl on a planar hob is a pain.
Every time you have to stir/beat something while heated, the double boiler not only has an advantage over the microwave, you cannot even use the microwave for that.
The advantage of the microwave above the double boiler is, in turn, its speed. If you want to heat stuff which doesn't react badly to quick heating and doesn't have to be stirred or beaten, it is less fuss and more speed.
But if you have a reasonably quick hob, the sole advantage of the microwave above it is that you can heat stuff in the container you want to use for serving. For example, you can heat a porcelain mug of milk in the microwave, while you have to use a metal pan for the hob and refill the milk, giving you one more item to wash. However, the milk from the microwave will have hot and cold zones (happens to me always, even though the mw's I used had a turntable), while the hob heated milk will be more evenly heated. Conclusion: a hob plus a dishwasher reduce the advantages of a microwave to zero, while the double boiler is a niche tool which can never be replaced by a microwave.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.215273
| 2013-11-08T21:51:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38287",
"authors": [
"Belle C",
"Ej Hill",
"Ramon Medeiros",
"SourDoh",
"chill_vibes",
"djzhao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90222",
"indo188bet4 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41262
|
Using Sourdough Breads to reduce Fructans
Short version: How can you minimise the fructan content of a spelt sourdough loaf? Is using a freshly rebuilt starter (low acidity, low sourness) ok? Is 9-10 hours of proofing enough, or should I retard the proof?
Long version:
Hi guys, my sister is on a low FODMAP diet, which includes reducing the intake of fructose and fructans. Wheat is quite high in fructans, so it's on the banned list in the FODMAP diet. Spelt, however is much lower in fructans and can be tolerated by more people. My sister can't tolerate "regular" spelt bread, but is fine with high % (33%+) sourdoughs which have fermented for a long time.
I'm just starting out making sourdough breads, but I've gotten to the point where I'm concerned about the impact that my handling of the starter has on the taste of the bread. "Fresher" starters which have been recently rebuilt from about a tablespoon of starter + wheat & water have a great, fruity, mellow taste. Is this fresher starter still effective at breaking down the fructans in the dough, or should I opt for an older, more acidic starter.
Also, does the proofing temperature (room temperature vs fridge temperature) and therefore the length of the proofs impact the levels of frutans in the final loaf, or am I OK as long as the loaf doesn't resist a poke too much at the end of the proofing?
Thanks for your help,
Jeremy.
There isn't really any scientific information available about the fermentation of fructans in sourdough. I did find this page which says that there are some lactobacilli that are effective at breaking down fructans, but the effectiveness varies by strain of bacteria and type of fructans. (There are also many lactobacilli that don't break down fructans: of 712, only 16 were effective.)
While a longer fermentation time will mean more of the sugars in your dough are digested, since you are aiming to ferment a specific type of sugar, the establishment of your starter may be more important. According to this study, a couple of the strains of lactobacilli shown to be effective at breaking down fructans are found in well-established starters.
In short, rather than giving your dough a long fermentation time, it may be more effective to make dough with a high proportion of a well-established starter instead. The starter will have had a longer cumulative fermentation period to break down fructans, and if your starter has the appropriate culture, it will be more effective at breaking down the fructans in the added flour of your final dough. There is little research on this specifically, so this is largely conjecture and entirely dependent on the culture of your starter.
Reading this answer, I think it might be worth creating the starter in a high-fructan environment first. "long-established starters" means ones where the bacteria have evolved over many generations. If you want to have a natural selection which favors fructan-eating bacteria, you should let breed them in a high-fructan environment. So, it probably has to be a starter which has fed on wheat for generations.
The thing about sourdough is, however, that you are not in a sterile, highly controlled environment. Even if you start a culture with a specific strain of lactobacilli and yeasts, your sourdough culture will be "contaminated" with other strains as soons as it comes into contact with flour, water or air. Ultimately, only the strains that are best suited for the food supply, temperatures and other environmental conditions will be left after some time. Chances are those are not the strain(s) you started out with.
@Anpan As you'll see in the study linked, the lactobacillus strain it refers to is one most likely to be found in starters after several days of feedings (ie, it is well suited to the environment of a starter). As rumtscho pointed out, keeping your starter a high-fructan environment will favor the development of microbes suited to digest fructans.
I was mostly referring to "specially" selected strains you might be able to buy somewhere to start your sourdough with. In the end, you still cannot be sure what strains are in your sourdough unless you frequently sent it in for laboratory analysis. It's likely yes, but not guaranteed, which is probably important in this case.
You cannot ferment sourdough indefinitely.
The safest way to minimize the different sugar contents in the dough is just ferment as much of it as possible (though I never ferment more than 50% of the flour). While retarding exposes the dough to longer fermentation times it also exposes the microbes to lower temperatures (which slows fermentation). So unless by retarding you mean to let the dough "ferment to death" and just use it to improve the taste of a yeast bread, retarding will make no big difference in terms of sugar contents.
However, I'd like to tell you that starch is essentially a long chain of sugar molecules which get broken down in your intestines in any case (even by the same mechanism microbes in sourdough do it: using enzymes). So by ingesting starch you will - always - also get non-trivial amounts of fructose as well.
The big advantage to sourdough is that it can break down some sugars (or rather carbohydrates) that we (humans) cannot break down that well. If that's your goal: ferment 50% of the flour, knowing that it will also give the bread a strong taste.
Regarding your starter: As soon as your starter is strong enough to rise the dough on it's own again, the microbe composition and therefore the metabolism is not much different from your original starter. So in your case, it doesn't make a difference.
Personal experience: longer fermentation times allows me to eat sourdough without problems. Too short: 7–12 hours, and I feel the effects pretty quickly. About right: ~24 hour range, and I can eat and feel good. Just beginning to test the limit of what I can eat in a sitting before I feel the effects, or even if there is a (reasonable) limit.
Monash University's take: they concur with my experience. They say their tests indicate that longer fermentation of wheat bread, which in my understanding would always require a retarding step (correct?), is/can be okay for a low-FODMAP diet. They say a 2 slice max in a sitting. (Source.)
In reading about the process described by some of the baker's Monash has certified, it looks like what might be needed is a fermentation time in the 22-30 hour range. For example: Morpeth Sourdough Bakery says they have a 22 hour ferment time. You can find a link to their site by clicking here for a list of Monash Certified Bakeries.
Differences in process/ingredients should affect the needed time. Perhaps even a much shorter time could be achieved (?) if doing things a different way, such as a higher percentage of levain to begin with.
Just a thought: there are enzymes at work too, so while a cold rise slows down yeast/bacterial activity, enzymes may be the key factor in the longer time reducing the fructans.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.215537
| 2014-01-19T06:16:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41262",
"authors": [
"Amanda Mountford",
"Andrew",
"Anpan",
"J stol",
"Just Me",
"Kevin Xiangyu Hui",
"Michelle Sutter",
"Nigel Ainscoe",
"Raevel Herron",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97350",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8557
|
Making pasta: is oil justified?
Possible Duplicate:
Does oil in the boiling water prevent the spaghetti from sticking together?
Since time immortal I have added a couple tablespoons of oil to the water when cooking pasta. I have recently heard statements to the effect that there is no justification for the practice. Is that true? If not, what is a legitimate reason for adding oil to the water?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.216088
| 2010-10-26T22:34:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8557",
"authors": [
"Debra",
"Don Joe",
"Prelude",
"Von Lion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17584"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17333
|
How to prepare chicken tartare?
One of my favorite dishes is steak tartare with fried bread, garlic, capers, beets and raw egg yolk. I would like to try chicken tartare (food safety issues aside - I'm aware of the risks); however, I don't think that garlic, beet and caper match with chicken meat.
Another difference would be the difference in texture between chicken and beef - I can't imagine it is possible to scrape the chicken meat as I would do with beef.
My two questions are:
What preparation method for raw chicken would lead to the most pleasant texture? Sliced, minced, diced, mashed, etc.?
What accompaniments would pair best with this dish?
Added companion safety question, edited, reopened. I removed the pairing request for herbs and spices as I thought that was becoming a recipe request (off topic per [FAQ]). If another mod (or the community) feels that's ok, add it back in as I was on the fence about it.
As with all raw-meat or sushi dishes, this will never be 100% safe to eat; at best we are talking about a calculated food safety risk, with steps taken to mitigate that risk when possible. For this reason, it is CRUCIAL that the chicken be kept at fridge temperature as much as possible. When cutting, use a pre-chilled cutting board if possible, and serve immediately. For extra safety, blanch the chicken to kill surface pathogens, and slice off the cooked exterior.
Given the slimy, gelatinous texture of raw chicken, I believe the best results would come from finely dicing the chicken (small cubes) or very thinly slicing it. These approaches seem to work well for sushi and tuna tartare, which have similar textures. As with sushi, you need a shaving-sharp knife to get clean cuts.
For flavorings, your goals are twofold: add flavor and kill pathogens. An acidic sauce or marinade is obligatory, to reduce the pH below 4 and render it hostile to pathogens. The acidity should also reduce the slight sulfurous notes in raw chicken, by reacting with the sulfur in the molecules and making them less volatile. Taken to an extreme, this could produce a result much like ceviche, where the acid denatures the proteins and produces a texture akin to cooking. Fresh cut, finely-minced garlic is delicious and also hostile to pathogens. Many aromatic herbs also have antimicrobial properties, with fenugreek being a notable standout in this area.
There are a couple ways you could develop this into a full dish from there:
Do it up like a ceviche: fresh lemon/lime juice, garlic, chili flakes, onions, salt, and maybe a little cilantro or coriander.
