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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
79411
|
3 day old steak turning brown from the inside out
I have a 10oz. steak I cut 3 days ago. It was stored on peach paper, which is oxygenated. It is beginning to brown from the inside out. The exterior is fine, no slime, no odour. But when cooked, it looked medium well at 120*F. It also tasted dry. I get that age would make it dry. I`m just wondering why it is browning on the inside. Any ideas what would cause this?
Hey there! I think you answered it yourself - it's the oxidation. Again that is also the cause of it cooking and drying out faster. Next time brine in moisturizing substance to avoid.
Possible duplicate of Beef: Red on the outside, brown on the inside
I've heard that some stores will actually use some type of food safe bleach to extend the life of their meat products. It is possible that the meat you purchased was treated in this manner which would not have an affect on the inside of the steak. This would make the inside age quicker than the outside. Just a thought.
Possible to provide a link or reference to the use of bleach?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.223923
| 2017-03-26T02:38:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79411",
"authors": [
"Adelina",
"John Hammond",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53591",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82262
|
How much pepper/allspice to substitue for cubeb?
I have a recipe that calls for "12 cubebs, coarsely crushed". I've read that a blend of equal parts pepper and allspice can be substituted for a cubeb. However, having never seen a cubeb, I have no idea how big it is, so I don't know how much pepper and allspice to substitute. Additionally, I haven't been able to find any information about the volume of a cubeb or the volume of powder produced when crushing a cubeb online.
How much powder does a cubeb yield when crushed? Alternatively, how much black pepper and allspice should I substitute for 12 crushed cubebs?
I would probably weigh the 12 seeds and to begin with go for the same quantity of black pepper
@user110084 Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, I don't have access to cubeb seeds to work with in the first place.
12 whole cubebs, when I measured them, were a bit under a half teaspoon. When ground (a bit on the coarse side, admittedly), they were... also bit under a half teaspoon.
Cubebs are pretty light, and the fresh-ground spice, rather fluffy, but it gives you a starting point to measure from. For less-fluffy spices like black pepper, I wold suggest a very scant measurement (that is, nearly full but dipping under the rim of the measuring spoon just a bit), or a single pinch less.
I've found the taste fairly similar to pepper - enough, at least, a recipe will not likely fail from the difference, though Jude's suggestion sounds pretty good from a flavor standpoint.
Someone with real cubebs! Like you described, very different bulk densities between them. Flavours are mass dependent rather than volume dependent. So, I am still inclined to start with same weight in pepper corns.
@user110084 - I think you're right, but the scantness of the measure or extra pinch less is my attempt at balancing the weights involved, since I know the ground cubeb is fluffier/lighter than ground pepper. I usually don't cook by weight, so I can't offer that as a measurement. It doesn't help that, well, I rarely use pepper and so don't actually have any not already in spice mixes on hand at the moment to compare.
Excellent! I was hoping someone would have access to cubebs. I ended up using 1/4 tsp each allspice and pepper, and I feel the recipe came out very well.
Nice that a cubeb user has come forward! Megha, although you don't use back pepper by itself, do you use allspice? Do you think cubeb has allspice overtones? How about a bit of camphor overtones? I realise the flavour perception is very subjective but I'm curious to know what you think. What type of food do you use it in?
@Jude - I picked up cubebs because I'm rather interested in medieval recipes, and when I found some for sale (yeoldespiceguy on etsy) I picked up some to try. I find them somewhat mellower than black pepper, with some aromatics that do remind me of allspice - though I would not sub allspice for it the way I would pepper, allspice seems, er, lighter and with less depth (bitter notes?)...maybe more like clove than cinnamon, if that makes sense. I could see a similarity to rosemary once I thought about it, but I also noticed a very faint almost fruity scent, like a touch of lemon zest.
@Jude - as for what I use them in, aside from recipes that specifically call for them I usually add them instead of black pepper - I like the gentler flavor more, and I already have them on hand. I could also see it working in spice-heavy mixtures (like spice cake or gingerbread) for a bit of an extra kick.
From your description, I'm really intrigued with trying them in cooking! I'd read that they were also used in sweet foods which intrigues me even more. Funny that you describe it as more gentle than black pepper since many sites say they've a darker more bitter flavour than black pepper. But I suspect many sites are basically parroting each other. I like a certain amount of bitter foods though - except for coffee. I literally makes me queasy, even smelling it.
@Jude - they are interesting, I look forward to hearing how you like them (once you get your hands on some). As for sweet foods, yes, it does have some of those sweet-spice notes - even if it is also much like pepper, they used that also in heavily-spiced dishes - and at the time spices were more flexible in their use. For example, nutmeg ended up in a lot of their savory dishes, while we almost always use it for sweet ones. And, that is funny, I've also seen sites that call it milder - taste is subjective, but how odd
I don't think you'll find any two answers that agree from anyone that's used cubeb. All the more difficult as few people who heard of it and even fewer who've used it. The reason being that taste is subjective. I love the flavour Szechuan peppercorns give food. It's often been described as being both hot and numbing. I can feel its numbing effect but it's not at all hot to me and I'm very sensitive to the heat from capsicum peppers.
Cubeb peppercorns are roughly the size as black peppercorns but instead of being solid, they're more hollow. I've only seen them in photos (otherwise I'd buy some to try) so I don't know if an equal volume of both would be an equal weight, roughly. If I were to substitute, I'd err on black pepper weighing a little more.
As for cubeb having a taste similar to black pepper and allspice, I couldn't say. But Gernot Katzer doesn't think so. Cubeb pepper (Piper cubeba L.,11
some sources seem to confuse cubeb pepper with allspice, which looks somewhat similar. In its flavour, cubeb pepper differs much from these other spices.
Other sites mention a camphorous note to cubeb. Rosemary is a herb with a camphorous flavour and scent. Cubeb is also supposed to be bitter. Many people don't like bitterness in food but I think it enhances many foods. What would chocolate be like without it?
What I would do, though not necessarily you, is to use around 9 black peppercorns, 1/8 teaspoon of allspice and a few needles from fresh rosemary, crushed and very finely chopped to approximate 12 cubeb peppercorns.
Hopefully, someone here who's used cubeb before will read your question and answer you before you've made your recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.224050
| 2017-06-08T22:01:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82262",
"authors": [
"Eric Finn",
"Jude",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43038
|
Is it normal to wash an apple, or other fruits, with dish washing liquid?
I've never seen anyone do that until yesterday. So I wanted to know is this appropriate for when preparing apples for any meal, how about other fruits? Unlike plates, fruits can absorb chemicals.
Make sure you tell the person you saw doing that to either bump up their life insurance coverage or else stop it.
@Pointy, assuming they rinse off the soap before eating the apple, I can't see how this practice would endanger their life.
@LorelC. I was being sarcastic, I assume, because I can't remember that far back. However I would still strongly recommend against using dish detergent to wash vegetables. Vegetable matter in general absorbs water quite readily, and just like a sponge rinsing a vegetable won't get all the absorbed detergent out.
No, you would not use a detergent or soap when washing fruit.
Normally, you would just wash them with water, using a brush on thick skinned produce.
See, for example, Best Ways to Wash Fruits and Vegetables from the University of Maine extension.
From what I hear though, there do exist apple exporting companies who wash the apples in soapy water to get rid of germs and pesticides.
"Pure soap" (as is also used eg in gardening) does not equal "Any dishwashing detergent that happens to be handy".
Yes, I've done it for decades using unscented, clear dish detergent (such as Seventh Generation). Just a tiny drop with lots of water.
Absolutely. It's even essential for some fruits like Apples. That is, if you use a quality, fragrance-free dish soap and a cloth to lightly scrub. Washing with soapy warm water can help remove wax, pesticides, and any fungus that is on the skin that you can't see, but can taste ("tastes like mold").
Just soak your fruits in mild hot water and that should take out any residual items on the fruit
I suggest using an unscented liquid castile soap like Dr. Bronner's. It is all natural and non-toxic. Unscented commercial dish liquid can still contain toxic chemicals and preservatives, even 7th Gen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.224605
| 2014-03-26T13:00:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43038",
"authors": [
"AppliedPhysicist",
"Iancovici",
"Lorel C.",
"Mikalov",
"Pointy",
"Sourabh Sagar",
"Spammer",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81578
|
What is cold pressed method to extract Juice?
Yesterday I came to know about the term when I was looking for some juice. They were stating that we will deliver cold pressed Juice. So that make me wonder about what is Cold Pressed method and how can we extract juice using that way.
Sounds ambiguous or gimmicky or both. Not pasterurised? Low temperatures? Pressed rather than pulped and centrifuged?
Cold pressing is as the name implies, to press(instead of blending) juice from a fruit while minimizing heat generation. You can buy these cold pressing juicers from the market as they're quite common nowadays.
Cold pressers from the market will likely have a rotating core (think drill bit) fixed in a tube structure. Drop your fruit from the top, and juice comes out after it gets pressed by the slowly rotating core.
The need for cold pressing juices likely came about when people thought that the traditional style of juice extraction via a blender/juicer subjects the mixture to high shearing/centrifugal forces which introduces heat and oxygen, which degrades the nutrients and vitamins in the juice. On the other hand, cold pressing purportedly negates these effects by "gently" treating the fruit. (think your cold pressed olive oil, coconut oil etc.).
Personal opinion: Since you essentially discard the fibrous parts of the fruit (that has a ton of benefits!) and consume the sugary mixture, your body will absorb a lot of sugar in a short time. Have a whole apple instead! :)
Slight addition:
For the heat generated by a blender, you may refer to this:
Experiment on waste heat in a blender. Over 3 minutes time, 9.4 degC rise was achieved in 200mL of water with a 350W blender. Of course, with fruits in the mixture the figure might vary slightly so take it with a grain of salt.
Sources:
(1) https://www.wired.com/2015/04/nobody-can-prove-cold-pressed-juice-better/
(2) http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/fact-check-are-cold-pressed-juices-worth-the-hype-1.2926121
(3) My mum bought a cold pressed juicer
hmm. I wonder how much of a temperature rise is achievable in a conventional high speed blender. I appreciate the problem with dissolved air and the unsightly browning. I wholeheartedly agree that the best juicing method is mastication in a small closed cavity called the mouth.
On a large, commercial scale, pressing is often done by heating the item being pressed external to the press to cause it to release more juice or liquid. Using olives as an example, high quality olive oil would be cold press with gently handled olives. As you go down in quality, the handling might also become rougher, more bruising, etc. By they time you get to low end utility oils the olives may get almost baked, may even be pressed, heated and pressed again to get more oil out even though much lower quality. Apples, heating may allow say 25% more juice, all of it many of us find low quality.
Is pectinase still used esp given the low yield in cold pressed juice?
@user110084 I think the answer would be no, since pectinase is an enzyme that is optimally active at around 50 degC. It would defeat the purpose of cold pressing.
Source: Wikipedia/Googling
I heard that normal juicer mixture and grinder are causing heat and that heat claims most of the nutritional items. Is that true?
@TheDictator Yes, heat can destroy certain nutritional compounds. Quite a few research has been done on this topic: eg. google on "Effects of temperature on Vitamin C in Orange Juice".
However, one of the studies do show that you'll need to achieve quite substantial temperature (>40 degC) to see a notable decrease in the vitamin C content.
Link: http://new.chemistry-teaching-resources.com/Resources/CfENewHigher/Researching2016/fin1877.pdf
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.224807
| 2017-05-11T04:00:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81578",
"authors": [
"Jin",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57797",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82151
|
Impact of different sugar types (and substitutes) on ice cream
I am really interested in theoretical fundamentals of ice cream making. Everyone who is a little sophisticated whith homemade ice cream knows, that the are certain ingredients and ratios that have to be satisfied to make good ice cream.
In fact understanding the theoretics of ice cream making and knowing how to calculate the ratios of ingredients helped me getting my ice cream perfect every time.
A big influence on texture and storability (in terms of hardness when storing the ice cream in the freezer) has sugar.
Sucrose is the most common used sugar, but other types used are lactose (from milk products), dried glucose syrup, dextrose and inverted sugar syrup
They all have influence on the freezing point of the mixture. The lower the freezing point of the ice cream mass, the softer it is when it comes out of the freezer. The sugars also differ in sweetness, which is measured relative to sucrose (1.0). Lactose (0.3), Dried Glucose Syrup (0.5), Dextrose (0,75), Inverted sugar syrup (1.25)
For this reasons a part of the sucrose is often substituted by dextrose, since you can use more of it (to have the same sweetness) and increase dry mass and lower the freezing point.
My chemistry skills are nearly non existent, so my question is how can I quantify the influence of different sugar types on the freezing point of my mixture? I want to determine how much Xylitol I must use to get the same results (in terms of freezing point) as when I used sucrose. To get to the meta level: How can those figures be calculated (I guess it involves molar masses, oh boy!)
Some figures for the sugars above and also Xylitol and Erythritol would be appreciated.
Criteria for an accepted answer:
Must name a measure for influence of sugar on freenzing point on a mixture
Must give figures for all mentioned sugar (alcohol) types.
Nice to have: A way to calculate the figures
Can use basic math and chemisty
OR: Explain why this isn't achievable (for a non chemistry expert)
What you are dealing with is very complex, too complex for theoretical answers in my view. I am sure exact answers already exist within manufacturers' or research labs as guarded information and they are almost certainly empirical results. Numerous binary or tertiary phase diagrams are everywhere on the internet for all the sugars you mentioned, but icecream is more complex than that. There is also the important question of ice crystal control in freeze-thaw cycles with multi-servings. Just for freezing point depression alone, there are gums/gels/polysaccharides involved.
Even if we just considered the influence of these sugar on water?
I can not imagine that it could be that hard, to get a table of " 10g of sugar x in 100 ml water reduce the freezing point by y °C"
Binary aqueous systems are simple with plenty of data on line. Search under "freezing point depression" and the sugar of interest, and also under "colligative properties" if you wish to dig deeper. For sucrose in water, the relationship is linear. For every 342g (1 mole) of sucrose dissolved in 1000ml water (producing a 1M solution), you have 1.86C freezing point depression.
In addition to the sugars listed, I saw an ice-cream shop the other day which has "diet" ice-cream using fructose.
I`m currently working on a small tool that should help you to handle the math and find the proper ratios of ingredients in ice cream formulation: https://github.com/JoernMueller/Ice-Ed
@J.Mueller Thanks, A tip here: Don't host a compiled html file on github. Post the source code. Especially when doing file reading and saving. It could easily be malware.
@Strernd Thanks a lot for this hint. In fact it is just plain, handwritten html/js. So there are no other source files, also no framework, external dependencies, a build process, wasm or any need for compilation. If you are suspicious about it's contents you are very welcome to have a look at the code and inform me about anything you consider risky or a potential issue.
Wow, I didn't knew that people still do it this way. Props to you for being able to do this. But the problem with this is the readability. Frameworks often offer an approach for modularisation, which makes understanding pieces of the code easier. But this exceeds this discussion.
As already mentioned in comments above, this is quite a complex mixture with equally complex set of properties to balance. However, if you are just looking at it as a simple binary system with water as the solvent and various sugars as solutes, one at a time, then there is a very simple answer (not necessarily useful alone).
For dilute solutions, freezing point depression is primarily driven by the solvent and not so much the solute, and the relationship is linear. For sugars,
Freezing Point Depression (°C) = 1.86 * M
M is mass/molecular-mass of whichever sugar you use in 1000ml of water. For your example of 10g of sucrose in 100ml water, M is 0.29 and your freezing point is minus 0.5C.
For disaccharides like sucrose and lactose, they have identical molecular mass of 342. For simple sugars like glucose and fructose (dextrose is just d-glucose), it is 180. For inverted syrup, you have a mixture. For polyalcohols, you can look up their masses easily.
I would still advise against using this sort of tool alone for icecream making.
Separately, sweetness is less about just dry mass but molar concentration, which is why inverted syrup is sweeter than sucrose, 1 unit of sucrose in the same amount of water is less sweet than if it was broken into their constituent mono-saccharide glucose and fructose; instead of 1 unit of sucrose, you have 1 unit of glucose and 1 unit of fructose, double the concentration.
Thank you for pointing out why it is hard and offering a solution, though.
I guess I'll have to just try :D
I want to add a caution you may not be aware of. Sugar alcohols - which xylitol is - can cause osmotic diarrhea if too much is eaten. People vary in their sensitivity to them. If you've eaten xylitol sweetened desserts before and had no trouble, you don't need to worry. If you never have, I'd suggest buying a small container of xylitol sweetened ice cream and testing it first.
"instead of 1 unit of sucrose, you have 1 unit of glucose and 1 unit of fructose, double the concentration" - Also, fructose is about half again as sweet as sucrose, mole for mole.
You can use molar concentration to predict freezing point depression (at least approximately, with sugars) but you can't use it to predict sweetness. Your examples of glucose and fructose, each with a molar mass of 180, illustrate this. Glucose is about 70% as sweet as sucrose; fructose is about 190% as sweet. A 270% difference.
People who formulate ice cream professionally have a relatively simple method for handling the math. It codifies the more advanced math in user 110084's excellent post.
Basically every ingredient is assigned a sweetness value (called POD) and freezing point depression value (called PAC). These values are relative to sucrose. A gram of sucrose in a 1000g batch of ice cream has a POD and PAC value of 1. 100 grams of sucrose has a value of 100. And so on.
Every water-soluble ingredient has a PAC value, based on its molecular mass. Every ingredient with a perceptible sweetness has a POD value. Relationships are linear, so you can just create a simple spreadsheet using basic arithmetic.
The system is imperfect, but good enough. It doesn't not account for increased hardness you get from ingredients that increase the water-to-solids ratio. And it does not account for added hardness you get from some non-water-based ingredients. Like cocoa butter and nut oils that can be hard as a rock at freezer temperatures. I've compensated for this by assigning (estimated) negative PAC values to these ingredients. But this isn't really precise.