Go European: white wine vinegar, thyme, rosemary, parsley flakes, garlic, black pepper, salt, and maybe a little olive oil
Go sushi! Marinate it in rice wine vinegar, soy sauce, and spices, and serve it in sushi rolls, accompanied with a LOT of wasabi and pickled ginger. Those condiments help mitigate the food safety risk with their antimicrobial/antiparasite properties.
Go sushi part 2: marinate it as above, but serve alone with a horseradish-based sauce containing lemon. EDIT: Apparently there is a real recipe along these lines. Toriwasa, or chicken sashimi. I found several recipes using wasabi (horseradish), soy sauce, parsley, and sake. The chicken's exterior is cooked, but the interior remains raw.
I should add a couple caveats to this: I have serious doubts about raw chicken as an ingredient, even with the best cooking possible. At best I think it will be edible but not delicious. The problem is that raw chicken is incredibly bland, and where it isn't bland, it has an unpleasant, slightly sulfurous flavor. The texture is somewhat off-putting too. I might be wrong, of course, but I think this is better handled as a theoretical exercise and not an actual dish. If you try any of these ideas and get food poisoning, it's your own dang fault for eating raw chicken... you boob.
This is some great ideas!
Unfortunately, I should add that I don't think that the results will be particularly good regardless of how it's handled. Raw chicken has a particularly unpleasant flavor/texture combination... there's a reason it's never served uncooked, where even seafood that can carry equally nasty pathogens and parasites IS.
One idea is to serve the chicken semi frozen to give it a nicer texture...
@Godisemo: If you serve semi-frozen, you have to marinate well before freezing and use a stronger-flavored marinade, because the cold will mute the flavor. Although in this case, that might be a blessing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.216172
| 2011-08-30T19:49:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17333",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chena Dink",
"Godisemo",
"Jamie Dixon",
"Lute",
"Richard Truong",
"Tim Bice",
"Trần văn khánh",
"brian",
"buzz3791",
"fvm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7250",
"ojdiditoo",
"solipsist",
"user476401",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20869
|
Some tahini tastes very salty, other tahini does not. Why?
I have bought several jars of tahini from different companies lately. All labels say, that they contain 100% hulled sesame seeds with no preservatives or artifical flavours added.
Some of the jars contained very salty tahini. At first, I even thought, the salty ones were contaminated with some inedible chemical. But then a friend from the Middle East told me, that he sees them as the original flavour and he did not like the unsalty ones, that he called "Australian tahini".
An example of the unsalty tahini is Mayver's Tahini Hulled, for the salty ones I did not find a brand, as they are just bottled by Australian local wholesalers for Mediterannean food.
What makes the tahinis so different? Do they - as I think - use different chemicals for hulling? Is the salt washed out of the tahini in the unsalty brands, as my friend thinks?
EDIT: One thing, I noticed: The salty tahini is runnier.
2nd EDIT:
After reading @Jefromi's comment, I've looked at the ingredients. Salt is not listed and I doubt, that I would taste 1/1000th of salt in the tahini. Surprisingly the less salty tahini contains 11 times more sodium than the salty one, which makes me wonder, if the salty tastes comes from another salt than NaCl.
Here are the contents of the tahinis per 100g (unsalty first - Melissa Tahini, salty second):
Energy
2728 kJ, 2924 kJ
Protein
25.8g, 31.6g
Fat - Total
54g, 63.6g
Carbohydrate - Total
17.1g,1.3g
Carbohydrates - Sugars
1.3g, Nil
Sodium
46mg, 4mg
Salty tahini
Unsalty tahini
The numbers are so different, I wonder, if they are correct.
I haven't noticed a salt taste difference between brands of tahini here in California. This may be something just with Australian brands.
The ingredients don't list salt either, right? (Just in case they're rounding 99.9% sesame seeds up to 100%.) Do the nutrition facts list different amounts of sodium?
Wait, the salty one has less sodium? Now I'm really lost. Also, yes, you could certainly taste a tenth of a percent of salt; 50-100 mg of sodium is probably typical for 100g of tahini, and that means 125-250mg of salt, so the difference between salted and unsalted is less than .25%.
@Jefromi, I wonder, if non-Sodium salts like potassium chloride taste salty ("salty" as in NaCl) ...
@Sebastian yes, they do. Not the same taste as NaCl, but there are "salt substitute" products intended for people on low-sodium diets which consist of a mixture of NaCl and KCl.
Just toured 17 tahini factories in Palestine. The traditional process soaks the sesame seeds in salt water, first to soften the hull for de-hulling, again to separate the hulls from the seeds, and finally to obtain the desired flavor. The seeds are rinsed in fresh water prior to drying and roasting.
Alternate de-hulling processes avoid the initial salt water soak, but retain the salt water soak after de-hulling and prior to rinsing and roasting to obtain the desired flavor.
I would think that the water being used for the hulling process has salt in it. The label is only going to list added items for the production of the finished product. Of course that depends on where you live and the food laws that govern your area.
If the manufacturer is purchasing seeds pre-hulled then he's not going to be listing any added salt because as far as he's concerned he's just putting sesame seeds into a grinder.
The fact that he doesn't need to ADD any additional salt as shown from the label shows that his supply is coming to him in a salty state already. Which is why he's probably using them because he's saving on the cost of salt in the recipe.
Would the sodium content be determined before or after processing? Wouldn't the salt from the salt water show up in the nutrition information?
The label on the side with the nutritional facts is an accumulated listing of nuitrients based upon the standardized recipe of the maker. The maker won't send out items they purchase for testing, they would use industry certified lab reports. With industry norm numbers and based upon the recipe, they calculate the nutrition label. The amount of sodium listed would be based on the avg amount of sodium in a sesame seed + whatever the recipe called for. Those labels are meant for an average guideline of nutritional contents.
Maybe try to buy 'original' middle-eastern Tahini actually made in an Arab country on Israel in Arab/Israeli owned stores or those catering to those crowds.
Here in Israel if you don't add salt while making the Tehina it's doesn't taste good enough...
"melissa" tahini use the water hulling process & do not roast their seeds,hence their hulled tahini is very light in colour,creamy,smooth & not salty.some processers use a caustic process & most processers roast their hulled tahini.you can tell if it is roasted by a darker colour & by taste.I think they all roast their unhulled tahini to help get the oil out?it tastes like it.nutritionally,roasted oil is not good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.216568
| 2012-01-29T00:12:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20869",
"authors": [
"Amelse Etomer",
"Andrew Law",
"Bill S",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Darren Gurney",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kialandei",
"Leewei",
"Mark Choi",
"SEONGGON RYU",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"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
}
|
117098
|
Whiskey sour: should the bourbon kill any germs in the egg whites?
Inspired by the TV show Mad Men, my wife and I made whiskey sours, which were really delicious. We followed the standard recipe, which includes a couple of ounces of bourbon and roughly half an egg white. We're not dead yet, but anyway, is it scientifically reasonable to believe that the bourbon would kill any germs present in the egg white? (I assume the lemon juice also makes it a very acidic environment.)
health benefits are off-topic
In all my years of drinking whiskey sours, I have never had one with egg whites in it but I am not a drink expert.
The alcohol is not enough to kill germs in your beverage. Typically alcohol content necessary for killing germs is between 60% and 95%.
Straight bourbon will not approach that.
You're "not dead yet" because the food supply is generally very safe, though consuming truly raw eggs is counter to FDA and USDA recommendations.
A recommendation compliant alternative to raw eggs is to use pasteurized eggs, which in my experience work just fine in cocktails.
Another alternative is to use aquafaba; that is, chickpea cooking liquid. Be sure to avoid aquafaba with any salt in it (either canned or homemade) , as that can add an unpleasantly 'hot dog water' taste to the final product. This also has the benefit of being suitable for vegans, in case that's relevant.
Its kind of interesting as these questions actually relate to one another.
Question A: Will bourbon kill the germs in egg whites?
In short, kind-of, sort-of. Alcohol will inherently deprive germs of the oxygen/hydrogen that they need to survive and reproduce, but the most effective disinfectants contain at least 60% alcohol. A far cry from your typical 70 proof bourbon (35% alcohol). That being said, any portion of the egg white that comes in contact with the bourbon (assuming 1 shot bourbon to 1 egg white) will have the germs drastically inhibited, just like you after a few whiskey sours!
Question 2: Am I getting the protein from the egg white.
This answer is easy. Yes. In the same way that the lime in ceviche does not kill the protein in the shrimp, whiskey, which is inherently acidic, does not destroy the protein in the egg.
But this is where it gets interesting, and, as far as I know, we are outside the world of observed science (at least a little bit).
Being an acid, whiskey would break apart the molecular structure of the egg proteins. This is what happens when you marinade the bird is brine, or cook the shrimp in ceviche, we are breaking apart the surface level of proteins to allow the brine/marinade to work its way into the meat. Also, being an astringent, the whiskey also deprives the germs in the egg of their necessary resources. Though I do not know if any studies on whiskey vs egg has been done, in theory, the acids in the whiskey should break down the egg while also disinfecting anything found inside the egg at the same time. In function, it should function like washing your hands in soap whilst dousing them in isopropyl.
If anyone knows of a study on alcohol on loose proteins, please let me know!
That being said, if you are enjoying your whiskey sours in the USA, Britain, Germany, or practically any northern European country, there is no reason to worry about getting anything from an egg white. I'd be more worried about the hangover.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.217091
| 2021-09-05T21:21:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117098",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"Luciano",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110740
|
What is the best way to keep fresh food good for a long trip?
I would like to buy a few meals from a restaurant that would then later be reheated.
What would be the best way to safely transport pasta for 10+ hours while maintaining freshness and quality?
I was going to ask the restaurant to make it and freeze it. Then we were hoping a cold bag (as purchased at Sam's Club) would keep it sufficiently cold. Are there better (practical) options or is this endeavor ill-advised or unsafe?