Nevertheless, the goal here isn't to do analytical chemistry or to make ice cream that's perfectly consistent in the eyes of lab instruments. We just want a simple, predictable method for getting ice cream qualities into whatever range that we prefer. This system is effective for this purpose.
I've posted some related information here:
https://underbelly-nyc.blogspot.com/2016/05/sugars-in-ice-cream.html and here:
https://underbelly-nyc.blogspot.com/2017/03/ice-cream-solids-water-ice.html
Soon I plan to post some updated information, including possibly putting a spreadsheet online.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.225123
| 2017-06-03T15:39:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82151",
"authors": [
"Bernd Strehl",
"J. Mueller",
"Jude",
"Peter Taylor",
"Vikki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"paulraphael",
"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
}
|
64731
|
What is a good ratio (range) of nut flour in Mandelkipferl dough?
I want to make Mandelkipferl and similar cookies. For Vanillekipferl, I tend to use a 3:2:1 ratio of flour:butter:sugar, without an egg.
Is there a traditional ratio of nut flour in Mandelkipferl? Also, what is the highest ratio of nut flour which can be used without the cookies falling apart or becoming unrecognizable as Mandelkipferl? If there is no single ratio, what is the workable range?
I plan on rolling the dough out and cutting out shapes, not forming it with the fingers.
Rumi, perhaps you want to clarify that the ratios of 1:2:3 are by weight as many users here are acustomed to volumetric measurements? Also, "nut flour" is ambiguous, see footnote 2 in my answer.
Note that Vanillekipferl use almonds or other nuts - so Mandelkipferl would be a specific kind of (Vanille)Kipferl. They are dusted with or rolled in a mixture of confectioners sugar and vanilla (vanilla sugar or scraped/ground bean, not liquid extract) while warm. The term "Kipferl" denotes a crescent-shaped bakeware, in this case a traditional Christmas cookie from the Austrian and German cuisine.
After checking multiple sources, amongst them Luise Haarer: Kochen und Backen nach Grundrezepten1, the 1:2:3 (by weight!) approach for Vanillekipferl seems about right:
1 part (confectioners)/ sugar
2 parts butter
3 parts (flour and ground nuts combined) minus a bit
The highest ratio of ground nuts2 (sources vary whether almonds should be peeled or not, other nuts are also possible) I found in my trusted sources is around 1/3 ground nuts and 2/3 flour. Many recipes use less. Note that the flour/nut part is usually, but not always slightly less than a full three parts (more like 2.8 or 2.9 parts) for the shortcrust pastry listed above.
I found one quote that vaguely claimed equal parts of nuts and flours as good ratio, but without giving a recipe. As I couldn't verify this with other sources, I'm questioning the feasibility.
Now note that to accieve the full crumbly mouthfeel of the "Kipferl", the pastry is made without egg3 and the "Kipferl" shaped by hand out of little lumps of dough. Chilling them again before baking is optional, but I usually do it.
Rolling the dough and using a cookie cutter requires careful resting, chilling and handling of the dough which may lead to overworking, especially if scraps are re-rolled. The ground nuts cause less stability than a flour only dough and can cause crumbling during the cutting.
Adding up to three yolk per 300g flour/nuts leads to a more pliable dough and many recipes for Kipferl recommend this. Still they often suggest shaping the cookies by hand.
Luise Haarer gives a very similar recipe explicitly for cutout cookies with the same ingredients, but one egg and a slightly skewed ratio, here the pastry consists of:
250g butter
200g sugar
125g ground almonds
450g flour
1 egg
1 German cook book that was in use for decades in schools in SW Germany. My trusted source for "basic" recipes and techniques.
First edition from 1932, now (2015) 32th edition in print.
2 Note that I use the term "ground nuts / almonds", not "nut flour", which is ambiguous and can mean either "(very finely) ground nuts" or "the leftovers from extracting oil from the kernels". While the latter is a common ingredient in gluten-free baking, we want the former for our cookies.
3 The choice of nuts and the egg / no egg Kipferl is much debated in many households in Germany and Austria. Just like with many recipes the quest for the "right" version may resemble a religious dispute. Do not get involved, unless you mean it. ^_^ Apparently the oldest written Vanillekipferl recipe was egg-less. (in German).
Someone who really is devoted to the Vanillekipferl and made a very elaborate website (in German, sorry), is Reiner Bernhardt, a professional baker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.225715
| 2015-12-23T16:19:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64731",
"authors": [
"Annatjie Grobler",
"Byrd Lipedema Surgery Center",
"Elaine Sherratt",
"Jackie Diaz",
"Natalie Norton",
"Ramona Segura",
"Stephie",
"Steve Rinehart",
"VanThu Nguyen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89081
|
What qualities to look for in a cut of beef destined for "well done"?
The major cooking advice is to buy a certain cut (sirloin, etc..) and cook it to rare-degrees.
However, my guests don't like beef that has any pink inside or "blood" (I know it isn't blood) oozing out. I don't assume the same cuts still produce the tastiest steak?
What are the properties of raw beef that result in a great well-done steak and which cuts normally present these properties?
Just a comment to my own personal prejudice against a mistaken believe. A rare steak is not bloody. The red juice contains myoglobin, sometimes referred to as protein infused water. It is a protein which helps muscle hold oxygen without blood. Almost all blood is drained from meat, especially red meat which are aged as blood spoils far faster than meat and would spoil during the aging. Knowing this will not change people's taste, but not knowing it and thinking the meat is bloody likely contributes to the taste of those who will only eat well done meat.
You may want to clarify the sort of thing you're looking for. Is it simply "a cut of beef served well done", or are you specifically looking for a steak. (And if it must be steak, must it be served whole, or is something like a sliced skirt/hanger/flank steak acceptable?) -- Also, you've tagged this "barbecue", so I'm guessing you potentially have limitations on cooking methods. Are you amenable to low/slow cooking like a texas beef brisket ("true" barbecue), or are you limited to (hot/fast) grilling? -- If you edit such considerations into your question, we can give you better answers.
Is this what you're asking: "What cut of steak is the most appropriate choice for grilling given that my guest will only eat beef when it's cooked to well-done?"
Why ... can't carnivores just, you know, accept "medium/rare steak" and "well done steak" as two distinct dishes/preparations, with different flavours, textures, goals?
Though I like MR, you can smoke a thick (1.5", 2") ribeye, t-bone, porterhouse. Buy prime, marinate overnight, smoke at 230F with a water pan in smoker for about 45min or until center is about 160F plus, then sear if preferred. There are plenty of resources showing how to easily smoke in a regular grill.
If you didn't tag this barbecue I would say crock-pot.
To @rackandboneman's point, I would add short rib to the list of "cuts that are great when thoroughly cooked", but I'd slow cook it first, then finish with a nice char on the grill.
Can´t answer because of reputation, but I have some tips: Preheat your meat in the oven. Put it on ~80°C and put the meat on a grille. Wait till it has about 65°C core temperature. Then fry/grill it on both sides, very hot for ~30 seconds to one minute. If you want to avoid any juices flowing out, which happens also on well done meat when there is exess water in it, get a good quality: Dry-aged, grass-fed, slaughtered at about 3 years. Keep away from cheap supermarket meat where you pay for 30% more water!
I'm rather surprised by the judgmental tone in some of the answers here. A well-done steak is a culinary preference; just because you don't share that preference is no reason to be rude about it. Some people like caviar; others don't, despite the fact that it is expensive and lauded by many "people in the know." Some people appreciate an espresso made lovingly with freshly ground coffee in the "right" kind of grinder; others find it too strong or bitter and would prefer an "American style" of coffee with cream and sugar. Taste is subjective.
I'll admit something personal -- for the first quarter-century or so of my life, I only ate well-done or medium-well steak. It's how my father always cooked it at home on the grill. He didn't actually prefer steak well-done: when we'd go out to the restaurants, he'd generally order medium-rare. But even though he'd time steaks, adjust heat on the grill, etc., the vast majority of the time, they were well-done. I was used to it. I liked it, because it was what I knew. The few times I encountered less-done meat, I found the texture odd or even slightly off-putting.
Then, at some point, I was convinced to try more rare steak, and I soon accepted it. I now almost always order steaks medium-rare, and I do prefer them that way. But I also spent a lot of time ordering steaks more well-done (at restaurants, I'd almost always order medium-well), and to those of you who claim you can't tell the difference when a steak is that done, you don't know what you're talking about, because it's not your common way of eating and perhaps you've never had a well-done steak that was prepared in a reasonable fashion.
Anyhow, to answer the question: as some others have hinted at, choose a cut that has a "looser" texture with fat running through it if possible. Also, consider using a cut that you'd often tend to slice thinly when serving anyway, like skirt, flank, bavette, etc. You can also use more expensive somewhat fatty cuts (like ribeye), though the meat will toughen, so you won't get the benefit of the tenderness in such expensive cuts. Plus some of the cheaper cuts (or at least less expensive) have superior flavor.
Quality is actually more important in cooking well-done steaks, because older or worse quality meat with more connective tissue will become even chewier and tough when cooked longer. A somewhat high-quality ribeye cooked well-done can be a somewhat chewy but very pleasant caramelized experience with melt-in-your-mouth browned crispy fat interspersed. A poor-quality steak with poor-quality fat will just become tough and have its bad qualities exaggerated.
What you want to avoid -- unless your guests insist on them -- are lean cuts, which will end up tough AND dry. Filet mignon is a very poor choice (which will end up tasteless and tough), as is sirloin, as would be other lean tough cuts (like round). Also avoid cuts with a lot of connective tissue (but sometimes are sold as steaks to be cooked fast and rare), like chuck.
Marinating will help if you allow enough time for brine to soak in a bit (thereby adding not only flavor, but more moisture).
As for cooking, keep in mind many types of meat are cooked to "well-done" temperatures and still can remain juicy with proper technique (e.g., chicken). There's absolutely no reason to serve a tough, dry well-done steak unless you're incompetent. A "loose" textured steak as mentioned above that's sliced thin before serving will be chewy but won't necessarily seem "tough" if marinated and cooked properly.
How to cook properly? Do NOT do what most people do when cooking steak and just flip once. You'll end up drying out both sides of the steak by the time cooking is finished. Butterflying (which restaurants will sometimes offer to do for you when you request a medium-well or well-done steak) can be counterproductive for some cuts and can also dry things out more. (Restaurants do it mostly for their own convenience; it speeds cooking.) Unless you have a very loose-textured steak, which might benefit from additional browning reactions with greater surface area while not getting tough, you probably don't want to decrease thickness deliberately. Instead, keep moisture in with a somewhat thicker cut.
And flip often during cooking. It's more work because cooking to well-done takes longer, but it's the best way to keep juices moving around inside rather than boiling out the top while the bottom gets dry and burnt. (Think of what a rotisserie does; you're doing the same by flipping steak often.) Flipping frequently also can help soften fat and begin to break it down, which can add flavor and a "moist" aspect (if done right with high-quality meat, the fat might even be almost "melt-in-your-mouth"). Frequent flipping also aids in more browning reactions, which develop more flavor, and well-done steak does at least get that advantage of extra browning flavor (perhaps even crisped brown outer layers of fat). Obviously control heat; overall you'll need to cook at a slightly lower heat to avoid burning the outside before interior is well-done.
Then pull steak off while slightly less than well-done, and let it rest to creep up to well-done.
To summarize:
Loose or well-marbled cut, cheapest are those you'd generally slice even if serving rare
Marinate for at least a few hours; salt will help with moisture, acid can help at least keep the outer layer less tough
Relatively high-heat sear on both sides
Then move to lower heat, and flip frequently
Check internal temperature with an instant-read thermometer to pull it off precisely as the pink is about to go away in middle (this may take some practice to find the right temp based on your cooking technique, how thick the steaks are, etc.)
Let rest to "coast" to well-done
I've accidentally overcooked skirt steak this way a couple times, and it was just as tasty (if not more so), basically as juicy, and almost as tender as if I cooked it to medium rare. (Skirt is always chewy anyway; well-done steaks will always be chewy, but they don't have to be excessively tough.)
Cooking steak to medium-rare and getting passable results is relatively easy with a thermometer. Cooking a decent well-done steak takes a lot more skill.
EDIT: A couple comments have noted that there are better ways to cook steaks. I absolutely agree. The OP didn't ask about preparation technique, so I was assuming a somewhat "standard" cooking technique for steaks (grilling, pan-frying, broiling, etc.), which my advice applies to. Personally, I'd recommend things like reverse searing or finishing in the oven, etc. too for better results, but I wasn't trying to turn this answer into "how to cook a steak" in general.
I like your tip on turning often, after the sear: it approaches roasting. The distinction between roasting and baking has almost disappeared, now there are aren't so many kitchens with roaring open fires and spits turned by dogs in treadmills.....
I agree with almost all of this post, especially the first paragraph-- to each their own in matters of taste. Years ago I enjoyed Alton Brown's show on cooking low, then searing last, and it's a principle I apply whenever I can now. Here's a link to "Serious Eats" along the same lines, FWIW: https://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/the-food-lab-how-to-cook-roast-a-perfect-prime-rib.html I understand this is harder to pull off on a grill, though I am not sure the OP specifically asked about grilling.
And here's that Alton Brown recipe, for preparing a rib roast: https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/dry-aged-standing-rib-roast-with-sage-jus-recipe-1939502
Gotta disagree with a few of your points. Don’t attempt to finish the steak in the pan/on the grill. It will dry out. Instead, wrap it in aluminium foil and finish it in the oven. Afterwards, let rest to give the steak the chance of absorbing at least some of the moisture (or sous vide it beforehand). — High marbling is of course a great idea but even a skirt steak doesn’t have to be chewy: prepare as stated above, and slice it thinly across the grain. The resulting texture is virtually indistinguishable from the most tender cut, even for experts (people have done blind tests).
@MattMorgan - absolutely. I personally recommend the "reverse sear" and would probably do it myself in this case. I already wrote a very long answer though, so I figured I wouldn't attempt to explain yet another culinary technique; I just assumed the steak would be cooked in a somewhat "normal" fashion, so I gave the basics to modify that technique.
@KonradRudolph -I agree that's a good technique to finish. As I said in my last comment, though, my intention here was to give advice to someone who is likely cooking a steak in a "standard way" and the best way to get somewhat better results. (Honestly, the whole digression about cooking technique is actually off-topic for this question, since it wasn't asked, but I couldn't help giving some thoughts on that.) As for the rest, I don't think we disagree. A skirt steak is "chewier" than a filet; that's all I meant. Yes, if you slice it thinly enough, you may not notice when eating.
I rarely eat meat these days but always used to prefer steak the well-done side of medium. That means a bit more chewing but I wasn't making anyone else do the chewing. Resting helps (but serve on warmed plates in that case), also pan juices drizzled over the top (but not when barbecuing of course).
That's a lot of effort and expense to produce something his guests are unlikely to appreciate. I stand by my unsupportable assertion that most people who want their steak well-done don't like steak.
@Sobachatina - Almost everything I described are actually techniques that steak cooked at any doneness would be improved by. So I don't consider this a "lot of effort," other than a somewhat longer cooking time. Also, as noted in another answer here, steakhouses report that ~12% of Americans order steaks well-done, another quarter of Americans order medium-well, making >37% of Americans who prefer their meat significantly more cooked than "experts" usually advise. I find it hard to believe that so many people would keep ordering steak and paying for it if they don't like it.
@Athanasius- I don't know. 12% sounds like about what you'd expect for steak haters who are dragged along by a significant other. :)
As someone who is not particularly interested in rare or medium beef, this explains why I generally dislike steaks even though I like beef. Thanks!
I would avoid "steak", which will dry out and become tough when cooked well done, and cook a cut of meat that is meant to be braised or grilled low and slow. That will mean that the cut has enough fat and collagen to break down, become tender, and remain moist.
I agree but you would also have to cook it like a braise as well and cook it for a long time and it won't be anything like a steak.
@Sobachatina...my point, exactly.
My point was that the question specifically asked for meat that looks and cuts like steak and a braise doesn't meet this criteria.
@Sobachatina, see the question title. While the question itself does specify "steak", my advice is offered because one will never achieve a "great well done steak", as the cut of meat itself is not destined for greatness when over-cooked.
The question, I'd note, is also tagged primarily with "barbecue." Braising is not a common "barbecue" technique. (Though there are slow-cooking barbecue techniques, so it might be more relevant to mention meat commonly used for those.)
"...that is mean to be braised..." => "that is meant to be braised..." (can't make a one-character edit, can't think of anything else to change without potentially conflicting with your intent).
I would look for cuts which can stand marination, and marinate them. Onglet (Hanger), Bavette, and Flank steak come to mind. The type of cut I'm thinking of tends to have a ropier texture, and be more highly-flavored, pungent, than the fine cuts. Still give them a high heat, to just well-done or slightly under, and give a longer resting time in an only-just warm place, than you would for more tender cuts. Don't waste the juices, and slice thinly across the grain to serve.
It does not matter 'why' you want to make 'well done' steaks, if that is what you want to do, for yourself or your guests, it is 'ok'. No, it's not actually bloody but some people are stuck with that perception in their mind, and it will not be erased by telling them "it's not really blood."
Ok, so you are going for two things "Steak" and "Well Done" here is what you are looking for:
If you want "high quality" then look for a Flank or Skirt steak. These are thin enough that they will become well done before they surrender all of their moisture. Of course you are still trying to avoid 'the appearance' of less well done but with good marinade (say a fajita style) they can be 'moist' without the bloody/pink appearance.
If you want to serve a more 'classic steak' (Rib Eye, T-Bone, Sirloin) you can do this, just don't waste the money of going for "Select" (or better) grades of beef. A well-done standard grade (off the grocer's shelf) premium cut is going to be every bit as good as a "Prime" cut once it is pushed to well done. (The quality of those better grades are more pronounced at a rare or medium-rare finish.