Pasta does not freeze very well, so I would advise against asking the restaurant to freeze it. I would ask that they provide the sauce in one container, and the (uncooked) pasta in another. Those two will keep just fine in a cold box with ice for ~10 hours. If you're very concerned about food safety, you can keep a thermometer in the cold box and make sure it doesn't exceed fridge temperature. If the temperature starts to increase (unlikely in 10 hours with a decently insulated cold box) the car can stop for more ice. On arrival, you boil the pasta according to instructions (it's most likely fresh pasta, so it should only be boiled for 2-3 minutes) and gently heat up the sauce in a pan before combining and adding any toppings like cheese.
It's an amazing present to give, unfortunately you aren't likely to get the result you want. Good Italian food is made from fresh ingredients and eaten fresh, anything cooked and then frozen or refrigerated before being reheated will lose a lot of flavor and texture. Plus, part of the overall experience is going to the restaurant itself, the service and the decor, choosing from a menu, etc. I don't know personally but I've heard that there's a few good Italian restaurants in Pittsburgh, maybe the present would be taking your daughter to one.
If you want to try this it is workable, provided you have the right equipment. You'd need a real cooler, not a cool bag as those don't insulate well enough, and lots of freeze packs. There are coolers with built-in mini-fridges that run off a car's auxiliary power port (cigarette lighter) as well. Both solutions require the food to be refrigerator or freezer temperature when put into the cooler (cooler mini fridges can keep things cool but don't have the power to cool hot food down fast enough), and if you are using freezer packs they would need to be fresh as well to make it 10 hours. This will be a logistical challenge, if your relative is driving from Florida feeezer ice packs will be several hours old before the food is picked up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.217373
| 2020-09-16T22:54:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110740",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110445
|
How to calculate mixing ingredients to a certain fat percentage?
Given two ingredients, one with 42% fat and one with 3% fat, how can I calculate how much I will need of each to get 9% fat?
I’m voting to close this question because it's really just math.
As a matter of arithmetic, what you want is for the weighted average fat content to be 9%. We can say
42X + 3Y = 9
where X and Y are the fractions of the whole that are from each of the two components.
X+Y=1
as the parts add up to the whole, so
42X+3(1-X)=9
leading to
39X=6
This means that a mixture of 2/13 42% fat plus 11/13 3% fat will make 9%.
It's important to be consistent. If your fat percentage of both ingredients is by weight, then work in weight throughout, if by volume, work in volume.
To put this into practice, let's say both are by weight, and we want 100g in total.
2/13×100g = 15.4g
11/13×100 = 84.6g
You can't measure that accurately, so round to 15g of 42% fat and 85g of 3%, and you'll have 100g of 9%
This is really more of a math question than it is a cooking question. However, I love math questions, so here we go.
If we have two ingredients, A and B, which contain a% and b% (respectively) of something (here, fat), a mixture of the two consisting of x% A and y% B will contain (xa + yb)% total fat. Note that this works because a, b, x and y are all percentages. To find out the exact quantities of A and B you need, we use x + y = 1 (assuming two ingredients only and 100% = 1, i.e., we work with proportions/fractions rather than percentages).
Thus, to obtain an end result with z% fat, substituting y = 1 - x
we find xa + (1 - x) b = z, which simplifies to x = (z - b) / (a - b).
For your specific example, we have a = 0.42, b= 0.03 and z = 0.09, which gives x = 0.06 / 0.39 = 0.154. In other words, about 15.4% of your end product should be A (the high-fat ingredient).
PS. It seems that math formatting is not enabled on this site; but perhaps I am mistaken. If I figure out how to format the above using MathJax, I will update the answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.217592
| 2020-08-27T11:49:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110445",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109567
|
What's the right way to add extra gluten to dough?
I was lacking bread flour, which has 15% protein content. I needed to make something where this is crucial, since you need to roll out the dough really thin. I have all purpose flour with 10% protein content.
So I decided to extract some gluten from flour following this video.
The gluten extracted is already clumped together like in the video. I'm not sure what's the right way to add it to my dough to enrich it.
I can think of three ways:
Dry it and let it powder, mix it in with powdered flour
Mix powdered flour with it, mixing it well with water perhaps
Stretch it out and add to kneaded dough and knead more
The main concern here is that since it's already clumped together, will it become a part of the gluten network of my dough and actually enrich it uniformly, or will it stay together as a strong sub-network within my dough which will continue to have a shallow gluten network.
So I can also think of some bad ways of doing it:
Mixing it with flour without dissolving in water
Mixing it with kneaded dough without stretching it out
I did #3, since I mis-sequenced my moves. I'd have wanted to do #2 instead. But I think #1 would be the most effective, if you have the time.
I don't know enough about molecular level details of gluten network formation to judge which of these will be effective and which will be ineffective. I'll have some empirical evidence for #3 but nothing to compare it with.
Is my concern valid? Are the methods 4 and 5 actually bad? Are methods 1-3 alright or is one of them bad as well?
Amazon and a lot of other places sells Vital Wheat Gluten. that might work but I have no experience with it so a little googling might help if someone else doesn't have an idea or put the kibosh on my idea...
I think Serious Eats did a piece on adding vital wheat gluten to flour some time in the last few months. Don't have time to track it down right now, but it's definitely a good option.
Questions containing information from a third party become useless should that third party source disappear. Voted to close unless someone wants to insert that information into the question.
Making gluten per that video is useful for an experiment but not so useful as a recipe addition. As Steve points out, the right solution here is to buy Vital Wheat Gluten. I buy it in the bulk food section at two local stores (WinCo, Central Market) and I've also seen it in the specialty flours section (usually in a Bob's Red Mill package) at better grocery stores.
Vital wheat gluten is a powder. Just add it to your dry ingredients when making bread. I usually grind my own flour so I know exactly what level of protein and gluten are in my wheat berries. If I'm using hard winter wheat or I want a denser loaf with smaller holes (think: sandwich bread) then I don't add any gluten. If I'm making a whole wheat or mixed grain loaf, then I always add some. For a whole wheat loaf, adding a tablespoon of vital wheat gluten is about right.
This question isn't quite a duplicate but is very very close to this one: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42055/create-my-own-high-gluten-flour-by-mixing-vital-wheat-gluten-and-bread-ap-flour
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.217773
| 2020-07-09T21:50:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109567",
"authors": [
"LSchoon",
"Matt Simerson",
"Rob",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70496"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113743
|
Should a gas Aga be left on when not in use?
We've recently moved into a house with an Aga GC3 cooker; though have no experience with this type of oven. Reading up on Agas, people talk about them being left on all the time; though this seems like a waste of gas for our usage (1 cooked meal each evening; unused the rest of the day). When people say they can be left on all of the time I'm not sure if they're envisaging scenarios where the Aga is an old solid-fuel style (where this would have been far more practical), or cooks who are baking throughout the day, or making use of the waste heat for drying their wellies and wet dogs.
We've found that it takes about 2 hours to get up to the required temperature for cooking; so if not left on all the time requires a lot more planning than the gas hobs we're used to; but leaving it on feels wasteful.
Is it best (in terms of efficiency / our described usage pattern) to leave an Aga on full time (e.g. is it more efficient to keep it at temperature than to have to bring it up to temperature each day), and if left on, when not in use is it best to keep it on the Full setting, or to put it to Low Heat or Pilot Light mode?
I believe people also treat their Aga as a source of heat for that section of the room (in lieu of central heating); that's probably also something to take into consideration.
If you haven't seen it, the section on 'Energy Use' from the Wikipedia article is worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGA_cooker#Energy_use
Asking what is 'best' is asking for opinions, which is off-topic. This is a question you need to answer yourself based on your cooking/baking habits.
@GdD The question pretty clearly clarifies that in this case the OP wants to know what's more efficient, which is a reasonably objective question given what he has said about his usage requirements.
Even with those clarifications it's still not answerable as it completely depends on cooking and baking habits and the poster's subjective tolerance for waiting. @dbmag9.
@GdD: I've tweaked to clarify; hopefully that's now clearer.
@dbmag9 thanks for your comments. Yes, it provides some heat, though no more than a single radiator would (and I'd guess the radiator would be more efficient). I'd not seen the Wiki article; good link; thanks. I'd seen arguments about using the Aga for kettles, etc., but that means buying appropriate equipment and thus locking yourself into the Aga lifestyle. My take away is that if someone loves them enough to go out of their way to find uses for them, they're OK (and they look nice), but for the average person trying to be environmentally friendly they're far from economical.
Hi John, even with the edit, I have difficulty seeing a question we can answer. You already know 1) the consequences of leaving it always on, 2) the consequences of not leaving it always on, and 3) that it is common to leave it always on. From there on, the question of "should" is one of personal preference - it is about which consequences you personally would rather live with. So this would be closable as opinion-based - or did I misinterpret your question?
Damn, that's a lot of GHG...
Looking at the economics angle the Aga is expensive to run. Energy prices in the UK (not sure where you are but most of the Agas I know of are there) are about £.15 per kWh. If an Aga uses 20,000 kWh of energy per year to run, which is a reasonable figure if it's on all day, it would cost £3000 per year. If you modernize it with a schedule to run 8 hours per day, say, it's £1000 per year. Those figures could be less with your model, exact information is hard to find.
If you scheduled it to only heat up for an evening meal then it's probably 4 hours per day, which would be about £500 per year with those energy estimates, which doesn't sound too bad, however that would limit you your flexibility.
A good quality new cooker (i.e. range in the US) costs about the same as 8 hours usage on an Aga for a year, and would be ready when you need it. Used Agas in good condition get around £3000 on Ebay, you could potentially sell it, buy something different and come out cash positive from the deal.