Regardless of what cut you choose, the technique that will render 'the best' results, however, is to slow roast the steaks (in your oven @ 275°F for 25-35 minutes) and the finish them on the grill or griddle to sear them at the end. The slow roast will allow the steaks to achieve the desired internal temp (160°F) more slowly and then finishing them will put some maillard reaction on the surface to give a great flavor and juicy-but-not-bloody result.
Flank or Skirt is definitely the way to go here. They've also got enough fat that they're still going to be tasty unless they're turned into a briquette.
They're the ones who are eating it; just give them what they want with a smile. It's no skin off your back. About 12% of Americans like well done steak, sometimes even with ketchup. And undercooked meat is a risk to certain populations with compromised/weak immune systems.
Use a thermometer to get it to well done, and no more past that (165 F); too many people blast their well done steaks well beyond this, giving well done steaks a worse rap than they deserve. If you're going to stick with cuts that come to mind when most people think steak (Ribeye, Strip, Tbone, etc.): Try to cook it as gently as possible as well; two methods I'd suggest are on wire rack in a baking sheet in a low oven (say, 250F) until it gets to around 160 F or sous vide. Then, finish in a ripping hot skillet with some oil and butter and herbs.
I'd suggest a cut like flank or skirt. These tend to cook quickly to something tasty and do fine well done (these are getting kinda pricy though). I'd grill or broil these cuts, and slice against the grain. The cuts that will do better at more done-ness are normally the tougher ones that have more fat and connective tissue (e.g. ribeyes do better at medium well than filet mignon; rarer isn't always better, you need some done-ness to deal with the fat and stuff).
Alternatively, if your guests want well done meat, try doing something other than a steak if it bothers you so much. Fajitas, for example. Or do a sauce, like this mushroom sauce. Or don't invite them.
Hey, what's wrong with ketchup?
Nothing is wrong with ketchup (or putting it on steak, if that's your preference).
Others have pointed out that well done steak is usually terribly tasteless shoe leather so choose the cheapest.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned the best cooking method if you really want well done steak.
Sous-vide it at 71 degrees C (160F) for an hour using something like this, then fry it at very high heat for 30 seconds each side. You’ll obliterate any pinkness, and it’ll still taste vaguely like steak. The sous vide approach also pretty much eliminates the risk of getting more done than you want it - the internal temperature can’t go abound what you want - and it’s trivial to add any marinades or other flavourings you might want.
I'm curious -- have you done this? I've never tried this technique myself for well-done steaks, and I've read mixed reviews online. Some claim this works out better (for the reason you cite: precise temperature), but others claim the long cooking actually dries the meat out more and you're more likely to end up with a bag full of juice around the steak. (This happens to some extent with well-done steaks anyway, but I can imagine it might get worse with even longer cooking.)
God no. I’d never cook steak to well done. It’s a waste of good meat and an insult to the cow. I have cooked other cuts of beef at this temperature, and other meats, and they’ve come out as expected.
Sous-viding is indeed a good idea but at 71°C you might as well not bother. As Kenji Lopez-Alt says: “… there is no real reason to use a sous vide precision technique if you like your steak well-done. Just grill or pan-roast until it's as done as you like it.” — However, doing it at 63°C instead yields a colour that’s pretty close to well done, without the catastrophic loss in moisture and texture.
Eating a raw steak is a waste and an insult to the cow because I don't like eating raw steak.
In absence of sous-vide equipment you can put your steaks into the oven on a grille, put it on ~80°C and let it thake some heat and then add the crust like you would on the sous-vide method. Works fine, also for less than well-done - did this many times.
Can I suggest Korean style BBQ for an alternative to the traditional steak?
Korean BBQ usually use the same cuts of beef as steak, but are sliced thinner and often marinated. This allows them to cook well-done quickly, but don't loose as much liquid as a thick slab of beef. They also have added benefit of maximizing the surface area for that caramelized goodness.
Use chuck, or any cut typically ground/minced
Because if your guests are going to insist on well-done then you should be serving them burgers. It's one of the few ways to get well-done beef on a grill that's actually pleasant to eat, as the grinding process creates a nice, uniform distribution of fat and you can mix in other ingredients to help the burger retain both moisture and flavor. That counteracts the negative effects of cooking the meat to a higher internal temperature. And it's not something you can accomplish with a steak.
Just to be clear, I'm suggesting you grind the meat and make burgers; not that you buy a cut of beef that's typically ground and then try to cook it as a steak.
I honestly prefer my beef like this. I've had steak that people insisted were delicious, but I couldn't taste it.
Meat proteins dry out when they are over cooked. They squeeze out all their internal liquids and become dry and tough. This happens to all cuts of meat. If a person doesn't like their meat to be the texture of meat then this is their only option.
As moscafj wrote, cooking tougher cuts long and slow will melt the connective tissue and result in tasty meat again- the meat fibers are still dried out but it isn't tough. Unfortunately, meat prepared this way does not look or cut like steak.
Using cuts with a lot of fat, and cutting the meat thinly and against the grain will result in a well-done steak that at least has a chance of being chewed but it will still be far from anything that could be called a "great steak"
People who want their steak well-done don't want their steak to be meat-like.
The best cut to give them, therefore, is the cheapest so it will be less of a waste.
Incidentally- without exception, all the people who have told me they prefer steak well-done don't prefer steak. Given a choice they would have chicken.
To increase your samples size by one, I agree. I've actually had steak that was, and I quote, "MmmmmmMMM! Soooooo goooooood!" And I enjoyed it not at all. So I gave him my steak and took some chicken, which I found far tastier. I do enjoy some beef a la fajita or better yet, carne asada, though.
I'll be the exception then, I prefer well-done steak over any other kind of meat :)
@KeithM I'm afraid I can only accept anecdotal evidence from people I meet in person. You are probably trolling me. :)
@Sobachatina I'm not trolling you, I'm quite serious. I value my Stackexchange reputation far to much to go about trolling people ;p
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.226115
| 2018-04-13T16:17:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89081",
"authors": [
"AAM111",
"AbraCadaver",
"Almo",
"Athanasius",
"Batman",
"Chris H",
"Daniel",
"Gossar",
"Joshua",
"Keith M",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Matt Morgan",
"R.M.",
"Robin Betts",
"Sobachatina",
"T.J. Crowder",
"User1000547",
"Wayne Werner",
"ZachM",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66630",
"jpmc26",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"rhialto"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64346
|
How can I prevent meatballs fall apart?
Everytime I make meatballs they fall apart during cooking them. I used a several recipes such as a chinese lionshead meatballs and an indonesian recipe
and even a recipe from a michelin 3-star restaurant. Always they fall apart. please give me tips. I like to make lions heads or indonesian meatballs.
But they fall apart all the time. it drives me nuts. I use the recipes to the letter so it must be technique or something.
The meatballs look oke when i construct them, but during cooking they all apart.
Can you link to the recipes? It definitely matters what's in them and how you're cooking them. If they're recipes that succeed for others, there may well be something that you're unknowingly not following correctly.
Hello Marcus, we already have a question on that. If your situation is not covered there (not that there are many answers there, not just the "boil them" suggestion), please edit this one clearly stating what is different, and we can reopen. But the general advice on not falling apart should go to the other question.
The general cure for this is to add an egg and some breadcrumbs to your ground meat mixture. The eggs serve as a binding agent, and the breadcrumbs remove excess moisture.
If your recipe does not allow the use of these workarounds, there are still some things you can do to improve your result:
Increase the density of your mince: there is quite a lot of difference in how large or small the chunks of meat in your mince are when you buy it. A real craftsman butcher will allow you to buy finer mince by changing the setting on his mincer. The finer the mince, the denser and tighter the meatballs will be.
Work them! Many cooks tend to be a bit lazy when it comes to rolling meatballs, working on the "once it's round, it's done" principle. This means that they do not bother to roll them longer and harder to improve the structural integrity of the balls.
Turn up the heat: Good hot oil/butter and plenty of it helps you to get a solid crust around the meatballs, which in turn lowers the chance of them falling apart.
Bigger is NOT better. Smaller balls have less tendency to fall apart.
I hope this helps any in making the recipes more successful next time!
#3 was going to be my suggestion, so the meat on the outside of the ball can bind up before the meat starts to expand from the heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.228310
| 2015-12-13T00:12:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64346",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Escoce",
"Joel Bailey",
"Mahesh M",
"Sicelokuhle Mathema",
"Susan Pauly",
"Suzi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"wade carson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64537
|
Cake Projector Alternatives
My wife is making a cake for some kid, and she asked me to come up with something brilliant to project an image of the Paw Patrol dog (like this guy) she needs to draw on the cake, but we don't have a projector - apparently that's what they use to draw on cakes, to project the outline of the drawing and "follow the lines" with icing.
Short of an actual projector, what technique can she use to do this?
That is totally doable. Just print out an appropriately sized copy of the desired picture and put a piece of waxed paper over it. Using a piping bag, trace the picture with frosting, filling it in. Then freeze the frosting and waxed paper. Once it is frozen, peel away the waxed paper, and put the pieces on the cake.
Here is a great pictorial of the process.
Awesome, you just saved a kid's birthday cake!
Your way is probably easier than mine ... but I started typing it, so might as well post it.
@Joe Been there done that! :)
If you can't find someone to borrow a projector from, there are a few things you can, depending on how much effort you're willing to expend, and how precise you need it. (for kids, getting it recognizable is often enough).
For a one-off project, it's likely not worth making a camera lucida.
If you draw a grid over your design, you can press some faint lines into the cake, and use that as a reference for how to draw the artwork on the cake. Wait until the icing has crusted over, and press in lightly with a straight edge ... enough so you can see it if you shine a light at a severe angle.
If you can make a copy of the design of the size that's needed for the cake, you can either cut it out so that you can trace around it (just scoring lightly so that you can then go back and fill in after you remove the pattern). You can then either cut out portions of different color and align those and trace again, or you can sometimes press lightly through the paper and transfer marks well enough that you can see it to trace in icing.
Another method of transferring a design of the same size is to use a pin and poke through the paper repeatedly along the line you're interested in transferring. I don't know how visible that would be on a cake, though -- you might have to use something larger (eg, a push-pin) and I'd be afraid of having to push down so hard that you get the paper stuck on the icing.
If you do want to try this, spin the pin as you're pushing through the paper. (this reduces the friction when pinning into poster boards ... I would hope it would do the same for the paper)
Yet another method is a cross between the full-sized copy, and the grid technique. Make two copies of the design, and draw series of parallel lines on one (spacing depends on the precision you need). Use a knife to cut each of the lines, but do not go all the way to the edge of the paper. Use your knife to then cut out every other strip. Place the cut up paper on the other page, and transfer the lines for reference. Place the cut paper on the cake, and the full picture to mark what you can in the area from the slots cut in the paper. Remove the paper, and mark the area that's now uncovered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.228583
| 2015-12-18T01:06:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64537",
"authors": [
"Ann Thomas",
"Hayley Mclean",
"Jewel Mcclain",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Linda Hawkes",
"Mathieu Guindon",
"Sandra Orosz",
"Tatjana Gorgijevska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41728",
"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
}
|
22855
|
How to remove film from stainless steel pan
I have an unsightly film around my stainless pan as shown here:
What is causing this to happen?
And how can I remove the film? I have soaked it in soapy water, scraped it with a plastic scraper, and run it in the dishwasher several times, but I can't seem to get rid of the film.
UPDATE: the pan is an All-Clad stainless, fully-clad frypan: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00005AL8C
Is this something that occurred over time or is this something that happened only when you cooked something specific in it. If that is the case, what was it?
@Jay - I tried the technique of heating the empty pan in order to expand the metal and close up any microscopic cracks in order to prevent food from sticking. I must have overdone it because when I put in olive oil, it burnt and released quite a bit of smoke and left the residue.
This picture you took is now the first google image search result for oil polymerization! https://ibin.co/52x7wepUiZhl.png
As others have already said, it appears to be polymerized oil. It happens when oil is left in the pan hot for a long period (temperature depends on oil), or smoking for not as long. However, lye probably isn't required to remove it.
Bar Keeper's Friend and a bit of scrubbing will probably manage to take this off. As an advantage, while getting BKF on your hands will dry your hands out, it won't cause injury—unlike lye.
Alternatively, a scouring pad and plenty of elbow grease will take it off as well (though will also leave shallow scratches in the stainless—it'll not be polished anymore). Or, similarly, a sanding block or sandpaper.
I wouldn't put an aluminum core stainless (or tri-ply) in an oven on the self-clean cycle. Those get very hot, somewhere around 900°F, and I'd not at all be surprised if the pan warped.
Bar Keeper's Friend is hands-down the best solution here, because it is a mild abrasive and rapidly scrubs away the polymer layer. Steel wool and elbow grease will work too, but they scratch up the metal, where BKF will leave a shiny polish.
+1 I agree that a mild abrasive cleaner is the best solution. I've got a bottle of polishing compound meant for stainless steel (I don't imagine the brand matters much), and it never fails to remove this sort of thing. Can't say I've ever had any burned spots as big as those in the picture, but small ones happen from time to time.
This looks like half-polymerized oil. It happens when you overheat a layer of oil in the pan.
It won't come off through scraping. If you insist on removing it mechanically, you will have to try a polishing brush on a Dremel or something similar. I remove these chemically. Make a lye concentrate in the pot and let it sit overnight. Rinse very (!) thoroughly. This works well on stainless steel - but don't ever use it on aluminium pots!
If you don't have lye, you can also try a weaker alcali solution, like baking soda. But I doubt that it will be enough to remove the stuff.
To avoid it from happening again, don't overheat. This happens if the pan is left empty at at least 200°C for a very long time (or higher temperatures for a shorter time). There is no cooking method which requires this. Most things done in a pan are OK at around 150 to 160°C - if you are making steaks, sauteeing, etc., you should start using lower temperatures. Wokking needs these high temperatures - but first, a shallow SS pan is not good for wokking, and second, you should have more oil in there while preheating, and then move vegetables continiously around the pan while wokking. So this layer shouldn't happen at all.
I will just add that what the OP has essentially done is "season" that stainless pan. Mostly people do this only for cast iron pans, and you can't tell it's brown like that because of the dark iron surface. There are also non-stainless steel pans (like a good wok or crepe pan) that benefit from this kind of seasoning, and until the seasoning burns to black (it will eventually), a uniform brown color like that is highly desirable as it makes them non-stick.
You seem to love lye :-P. Stainless pans often have aluminum inside (or sometimes just a disc on the bottum). If there is any tiny exposure of that aluminum, lye is going to be a very bad idea. Bar Keeper's Fried or a scouring pad is much safer. Also, 200°C is an acceptable frying temperature (depending on oil). And steaks are done higher than 160°C.
@derobert I am 100% sure that a scouring pad doesn't work. I have spent lots of time proving it :( Never tried Bar Keepers Friend, but it seems to be just another acid. I have also tried concentrated vinegar (20% acetic acid) without success. BKF may be better, but I doubt it. This stuff just doesn't react with acids. I agree that lye is drastic, and if somebody has another working solution, I would be glad to hear it - I have an alu drip-catch pan in my oven which is covered in this gunk.
@rumtscho I've cleaned polymerized oil off with Bar Keeper's Friend. Not sure why your scouring pad didn't work, it should, as it actually removes metal. Unless you were using a non-scratch scouring pad...
@rumtscho: Bar Keeper's Friend is a polishing agent, or abrasive, not simply a chemical cleaner. It will remove the oil, AND leave a beautifully shiny, polished surface. Much better than the scratches from a scouring pad.
There are anti-grease solutions on the market. They also work with polymerized fats. Alkaline solutions. Wear gloves.
@BaffledCook The ones I have tried didn't work on my pans and oven. They work great on freshly sprayed fat. I suspect that the consumer versions are too weak, maybe I should look for industrial strength grease cleaners.
I concur with rumtscho in that scraping isn't going to get this off. Before you go the route of lye, I would try one of two things:
1- Pour can of diced tomatoes into pan. Cook over medium heat until tomatoes start to bubble, stirring occasionally. Stir heavily once bubbling, then discard tomatoes and wash pan.
2- Fill pot with a large amount of rhubarb and water. Boil for a long time, adding water as necessary. Discard and wash.
I am guessing you believe the acids are going to dissolve the film?
I have used the tomato technique effectively in the past and saw the rhubarb technique on an episode of "How clean is your house."
A modified version of this worked. I was able to get rid of most of the film by letting vinegar sit in the pan for a few hours, then boiling it and using a plastic scraper.
OP also asked why this is happening. It's not absolute temperature; it's temperature relative to the smoke point if the oils you're cooking with. Let me guess -- extra virgin olive oil?
Try using higher smoke-point oils when you're saunteeing and doing high-temp things generally (peanut, sunflower, safflower, coconut, etc).
Yep, it was extra virgin olive oil. Thanks for the suggestion. I realized I just really don't need that much heat.
That means the smoking point is the temperature, where the oil begins to polymerize?
If the rest of the handle is also stainless steel you can put in your oven during a 'self-cleaning' cycle. The high heat should reduce that film to a charred residue to be cleaned off.
You might also try just pouring a can of Coca-Cola (not another cola drink) in the pan and let that sit over-night. The acid in Coke is strong enough to dissolve a nail, it will probably make short work of this.
Generally, bases are better at cleaning polymerized (and non-polymerized) oils than acids. An acid won't react with the oil, but it has a chance to dissolve the invisible oxide layer on the steel pot (below the oil). But forget the coca-cola urban legends; both vinegar and decalcifying tablets for kettles are a stronger acid than coca-cola, they have a higher chance of working. Oh, and the self-cleaning cycle is a very good idea; I just didn't think of it because my oven doesn't have it, but +1 for that.
I only postulated the Coke idea based on @Jacob G... The self-cleaning method was how we used to do those a restaurant I worked in (too many) years ago..
I have a D5 Brushed Stainless pan and I got a stain like this when I let my olive oil get too hot and it started smoking a bit. I tried soaking and it just didn't budge. I decided to try baking soda. Put about an inch of water in the pan and then add in baking soda, making a paste. Let this sit on the stain for 5-10 minutes. Then scrub. I use a cotton dish rag for scrubbing but a folded paper towel seems to do in a pinch. If that isn't strong enough add in some salt and scrub some more. It took about 30-45 minutes to clean the section of my pan that was stained. This pan will probably take over an hour of scrubbing to get clean. just keep working on it and you can get most of it off.
I have had this happen to me also. I have found that using Cameo has helped me.
I agree, Bar Keeper's Friend by far is the best. You will never need steel wool again. Also great for SS sinks. Then a quick wash to release the pwdr residue.
Before I found BKF, this optional method is only for Stainless Steel Sinks, I would the fill pot half way with water and ½ cup of DishWasher powder, Cascade if possible or use more with liquid. Bring to a boil and ventilate the kitchen. It will help release and burned food and oil enough so you can scrub it off. Also using a metal spatula helped to, but it will leave some scratches. But I was able to use the pot again. You need to weigh the options. You can also warm the pan under very hot water, then scrub with a paste made from the DW powder. Use gloves.
You really don't have to stop using the pan because of some polymerized oil.
I've had success with SOS pads (Steel wool with embedded detergent). It's not easy, and it takes a while, but I can get my steel looking like new. You'll need to re-season it before use.
Forget the rubbing and scrubbing with Bar Keepers Friend or Cameo. This way is quick and easy. Heat the empty pan on medium heat for about 2-3 minutes. Take pan outside and spray with Easy Off oven cleaner (yellow cap not blue). When you spray the pan if the oven cleaner evaporates allow the pan to cool a few seconds and then continue spraying. What you want is the oven cleaner to foam up and stay on the pan. Allow the cleaner to stay on pan for 4-5 minutes and then rinse off with hot soapy water. Your pan will look like new. Do not use this method on aluminum pans.
ProTip: Try a Fabric Softener Sheet (really!). The ones you throw in your dryer. Fill pot / container with Hot water and add a sheet. Allow to soak overnight. Use plastic scrub brush and don't remove sheet as you're scrubbing - scrub with it (slightly abrasive).
I’ve not noticed bar keepers friend in England, but I suspect that CIF cream is similar. On polished surfaces, I use T-cut cream (original) that is a finer abrasive, used to polish old car surfaces or metals.
I've found that vinegar works well for mild cases of this - no boiling necessary. Pour enough to cover the bottom and let it sit for a few minutes; pour out most, then scrub hard with a paper towel and rinse. This also works for lime scale from hard water, of course.
For a pan like shown in the OP image, baking soda can be a useful mild abrasive (and of course it can be followed up with vinegar; the carbon dioxide bubbles help lift material off the pan). But I've still usually needed to scrub them with something harsher like steel wool or an SOS pad in these cases.
Seasoning a cast iron pan usually contains the advice online, never to boil tomatoes, as it’s acidity will remove the seasoning. But that’s what you want! So why not try boiling dilute vinegar in the pan?
The issue with boiling acidic ingredients in a cast iron pan is that the acid tends to corrode the iron (through imperfections in the coating), not that it eats away the coating itself. The coating is quite acid-resistant.
It’s good to know the polymerised coating is acid resistant. It means I need not worry about curry sauces in my stir fry pan with tomatoes and lemon juice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.228956
| 2012-04-07T16:00:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22855",
"authors": [
"ALW",
"Alexander Taylor",
"BaffledCook",
"Bette Brooksarrot",
"BobMcGee",
"Brian F",
"Caleb",
"Casey",
"Cos Callis",
"CowboyTim",
"Dee",
"Doug A.",
"Ellen Henneke",
"Harry Mcgill",
"Jackie Umstead",
"Jacob G",
"Jay",
"Mike Eng",
"Phoenix",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"Splambo",
"bikeboy389",
"derobert",
"erik",
"fodil kouil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9810",
"rayratliff",
"rumtscho",
"sanchit"
],
"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
}
|
73312
|
I don't care about the non stick property of a non stick pot. Is there any harm in washing it in a dishwasher?
I have this T-Fal non stick pot, and really I don't have any use for the non stick coating. I'm wondering if there's any harm in washing it in the dishwasher aside from the non-stick coating wearing off. In particular I am wondering about food safety.
Hello Mike, the health effects of ingesting PTFE are not something we can discuss here, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. Instead of closing, I removed the part about health effects, as it is possible that it will have culinary effects. But if answers veer into health claims, they will have to be removed.
@rumtscho the help article you linked doesn't clearly indicate that health effects of this sort are off topic. The closest example of an off-topic question describes a health question about a specific food. And an on-topic bullet point notes cooking equipment questions.
You have misunderstood it. Health effects of any sort are off topic, described as "general health [...] issue". This is one of the strictest rules here. We cannot evaluate whether what you are putting into your body deserves the label "healthy".
Please do not edit to turn this into a health question. If you do, we will have to close it.
How is a potential safety issue arising or not arising from continued use of damaged equipment not a food safety issue?
@rackandboneman food safety refers to "what to do to not get an infectious illness when eating". It only encompasses disease which can be traced to its origin with relative ease, such as getting salmonellosis after you ate old eggs. It does not extend to stuff which might or might not change your chance of contracting an illness which is related to, but not exclusively caused by environmental factors. So all potential negative effects of PTFE are not covered by food safety rules.
According to this manual, it is actually dishwasher safe
t-fal manual
It already looks like the coating has worn off significantly. Without making any health claims (as I don't know what the impact of ingesting particles of T-fal coating), I don't think the dishwasher is going to do more damage, or release any more coating, than your use of inappropriate non-stick utensils already has. ...maybe, just time for a new pot.
Most non-stick can survive dishwashers anyway. If it's already scratched the scratches might get bigger but not necessarily. Depending on the metal underneath, there's a chance of it starting to flake off. Once that happens, it's pretty much gone.
The downside of the coating coming off is that food sticks worse than it would to a pan that was bare metal to start with. This may have something to do with intermediate surface treatments, and isn't a problem if you're using it for just boiling things in water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.230046
| 2016-08-22T01:22:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73312",
"authors": [
"Mike Eng",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9810",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22881
|
Why does sauce go watery after freezing?
If I freeze a sauce, particularly something with mince in it, when defrosted it produces excess water.
The sauce before frozen is nicely thickened.
I think it might be because the proteins in the meat are damaged in some way by the ice crystals so that they are unable to retain as much water.
EDIT The sauce I'm referring to is bolonaise and the only thickening agent I used is a bit of tomatoe puree.
What kind of sauce? Something with meat in it, I guess?
I think it's not just the meat that gets damaged like that--any un-burst tomato or other veg cells will likely be burst in the crystallization process, and will release any trapped liquid after thawing. At least that's what I've heard.
@Jefromi I'm mainly referring to bolonaise sauce.
Sauces separate when frozen for several reasons.
If it contains vegetables, the plant cells rupture when the water in them freezes. This means the sauce gets watery and the taste changes as the contents of the cells escape.
With emulsions, the oil/fat microdroplets clump together when they freeze. When you thaw the sauce, the emulsion is wrecked, giving a runny consistency. You can defeat this by re-emulsifying as you thaw the sauce. See How can I prevent bacon mayonnaise from splitting when above fridge temperature?
Due to colligative properties, areas of less concentrated solution will freeze first, and more concentrated solution freeze last. As the solution gradually freezes, this has the effect of concentrating dissolved thickening agents in the last regions to freeze. When the solution thaws, the thickener isn't as evenly mixed.
Some thickeners loose their ability to thicken if frozen. Wheat flour and cornstarch both have problems with freezing after used as thickenters.
Tapioca, arrowroot, rice flour and xanthan gum don't suffer from this problem.
thanks for the response - I don't actually use any thickening agent in the sauce apart from a bit of tomatoe puree, however thanks for the link that may well come in handy!
The water and fat separate out when it freezes. This should just stir back in when it's reheated fine without affecting the thickness of the fully heated sauce.
Water could be getting into your food in the freezer though. If you have a large quantity of ice on the top when you remove things from the freezer then you should remove that before defrosting and look at using better sealed containers. You might also need to defrost your freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.230298
| 2012-04-08T17:16:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22881",
"authors": [
"Anne ",
"Cascabel",
"Dmiters",
"Lisa",
"Lucy",
"Marcia",
"Rebecca Schreiner",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9825",
"rgvcorley",
"sealy_au"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23128
|
Hiding the taste of cornstarch in gluten-free bechamel
I tried a few times to make gluten-free béchamel, by using cornflour instead of wheat flour because I have some in my cupboard (for thickening sauces, even though it's somewhat considered cheating!). Now, when I did that, the resulting béchamel was decent, but always with a heavy floury taste, as if I had used wheat flour and put way too much of it. I've read this question and the answers recommending alternatives such as xanthan gum. However, I don't have many of those, so I'm wondering: how could I hide the taste of cornstarch my sauce (without reintroducing gluten, of course)? Right now, I'm thinking more nutmeg, but I doubt that'll be enough…
In an answer to another question, someone else was looking for answers on dealing with thickening dairy. If you want to address thickening with corn starch, here are some beginning steps;
Use the right ratio of corn starch slurry to liquid: 1 tablespoon corn starch thickens 1 cup of liquid
Use the corn starch in a slurry: although you didn't mention clumps (which slurrying prevents), I mention this as a best practice for many applications - whisk the corn starch in an equal amount of cold water then pour in slowly while stirring the pot
Heat the corn starch through: you need to heat the liquid until you can no longer taste the starchiness. Unfortunately with a bechamel boiling isn't preferable, but heating it for an extended period of time at a high temp will cook away the starchiness
Although I understand you are looking for a common thickener, be aware of the possibilities as you may have one on hand one day from some other purpose. If the three steps above don't solve your problem, I think that you may be putting in more effort than just buying some more apt thickener. Even so, corn starch should do fine, it sounds like the problem may just be in the completeness of your preparation.
In addition to MFG's excellent answer above, I'll also comment that I find tapioca starch has a very neutral starch flavor, and that substituting it for cornstarch can reduce undesirable flavors.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.230552
| 2012-04-17T19:01:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23128",
"authors": [
"Erik Kalkoken",
"JRA",
"Kathleen Gaspar",
"Ryan B.",
"derek brain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52612"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58088
|
Will a pineapple marinade reduce a beef roast to paste?
My butcher gave me this warning:
Make sure you don't soak your beef in a pineapple marinade, stick to brine. I tried it with pineapple once and I ended up with a paste.
Now seems too incredible (because a beef roast is quite tough), but potentially plausible.
My question is: Will a pineapple marinade reduce a beef roast to paste?
You might be able to do it if it's canned pineapple. (as the heat from canning denatures many enzymes, such as the ones that mess up gelatin setting)
@Joe But exactly these enzymes are the tenderizing stuff, so using canned (= destroyed enzymes) influences only taste, not texture. Perhaps your comment needs clarifying?
Pineapple contains Bromelain, which is "one of the most popular proteases to use for meat tenderizing." Since it's sold as a meat tenderizer, I'd say it really just depends on how long you marinate with it -- it's possible to over-tenderize something.
This warns about over marinating, and mentions recommended times:
The same process that tenderizes steak can also break it down into mush if you marinate it too long in the pineapple, and it'll start distorting the meat's color and taste. For cuts thinner than 1 inch, stick to about 10 to 15 minutes of soak time; for moderately thick steaks of 1 to 1 1/2 inches, marinate for roughly 15 to 20 minutes; and for thicker steaks, marinate for about 30 minutes.
A roast is too large for a marinade to penetrate to reduce it to a paste. That being said, the outside would be definitely very soft if you leave it in long enough. A thin slice of beef will illustrate this effect better, as it would break down to very small chunks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.230769
| 2015-06-08T02:57:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58088",
"authors": [
"Jacklin Bennett",
"Joe",
"John DePolt",
"Nathan Valles",
"Rachael Thomas",
"Stephie",
"anil karki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
55903
|
Will it wreck the dish if I pre-soak beef in brine, and then slow roast with Marsala?
I've found that pre-soaking my beef in brine helps to break down the fibres, making the subsequent roast tender.
I've found a recipe for slow-roasting beef with Marsala. I'm wondering if I can combine the two, or if that will be a terrible idea.
My question is: Will it wreck the dish if I pre-soak beef in brine, and then slow roast with marsala?
Clarifications:
This will be roasted in a ceramic dish, with a glass lid for eight hours.
By 'wreck' I mean the saltiness of the brine is pleasant during eating, as is the sweetness of the Marsala. My concern is that the two tastes (salty and sweet) will clash, making the dish inedible.
Two clarification questions: 1) What kind of dish are you using? And 2) Why are you worried about ruining the dish? Because of the salt content?
Sorry, but this question is simply subjective. It depends on your personal taste if you'll like the combination; I know several people (myself included) who'll hate it and also several who'll love it. The only way to know if it will work for you is to try it and see.
Do it! Marsala is sweet, brine is salty. You may be on to something here...
Really though, I always brine anything I roast or sous-vide. No issues here.
EDIT: I would recommend using olive oil instead of butter if you are still worried. Not to mention Marsala + olive is delicious.
Thanks - it was awesome. It had an overall salty taste - with a slight sweet crispness to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.230946
| 2015-03-21T03:40:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55903",
"authors": [
"Duncan",
"Joe Petersen",
"Lois Gillett",
"RaymondJeannine Decaire",
"Ruth Friendship-Keller",
"Todd",
"Wanda Huffman",
"hawkeye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34719
|
How long does Marsala wine last, after opening?
How long does Marsala wine last, after opening? In the fridge or outside? What about Marsala all'Ouvo (Marsala with added egg yolks)
I had to look it up, but do you mean marsala all'uovo?
Yes, sorry - Will correct the name.
No worries, just making sure - and welcome to the site!
Marsala is a fortified wine, that is, a wine to which extra alcohol has been added.
Therefore, you can store Marsala outside of the fridge, in a cool place (15-20 °C), away from direct light. In these conditions a bottle can sit there for several weeks/months with no obvious degradation, as you would expect for fortified wines.
Generally it is suggested to drink Marsala or similar wines, such as Porto or Banyuls, in the following 4/5 months, but I had bottles opened for a year or so and they were still good, although the flavour faded a bit.
As for Marsala all'uovo, it has pasteurized egg yolks in it, and even home-made recipes call for a pasteurization step.
In general I would store home-made one in the fridge to be on the safe side, but do not serve it too cold. Commercial ones may also have preservatives (aside from the added alcohol of Marsala) in them, and are safe to leave in a cool place for several weeks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.231104
| 2013-06-17T01:15:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34719",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Kinney",
"Josh Randesi",
"Liana",
"Stelios Theodoridis",
"allenskd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81003",
"random"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35151
|
Is sterilized milk safe to use with a breadmaker's timer function?
I recently started making bread with a breadmaker and was wondering if it's safe to keep sterilized milk in the machine for a few hours before the program starts. I'm using the timer function to have a fresh bread ready in the morning. I know that it is recommended not to use perishable ingredients, like milk and eggs, when using the timer function. Does this also apply to sterilized milk?
Where I live, the average room temperature in summer is 28 degrees Celcius, which probably does not help.
Update: I did some more searching and found this:
When an increase and then a rapid decrease in heat occurs, bacteria
such as lactococci and lactobacilli can form. [...] Milk actually
spoils when bacteria converts the lactose into glucose and galactose,
which results in the production of lactic acid.
http://ehow.com/how-does_4572637_what-makes-milk-spoil.html
Basically the question boils down to:
Are these bacteria also present in sterilized milk?
Can these bacteria be introduced from the air or from the bread flower?
Are there other bacteria or toxins that will develop in sterilized milk when exposed to room temperature for a few hours?
What's the average temperature in your kitchen at night? It should be lower than the quoted average temperature, which is probably the mid-afternoon maximum.
NO. This is not a good idea. You are leaving perishable food out in the danger zone for an extended period of time. See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat
I did some more searching. From http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4572637_what-makes-milk-spoil.html :
"When an increase and then a rapid decrease in heat occurs, bacteria such as lactococci and lactobacilli can form. [...] Milk actually spoils when bacteria converts the lactose into glucose and galactose, which results in the production of lactic acid."
Are these bacteria also present in sterilized milk? Are there other bacteria that will develop in sterilized milk when exposed to room temperature?
Are these bacteria also present in sterilized milk?
If something is sterile, then by definition it does not have any live bacteria in it. That only applies while the milk is sealed in its original sterile container, though.
Can these bacteria be introduced from the air or from the bread
[flour]?
Absolutely. There are bacteria and yeast living in the air, flour, and on every surface in your kitchen (including your bread maker). Wild yeast and bacteria in the air and flour are used to make traditional sourdough bread.
Are there other bacteria or toxins that will develop in sterilized
milk when exposed to room temperature for a few hours?
I'm not sure how this differs from the above question, so: yes.
Speaking practically, if you are setting the timer for less than 4 hours, I think the risk of getting some sort of illness from this is rather low. The baking process will likely kill the bacteria before they have a chance to produce enough nasty toxins to make you sick. If you refrigerate the milk beforehand, you can even buy yourself a little extra time, since the milk would need to warm up slightly before bacteria could start reproducing in it. I still wouldn't make a habit of this, since there is still some risk of contamination. Leaving milk out on the counter just isn't a good idea, even if it was originally sterile.
Random suggestions (add to your answer if you'd like): 1) If the recipe includes water (as well as milk), then switching part of that water to ice (same amount, by weight, and spread out at the bottom with the milk) will keep the milk cold much longer [don't use too much, or the dough will be too cold to rise]. 2) Powdered (dry) milk, placed on top of the flour
Thanks for the answer and feedback! I will start using milk powder just to be safe. I suspect that using sterilized milk is safer then pasteurized milk due to the initial lack of bacteria, but with a lack of evidence on how much longer you can keep sterilized milk, it's better to be safe. If no one comes up with some great statistics on bacterial development in sterilized milk versus pasteurized milk in the next few days I will accept this answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.231248
| 2013-07-08T07:55:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35151",
"authors": [
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"konrad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110397
|
How can I make a smoothie that will last 6 months and still be drinkable afterward if unopened?