So Agas are expensive to run unless you need the heat from it, if you buy a programmer it can save you money, it's still probably more economical to replace it with something else. It all comes down to whether you like the Aga style of cooking, if you do then spend the money happily, if you don't it'll get snapped up on the used market faster than I wrote this.
Gas is a bit cheaper than that (your price is closer to electricity), and you'll use less in an hour of steady state than an hour heating up (but get some of this back if you optimise for carry over cooking). That doesn't change the conclusion, but stretches the payback period a little
I don't actually know what the price of gas is where the poster lives, it could be higher or lower depending on the country and whether the gas is mains or tanks @ChrisH. The aim of my answer is to show the thinking behind the economics.
Indeed, and that's why you got a +1 from me. The OP is in the UK, like I am, so I just suggested which direction the figures might be likely to need adjusting.
If they're so expensive to run, why are they still so valuable second hand?
Some people like the cooking style you use on an Aga, but the main reason seems to be snob appeal @Mast. They are over £10k new.
I haven't owned an Aga myself, but have lived in a house with one (gas, 2 ovens) and used it occasionally.
In general even the gas models are left on for months on end. That's how they were originally designed to be used, though more recent ones rely less on thermal mass. Although you might be able to cook after a couple of hours of heating, it won't be fully hot so roasting (for example) would be problematic. Your newer model may be a little quicker but it does need to build up heat. The very latest models can cycle much more quickly according to Wikipedia. Yours would appear to be in between the one I've used and the latest ones. Leaving it on will consume more gas than turning it off in almost all cases, the exception being if it giving you a warm kitchen means you don't heat the whole house and otherwise would. That's likely to be only true if you're spending much of the day in the kitchen. A hot item will lose more heat to its surroundings than a warm one, thus the Aga will lose less heat when off than it will use getting it back to temperature.
If yours doesn't have modern controls, they can apparently be retrofitted, allowing it to warm up, heat the kitchen, and to some extent warm the rest of the house before you get in (if everyone is out all day).
In the house where I encountered one, over summer the Aga was often turned off and a small portable cooker used instead.
Note that if you don't get on with it and want something more conventional, they tend to have a fairly high resale value
I am in my 60's and live in the UK. My friends parents had an Aga, and they used to leave it on in winter, and use a gas cooker in summer. Don't know about the new gas fired ones, theirs was an extremely old coal burning one, but as their kitchen was about 17 x 11 feet long, they also had an electric oven on the opposite side of the kitchen. Then again, they did own a small stables, so were not in the kitchen much for most of the time generally. From what I remember they had it adapted to run the radiators also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.218038
| 2021-01-14T11:22:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113743",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"JohnLBevan",
"Mast",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60367
|
Seasoning none stick teflon pans
Before the first time I use a none-stick teflon pan, how should I do seasoning?
1- Should I first rub oil on it then heat it? [ref1] or first I should heat it then remove heat and rub oil on it? [ref2],[ref3]
2- How long should I heat it for 30 seconds (ref3)? an hour (ref4)!!! or 2-3 minutes (ref5)?
3- How much hot should oil be? Smoking point or light flame?
4- After seasoning what to do? should I wash the oil off? or leave it on the pan for a while?
5- Should I use cooking oil or frying oil (I think they write cooking oil but they mean frying oil)?
6- After each time using pan, should I wash it immediately or letting oil solidify on pan then after I ate my food I wash it?
7- To extend life span, should I rub some oil on pan after each time washing?
I appologize for links. Since I do not have 10 reputation, I cannot have more than 2 links.
ref1: www.thekitchn.com/surprising-tip-do-you-season-your-nonstick-pans-187938
ref2: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_%28cookware%29
ref3: www.ehow.com/how_7745528_season-non-stick-cookware.html
ref4: cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34420/wok-patina-comes-off/41164
ref5: www.productknowledge.com/more-myths-nonstick-coatings-myth-13.html
7 questions have been asked. One question linked. Stupids have flooded SE. The linked answer does not give any reason why should I neglect those 5 referred link.
Absolutely not
A non-stick pans surface will be ruined when any oil becomes polymerised onto it. The whole idea of a non-stick pan is that it's surface is non-stick to food. Permanently layering it with anything else will make it less non-stick
Only use non-stick pans for low to medium heat cooking, and use no, or very little oil in them. Be very gentle with the surface so as not to scratch it, as the scratches eventually make it sticky again
Most manufacturers of non-stick pans recommend gentle hand washing with soap from new, and then removal of excess oil from the pan with a plain paper towel while still warm. Never hard washing or scrubbing
If oil does become polymerised onto the surface, sometimes you can recover them by using 3M style green polyester scourers with liquid soap to gently remove the hardened oil, if done carefully it will not overly scratch the non-stick coating
Seasoning is for plain metal pans, not for coated, glass, or ceramic
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.218660
| 2015-08-30T04:07:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60367",
"authors": [
"John Nichols",
"Leslie Rondon",
"Luke Young",
"Margaret Campbell",
"Paul B Donnelly",
"Samantha Hartwig",
"Vashti Pardue",
"ardevan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37920",
"lanette boyce"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79432
|
Dust and stems in packaged oats
Is the presence of dust and small stems in packaged rolled oats a sign of inferior processing equipment? Would higher-end brands like Bob's Red Mill have less of those? Is it likely that for any big brand, their oat products are produced, packaged, and exported from a single region/country?
I make granola bars using rolled oats, occassionally swapping between 2 brands. I've noticed that one brand has more dust and stems than the other brand, however of course, this is just based from personal observation, and maybe the bias that the other brand is already a seminal brand i.e., must be a century-old company already. Notably, the brands come from two, different wheat producing countries.
Looks like your first paragraph is unfinished
I'm not sure what you means by dust exactly but stems are definitely a sign of less sophisticated processing and quality control. You should rarely, if ever get a stem. As for dust its very hard to say as it could just be oat dust produced when oats rub together during transport. If one brand consistently has more dust in the bag than the other then it could be from processing, maybe they are allowing more byproducts into their final product in order to save costs, or perhaps the dust is there because a less sophisticated processing plant. If one brand travels more than the other the dust could be from more rubbing and shaking.
If the dust is not oat dust then its a definite cause for concern, you don't want real dust in your oats! That would definitely be a sign of poor processing and I'd personally avoid that brand.
Having oat dust and stems in oats doesn't mean the oats themselves are bad quality, that's more determined by the wheat varieties and how well it was grown. It does mean there's labor involved to search for stems and perhaps sieve out the dust, which is inconvenient.
Oat quality determined by "wheat varieties"? :) +1 anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.218874
| 2017-03-27T07:37:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79432",
"authors": [
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34370
|
What alternative gelling agents can I use for jam and marmalade?
Rather than using natural pectin from the fruit being used or added pectin I am looking for an alternative setting/gelling agent that will enable me to get more jam from my two principle ingredients (fruit and sugar). In other words, if I want to stretch my ingredients to create more volume, what else could I use to ensure it gels to the correct consistency while at the same time not losing its flavour?
Sure you can stretch jam - but why with the gelling agent? All gelling agents are used in a very small amount, typically under 1% of the food. 2. There is no way to stretch the jam without losing flavor - stretching means less fruit per portion of jam, and the only thing which creates flavor in the jam is the fruit.
Anything other than pectin will have a slightly different texture and increasing the volume will dilute the flavor. Perhaps you are asking what could get you close? What are the characteristics of pectin that you are trying to avoid?
I agree... sugar already stretches the fruit--and that is what jam is. Fruit, sugar, and enough pectin to thicken (plus maybe some trace flavorings or spices). I don't think you want to go down this path. Anythign you do will lessen the flavor intensity.
A agree with all of you,I have been asked to make in large volumes two types of Jam, Strawberry and Raspberry for a retailer . In the past I have made these two jams using their natural pectin (very low) and the reduction method ;ie nothing else except the fruit, sugar and a little lemon juice. The jam turned out perfect and very flavoursome each time albiet with a lot of attention. However I have room now to dilute the flavour a little because of the flavour intensity of the inicial jams and becuase of the request from the retailer to tone down the flavour a little !!
Can you consider replacing some of the sugar with a nearly neutral fruit juice, like apple juice or white grape juice? The gelling agent doesn't seem like a relevant ingredient.
when you make a jam or marmelade in the case of strawberry jam there is a limited amount of natural pectin, by adding sugar (and lemon juice) you release the natural amount of pectin and by reduction should come up with a consistency of jam.however if you increase the volume by adding apple juice or grape juice or replace the sugar with these ingredients I dont think you will get the required consistency , therefor Im at ends trying to think of a gelling/thickening agent with something other than a dried pectin which is expensive with some thing less expensive without compromising taste !
I'd strongly suggest clarifying your question. You've said a lot of things about what you're trying to do in comments (and not all of it is even consistent - you've said you both are and aren't trying to dilute the flavor), so it's really hard for people to provide good answers for you.
Tapioca Jelly is interesting stuff:
A typical recipe for tapioca jelly can be made by washing 2 tablespoonfuls of tapioca, pouring a pint of water over it, and soaking for three hours. It is then placed over low heat and simmered until quite clear. If too thick, a little boiling water can be added. It can be sweetened with white sugar, flavored with coconut milk or a little wine, and eaten alone or with cream.
Of course, not all tapioca jelly recipes are yummy at first go, so you'll have to experiment.
Powdered tapioca starch is the starting material of choice, not the pearls or cubes etc.
Presumably you wouldn't "wash" powdered tapioca as the quoted text suggests?
@ChrisSteinbach You're right, they must be using the small pearls. Those'll turn to goo with a long soak. The powdered form is much quicker at that.