How can I make a smoothie that will last 6 months and still be drinkable afterward if kept unopened?
The drink must:
Taste and have the texture of a smoothie
Be drinkable after 6 months (still in good flavor without rotting)
Be stable at room temperature
Does this answer your question? Repackaging shelf-stable products
Welcome to SA! For folks to answer this question, you'll need to define what "the taste and texture of a smootie" is to you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.231639
| 2020-08-25T01:01:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110397",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125606
|
How do I keep my meringues from forming a “crust” on the outside and a void in the middle?
I make spaghetti carbonara sometimes, so I make meringues sometimes to use up the egg whites. They always turn out as depicted, with a thin flaky crust on the outside over a big void full of air, with a delightful chewy solid part at the bottom. They taste great but they’re messy to eat.
I follow what is (so far as I can tell) the standard method: beat the room-temperature whites with an electric beater; first slowly, then gradually increasing the power until the whites are peaking. Then add the sugar (twice the weight of the eggs) until it’s nice and stiff, without overdoing it. Portion out onto baking paper and then 10-15 minutes or so in an oven preheated to 150ºC, then turn the oven off but leave it closed until the next morning.
What do I do so they’re solid all the way through?
(For bonus points, can I use 2:1 simple syrup instead of granulated sugar, and in what proportion? Caster sugar is unobtanium here in Germany for some reason and normal granulated sugar doesn’t quite dissolve properly…)
I don't know exactly what result you are looking for, but the recipe I have for merengue cookies starts with a 225°F (105°C) oven (it also directs me to turn the oven off almost immediately). Given the dark color of your merengues, I wonder if you are starting your oven off too hot.
If you have a good process or blender, you can try grinding the granulated sugar into smaller crystals
@XanderHenderson I want them to be solid and the same density all the way through, like the ones you get from a bakery. Stephanie Alexander’s The Cook’s Companion says 150ºC for 45 mins, then open the oven a crack so I don’t know what to think.
@joe I did actually try that in the food processor attachment of a stick mixer (the only thing like that we have available) but I didn’t get an even result. Lots of powder and lots of original-sized crystals. Not worth the trouble.
@RobertAtkins : with a regular food processor you need to ‘pulse’ it so it doesn’t just start flowing around the blades. Blenders have non-circular sides to disrupt flow but you might still need to pulse it on/off. Spice grinders (for small amounts) you can shake as you grind. I have no idea if there are tricks for stick blenders, other than maybe sift occasionally and re-grind the large bits
"I want them to be solid and the same density all the way through..." my recipe, which I have used over and over and over again, produces that result, with the oven starting at 225°F, and getting turned off immediately. Then let the cookies sit, in the oven, overnight.
“Cookies” though? What else is in there aside from egg whites and sugar?
@RobertAtkins Nothing. Just egg whites and sugar. Maybe a splash of vanilla if I feel like it, or some chopped walnuts. But the recipe is really just egg whites and sugar.
So, you have the observed situation that if you follow the method you always use, they always turn out this way.
As others have already commented, your way is much hotter than the method I use to get "more solid all the way through" results, so rather than holding up the book you read it in and continuing to do it that way while expecting different results, try turning the heat down. Whether the issue is your oven, Stephanie Alexander's oven, or the old "cookbook editor proofreading error" it's not working as described for you, so you need to change, and temperature is an easy change. Whip up a small batch and stick tem in the oven at 85°C for an hour or two until crisp, and see what you get. It's been a while since I made a batch but that's my current method, as far as I recall (don't seem to have it written down, not following any particular person's recipe at this point, after a variety of horrible results when I started doing meringue decades ago that appeared to be cookbook proofreading errors.)
A more difficult change which might address both your sugar supply and your solid meringue result would be to use an "Italian" meringue technique, (so, cooked sugar syrup, not anything quite so simple as simple syrup without bothering to cook to high temperature/soft ball stage) - it's not what I do, but it is a way to use syrup and it supposedly makes a very stable meringue, so it might be what bakeries do as well before baking theirs. Seems to involve whipping the whites just to foamy, then whipping to stiff while slowly adding the hot (boiled to 113°C) syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.231722
| 2023-10-20T16:54:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125606",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Robert Atkins",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86678
|
Is it safe to wrap food in aluminum foil before baking it?
It's hard to clean the baking sheet from the stains left by baking food. I was wondering if it is safe to bake the food wrapped in aluminum foil, or whether some aluminum may be leached into the food?
The concept of aluminum foil being "unsafe" for food is dubious at best and has been debunked over and over.
Are you asking for food safety agency recommendations (they say it's fine) or are you trying to ask if there's any credibility to claims that it is somehow unsafe? The former is probably on-topic here (though it's an extremely basic question); the latter is not (though you might be able to ask it on http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/).
I sure hope so - otherwise I suspect I'm dead but just haven't noticed yet. :-)
Not an answer to your aluminum foil question but I lay down parchment paper on the baking sheet to ease clean-up. No idea what might be leached into the food from parchment paper
This is easier to answer if you define "food". Are you wanting to wrap meat, fish, vegetables (which?), tomatoes, cakes, or what?
@NickGammon Generally bread and meat.
@NoGrabbing Would you say parchment paper is a better replacement to aluminum foil?
Not only is it safe but there are entire collections of recipes developed around "foil pack" cooking. Mostly centered around 'campfire' cooking, where one prepares all of the ingredients, wraps them tightly in aluminum foil and places the whole pack in the fire (or oven) to cook the dish.
Yep. This brings back memories.
Some foods dissolve aluminum foil. From experience, one food that does this is cured ham. Food Safety Education says:
It is possible for heavy concentrations of salt, vinegar or some other acidic compound, or highly spiced foods to cause the foil to disintegrate. The product of either of these reactions is an aluminum salt. It does not harm the food but you will want to scrape any deposit off the food as it may impart an undesired flavor and color.
If this happens when you're counting on the foil to seal in moisture, it could ruin the meal.
Aluminum is actually quite susceptible to corrosion by basic chemicals, like lye and sodium carbonate as well. Not harmful, but annoying.
Many tomato-based items dissolve foil too.
@barbecue The blanket statement "Not harmful" is, I think, not justified. The German "Federal Office for Risk Assessment" published a paper suggesting a relatively low daily maximum aluminum intake through food and deodorants. Quotes: "due to the patchy data situation, they do not provide irrefutable scientific evidence for such a connection [between Alzheimer's and aluminum]" and "existing data is inconsistent and in some cases contradictory" for a connection to cancer. The jury is still out.
Personally I usually use baking paper rather than aluminium foil, for two main reasons:
Aluminium foil, being extremely thin, tends to tear easily. It doesn't take much to poke a hole through it, and then its planned use, to keep the baking tray clean, fails because oil or other stuff will ooze through the hole(s). Meat in particular is likely to have sharp edges which will pierce the foil.
In the case of bread, the foil can cling to the cooked food. In the past I recall peeling of bits of foil, piece by piece, as some sticks and some doesn't. This doesn't happen with baking paper which is somewhat stronger.
If you miss a piece of foil your bread can have a rather unpleasant "crunchy" taste as your teeth encounter small bits of foil.
I was wondering if it is safe to bake the food wrapped in aluminum foil ...
I don't know about "safe" or not, but rather I think that the baking paper is more practical, and achieves the same effect, if a clean tray is what you are after. Similarly, lining a cake tray with paper can make cleaning it easier.
A scientific experiment was done on leaching of aluminum from aluminum foil in different food solutions - found here. In it the authors conclude:
The results clearly indicate that the use of aluminum foil for cooking contributes significantly to the daily intake of aluminum through the cooked foods.
The World Health Organisation states that 40mg is a safe daily intake of the metal, but the study showed that food cooked in foil could contain over six times that amount, with one portion of cooked meat containing up to 400mg.
Acid foods, like tomato sauce, will dissolve Aluminum foil. Even cold aluminum wrapped pizza slices sometimes develop holes in the Al overnight. Basic food will do the same, but no one except perhaps betel nut chewers need worry about that. The aluminum does not dissolve into some mysterious and non-toxic gas. It dissolves into the food as soluble trivalent aluminum salts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_chloride I only use Aluminum foil on foods with a near neutral pH
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.232082
| 2017-12-24T21:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86678",
"authors": [
"Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Moshe Katz",
"Nick Gammon",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"barbecue",
"dreamcatcher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63982",
"spring",
"夢のの夢"
],
"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
}
|
68209
|
African palm oil locusts seasoning & preparation?
In Africa, frying locusts in palm oil is common. What kind of stores might sell them? What's the basic technique for frying them, and how would I add seasoning?
I'm sorry but we don't entertain recipe requests here. The internet is a wealth of information, though, even for stuff like this. You should be able to find a recipe.
Are you asking about things like how to season them or just about the basic technique for frying them? The former is a recipe request as mentioned, the latter seems good though!
@Jefromi the latter
Where are you @Geremia? Availability will be very different depending on your location.
Good information at InsectsAreFood. Scroll down for a decent list of places to buy. There is also a site called BizarreFood.com that has a shopping page with all sorts of bagged and canned bugs. It appears that the UK has the best-developed edible insect markets. If you live elsewhere, you might want to research your country's laws, regulations and requirements before you order.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.232488
| 2016-04-11T19:22:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68209",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"GdD",
"Geremia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120090
|
Can beans be overcooked?
Can beans be overcooked? Coffee beans, for example, are incredibly roasted. Falafel is baked or fried garbanzo beans. Is it possible to overcook beans, or is this good for breaking down the sugars, phytic acid that cause flatulence, indigestion of legumes?
If reducing flatulence from beans is the desired effect, you should check another question that deals with the topic. In general, you soak beans, don't overcook them, to minimize bloating. Additionally, consuming beans and other fiber rich foods regularly should reduce the discomfort caused by bloatedness.
I'd like to add that Coffee beans aren't actual beans.
@HAEM AMTwo noted that below: "Coffee beans aren't really beans--they're seeds from a fruit".
What are "lentil beans"? Falafel is usually made from chickpeas or broad/fava beans.
@psmears Yes, garbanzos are usually used, but see: "Cooking vs Soaking Lentils for Falafel."
One should be cautious with overcooked (especially burnt-tasting) food. Acrylamide (AA) is found in significant concentration in crisp bread and fried potato and coffee. Rydberg et al. (2004) found that AA in fried potato reached 100−900 μg/kg, confirmed in restaurant-prepared food (≈500 μg/kg in french fries), and even 4 mg/kg in potato crisps. Microwave heating also generated AA. Uncooked potato and boiled potato had undetectable levels. AA in crisp bread can reach 1.7 mg/kg. The amount of AA in coffee is much lower, but the point is that it is an undesirable by-product of roasting.
Gokmen et al. (2006) showed that temperature drastically influenced the AA yield; frying a potato strip for 9 min yielded undectable AA at 150°C, but 400 μg/kg at 170°C, and 1.4 mg/kg at 190°C. Zhivagui et al. (2019) identified a human genome mutation signature of AA carcinogenicity that occurred in 1/3 of tumour genomes, including lung cancers (88%) and liver (73%) and kidney (>70%). Many tumors with this signature had other genetic markers that strongly suggest that their mutations were due to dietary/occupational exposures to AA unrelated to tobacco smoking (which is the biggest AA source).
The point is that cooking things too long can generate undesirable substances. On the other hand, do note that some food must be cooked to destroy undesirable substances! For instance, raw cashew nuts have toxic levels of urushiol that is also found in poison ivy, and so they must be cooked/roasted.
Overcooked can mean three things - cooked too long, too hot, or both. Which are you asking about?
@J... By "overcooked" I mean whatever decreases the nutritional quality the most.
Beans can absolutely be overcooked.
Coffee beans aren't really beans--they're seeds from a fruit--but they are very temperature sensitive when roasted. There is a wide range of roasts, but dark roast in particular is essentially brought right to the edge and stopped before burning. For folks who like lighter or medium roasts, even dark roasts of coffee can be unpalatably burnt tasting.
As far as legumes and "real" beans go--absolutely. Beans can still be burnt (such as over-fried falafel, or grilled haricots verts), or overcooked until they just turn to mush. If you simmer bean soup long enough, the beans will just disintegrate and lose their shape.
Dried beans in particular are fairly forgiving--there's a pretty wide range where they are edible & enjoyable. The long cook time on dried beans means hitting the doneness between "not crunchy" and "not mushy" is fairly easy.
Fresh beans (haricots verts, green chick peas, fava beans, etc) are quite the opposite. Like other fresh vegetables, the cook time is relatively short and thus it is easy to turn them into a mash by overcooking for just a few minutes. Some people do like mushy vegetables--but many would consider mushy fresh vegetables (including fresh beans) to be a culinary sin.
What prompted my question was soaking dried pinto beans overnight, slow-cooking them all day, food-processing them, then baking / "crispifying" them at 400°F for 30 min. Surprisingly, the beans withstood all that, maintaining their flavor and nutritional quality.
There's no way to know the "nutritional quality" unless you analyzed a sample in a lab. To the point of the question you asked, plus the details in your comment here--if you had left the beans in the oven for longer, they certainly would have burned eventually, likely getting both an acrid taste and overly hard texture.
If you have a more specific question, I'd encourage you to ask another question with enough detail to convey the "problem" (or concern, etc) you're trying to solve . Overly generic questions can often lead to answers that don't address your real want, and be unsatisfying.
Just to add to the dried beans aspect - this very much depends on the type of bean and whether you have pre-soaked them. With soaked mung beans for example, I have to set my pressure cooker to 0 minutes because just the process of reaching temperature is enough to cook them and any more turns them to mush. Soaked kidney beans on the other hand require 25 mins otherwise they are unpleasantly crunchy. Cooking pinto beans all day and then baking for 30 mins sounds excessive to me - I do mine for around 35 mins in the pressure cooker for refried beans (albeit pressure cooking is faster).
@Geremia: By processing and baking/crispifying them; you are circumventing the main issue with overcooking, i.e. the mushy beans AMtwo focuses on. I would argue that in doing so, you've repurposed your beans from the initial cooking (or potential overcooking), to the point where the consideration of having overcooked them is no longer all that relevant, and the pertinent question would be more akin to "can you repurpose overcooked beans?"
Green beans especially: 0.001 milliseconds between "tough and stringy" and "mush" :)
"Coffee beans aren't really beans--they're seeds from a fruit" Beans are seeds, too, no?
Beans are seeds, but not all seeds are beans. Beans usually refer to the seeds from certain legumes. Nuts are also seeds--but not from legumes. And of course there are peanuts, which are legumes, but considered nuts rather than beans. Like with much edible classifications, it's quite fuzzy. When people generally refer to "beans" they mean "a seed from a pod" where coffee beans are not that--botanically speaking coffee beans are closer to a brazil nut or white rice than to a pinto bean.
I found this detailed article on the topic of Can You Overcook Beans? (Things to Know), below is a quote from it (I've also added additional highlighting to the important parts):
Conclusion
Can you overcook beans?
Well, the answer to this question is that it depends. Overcooked beans will have an undesirable texture, but they may not be harmful if eaten. Furthermore, most people will spit them out rather than swallow them and ingest overcooked food.
So, [overcooking] certainly can take away from the flavor and make beans taste bad. But, if you overcook your beans, don’t worry! Just add some seasoning (especially salt) to help mask that off-putting texture.
It's bad advice to say that you should add seasoning to cover up bad taste, because in general bad taste is a strong indicator of unhealthy or even toxic contents.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.232625
| 2022-03-15T23:59:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120090",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Flater",
"Geremia",
"HAEM",
"J...",
"JBentley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98420",
"psmears",
"rackandboneman",
"undercat",
"user21820"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82227
|
How to remedy rock-hard sugar-free ice cream
I am making sugar free ice cream, however I obviously have run into many issues.
The first is that my ice cream is freezing hard as a rock when left overnight. When reading the forums on many websites I see that this could be due to a lack of stabilizers mainly being sugar. Since I have no sugar in my ice cream, I cannot figure out what substitute to implement. I'm sticking to the sugar free aspect with all of the ingredients. I have three questions that pertain to this:
Do I need to use guar gum in conjunction with Xantham Gum to not have the ice cream freeze like a rock?
Are there oils I can add to increase stabilization in place of the sugar by adding essential fats?
Are there any stabilizers that I can add to achieve the proper stabilization that sugar would have in the ice cream?
You should sketch your recipe so we can understand what you are doing.
What are the " many" issues other than hardness? Could you also expand on "sugar free aspect with all the ingredients" - do you mean you chose all other ingredients that are also sugar-free? What are these other ingredients?
Are you adding eggs, or is this egg free too?
I don't think that it´s lacking stabilizers that are causing the hardness of your mixture.
The softness of ice cream is a result of a share (typically around 70%) of the contained water being frozen to microscopic ice crystals while another part remains liquid. To keep this share of water liquid below 0°C it is required to lower the freezing point and this is done by dissolving sugars in the mix, because they consist of small molecules which will freeze on a lower temperature than the larger molecules of the water. So if sugar-free only relates to sucrose (the usual household sugar) switching to another type of sugar like dextrose or fructose could be an option, if not, you will have to look for another ingredient with a small molecule size to get the freezing point down, like alcohol. Be aware that all these options come with different PAC (potere anticongelante, freezing inhibition power) value, so that you can not simply exchange them by a 1:1-ratio but will have to re-balance your mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.233417
| 2017-06-06T21:58:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82227",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"mattm",
"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
}
|
82261
|
What's this white strip on the top side of my boneless skinless chicken breast?
I am aware that there is a tendon which connects a chicken breast to it's tenderloin...what I"m curious about is the other white strip on the top of my boneless skinless chicken breasts as shown in this picture:
I always cut my chicken up into small pieces so I always cut it out, but I realize that this can't really be done when baking or poaching the entire boneless skinless chicken breast.
Can anyone shed some light on to what it is and whether I am wasting my time removing it? Does it dissolve when the chicken is baked?
Structurally it is similar to silver-skin on tenderloin and other red meat muscles, some connective tissue marking the muscle boundary. I have seen it be a little tough on older, non-broiler birds but even then not normally worth messing with, IMO. If you chunk the meat you might find spots that are thick enough to be worth removing especially near the shoulder joint, but otherwise probably not.
The biological term is fascia. (Disclaimer: I am a people doc, not a bird doc LOL)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.233621
| 2017-06-08T21:51:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82261",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675"
],
"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
}
|
65366
|
Uncooked Pickled Fish: Can I recook it?
I made pickled salmon a few days ago. I clearly did not cook it enough before pickling it for four days in vinegar. It is basically raw and completely falling apart.
Can I recook it now by boiling it in its own pickling juice, or is that not a smart thing to do?
can you describe your pickling process?
I mixed vinegar, water and sugar. brought to a boil. dropped the fish in for less than a minute. Removed the fish. Poured the liquid on top and put in the fridge.
Do you have ratios on vinegar/sugar/water?
equal sugar and vingar. 2 cups of water, 1/4 cup each of vinegar and sugar.
You should change the title, "undercooked" instead of "uncooked". Anyway... this is a two part process, boiling (cook with heat) and then pickling (preserving in an acid brine). If you failed in the first step, then you cannot solve it with the preserving, or reboiling. It will be a different product, not pickled salmon.
I wouldn't eat it as leaving it raw with such a weak pickling solutiong for multiple days is somewhat risky. A general rule for pickling solution should be 1:1 water to vinegar, and if your fish still seems completely raw the acid was not strong enough to denature any proteins on its own so I wouldn't trust its germ killing potential.
A bit more details in the answer would be helpful.http://www.cooksinfo.com/pickling suggests a minimum vinegar:water ratio of 1:1.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.233739
| 2016-01-13T13:10:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65366",
"authors": [
"Christine Diggins-Vo",
"Daniel Chui",
"Elena Hennessey",
"Kathy Bangert",
"Wendy Merdian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"mir",
"moscafj",
"roetnig",
"user110084",
"vicki meals"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82004
|
Ears of corn in grams
I found an interesting recipe (http://www.icouldkillfordessert.com.br/receitas/mingau-de-milho/) for corn porridge, in it was necessary "3 ears of corn" for the amount of porridge.
Suppose I don't find the corn on the cob and can only buy it in a can, how many grams of corn does the proportion of the recipe ordered?
Recipe:
3 ears of corn;
500ml of milk;
1/2 cup of sugar;
1 pinch of salt;
Cinnamon.
Your question is interesting as such, but on a side note, the recipe will not work with corn from the can. You need raw corn.
I agree with @rumtscho that you are unlikely to get the desired results from canned corn as you really probably need raw. If you do try canned, make sure it is whole kernel type and that might improve your results. If you cannot get fresh corn, frozen, uncooked corn might work, but even that is usually blanched which might be enough to change the results too much for your desired results, and I would again try for whole kernel, not cut.
Digging around a bit, I found a blog claim that a medium ear of corn yields an average of 3/4 cup of kernels. Ears of corn vary substantially in size, for a recipe that gives a measure in ears, not in volume or weight, I would immediately say that exact amount is not critical, you just need a very rough amount so I would use the 3/4 cup as being roughly correct. If weight works better for you, a cup of corn kernels should be about 4.5 ounces or 125 grams (from another blog http://www.veg-world.com/articles/cups.htm), so your three ears would be ballpark of maybe 275 grams with an assumption that exact measurement is not critical.
ETA from @Jolenealalaska, adding a part as creamed corn may very well get you some of the missing goodness in both canned and frozen corn. I might even try a higher cream corn ratio than their 3-to-1 suggestion. A bit of experimentation may get you close to your target.
I would recommend 3 parts whole kernel to 1 part cream-style if it's available. It still might not work, but the cream-style will add that milkiness that comes from scraping the cobs.
Perhaps a better "plan b" would be to use finely milled polenta?
@Jolenealaska yes, agree, the cream-style may push it in the right direction combined with whole kernel. Good call.
I'm pretty sure I've had this before, and it was definitely a bit different from what you'd get from frozen/creamed corn - probably still worth making, but I wouldn't judge the recipe on it.
To summarize: so that's 93,75 g per ear (medium)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.233900
| 2017-05-26T17:19:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82004",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Niall",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"jrc",
"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
}
|
81491
|
Homemade ice cream texture gritty, sandy?
Made my own ice cream today using one of the Cuisnart ice cream machines. Followed the recipe down to a T and after trying out the ice cream it had this disgusting sandy, gritty texture to it.
Recipe:
1½ cups whole milk
1 cup plus 2 tablespoons granulated sugar
pinch table salt
3 cups heavy cream
1½ tablespoons pure vanilla extract
In a medium bowl, use a hand mixer on low speed or whisk to
combine the milk, sugar and salt until the sugar is dissolved. Stir
in the heavy cream and vanilla. Cover and refrigerate 1 to 2
hours, or overnight.
Turn the Cuisinart® Ice Cream Maker on; pour the mixture into
the frozen freezer bowl and let mix until thickened, about 30 to
35 minutes. The ice cream will have a soft, creamy texture. If
a firmer consistency is desired, transfer the ice cream to an airtight
container and place in freezer for about 2 hours. Remove
from freezer about 15 minutes before serving.
Did I do something wrong?
It sounds very much like you didn't manage to completely dissolve the sugar. It's also possible to get a bad texture from ice crystals in your ice cream, but I don't think you'd describe it as gritty or sandy, just icy.
It can be rather difficult to dissolve that much sugar in liquid, especially if it's cold straight from the fridge. You might want to try heating it gently and stirring, and being careful to go until there's no undissolved sugar hiding at the bottom. That does make the chilling take a bit longer, probably more like 4-8 hours or overnight, not just 1-2 hours. But in my experience heating to dissolve is pretty much standard in ice cream recipes, presumably because it's about the only way to do it easily.
Note that if you do heat it, using only part of the liquid (say one cup out of a total of three cups) is probably best. That way there's still plenty of liquid for it to dissolve quickly, but you aren't heating it all, so you can add in two more cups of cold liquid and cool it back off so it'll be chilled enough to freeze sooner.
I'm suspicious about these instructions, trying to dissolve sugar into cold milk is unlikely to work well at the quantities specified.
Heating to dissolve the sugar then chilling before churning would speed things up a bit and save using the limited cooling capacity of the ice cream maker. Even starting with UHT milk at room temperature would be better than fresh from the fridge.
If you don't want to have to chill your base after heating the milk to dissolve your sugar, you could consider replacing the sugar with invert sugar or corn syrup, which are liquid in form.
Any reason to not put milk and cream together before adding the sugar? I suspect the higher liquid volume should make dissolving easier.
@MaxD Temperature matters a lot more than quantity of liquid. Dissolving into cold milk/cream is difficult, whether it's 1 cup or 3 cups; heating gently will make it easy even if it's only 1 cup. I added a note to the answer.
I have and use frequently a Cuissnart Ice Cream Maker, and this answer is spot on. Heat the milk, dissolve the sugar then chill!
This sounds like the sandiness/grittiness that you sometimes find in commercially produced ice cream. Some people think it's ice crystals, but it's not because they don't melt on your tongue (If you can locate a real big particle, you can tell). Some people think it's sugar (you know, sucrose?) crystals, but they aren't sweet.
I've heard various explanations for what causes this "sandiness", like melting and re-freezing, or too long storage. Personally I don't know.
But according to University of Calif at Davis "Sandiness in Ice Cream" http://drinc.ucdavis.edu/dfoods10_new.htm '....it soon became apparent that hard, gritty particles developed in this ice cream that seemed as though there was sand in the product; thus "sandy" became the term to describe the defect. Lactose crystals were suggested as the causative agent in 1920, and definitely proven to be the cause in 1921. Since that time many investigators have contributed to our knowledge on the subject, but even today we have no adequate explanation as to why certain ice creams became sandy while others do not.'
So it's not much of an answer because I can't tell you why, but it was too long for a comment.
This is interesting, and maybe it could be lactose crystals, but I do think sugar is perfectly plausible given the question. The OP didn't say the grittiness wasn't sweet (and it's really hard to tell if it's mixed into sweet ice cream) and the recipe has you dissolve at room temperature, which can be pretty unreliable. And I've made ice cream with a similar ratio of ingredients in a Cuisinart ice cream maker without it being sandy.
Sorry to clarify -- I let the ice cream melt to test it out and even though the end result was liquid, it still felt like liquid with grittiness still withinit. The melted ice cream was sweet but the grittiness remained the same -- almost dry and tasteless compared to whatever melted.
Typically lactose crystallization only happens at abnormally high concentrations of milk solids non-fat (MSNF). For instance, when you artificially raise the MSNF composition by adding powdered milk. Lactose crystallization is unlikely to happen for a standard at-home ice cream recipe like this one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.234221
| 2017-05-08T04:42:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81491",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"J Crosby",
"Josh",
"MaxD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"yuritsuki"
],
"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
}
|
76913
|
Will eggwhites clear my lobster broth
I'm planning to do a lobster broth for New-Years.
Lobster shells, browned in oven
Shallots, parsley root, carrots and other suitable veg
Seasoning, tomato paste, I think I have a reasonable slurp of Cognac avaliable.
Boil for about 15 minutes.
When I strain this, it will be cloudy. I was thinking whisking in egg-whites and straining it again to make it clear. Is this possible? Will the procedure change the taste?
I have about 4 hours to make it on saturday. Any suggestions are welcome. I want it as consommé-like(clear) as possible.
Doing a true consommé with egg whites takes time - just whisking and straining won't do much to clarify. But if you have 4 hours, you can do the actual consommé process with an egg-white raft.
@JohnFeltz So with 2 liters of broth, can I get away with a slow simmer with lets say 8 egg whites? I have not made a proper raft before.
Are you actually working from a recipe? A recipe for consomme should give you the proportions. Off the top of my head, that sounds OK, but find an actual recipe you like and follow it.
With 4 hours you may as well try the real way for 3 1/2 hours. Nothing to lose but everything to gain.
@Doug What is the real way in my case?
@CaptainGiraffe Look up 'consomme' on Wikipedia or a culinary site.
@JohnFeltz I'm quite happy with the results.
Allow me to describe what happened. (TLDR; complete success)
I started out with
The regular lobster soup starter pack.
About 1.5 liters of water, half a bottle of white wine.
This isn't clear at all.
Eggwhites.
Really slow boil.
Siphon to test.
I'm ok with this.
The end result was fantastic
What really surprised me was that I started with well over 2 litres of broth. In the end I had about 7 dl of clear stuff. About 1/3 of the original tasty broth.
Absolutely, you can clarify your broth with egg whites. It is a very common practice.
However, as @JohnFeltz infers, you'll have to carefully plan ahead to work this into your cook plan. Clarifying broth with egg whites is a delicate operation, difficult to execute while entertaining guests.
If you separate the egg whites ahead of time, and set up your equipment ahead of time, you may be able to pull it off. Also, you'll need to consider how to keep your seafood warm for the 10 minutes or so it will take clarify the broth (a foil covered pan in a warm-ish oven might suffice).
Noting your recipe has Shallots, parsley root, carrots and other suitable veg clarifying might not be worth the effort if you are going to reintroduce those back into the mix. They will surely reintroduce floating particles.
Here is a good video of someone clarifying a consommé with egg whites, starting with a cold stock. This video is someone clarifying a hot stock as you intend.
Note: unlike the videos, restaurants will use a stock pot with a spigot on the bottom to drain the broth through a cheese cloth.
The technique in the cold stock video was pretty much what I had in mind. Good to know the ratios and timings. Excellent find.
I'm going to siphon the broth. I will accept this answer Jan 1, I expect to have pictures of a very clear tasty liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.234617
| 2016-12-29T21:03:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76913",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Doug",
"John Feltz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65385
|
Can I reduce a prawn/shrimp broth
I have a freshly made shrimp broth.
Onions, parsnip, tomato paste and white pepper corns along with shrimp shells.
https://www.msc.org/where-to-buy/product-finder/products/cfpsproduct-19BA7EBA-B7E7-40E4-8C33-8566D3AF25A0 is similar to the shrimp I have used.
It was simmering for about 15 minutes, then I strained it.
It is my experience that more simmering makes it turn bitter or too compact (I'm lacking a better word).
Can I simmer/reduce the liquid to about half without imparting any off flavours?
Remove anything you suspect might affect flavour negatively (or, more simply, strain the whole caboodle), then reduce to concentrate flavour.
For fish broth, you shouldn't simmer the fish bones / heads for more than half an hour and I assume a similar rule applies for shrimp.
This is a common misconception.. this is only true for flatfish bones and heads. Simmering longer with other fish bones is just fine.
Another option is to simply put the whole thing through a food mill or blender, and THEN strain ( or not). Much more taste. And if you put the residu into butter, you will have a lovely shellfish butter as well.
After reducing the liquid to 50% at a low temp, I noticed no off flavours.
If you just want a shrimp broth to serve as a soup with noodles etc the there is no need to reduce it a lot, just simmer it until you have the depth of flavour you want and then strain and serve.
If you want to use it as the base for a sauce or bisque then it may be useful to reduce it to concentrate the flavour, however you will want to strain out the liquid before you reduce it and bear in mind that you will be balancing the strength or the reduced broth with other flavours in a sauce to the base stock doesn't necessarily have to be something that you would want to drink by the cupfull.
Also with shrimp/prawn broths it's especially important to fry the shells well before you simmer them as it's this caramelization which creates the flavour that you want. This is a bit different from meat stocks where you need really long slow to break down the proteins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.234880
| 2016-01-13T18:53:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65385",
"authors": [
"Angie Royer",
"Ashlie Perkins",
"Fred Slater",
"Kristin Hensley",
"Marc Luxen",
"Rick Young",
"Sherry Frisk",
"Viru Hakim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"pauline knigpht"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17277
|
Can Brussels sprouts be eaten raw?
I am not sure if this is too lame a question.
Can brussels sprouts be eaten raw, or do I need to boil them for 20 minutes or use some other form of cooking?
I think you mean "Can brussels sprouts be eaten raw?" as in without cooking. The short answer is yes, though they will be a lot like little cabbages. You don't need to boil them, either. I like to sauté them in butter in a skillet, then cover them, and let them steam a bit; I serve them with salt and pepper.
Cook them until they are bright green, but not too long to make them grayish green.
they are not "like" little cabbages, they "ARE" young cabbage buds.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_sprout
No, they're not young cabbages ... they're not young, and they're not the main head. They grown with multiple sprouts per plant : http://www.allotment.org.uk/vegetable/brussels-sprouts/index.php
@Jennifer S Sorry, one more question: do you chop them before to sauté' them in a skillet ? Can I use olive oil as well ?
I usually cut them in half, or in quarters, depending on size. It'll be fine with olive oil, too. I just personally like the taste of them with butter.
Yes, they can be eaten raw, and I do so frequently when they're in season.
I find them much more convenient for sandwich greens and salads when cooking for one than a whole large cabbage; I just chop up what I need (1-2, depending on size), and add 'em to the sandwich, or whatever I might be making.
...and I agree with Jennifer -- don't boil them. (I like quartering them, and saute in bacon fat 'til they've browned, then a heavy dose of salt.)
Yes, you can eat them raw, but the real question is "how do they taste raw?". The answer to that is that, the taste, well, let's just say it's not the best thing I've ever eaten. How I know this: I'm eating raw brussels sprouts right now!
They can be eaten raw, but they are fairly firm so you'll probably want to either thinly slice them or break them down into separate leaves.
A local sandwich shop thinly slices them on a mandoline, lightly dresses them with mustard seeds and vinegar, and puts them on a pulled-pork sandwich. The result has a much finer texture than typical cole slaw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.235091
| 2011-08-29T17:37:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17277",
"authors": [
"Beth Wall",
"Cos Callis",
"Debbie",
"Grandi",
"Jennifer S",
"Joe",
"Michael A.",
"Rebecca",
"Robert ",
"Sarah",
"Snowflake",
"aneuryzm",
"hlh3406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7229",
"user871199"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18912
|
How to make a good mash potato
Possible Duplicate:
How can I make a silky smooth, rich mash?
My mash potatoes are usually not very tasty.
I sometimes add some cheese or butter (together with milk) but I never manage to make a good one! Probably the quantities are wrong.
Could you give me some help ?
Thanks
If rfusca's proposed duplicate isn't enough for you, you might want to clarify what's wrong with your potatoes. Too dry? Too watery? Too bland?
I hope you don't purée them?!?
It is best if you describe your process in more detail.
Do you mash them warm or cold?
Do you mash them with a fork or a food processor?
How much milk and butter do you add?
What kind of potatoes? (baking potato or not)
This seems somewhere between a duplicate and a recipe request. By all means please clarify what's wrong with your mash and we'll be happy to reopen this question - as long as the problem is more specific than "bad taste" or "wrong texture".
I usually season my mashed potatoes with salt, pepper and lots of muscat nut.
Apart from that, boil the potatoes in really salty water. The difference between adding the salt to the water rather than adding it later on is really astounding.
Using a potato ricer will make the mash smoother.
Use more butter, and use heavy/double cream instead of milk, add salt and pepper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.235330
| 2011-11-12T19:17:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18912",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"Jim Green",
"Miguel Garrido",
"Pat Cat",
"Sam Iaamm",
"Sunni Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28395
|
How does the shape of an espresso cup affect the flavor?
Similar to the question:
Why do drinks drunk from a glass instead of a bottle taste differently?