If, as the comments to the question specify, you want to tone down the flavor of the jam, I would not look to the pectin as the way to do it. Its not really a filler, its a thickener.
Instead, I would suggest adding fruit that is much more neutral in flavor and that will not compete with the strong berry flavors. Obviously, this will change the ingredient label and flavor profile. Some candidates include white grapes, apple juice, or pear juice.
Obviously, at this point, you are into recipe development, so you will have to:
Test for balance of flavors
Ensure you have sufficient acid for your canning method (for safety)
Ensure the final ratios of pectin, sugar, and acid are in line for proper gelling
Thanks for that,I am not really looking to tone down the flavour as much as I am tring to get more yield.The original jams I prepared alow me probably get up to 25% more yield without compromising the flavour too much if I can can think of a way to thicken the amount without incurring too much cost,this is more for commercal use than for the home.I have thought about making my own apple pectin and adding more lemon juice but do you think the use of a geletine or starch product would afect the jams flavour and texture too much
The approach I have proposed is about using cheaper filler fruits. Even cheaper would be plain water. What you don't want to do is fundamentally change the sugar : pectin : acid ratio overall, which is what creates the texture of jam.
You mention acid and its importance in the process of the jam making, its a component I use most of time when making jams but not always.In the case of blackberry and apple for example I use only blackberry, apple and sugar and it work very well, obviously there is a large amount of pectin in apples, usually when I use apples in any of my jam making (rhubarb and ginger) I would use lemon juice, but just as much for flavouring as for anything else, is this because Apple has also a certain amount of acid also ? But I agree about using fruit juices instead of water, the cost is of these is small
You will note I said overall ratio--the acid can be inherent in the fruits themselves, or added as a separate ingredient, such as lemon juice. Most fruits are at least somewhat acidic, some much more so. Apples will usually have enough acid for their own pectin, although it might vary by variety.
@chefsambob You mention adding gelatin or starch, but I'm not sure why you'd be willing to add gelatin or starch to jam but not just add pectin?
I would suggest agar agar that stuff is really nice to work with. I use it for jellies but I guess in a lower amount it can be used for jam or marmalade. It's an organic ingredient made from seaweed.
does it not react badly with ingredients that are high in citrus, I dont want the jam or marmelade to break down after a short while
Nope, I've used it mainly with lemon and lime. I've stored it open in the fridge and after a week it didn't decay at all. Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2zsmHZOw8E&feature=player_detailpage#t=217s It's where I got my knowledge.
I've used chia seeds - you won't get QUITE the thickness of pectin but it does get that goopy texture! see recipe here: http://happystronghome.com/raw-strawberry-jam-gelatin-free-no-cook/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.219078
| 2013-05-28T15:01:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34370",
"authors": [
"Alexa W",
"Cascabel",
"Casper Broeren",
"Cathy",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Denise",
"JasonTrue",
"Kevin",
"National Home Registry spam",
"Nostra homes",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sabrina Benarab",
"Sam",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"chefsambob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80372",
"johnnyRose",
"rumtscho",
"user80372"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41207
|
Higher or lower fridge temperature
Which would save electricity: higher or lower setting, in summer. My husband set it low and I tend to set it higher. I do not want my stuff to be ruined by a too low setting.
Respect for your readers indicates that you make the effort to be readable, instead of transferring the burden to them for your own convenience.
How are you using "high" and "low" in this context? Referring to your stuff being ruined by too low a setting would indicate that you are using "low setting" to mean "high temperature"?
@sourd'oh This is why my answer talks about warmer and colder, instead of higher and lower....
Refrigerators are heat engines, and the energy cost is somewhat proportional to the difference in temperature desired. Assuming your room temperature is typical, higher internal refrigerator temperatures are going to therefore take less energy to maintain.
Modern refrigerators are well insulated and remarkably energy efficient.
You should choose the the temperature setting of your refrigerator based on the quality and safety of the foods stored within, which indicates a temperature of about 32-40°F (0-4°C).
Too cold may freeze food, which can lead to quality issues, but is safe. Too warm can allow food to spoil, which is a far greater risk.
See also:
What is the ideal fridge temperature
What temperatures should I keep my refrigerator and freezer set at?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.219756
| 2014-01-16T08:54:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41207",
"authors": [
"Nicholas Lunce",
"RecipeGeek",
"Regina Golleher",
"SA2010",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96019"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27930
|
What are the swirling attachments for on mixers?
I have a hand held mixer similar to the one here,
The egg beaters are straight forward, but what do people typically use the swirling attachments for? Do they put less air into the mixture??
These are dough hooks. They are used to knead yeast dough. They are useful, especially if you are trying to work with higher hydration dough which sticks in hand kneading, but many handheld mixers don't actually have the torque needed to knead dough, so if you need them, make sure to buy a good model which can get the task done.
What dough has higher hydration? Pasta or risotto dough?
Pasta dough has very low hydration, and risotto doesn't include dough. Different bread doughs have different hydration, e.g. ciabatta has more than French bread.
I have a low-end Bosch stand mixer with rotating bowl. It has this kind of dough hooks. It takes five minutes at maximum speed to knead the dough properly and it does it's job perfectly too. I always make water roux based breads which is extremely sticky to do by hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.219911
| 2012-10-22T06:09:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27930",
"authors": [
"Brenton Thomas",
"Catherine",
"ForeverDebugging",
"Len Minetola",
"Pop",
"Rekha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6629",
"jaybee",
"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
}
|
105239
|
What can I add to soften too hard peanut butter ice cream?
My staff is having a hard time scooping our Peanut Butter Ice cream. It's too rock hard. We make the Ice cream in-house using a 15% Super Premium base.
I want to know what can I add to soften the ice Cream.
Here is the Recipe:
52 oz of liquid Peanut Butter
1 oz Vanilla Extract
2.5 Gallons of Ice Cream Base
We run the ice cream at max level 12 in our Caprigani Ice Cream Machine
The Stabilizers in the Base: Mono & Diglycerides, Cellulose Gum, Gaur Gum, Carrageenan, Dextrose, Silicone Dioxide to prevent caking.
What is the composition of your base?
The Composition of the base is: Milk, Cream, Sugar, Corn Syrup, Whey Solids, nonfat milk, edible salts and Stabilizer (I included what all is in this above).
What have you tried so far, if anything?
(1) I tried running the Ice cream at lower level at 11. Haven't done much
(2) The Peanut Butter Liquid usually separate - oli & butter. So we use a mixer to blend that before we pour it in the Ice Cream.
I was doing some research and it says to add Gaur or xanthan gum gum. But I wasn't too sure. Also my base already has Gaur Gum in it.
A quick but probably undesirable answer is that you can add alcohol to ice cream in order to not allow it to freeze as hard. I'm guessing however that you are not looking to get your patrons drunk and to be fair I can't imagine an alcohol that would go well with peanut butter, so we won't go with that.
That being said ice cream freezes very hard when there is low fat content in the product. Higher water content = more icy consistency. Stabilizers are added in order to give the appearance of creaminess despite not having a high fat content by retarding the growth of ice crystals.
The best thing to do would be to check an ice cream recipe that doesn't freeze very hard and try to aim for a fat content that is similar to that. I've never used liquid peanut butter but to me that sounds like it would be lacking in the fat that's normally in peanut butter and because of this the ratio is off. I could however be wrong.
Heat the scoop?
source
If you are serving lots of ice cream maybe you already have one of these. If not it might come in handy. The flowing water warms up the scoop which then more easily cuts its way thru the hard ice cream.
Sugar or alcohol make IC softer. On denser flavors like dark chocolate and PB, we use 1/3 C vodka to 3 Gallons IC. Sugar works too but if you do not want to add sweetness - vodka is the trick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.220053
| 2020-02-10T22:48:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105239",
"authors": [
"Mona",
"Onyz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81046",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110783
|
Can large pizzas be made in a convection oven?
Can large pizzas be made in a convection oven? I have a large pan, but it is bigger than the rack. If I make pizzas on that pan, will the pizza bake evenly?
I cook a circular pizza on a pan as large as my consumer convection oven can accommodate and the pizza comes out great.
The biggest risk is that the pan must be kept level to prevent the sauce and cheese from sliding down as the pizza cooks.
In my oven, a pan two inches larger in diameter would nearly fit, but then the bent part of the rack makes the back just a little too high and causes the problem.
You might be able to cheat and put something on the rack first so the pan is lifted up above the bent portion ... but it's possible that it would cause other problems, as it could affect both convective & radiant heat where the pizza is near the wall of the oven.
@Joe I tried a few things like that, but it just wasnt stable enough. The pizza pan would spin and slide and bounce around way too much with expansion and contraction
oh well. Probably still better than the time I tried making a new bracket for electrical element in my oven. (the metal I used must've been coated with something, as it smoked up horribly)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.220595
| 2020-09-19T18:37:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110783",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Phil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84559"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74583
|
Effect of liquified hazelnuts on chocolate tempering?
I would like to ask if roasted and liquified hazelnuts will negatively affect the tempering of milk chocolate?
I have hazelnuts that I have roasted and liquifed by using a high-quality blender. Subsequently, the hazelnuts were passed through a strainer to filter out large nuts.
During the high-temperature phase of chocolate tempering, I plan to add the liquified hazelnuts and the 1/4 unmelted chocolate (seeding method). Will my temper be negatively affected?
What constitutes "negative affects"?
@Catjia, specifically, less effective crystallization of the chocolate.
You are making Gianduja - and if you make chocolates out of it, they're Giandujotti - singular form Giandujotto; The name might help you find sources of information.