Where the top answer notes the logic behind each glass for a particular drink:
Wine glasses, for example, are optimal for giving the nose an opportunity to experience the wine. They enclose a volume that allows you to swish the wine in the glass (without spilling it) to impart the aroma to air in the glass. The usually tapered opening keeps the aroma from dissipating before your nose can sense the wine.
Champagne flutes, keep the effervescent champagne or prosecco bubbly and cold long enough to enjoy the drink without it going flat.
Different beer glasses are optimal for showcasing the "head" and are tall for the same reason as champagne flutes (to keep the effervescence going as long as possible).
How does the shape of the typical (see below) espresso cup affect its flavor?
CC image used with permission: Credit to Flickr user davharuk.
I'm not sure if it's the shape, or the ability of the material to keep the heat (or the ability of the barista to have previously warmed the cup with hot water).
Definitely, the material also helps. Wine glasses are very thin so they change as minimum as possible to the wine temperature. Some espresso cups are even made like a thermo to avoid temperature drops (as it affects negatively to the taste of coffee). So, maybe, the question should be "How does the shape and material ...".
As I see it, the typical espresso cup shape and material (Thanks JAIL!) does three things for espresso:
the thick ceramic insulates the coffee, helping it retain heat as
well as protecting your fingers from being burnt;
the shape is compact rather than wide or tall, minimizing the ratio of surface area to volume, to further retain heat;
the tapered cup and round bottom allow you to easily mix sugar and/or chocolate into your espresso, getting an even distribution in the liquid.
The round bottom of the typical espresso cup also makes it easy to clean. I have some very decorative square-bottomed espresso cups, and the inner corners are pretty much permanently stained.
Exaxctly that!Wow! I would also like to add that we need heat beacause the higher the temperature themore intense the flavor.
Than you, @FuzzyChef. You made me notice [why] the cup I had at home wasn't the optimal one. Now I've just Starbuckaneered a more suitable one ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.235480
| 2012-11-13T15:49:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28395",
"authors": [
"Christopher Robert",
"Daryle Thomas",
"Dustin",
"J.A.I.L.",
"P Howard",
"Thanos",
"clayesq",
"ezra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65747"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120476
|
Does bleaching or milling flour remove vitamins?
Does bleaching or milling flour remove vitamins? Is this why some flours are enriched, even non-bleached ones, with, e.g., "niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), folic acid" (source)?
for 100 g of each flour:
Flour
Vitamin B3 (niacin)
Iron (Fe)
Vitamin B1 (thiamine)
Vitamin B2 (riboflavin)
Flour, bleached, enriched, all-purpose, wheat
6.740 mg, 42%
5.62 mg, 31%
0.939 mg, 78%
0.443 mg, 34%
Flour, unbleached, enriched, all-purpose, wheat
7.070 mg, 44%
5.41 mg, 30%
1.050 mg, 88%
0.467 mg, 36%
Flour, unbleached, unenriched, all-purpose, wheat
1.590 mg, 10%
1.18 mg, 7%
0.298 mg, 25%
0.000 mg, 0%
Flour, unenriched, whole wheat
5.550 mg, 35%
3.86 mg, 21%
0.504 mg, 42%
0.128 mg, 10%
Wheat flour, unenriched, all-purpose, white
1.250 mg, 8%
1.17 mg, 6%
0.120 mg, 10%
0.040 mg, 3%
As the data show, extra processing (bleaching, refining for white flour) removes a substantial amount of vitamins (whole wheat has roughly 3× the amount of vitamins compared to unenriched white or all-purpose!).
You ask “why must,” but then posted an answer that shows a table with som unenriched flours. Do you mean to ask “why are some flours enriched?”
Requests for nutritional information are off-topic for this board, sorry.
Yes, refined flour has substantial loss of nutrients:
Whole Grain Council
It's not the bleaching, but the milling which causes this loss of vitamins.
The lack of certain vitamins in white flour led to some serious diseases. Enrichment began to counter these issues.
Flour enrichment can provide an important source of iron in the diet. In the U.S., flour enrichment was established in the 1930’s as the popularity of white flour increased. Health concerns about the rise in cases of diseases such as beriberi and pellagra led to an examination of white flour. Both beriberi and pellagra are caused by vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The addition of B vitamins and iron to white flour eliminated the diseases beriberi and pellagra.
The initial enrichment of white flour called for niacin, thiamin, riboflavin and iron. In the 1990’s folic acid was added in order to prevent the risk of coronary heart disease and birth defects such as spina bifida.
from https://bakerpedia.com/processes/flour-enrichment/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.235707
| 2022-05-01T00:11:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120476",
"authors": [
"Damila",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100428
|
Can wine be made from citrus fruits?
Can wine be made from citrus fruits? They have sugar to feed the yeast. Or does the citric acid interfere with the fermentation process?
I'm familiar with limoncello, but that is made by soaking lemons in alcohol.
It is possible. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations classes wine as grape wine, citrus wine, or fruit wine; as examples of labelling of citrus wine containing only one fruit it mentions orange wine and grapefruit wine.
However, the Wikipedia page on fruit wine notes that it's difficult to make, and it's normal for some of the citric acid to be neutralised.
The very keen brewer I used to work with mad an orange wine, but it had other fruit in it as well. The orange flavour came through but the acid was diluted
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.235876
| 2019-07-29T04:12:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100428",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104589
|
Freeze or refrigerate bread?
What is the better way to store lots of preservative-less bread approaching the expiration date: freezer or refrigerator?
Does one method dry out the bread more than another?
Methods, from best to worst (assuming the bread is in a sealed plastic bag):
Freezing
Room temperature
Refrigerating
According to the FAQs for Dave's Killer Bread, which does not use preservatives:
Q: How should I store my bread?
A: The best way to store your bread is on your counter or in a bread box at room temperature. Take care to keep your bread away from sunlight, heat, and high moisture levels, they can cause the bread to mold early. Yuck! To store bread for extended amounts of time (up to three months), put a second bag around the original bag, seal it tightly, and place it in your freezer. Thaw slices as you need them. Storing bread in the refrigerator will keep your loaf from molding; however it may also dry out your bread. We recommend freezing bread if you can't possibly eat it all, but good luck with that.
Refrigerating doesn't slow down the starch recrystalization process that causes bread to stale. According to "Does Refrigeration Really Ruin Bread?":
When bread is stored in a cold (but above freezing) environment, this recrystallization, and therefore staling, happens much faster than at warmer temperatures. Freezing, however, dramatically slows the process down.
Presumably moisture is lost during the starch recrystalization process.
Actually, moisture retention or loss has very little to do with bread staling:Simon Field, Culinary Reactions, ch. 11 "Heating":
Heating starches changes crystallized starch molecules into gels. Bread becomes stale when the starches crystallize, and warming the bread returns them to their soft gel state, making the bread taste and feel fresh. Stale bread is not dry; it just feels that way because of the crystallized starches. In raw potatoes, the starch is compact, but heating makes the starch granules swell and absorb water, becoming soft and easier to digest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.235962
| 2020-01-06T20:11:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104589",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97652
|
Can a wine press juice citrus?
How effective is a wine press at juicing a large quantity (e.g., 50-100 lbs) of citrus?
I'm looking for speed. Auger (masticating juicer) is far too slow, and blending requires straining.
You don’t say how large a quantity, and I don’t know anything about wine presses, but if you just want the juice an electric citrus juicer maybe your best bet.
@DebbieM. 50-100 lbs.
I don't think a wine press would give you enough pressure. An apple press might. If these are grapefruits, it might not take more than a few hours to go through with a manual press: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=grapefruit+press&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images One person cuts, the other presses. Trade off when your biceps hurt.
@WayfaringStranger Yes, I am interested in doing grapefruit. I didn't know there was such a thing as a grapefruit press.
@ Geremia I have one, but unfortunately am not currently in Florida, Texas, or Cal, so it sits. They're quite fast, but I'm serious about the muscle required. Consider recovering the oil from the skins. Like Limonene in orange zest, It's pretty tasty.
@WayfaringStranger "recovering the oil from the skins" By just soaking them in the juice?
@Geremia It looks like the essential oil extraction requires steam distillation of the fruit rinds. Links follow. Unfortunately the equipment to do that today is going to cost an arm and a leg, and probably get you put on Federal lists you don't want to be on. At 1gram per hundred gram pulp, I guess you're better off tossing the peels in your mulch pile. Refs: https://greeenchemistry.blogspot.com/2013/10/extracting-limonene-from-orange-peel.html and http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resource/res00000692/extracting-limonene-from-oranges?cmpid=CMP00000770 Sorry, I thought there was an nicer way
Theoretically, you could use a wine, apple, or or other heavy-duty fruit press to press 10-20lbs of citrus at a time. But you wouldn't want to.
Both the peels of the citrus and the seeds contain bitter and/or intensely acidic compounds (those essential oils WS talks about in the comments). If you press citrus in any press that uses pressure on the whole fruit, then those compounds end up in your juice, making it taste bad.
This is why even juice factories do split-and-squeeze(video) instead of using straight pressure. If this is something you often do, you may need to invest in an automatic-feed juicing machine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.236147
| 2019-04-23T22:50:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97652",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Geremia",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88545
|
Do foods labeled "non-GMO" only (and not "organic") have more pesticides in them?
I know
organic = non-GMO + no pesticides (source);
non-GMO = pesticides possibly used;
pesticide-free = possibly GMO.
Do non-GMO foods actually have more pesticides in them?
how do you "know" it ? any references ?
@Max Your question has been addressed here, but I've added a source link.
@Geremia That link you provide doesn't define what organic means, it just states requirements for labeling... (the definition of organic might be somewhere else on that site, but not on the page you link to)
And, "have more pesticides in them": more relative to what? Organic foods, GMO-containing foods, something else?
Note that organic farming actually uses a lot of older, very toxic pesticides; farmers growing GMO wheat can use more modern, less toxic pesticides and also use much less of them.
@JamesMcLeod "organic farming actually uses a lot of older, very toxic pesticides" Such as?
Copper, sulfur, ... see https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
@JamesMcLeod I've noticed organic produce is more flavorful and fresher. Why would that be? I'm not sure how that study in that article concludes there's no difference in nutritional content.
It is a blog post, not a study. I don’t have answers to your questions, though.
But why would there be a difference in nutritional content?
No. "No-GMO" means exactly that. There is no Genetically Modified Organism in the content of your purchase.
In general you GMO your veggies and wheat (and others) so you don't need to use pesticides on them because they are designed to be more resistant.
So yes, your question
Do non-GMO foods actually have more pesticides in them?
come from that logic. You need to spray food from outside because it's not resistant on it's own. So the amount of chemicals per tone (or hectare) is higher in "non GMO" than it is in GMO.
Organic thought it totally depended on law. In EU to call something organic you need to stay below certain quota of pesticides per hectare (in big generalisation, you can read more here EU law on organic production)
BUT
There is doubt about what you call PESTICIDE. Because you can use synthetic one (Like the one Monsato is making) or natural one (like tobacco). The first one is more to be used in big industrial farms, while natural can be easily made in small farms where it's more financially better to have their own plot of natural pesticide.
This 2016 NPR post, which relies on some scientific studies, claims there is no clear answer on whether foods labeled “non-GMO” have more pesticides in them than GMO foods:
Pesticides include both insecticides and herbicides. Backers of GMOs point to the example of crops containing new genes that fight off insect pests, so farmers don't have to spray insecticides. Biotech critics point to the example of crops that have been altered to tolerate specific weedkillers, like glyphosate, thus encouraging farmers to rely more heavily on those herbicides.
They cite the 2016 study {1}, which draws a mixed conclusion. Interestingly they note that:
the results indicate that the difference in pesticide use between GE (= genetically engineered) and non-GE adopters has changed significantly over time.
which makes the answer to the question more complex than it first seems.
References:
{1} Perry, Edward D., Federico Ciliberto, David A. Hennessy, and GianCarlo Moschini. "Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in US maize and soybeans." Science advances 2, no. 8 (2016): e1600850. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.236454
| 2018-03-23T00:32:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88545",
"authors": [
"Geremia",
"James McLeod",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"remco"
],
"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
}
|
110797
|
What is this slicing (?) tool?
I saw this tool at a yard sale today. It appears to be some sort of slicing or cutting device.
The construction however seemed fairly lightweight, I couldn't picture putting something dense, heavy, etc. through it.
When using this watch your fingers!
Phil is right, it is for slicing vegetables. Specifically it is a mandoline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandoline
Given the size, I'll bet "kraut slicer" specifically. To slice cabbage for sauerkraut.
@UuDdLrLrSs why were you asking on Seasoned Advice if you didn’t imagine it was food related?
@Spagirl - It wasn't posted on here, it was migrated from Home Improvement.
@Tetsujin Ahh... that information doesn’t show up on the mobile app. I was very confused!
@Spagirl initially I had no idea what it was for at all (other than looking like a cutting device) but people on the DIY site were pretty confident it was for food prep. Seems like "alls well that ends well" :)
That tool is indeed a slicer for cutting cabbage in preparation for fermenting it in a large pottery crock for sauerkraut. My mother used one very similar to make a five gallon and a ten gallon of crock full of sauerkraut every year back in the 50's and 60's.
It looks like a vegetable slicer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.236739
| 2020-09-20T20:07:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110797",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Spagirl",
"StayOnTarget",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87735"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110887
|
Pre-cook liver before frying?
If I am making fried liver tempura style should I pre-cook the liver? I think when you make an item like, say, shrimp tempura, the shrimp is cooked beforehand because the tempura frying is not sufficient to fully cook the shrimp. Is the same true of liver?
I've never seen anyone pre-cook shrimp [or indeed anything] for tempura. I have only ever eaten it in Japan; maybe they do it differently elsewhere?
It's not exactly the same for liver, but there is some reason to roast it before frying:
Some people believe in roasting (grilling) before the cooking/frying in order to make the blood drip out of the liver. Can do on fire or in an oven; doesn't matter.
Personally I prefer to go directly to the pan and just fry so it gets less dry. It is definitely sufficient cooking for the liver.
Unlike a heart which would only include residual blood, other organs, especially digestive and some of the defecating body organs, often need extra steps to prepare (eg: kidneys--try cooking them without at least a presoak). Therefore, I would either cook the liver first, or at least marinate it in a vinegar based marinade.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.236878
| 2020-09-28T08:59:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110887",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114011
|
Is synthetic astaxanthin (salmon "dye") safe?
TL;DR Is synthetic astaxanthin safe for humans to consume?
Background
Synthetic astaxanthin is available as a supplement, and is also commonly consumed by humans in the form of farmed salmon.
Wild salmon eat a lot of shrimp-like krill, which contains lots of astaxanthin, which is what gives salmon it’s red/pink flesh. In farmed salmon, they’re not fed the same diet, so they don’t get the same colour (they’d be grey or off-white). So farms feed them synthetic astaxanthin to give their flesh a red/pink colour.
This says that humans that eat the farmed salmon end up consuming the synthetic astaxanthin via the salmon's flesh.
I found the following:
An article saying:
... one company has announced it will bring a synthetic astaxanthin supplement to market for human use. Their argument for its legality is that it’s already approved as a color additive in food (salmon). This may be a legal loophole that could potentially bring this far inferior supplement onto health food store shelves sometime in the future. The question that remains to be answered is whether or not synthetic astaxanthin is safe for direct human consumption.
Astaxanthin may cause stomach pain in large doses (but so do many foods in large quantities).
Also:
Synthetic astaxanthin is significantly inferior to algal-based astaxanthin
Note that being 'inferior' doesn't imply that it's unsafe.
Question
Is human consumption of synthetic astaxanthin (via capsule, salmon, or any other means) safe?
If downvoting, please state why, so the question can be improved. Thank you
FYI the downvote isn't mine. Health questions are off-topic here, but food safety is very much on-topic. However, I'm not sure if you're asking about the trace amounts given to Salmon as a coloring or the food supplement. I think the first is on-topic and the second is not as it isn't about food, but nutrition supplements. It would be good if you could edit and clarify.
@GdD done. If you have any more feedback please let me know
Yes, the FDA has determined that astaxanthin is "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), at 0.15 mg/serving. This doesn't indicate whether there are any health considerations associated with it (that's not on topic for this site), but it's not poisonous.
That is good to know, but 0.15mg is as much astaxanthin as found in 25g of Atlantic salmon or just 4g of sockeye salmon (not a realistic serving). "Among the wild salmonids, the maximum astaxanthin content in wild Oncorhynchus species was reported in the range of 26–38 mg/kg flesh in sockeye salmon whereas low astaxanthin content was reported in chum. Astaxanthin content in farmed Atlantic salmon was reported as 6–8 mg/kg flesh. Astaxanthin is available in the European (6 mg/kg flesh) and Japanese market (25 mg/kg flesh) from large trout."
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917265/#:~:text=Astaxanthin%20content%20in%20farmed%20Atlantic,a%20good%20source%20of%20astaxanthin.
Hi @stevec, if you want to know whether it is harmful in larger doses than you'd find in foods for consumption then it's off topic for this site.
@GdD typical serving size for a salmon steak is 80 - 120 grams (much more than 4-25g)
@stevec, that's the best answer you will get on this site, if you want more detailed medical data that is off topic.
@GdD sorry, you keep making out like I want something off topic. I do not. I simply want to know if normal amounts of farmed salmon are safe to eat. That's all. Thanks.
Yes, salmon is not poisonous.
According to a meta-study from 2014, there are no negative health effects associated with consumption of astaxanthin, even in doses more than 100X greater than what is found in salmon. This is true whether the astaxanthin come from krill or is grown from yeast for farmed salmon:
Astaxanthin is safe, with no side effects when it is consumed with food. It is lipid soluble, accumulates in animal tissues after feeding of astaxanthin to rats and no toxic effects were found [15,17,133] ... Supratherapeutic concentrations of astaxanthin had no adverse effects on platelet, coagulation and fibrinolytic function [139]. Research has so far reported no significant side effects of astaxanthin consumption in animals and humans. These results support the safety of astaxanthin for future clinical studies.