The tempering process will be basically the same (I've seen sources suggest 2°C below temperatures for white chocolate temperatures at all times), but keep in mind that it won't be as melt resistant and as such not particularly good for enrobing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.220745
| 2016-10-08T08:14:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74583",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84007
|
Sausage patties dry when cooked
I have a problem with homemade sausage patties that I make. They come out too dry on the inside. Could it be the difference in kosher salt and iodized salt? The recipe is as follows:
Ground pork with high fat content
Chopped onions
Ground nutmeg, ground cayenne,powdered oregano,cracked anise seeds
iodized salt, pepper
Minced onions
Mix. Grill as is, with no oil whatsoever.
When I first tried this recipe, I was using kosher salt, and the result was good and juicy. However, I remember transitioning to iodized salt, and I still got good results, however I may be remembering things in a blur.
Update. I've drastically changed some parts of the recipe. (1) the meat is now fresh ground twice thru the KA meat grinder, so it's super moist and I suppose it's preserved inside the patty (wrapped in film, frozen), (2) using kosher salt, and a less amount of it. With the test fry, it's more moist now.
How are you determining when it's done? Overcooking sausages can result in them seeming 'dry'.
@Joe, doneness on the outside. I go for a a nice crossover between brown and black, for a nice chewy surface.
@wearashirt : that's not 100% reliable unless you're always starting with meat at the same temperature, and the cooking surface is the same temperature (preheated the same & adding the same amount of heat per time (ie, BTUs). When grilling, you can also get 'self-fueling' (ie, fat drips and causes flare ups, which cooks things hotter & faster)
@Joe, it's just on a regular pan though. None of the dripping action. I was thinking if spraying with water during cooking can help.
The most important difference here is the grain of the salt. Kosher salt has a coarse grain, whereas table salt ("iodized") is fine grain. Yes, it will affect the juiciness of your meat.
Here's an article that discusses it.
Cooking with Kosher salt: I generally reserve Kosher salt for meat and recipes that call specifically for it. Because the larger flakes hold onto moisture, Kosher salt essentially holds the moisture inside of the meat. It keeps pork chops tender, steaks juicy, and chicken breast moist.
See for yourself. Salt one chicken breast with table salt and another with kosher salt. The one with kosher salt will retain its moisture much better than the chicken breast salted with table salt.
Thank you very much! I knew it. I will try on the next patty mix and give comment.
I suspect they are dry because you are overcooking them.
Cook on low heat and bring them off when they are still moist.
It seems there may be two culprits causing dryness:
Overcooking
Salt
Two suggestions:
Cooking to temperature (use a thermometer) and follow a good recipe that still would of course ensure the pork is fully cooked.
Remove all salt from the recipe. Salt can be added afterwards, after all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.220861
| 2017-08-30T18:50:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84007",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79095
|
Resting for brownie batter
It's traditional to rest dough for some pastries like cookies and breads. I think it allows more time for delicate enzymatic processes, to yield a better flavor.
I would like to ask if this is also applied to resting brownie batter?
I use a brownie batter recipe with the following components: unsweetened chocolate (some kind of a Paris award winning choco), butter, salt, vanilla extract, white and brown sugar, eggs, flour, a dash of baking powder, and cocoa powder (sifted).
No, there is no benefit from resting brownies, and there would be a couple of small disadvantages to doing it.
Time will decrease the effect of baking powder since its work begins as soon as you add moisture.
Time will also cause gluten to develop in the flour, which isn't something you want in brownies. Gluten development will cause brownies to be tough instead of fudgy/chewy.
You aren't waiting for yeast to get frisky; you don't need or want gluten development; you're not shaping dough. You can and should just go straight to the oven after mixing the batter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.221093
| 2017-03-13T08:46:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79095",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84092
|
Beef meatballs look red inside but quickly disappear
Spaghetti and meatballs are red on the inside, but disappeared quickly. Is this just a chemical reaction, and the meatball is still thoroughly cooked? Meatballs are 1 inch in diameter, maybe 20-30 g.
I made some beef meatballs (fresh ground beef shank, red onions, parsley, bread crumbs, 1 egg). I sauteed them on the pot with olive oil, then simmered them with crushed tomato sauce and red wine for 25 minutes. Should I have simmered longer?
One meatball, where I must have not noticed the red phenomenon, tasted just like any regular hamburger meat (quite dry on the inside, actually). Some of the fat and fascia were getting caught between my teeth and some I wanted to spit out.
Edit: so I put it back on the stove and simmered (maybe even almost boiling) for a solid 45 minutes, which I should have done to begin with, because the sauce improved further and thickened. It was reheated served the following day. The meatballs still had the red-inside phenomenon!
I'm undecided between calling this "related" and "duplicate": https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11526/is-until-juices-run-clear-a-valid-test-for-poultry-doneness-why-or-why-not. In general, color is not related to safety.
Given the situation you describe, I would say that a 25 minute simmer would probably be enough to cook a 1 inch diameter meatball, especially after first browning. What we don't know is how many you had and the size of your simmering pot of sauce. If the pot were over-crowded, it could explain various levels of done-ness.
Do you mean that the red color quickly disappeared?
@Cindy, yes that's correct. Slice the meatball, see a red, shimmering appearance, then it seems to dry off and looks like a regular browned burgermeat inside.
@Moscafj, there were 26 meatballs in a 5-inch high cast iron pot, about the diameter of a basketball. The sauce was way high as well. In anycase, I've reducedand thickened the sauce much further, barely showing the meatballs. Hopefully it's cooked enough.
@Rumtscho, ah, how could I forget to use my thermometer. I had just used it to manually sous vide some chicken breasts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.221201
| 2017-09-02T14:58:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84092",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13279
|
Machine washed my cake pans
I got two circular cake pans for Christmas, and finally put them to use for home-made yellow cake layers. Feeling lazy, I tossed them into the dish washer afterwards instead of hand-washing, and realized afterwards that I didn't know if they were safe for it.
After coming out they've turned from silvery to looking like they have a chalky white "coating" all over, that won't wash off. It feels very strange to the touch, almost like a chalk board.
The "coating" (I'm guessing it's actually a lack of coating, that the dishwasher destroyed) is very uneven over the pans.
Nothing comes off on your fingers when you rub or scratch at it, though.
Are these still safe to bake with? I'm perplexed and don't know what to do with them now.
Had some trouble with tags since the ones I wanted to use don't exist. :(
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8375/why-is-the-dishwasher-not-recommended-for-my-all-clad-mc2-line-of-pot-and-pans missed this one, possibly related. Not sure what material my pans are.
Please add a photo.
@hobodave: Added.
That sure looks like anodized aluminum that has been put through the dishwasher. I have never seen a non-stick coating that washes off in the dishwasher.
If it is anodized aluminum then it is harmless to continue using the pan.
I suggest contacting the manufacturer (stamped on bottom) if you want to be safe.
Did a web search for "anodized aluminum dishwasher" and found other people describing it the exact same way I did (chalkboard!), so it definitely seems like it's adding up. Thanks, learned something today!
I'm assuming that the pans were originally non-stick coated. Most cake pans like that are.
I'm also assuming that either the detergent you used or maybe the "heat dry" cycle of your washer ruined the non-stick surface. So the chalky surface is probably the wrecked non-stick.
In any case, I wouldn't use them out of fear I'd wind up ingesting something awful from that surface. You could test them and see, but you'd never really know what's going on unless the surface flakes off on your food, and really--how expensive are those pans? Wouldn't it be better to chalk this one up to a lesson learned and get new ones?
Non stick coatings don't wash off in one dishwasher run as if they have never been there - rather, they fail by damaged spots getting worse due to flaking off/or corrosion underneath.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.221399
| 2011-03-18T20:26:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13279",
"authors": [
"Bohan Lu",
"Jodie",
"Sam Berry",
"Sapph",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"rackandboneman",
"siebz0r"
],
"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
}
|
110181
|
Can I just rinse the knife & cutting board, instead of washing it, after cutting washed vegetables?
I was wondering something I can't seem to Google anywhere, concerning food safety/hygiene.
And that is whether I can just rinse the cutting board/knife, after cutting up some washed vegetables (e.g. cucumber & tomatoes) or whether doing so could be quite unhygienic and I ought to just wash it every time
• By rinse I mean to just let water run on the knife and cutting board vertically
• And by wash, I mean use a detergent with a sponge or a brush
It depends on whether is is commercial food prep or home food prep.
@blacksmith37 Hey, thanks for comment. It's home food prep.
As a general food safety rule/best practice, you should still perform active washing, rather than passive rinsing, even for fruits and vegetables.
Fruits and vegetables are still vectors for food borne illness and cross contamination. Wide scale recalls of vegetables due to listeria and e. coli are not uncommon. Active washing with soap and water will combat this. A quick swipe with a soapy cloth followed by a rinse will clean up much better than rinsing alone.
Fruits and vegetables also contain things such as sugars, which passive rinsing may not fully clean. This can result in spoilage and/or mold growth on your cutting board. A great demonstration of this would be to cut beets, which have both relatively high sugar and an accompanying red color, and passively rinse up vs actively washing. Washing will clean up much better. The same is true for other fruits and vegetables, though the lack of red dye makes it less easy to notice.
Thanks for the in-depth answer. This... changes everything.
Would probably be best to create another thread for this, but would say that the same would apply for a 'shaker bottle', used solely for whey with milk? I.e. whether adequately rinsing it would be enough, or it'd still be kind of 'risky'?
@ValeriLagunov Even more so - now you added proteins and especially fats to the equation.
@Stephie Thanks for the comment. Yeah, that makes sense. Still quite a bummer to have to do it each time... oh well
Yes you can just rinse it.
Personally, I just rinse it under water after prepping fruits and vegetables, and when cutting meat I rinse and use coarse salt and lemon to give it a gentle scrub.
Gotcha, thanks for the reply. Think the main reason for my concern, was due to the cutting board, smelling a bit of the said vegetables, hence perhaps a bit of bacteria, developing over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.221629
| 2020-08-13T19:26:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110181",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"Valeri Lagunov",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110283
|
Can I just rinse a shaker, solely used for immediate consumption of whey with milk?
...and wash it properly every 3rd or so day. Keeping the shaker inside of the freezer, to slow(/perhaps prevent?) the bacteria growth?
• By rinse, I mean to just shake it up with some water until all remnants are whisked away
• And by wash, I mean use a detergent with a sponge or a brush
So let’s be clear - rinsing with just water won’t remove all of the fats and proteins in your container. It’s definitely not “clean” afterwards.
But even for the bits left in the container food safety guidelines apply, so if you immediately freeze the shaker in between uses, you just have to add up the time the shaker spends in the danger zone and/or above freezing. Whatever value reaches the „no longer safe“ threshold first (two hours for the danger zone above 40°F/4°C, three days in the fridge) gives you the “now it’s really time for a real cleanup” trigger.
Off the cuff, I‘d say that your three day cycle would still be technically safe. Whether it’s really a good idea is up to you. I like my food prep equipment fresh and clean for each use. More frequent cleaning will also serve as extra safety net in case some cleaning cycle was not perfect. And of course in a commercial setting all food handling and cleaning regulations have to be observed independently of what I outlined in this answer.
Thank you for the elaborate answer! This certainly gives me new perspective, on the convenience vs. food safety dynamic, of this particular context
I agree with Stephie here about the food safety aspect - if you use the freezer, it will be safe. The logistics of it are much more complicated than just washing it though, to the point where I don't think you are doing yourself any favors.
First, you cannot dry it, or your towel will get all fatty. You will have to place a dripping wet shaker in the freezer, so you'll suddenly have to defrost the freezer very frequently. Then you'll get it out for use, and have a frozen shaker - just trying to screw the cap back on might take more time than washing it in the first place. Then, when making your drink, you will freeze your fingers off, and your drink will be very cold (although to be fair, many people like their shakes very cold). And in the end, if you use flavors, they will mix between the different batches. And you have something taking up space in the freezer, which most people find is in too short supply in the first place.
If you decide to use the fridge instead of the freezer, you get a different set of problems. While the fridge doesn't freeze (usually), having excessive amounts of water in it is no fun either and you'll have to soak it up with a towel pretty frequently. Between that, you'll have other items in the fridge getting wet now and then. Also, you will have to keep track of when to wash the shaker - the safe time is 3-5 days, or earlier if you notice spoilage, so you have to be organized enough to know you haven't exceeded it. Also, because it runs counter to best practices, guests who encounter it might judge you negatively.
Thanks for such a number of great points! I pretty much shake all the remaining water out of the shaker and cap, usually using a paper towel or yeah, sometimes the kitchen towel, after
Yes you can/could (you're the king/queen of your kitchen, no one will come crashing through your door).
But you shouldn't ... make a habit of cleaning it up after each use.
No need to go nuclear, a few drops of cleaning liquid and hot water and a quick wash should be enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.221954
| 2020-08-19T03:50:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110283",
"authors": [
"Valeri Lagunov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110270
|
Salmon turned green - is it safe to eat?
I left a meal with salmon in the refrigerator for 3 days. The salmon skin is turning green.
Is it safe to consume it? If not, is it salvageable at all?
I don't see why this has been downvoted, it's a reasonable question with detail which could be useful to others. @nz_21, in general if food wasn't green to begin with in the fridge I wouldn't eat it, with a few exceptions.
What would the few exceptions be?
I would strongly recommend against consuming this fish.
In general you should cook fresh fish on the same day you bought it and not store cooked fish in the fridge for longer than a maximum of two days. Changes in colour, smell or texture are commonly a strong indicator that the fish has gone bad and eating it comes with a risk of a scombroid food poisoning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.222221
| 2020-08-18T13:56:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110270",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73351"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82177
|
How can I break an emulsion making carotene butter?
I am making carotene butter by mixing clarified butter and carrot juice.
The idea is that I now need to separate the carotene infused butter from the juice. The only problem being that they are very well emulsified together.
I tried blending it more until the heat and friction would break it, but that has not happened, even after more than 5 minutes of blending on high (my blender's limit.
I tried heating the liquid to a boil but this did nothing either.
Lastly, I tried decanting it, but it barely separates even after a long time.
How can I break the emulsion?
Just out of curiosity, why are you trying to break the emulsion? Are you trying to get the water from the juice out while leaving the carotene in the butter?
Yep exactly. I'm following a video chefsteps made a few years back.
This looks like the ChefSteps recipe: Carotene Butter
As I just commented above, its exactly that.
@JSLavertu yeah, I saw your comment and went looking for it. You ought to edit it in to your question. It helps to see the recipe you're trying to follow.
Salt is commonly used to break emulsions. The salt dissolves in the water phase and makes it more polar by adding ionic charge. The hydrophobic phase has a higher dielectric, dislikes charge, so it separates from the water,
Did you not have problems with brown juice and melanin getting into the butter and dulling the colour? I did.
@user110084 not really... I mixed the fresh juice less than 5 minutes after sqeezing it so it didnt brown
Chill it.
The butter will solidify and upon remelting the emulsion will be broken.
I've never had a butter emulsion not break after chilling.
I'll try this tomorrow since its already in the fridge
So you had bad luck with ice cream making all your life? :)
@rackandboneman I presume "cool it off while constantly agitating it to prevent large ice crystals from forming" is not what this answer means by "chill it".
I thought there were other methods for making ice cream by just chilling a mix, but I don't know whether that's a method that works specifically with butter emulsion or not...
Notice I wrote: "upon remelting". The emulsion of milk fat in the cream, in Philadelphia style recipes that don't employ custard or starch, can in fact break when the ice cream thaws.
Must... not... attempt .. a ... confusing pun on the fact that for some regions, "Philadelphia" is known more as a brand of cream cheese than a US state...
How you break an emulsion depends somewhat on whether the continuous phase is aqueous or oily, oil droplets in water or water droplets in oil. I suspect you have oil droplets.
These are just a few methods I would try (in addition to those already mentioned earlier by users Sobachatina and fyrepenguine) if I were faced with this, but I have not tested them on your exact combination.
Adding warm or hot salt water (0.5% by weight salt in water) into it and stir
Thermal treatment:
Extreme heat cycles (freezing and heating)
Particle charge disruption methods (all different methods not steps in a single method) :
Adding vinegar and stir
Dissolving agar or gelatin hot water and add to emulsion, stir and let it
settle and then separate the oil from the gel (1-2% by weight)
Add salt (0.5% steps by weight) to gel solution above and stir into emulsion
G-force:
If you have a centrifuge, there should be enough density difference between the two phases to achieve a complete separation.
Carotene has a strong preference to stay in the oil while salt, vinegar strongly prefer water.
As an aside, with aggressive agitation and when subjected to high shear, you tend to end up with a very stable emulsion. This is why my preferred way of this type of 2-phase liquid-liquid extraction is to use gentle stirring over more time rather than using a blender. Even periodic shaking is preferable. Diffusion across the interface will allow the extraction to happen with time. If you use a thermometer to monitor the temperature of the contents inside most kitchen blender, even in high speed mode, there is no heating effect from friction (except for very high power ones as pointed out in comment below), but You are very likely to create electrically charged droplets which is great if you are after a stable emulsion. Very high speed blenders capable of heating by cavitation can make the emulsion more stable than less stable. There is also the likelihood of aeration to accelerate enzymatic browning.
It is too easy to just focus on the best way to extract (small particles for high surface area and short diffusion path) in the least amount of time, and lose sight of the entire process which still requires separating the oil phase from the water phase. Extraction between two very mobile phases is relatively painless, but emulsion breaking can be painful, and you want to avoid doing one step really well only to create a hard problem for later.
In a very crude experiment today, I found that starting with pulped pressure-steamed carrot, using a gold coffee filter cone and repeatedly dripped clarified butter through with patience worked very well, no emulsion (just a layer of water phase below to decant away). In fact, if you really want efficiency, retain some carotene butter for next time, start the extraction with fresh pulp and melted carotene butter in the first couple of runs, then use pure clarified butter for subsequent once. (Counter-current extraction technique). Strictly speaking it is no longer liq-liq extraction but leaching but the concentration gradient principle is the same.
PS
This is another technique that is much more sensible/workable in a home kitchen.
Shred the carrots, finer is better but coarse shredding works well enough. You can optionally blanch this if you are concerned about browning.
Put into a bag with hot clarified butter at above 75C, expel as much air as you can or vacuum the bag before sealing. Sous vide at 75C or use a hot water bath (well below boiling) for 3 hours or longer. Decant off the now orange coloured oil phase. You can keep the carrot pulp to make crisps or discard it. If you are obsessed with extraction efficiency, cook it for a day, but I suspect numerically you would not get to the same degree as the juice/emulsion method, but then this is practically just a single extraction-separation step without any emulsion headache.
I wonder if it would be easier to extract out the carotene first, rather than separating the water out from the emulsion, since the proteins in butter act as emulsifiers. Perhaps something as simple as allowing the water to evaporate from the carrot juice?
I think clarified butter should have most of the proteins taken out, but yes unclarifed butter will be messier still. Many non-aqueous solvents to pull out the carotene would have the same emulsification issue. The main culprit is the blender and high shear. Evaporation would get rid of the water but not the sugar and ash. And you will want to go gentle on the heating too.
"If you use a thermometer to monitor the temperature of the contents inside a kitchen blender, even in high speed mode, there is no heating effect from friction," — at least with a Vitamix, that's not true; I put warm water with a drop of soap + run it on high for a minute or so to clean it, and it's steaming (and hot) when I pour it out.
@derobert, yes I am wrong on that with a few very high speed blenders which cause cavitation in the liquid. Will edit that.
"If you have a centrifuge" I haven't gotten around to trying it yet, but there's a neat-o homemade centrifuge that some medical workers use in the field when they lack access to either electricity or machinery. The capacity might be too small to be useful, but worth a try.
(By no means is this a method that I know will work, but it is a decent last resort)
I'm just going off of what I've learned from chemistry, but another possibility is adding salt water if Sobachatina's suggestion of chilling it doesn't work. The salt water should mix with the carrot juice, and the increased polarity should separate out the the butter. Here's a link to list of techniques (not all of them suitable for cooking) to break up emulsions.
That's surely going to leave salt in the final product.
Good point, @DavidRicherby. How much would you expect to stay in the butter, rather than separate out? I wouldn't imagine that too much should stay in the butter.
Instead of adding salt, if you add salt water, there is less of a chance for salt particles to be trapped in the oil. Salt simply will not dissolve in oil. There is still room for tiny salt water droplets getting trapped in the oil, but if the emulsion separates, then there should not be much left in the oil phase.
Just let the mixture stand for a few hours. Just like in milk, the butter should rise to the surface.
If then additionally you chill it for half an hour or so, the solidified butter should be easy to scoop off. If you freeze it it is probably not going to work.
If this does not work, you might actually have to churn it, like with milk. Shaking your container might be a good option if it is not too big.
No sweat. Or almost. LOL!
A good point about the churning -- it's a much different type of action than a blender would give. I think the paddle blade in a stand mixer might be a better way to mix it if you're trying to break it.
It is very perplexing why so many recipes recommend high speed blending for liq-liq extraction when you absolutely do not want an emulsion to deal with afterwards, even more surprising when they come from authors who talk so much about science of cooking and are good at that in so many other areas.
@user110084 For the most effective liquid-liquid extraction, you want to maximize the surface area between the two liquid phases, and to maximize the time spent with this surface area. Making (or almost making) an emulsion is an effective way to do that. I'm guessing the assumption is that in most cases it's relatively easy to get oil and water to re-separate - the normal concern is how to keep an emulsion from breaking, rather than how to prompt it to. So most recipe writer aren't to concerned about making an emulsion with a blender, as "normally" they'll break on their own.
@R.M.Appreciate the desire for large surface area and short diffusion path, it just look like accomplishing one separation only to create another which could be potentially much harder, too much brute force and unnecessarily so especially for two highly mobile phases. Time saved in extraction is lost to settling even for unstable emulsions. The entire process needs to be effective rather than just a single step. Emulsion breaking is a huge headache in too many situations.
take a small portion, put it into a small but solid container, tie it with a small cord, and let it turn in air drawing circles. Be carefull when you stop it may spill everywhere!!
It's very "preistoric" centrifugation but it may works :D
Put it in a small container and shook like crazy. Butter separated easily fine the water and was very creamy. Saved 1/4 oz. Phew!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.222356
| 2017-06-05T02:51:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82177",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Deleted",
"JS Lavertu",
"Joe",
"Joshua Engel",
"R.M.",
"Shotgun Ninja",
"Sobachatina",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"derobert",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jscs",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
81313
|
How can I substitute Egg Noodles for Rice Noodles in a Pad Thai?
I'm unable to get rice noodles right now but I've never used egg noodles before. What is the difference in how I should cook it?
Are they fresh egg noodles?
Usually, you would just soak the rice noodles in hot or boiled water for a minute/couple of minutes according to the packaging and then mix them in the with other cooked ingredients.
With egg noodles, you should cook them until al dente according to the package instructions and then add them in when you would the rice noodles according to the Pad Thai recipe instructions. Most likely, you'll boil them in water for a few minutes, drain them and then add them to the stir fry pan.
You'll probably get a lo mein-like dish with Pad Thai flavoring.
Here is a recipe that uses fresh egg noodles for a Pad Thai dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.223221
| 2017-04-30T18:21:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81313",
"authors": [
"CMB92",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54783"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81955
|
Hazelnut spread preservation
I'm making some hazelnut spread at home and trying to preserve it as long as possible. Basically, I blended a mixture of ground roasted hazelnuts, skimmed milk powder, sugar, cocoa powder and very little amount of hot water in food processor. I then added melted vegetable shortening and lecithin in the mixture and blended until it has a nice texture and spreadability. It was kept in a sterilised glass jar.
I was hoping the finished product might last a few months before it turns bad, however, there were some bacteria/mold/fungus on the surface only after about three-four weeks.
My questions are 1.) what causes the bacteria growth (is it caused by the water/moisture level) ? 2.) what other substitutes for hot water (to dissolve the powder mixture)?
Thanks in advance guys :)
Welcome Robert - was your spread stored in the refrigerator or at room temperature? Was it being used during those 3-4 weeks?
Robert, there are a number of recipes on the net for making a homemade version of nutella that doesn't use any water or cream. Why not check them out instead?
what causes the bacteria growth (is it caused by the water/moisture level) ?
Each of these foods on their own are preserved by having too little moisture for bacteria or molds to live in. So in your specific case, it was likely the water which made it hospitable for them again, yes.
If you have a food which supports bacterial growth, you cannot make it safe by simple sterilization. The sterilization is not always sufficient, and you need laboratory tests of your recipe to confirm that it can work with sterilization (usually only OK for some combination of sufficient acidity and sufficient processing temperature, like water bath canning). And it is no longer shelf-stable after opening. So I wouldn't suggest going down that road. Sterilization of the jar doesn't matter.
You can try making any gianduja recipe that doesn't call for water-containing ingredients (butter or cream or water). There is no need to pick one with cocoa powder or milk powder. Or if you are very intent on using the powder, melt the sugar as for caramel (waterless method) but stop as early as possible, before you have gotten much caramel flavor. Add the powders to the caramel and mix thoroughly. Adding the shortening at the same time can make it easier.
The problem with this approach is that you can have difficulty making it spreadable, since the water thins it. But maybe it will work with enough shortening added.
As for botulism, I have not heard of gianduja being a botulism risk, but homemade variants usually require refrigeration, so you may want to research that separately.
I'll admit that botulism is an assumption. But given that even trace amounts of water under oil/fat is supposed to be worth worrying about (e.g. chilli oil from dried chillies) it seems like a reasonable one.
Maybe oil instead of some of the shortening to make it more spreadable? I may be confused by terminology here - we don't use "shortening" in the UK, "lard" is the word when it comes from animals but not for a veg equivalent (block/hard margarine I guess).
You put it in a sterilised jar but it doesn't sound like you even pasteurised it before it went in (or presumably use sterilised tools). So that's probably how it got contaminated; trace levels of mould spores are everywhere. Even if you did pasteurise it you should worry about botulism (see many questions/answers here).
Personally I'd try making a small batch and eating it up quickly, but put some in the freezer in a suitable container to see what happens. If it freezes OK, then pack up the next batch in small quantities and freeze, defrosting as required. You may extend the keeping time in the fridge, but it may be useless at fridge temperatures.
Mixing the powders into the hot fat might help it keep better, if not for mould formation than for separating (depending on how much lecithin you used). Cocoa doesn't dissolve in water, neither do all the constituents of milk powder, so you were only dispersing them in your last attempt.
This will probably only ever have a short shelf life at a temperature at which it's spreadable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.223333
| 2017-05-24T10:53:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81955",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Debbie M.",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79171
|
over salted an uncooked steak
I seasoned uncooked rib steaks yesterday (using a truffle sea salt). cooked 1 today and it was way too salty. How can I salvage the 2 remaining steaks. I cooked the 1st steak in the oven broiler.Thanks
If you can still see a lot of crystals on your steak, you can rinse it off.
Or soak it in water for a few hours or overnight, then wrap it in paper towels and let it dry in the fridge throughout the day.
You can try what this related question’s answer suggests: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/46751/24248
A tip for future reference... Use flower salt to season the meat, and do it ontly moments from putting it on the heat!
An even better tip - put the salt on the table and let the diners choose how much to use, if any.
You could try "reverse brining", using a low salt beef stock to eliminate or reduce the loss of flavour in the steaks.
(Stocks I make myself are very low salt so that I can reduce them as needed without them becoming too salty.)
@wumpus has a great suggestion using reverse brining. Other than tasting excessively salty, your over-salting will have an effect on the texture of the meat and also suffer from dehydration. Hydration is mostly reversible with some penalty in lost flavours which may or may not be noticeable. Salt ions will change the structures of proteins and most of that will be irreversible. This will inevitably affect the texture and mouth-feel of the meat. Only you can tell if the one you had cooked was too tough. If so, do not expect soaking with water or reverse brining to undo that. If that is the case, the second piece may be ruined as steaks. Once you have dealt with the saltiness, you can repurpose it for other dishes. You can cut them into strips for something like stroganoff or slice them for a stir fry for example where toughness may be masked.
Or even grind them for perhaps the best hamburger you'll ever try. But skip the salt!
I would rinse it off, as suggested in the comments, but I would also try a trick with potatoes. Potatoes are a great salt neutralizer, so I would thinly slice a raw potato and line both sides of it... a layer underneath it, and a layer on top. Then broil or bake as usual. I have had success in de-salting over-salty chicken this way. You can also drop slices in an over-salted pot of soup, stew, or in a casserole.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.223673
| 2017-03-16T00:42:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79171",
"authors": [
"CrazyMenConnected",
"Ecnerwal",
"Ming",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55340",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"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.