Additionally, yeast-grown astaxanthin is currently being researched as a dietary supplement because of beneficial effects on the heart, eyes, and tissues, and may contribute to beneficial weight loss.
So, to sum up: it's not bad for you, and is probably even good for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.237004
| 2021-01-29T08:44:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114011",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89371",
"stevec"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112631
|
Is creamed butter stable for mid or long term storage?
I find creaming butter a pretty annoying process.
I would like to make lots of it at once and aliquot for later use.
Is creamed butter less stable than butter? You wouldn't think so because you are mixing 2 ingredients which virtually have no water (butter and sugar). Does it separate over time?
If indeed it is stable, is there a reason why grocery stores do not sell it?
Are you asking about butter creamed together with sugar?
Yes, I added clarification
Actually you can buy tubs of premade buttercream at most cake decorating stores? I don't buy it myself, but I believe you can buy it unflavored. That said, specialty cake decorating/sugar art stores aren't super common, but may be worth looking into.
If you are asking about butter creamed with sugar, you can do this. I would place in an airtight container, maybe with a piece of plastic or wax paper on top, and refrigerate. It should be good for a couple of weeks. Of course, you will need to bring to room temperature to soften before use.
Whenever I store frosting, I put it in a freezer bag and then wrap in foil and freeze. Either way, it will benefit from re-whippong once it's at room temperature. (Not required, but generally recommended.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.237327
| 2020-11-13T20:14:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112631",
"authors": [
"Brenlla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89564",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99230
|
Is core temperature a good indicator of bread doneness
I've read so many recipes stating core temps as a way to tell when your loaf is ready. Me being a fan of measuring have bought a plethora of devices for measuring the core temperature of my loaves.
The most disappointing one is that a perfectly fine loaf of white wheat at 75% hydration is done at 95°C internal temp. This usually is after 18-20 minutes for a 375g water loaf.
I disagree. I need it to be 99 + 5 minutes.
I just did an excellent sourdough (should be done at 98°C). I did it 99 + 15 minutes. That was good.
I put in the last sourdough loaf and accidentally forgot about it for a 52 minute total in the 230 fan oven. This was the best one. Internal temperature seems to be useless.
Why are my results so different from the recipes?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39410/what-happens-with-bread-at-94%cb%9ac-201%cb%9af-or-is-temperature-a-reliable-indicato is not congruent to my experience.
To be honest I've never heard of measuring the core temperature of bread to check if it's done. Just bake it for the time indicated in the recipe and check the "doneness" of the loaf by tapping it's base and listening for a hollow sound. If necessary add 5 more minutes and check again.
And some of us like our food more done than others.
I'm not certain from the question about what "doneness" means. Is the bread still "raw" inside at 95C? If so, I'd guess something is wrong with the calibration of the thermometer.
Failing that, my guess is that this has to do with either various other external factors (e.g., the bread may be "set" inside, but the exterior is not browned sufficiently, or the crust dried out enough) and/or things having to do with moisture.
Once you get to 95C and above, the structure of the bread is definitely set. It's not going to collapse if you pull it out of the oven. It shouldn't taste "raw" or overly "doughy" inside. The bread should be "done," at least in the sense of fully cooked.
But to my point about moisture: what generally happens to bread once it reaches a high internal temperature is that the internal structure gradually dries out. It takes a long time for moisture to migrate out from the center and through the increasingly hard crust. The interior of the bread will change from a spongy and "moist" texture to an increasingly dry and stiff one as time elapses in the oven. The retained moisture when the bread is pulled from the oven also can have significant effects on the outcome: a dough that is very moist before bake and which doesn't expand much will often remain moist internally, and that moisture will likely rebalance itself during cooling, some of it going to the crust, which will soften. If you want a crisp crust, you'll have to bake longer.
Some of it may have to do with the recipe. For example, a quick hot bake may give good oven spring, but may not allow sufficient time for moisture migration. So a crusty bread baked too fast may display a high internal temp, but then soften as it cools. Turning the temperature down during the bake may allow for the desired texture with a longer bake (and without burning the exterior). If your bake time is off from the recipe, the internal temperature may not be as reliable an indicator.
Some of it may have to do with loaf and dough characteristics. As hinted above, oven spring and size of holes inside the interior plays a significant role in how moisture migrates internally. If your bread isn't rising as much as the recipe assumes (or rising too much), you might need to change your bake time/temp as well as your assumed final interior temperature for the loaf. Extra humidity absorbed or lost due to kitchen conditions at different times of the year can also play a role -- I've baked the same recipe under different humidity and temperature conditions with precise measurements and gotten significantly different results.
Lastly, of course your personal taste concerning doneness may vary from the person who wrote the recipe. Sourdough breads can vary inside from everything from a kind of "creamy" and somewhat moist interior to a very dry and tough/chewy interior. Personally, I like the former, but if you like the latter, maybe you are most satisfied with a result different from the one the recipe intended.
Bottom line is that internal temp is a guideline just like anything else. But I personally have found it more useful than other guidelines (like the "hollow sound" test, browning level of exterior). You may need to tweak according to your own experience and preferences.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.237449
| 2019-05-29T22:40:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99230",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109630
|
What is this for? A burger-press?
I've "inherited" this thing a long time ago, and I have no idea what it is. It consists of a cylindrical porcelain bowl with the words "Mason Cash England" stamped in the bottom, a very sturdy cast-iron frame with a screw through and two circular discs of zinc-plated iron that fit neatly inside. I could half imagine it being use to produce a perfectly circular burger, but it seems like absurd overkill. Here's a couple of pictures:
What is it actually for - anything to do with cookery at all?
Never underestimate the power of the useless kitchen gadget!
While this one looks like it belongs in a kitchen, very similar contraptions exist for pressing leaves, books and just about anything else that needs pressing. One plate on the bottom, one plate screwed against it and whatever needs flattening in the middle.
While Elendil's answer seems correct, why not contact https://www.masoncash.co.uk/ directly & ask? They could probably give you information on the age and how to clean it as well.
I think you can use it for sauerkraut...
@Mast: Everything must press!
It appears to be a 'Meat/Cheese Press':
https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Mason-Cash-Cast-Iron-Ceramic-Meat-312233238612.html
I'm not sure why you'd press meat, but you'd use it with cheese to press the whey out.
You'd press meat if you're making, say, a paté.
@LSchoon Ah yes, good call
Can likely also be used to press carcasses.
@Johannes_B Like a duck press, you mean? I would worry about drainage, in that case.
Smal scale winemaking? Only joking - I'll accept the answer, since it is obviously right. Thx!
When I was a kid my grandmother was given an ox tongue and needed to press it; my uncle, a car mechanic, did it with 2 enamel metal plates and a couple of G-clamps. They left it for several hours.
I'd expect a cheese press to have more drainage though - the only way to get rid of the whey here would be to invert it, and it doesn't look designed for that.
@MichaelHarvey Did the ox confess eventually?
@Sneftel - it had more difficulty speaking than oxen usually do.
You might also use this to slowly get excess moisture out of tofu! I usually put my slab between 2 plates with weights on top, so I can get it dry enough to fry in panko batter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.237776
| 2020-07-13T08:40:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109630",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dragonel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Johannes_B",
"LSchoon",
"Mast",
"Michael Harvey",
"Sneftel",
"Vikki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85635",
"j4nd3r53n",
"umn"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88167
|
Green line in chicken?
The family is eating home roasted chicken tonight. I cut into it, and found this bright green "line". What is it?
Thanks @rumtscho. It have become a common enough condition I should have looked for dupes before answering as it was likely other users had encountered it.
I believe the most likely cause from the look is a condition known as Deep Pectoral Myopathy, also known as Green Muscle Disease. If you are interested in an explanation of the condition, here is a reasonable write-up or just search on that term. The basic issue is an internal injury to the muscle of the bird that results in blood restriction, typically in the "tender" area of the breast and is more common in modern broiler chickens and broad breasted turkeys that are popular with home growers and almost exclusively used in many areas such as the US for commercial birds. Green and blue coloring in the muscle is the result of the damage and the cells dying from the damage in that area, while the bird remains healthy. Normally the damage is not detectable by any inspection until the chicken is cut up, so missing it is not an inspection issue.
When I have researched it before (I raised meat chickens for a few years and did have a couple instances of it.), the claims I could find places like the Center for Food Safety claim safe. Not something I would personally chance in any case myself. Reports I have found claim the effected meat tends toward stringy, woody, and lacking in taste. To me green meat means do not eat, so I personally discarded those claims and am not sure why others chose to take such risks, but risk is a personal choice I suppose.
I don't think its a matter of wanting to eat the green meat and taking a risk. I'm sure its usually, "Oh no I just swallowed a bite of green chicken, am I going to die now?!". So, its safe to eat, even tho people will naturally avoid it if they see it, and the surrounding meat is safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.238003
| 2018-03-06T00:38:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88167",
"authors": [
"JPhi1618",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104016
|
Considerations for frying a Turkey in Arctic Weather
How does extreme cold (think wind chill of -40°F (-40°C) to maybe -80°F (-62°C) affect deep frying a turkey? Can it be done, and if so what do I need to keep in mind?
I'm assuming you are using a turkey deep fryer and your question is what are the considerations in doing so in extreme cold. You can fry a turkey in extreme cold temperatures, you just need to crank up the burner to make up for the heat loss. Your oil temperature is going to be 350°F, if you were cooking it in +40°F you'd be adding heat to raise the temperature 310°F, in -40°F you need to raise the temperature 390°F instead, 390 is 125% of 310, so a rough approximation would be you need to add 25% more heat from the flame. It's the same principle in barbecuing, I've barbecued in -30°F and you just need more heat, and to get the food inside asap when you're done!
It would make sense to build in extra time if your equipment is going to be outside temperature as you will be handling things with gloves, and you have to heat up the pot more. If you can, keep the oil inside, or at least keep it above -10 so it doesn't gel.
Also, you need to be sheltered from the wind when you deep fry outside in any temperature as wind will blow the burner heat away and disrupt the flame, it's even more important when it's that cold as wind will make the heat gap even higher, possibly to the point your burner can't make it up.
Never use a canopy as the vapors from frying are capable of igniting. Wind blocks are recommended for heat loss in below freezing temps . If snow or rain never use a lid when deep frying! Find a way to be under some type of cover that has plenty of air flow above the top of the pot this will prevent vapor ignition. Water and oil don’t mix! Very important to keep water of any kind from entering the pot when deep frying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.238185
| 2019-12-10T04:53:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104016",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88300
|
Air dehydrating ambient air temperature?
I would like to dehydrate fruits with an outdoor air drying rack in an arid climate:
What ambient air temperature is ideal for this? I've heard anything below 118°F is good for dehydrating. Is 100°F better or worse than, say, 80°F?
The ambient humidity will make a huge difference. In fact you almost need a desert for this to work
@ChrisH I'm assuming 0% humidity.
@Geremia I doubt you will find that, unless you are living in the middle of a desert, in a nonclimatized building. Optimal humidity for human beings is 40 to 60% relative (although many live in a wider range), but I am pretty sure that the absolute also matters for dehydrating, and so the physics get quite complicated.
@rumtscho Well, even in deserts in the U.S., the humidity rarely gets lower than ~10%.
If you know that humidity rarely gets lower than 10%, why are you assuming 0% humidity?
@Catija ∵ 0% < 50%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.238395
| 2018-03-12T18:17:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88300",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Geremia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"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
}
|
120258
|
Why are soaked dried soy beans cooked before fermenting?
Is it necessary to cook soaked dried soy beans before fermenting them?
What kind of beans are you asking about? At the moment there's not enough information to answer this.
@GdD Soy or pinto.
Fermenting them to produce what?
@FuzzyChef Mizo or tofu, for example
Wanna add that to your question?
No. Both tofu and miso require cooking the soybeans to work.
For miso, the soybeans must be mashed into a paste, which doesn't really work with raw soybeans. Further, the koji culture grows on the starches and sugars present in cooked soybeans, not raw ones. So creating a miso from raw soybeans would require you to obtain a different fungal culture designed for them, and the result probably wouldn't be miso.
Tofu is made through soymilk, which must then be boiled to make it coagulate. So while the soymilk itself is made with raw soybeans, if you don't boil it, you don't get tofu, just thickened soymilk.
Also note that raw soybeans are poisonous, so in addition to producing a product, you'd have to be sure that any fermentation process you cultivated would successfully breakdown all lectins and protease inhibitors in the beans. While fermentation is known to break down the saponins, the other two unhealthful chemicals usually require heat.
From https://www.culturesforhealth.com/:
...beans must be cooked before they can be eaten. They are very tough,
and need rehydrating, and the cooking process further breaks down
those hard-to-digest starches and anti-nutrients.
So even if those beans ferment while soaking, you will still have to
cook them in order to make them edible. That cooking process will
eliminate any beneficial enzymes or probiotics that have been added to
the beans through the fermentation process.
Can fermentation have the same effect on beans as cooking?
No @Geremia, fermenting doesn't have the same effect as cooking, fermenting doesn't break down the starches, fermented dried beans are still inedible.
@GdD Why wouldn't fermenting break down the starches? Starches are long strands of sugar, and fermentation feeds off sugars.
Feeds off yes,@Geremia, but it doesn't make them available.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.238645
| 2022-04-07T00:18:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120258",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Geremia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24543
|
Are the Keurig K-Cups safe?
I have a Keurig machine at my home and in my office at work. I use them roughly 1-2 times a day, but today I started to think about the Keurig and those K-cup packages they dispense water through. I have done some research about if it is safe to consume what comes out of their product and the only answer I seem to find is that some parts of the machine can contain BPA/has been in contact with BPA and other parts do not. (Hot, pressured water meeting the plastic k-cups)
Granted it has been approved by the FDA, I would assume it is safe to use it...
Seeing as the answers I have found are rather vague, can someone provide more insight on if the Keurig & K-cups are safe to use?
They may be food safe, but they are not wallet safe, that's for sure!
According to the Keurig website:
K-Cup® and Vue™ packs do not contain BPA and are constructed using FDA-approved food safe materials. We also use FDA-approved food safe materials in our K-Cup® and Vue™ brewing systems, and neither system contains BPA within its water paths (as of January 1, 2010 for our K-Cup® system).
I therefore would definitely say you need not be concerned, and if you are worried about BPA consumption, make sure you have a newer machine!
Lack of BPA doesn't necessarily mean they're free of other toxins.
Even if they are BPA-free, that doesn't mean they're safe. Plastics still gets into the coffee Keurigs produce, as well as aluminum:
Health Effects of Aluminum Exposure
The lids of K-cups are usually made of aluminum which may have some health effects when exposed to acids and high heat like coffee. Prolonged exposure to aluminum may cause some problems in your brain. It has been linked to Alzheimers, anxiety, autoimmune diseases, and even depression.
While oral exposure is usually not a problem if ingested at high levels there may be a problem.
This is the same reason why you shouldn’t wrap your food in aluminum foil before cooking or baking. Some of the foil leeches into your food and can be problematic with spicy or acidic food at high temperatures.
Aluminum is significantly more likely to leech into foods at high temperatures, and in acidic and liquid foods like coffee.
Also, as the inventor of the K-Cup®, John Sylvan, said:
I feel bad sometimes that I ever invented the K-Cup… It’s like a cigarette for coffee, a single-serve delivery mechanism for an addictive substance… They’re kind of expensive to use; plus it’s not like drip coffee is tough to make.
That site you linked to is full of scientific misinformation. Its scare-mongering seems to be in service of the Amazon affiliate links for the products it's pushing.
@Sneftel "scientific misinformation" such as?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.238857
| 2012-06-18T21:09:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24543",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Geremia",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345"
],
"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
}
|
112640
|
Adding cayene early makes it less hot
I have a favorite jambalya recipe. I usually saute the trinity (celery, onions, green peppers) for a short while before adding garlic and then a longer while later I will add my Cajun seasoning. For some reason the other day I did it differently and added my Cajon seasoning to the oil before adding the trinity and garlic (like I do when making Thai curry - adding the curry paste to the oil to start the cooking). I was surprised to find my final dish at the end was far less spicy (less hot) and there was less of the flavor from the Cajon seasoning. That surprised me. Slightly less spicy would make sense but this was WAY less spicy. I used the normal quantity of all ingredients so that wasn't the cause of the difference.
EDIT: DIshes made 3 days apart with spices that have been stored the same length of time (months+).
What is going on?
It is quite normal for hotness to diasppear over time, both during cooking and during storage, see the older quesiton linked.
Cooking time identical and dishes made 3 days apart with cayenne several years old (and still hot enough that a pinch knocks socks off and brings tears to eyes) so age isn't the answer here.
@rumtscho The linked answer seems to deal with food that is microwaved, which isn't relevant here.
Voted to reopen. This question is quite different from the linked question, which has to do with leftovers and reheating. None of the answers for the linked question answer this question.
Cooking over high heat causes capsaicin (the hot chemical in chiles) to break down and to vaporize, leaving less in the finished dish. There's a huge difference between cooking in water at 95C vs. in hot oil at 150C; simmering only causes losses of up to 1/4 of the capsaicin, while frying can cause much greater losses, up to 90%.
So by adding the cayenne pepper earlier, you were cooking it at hot oil temperature, and thus lost the majority of the spiciness. If you'd waited until the vegetables broke down, the water they release lowers the cooking temperature to near boiling, and thus little hotness is lost.
Arghhh - I still remember that day when then-boyfriend picked a too-hot pepper for a dish and basically tear-gassed the kitchen. Not sure how exactly he did it, but it was memorable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.239110
| 2020-11-14T03:55:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112640",
"authors": [
"AmateurProgrmmer",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89571",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112919
|
Lactic fermentation related question: Is there a relationship between pH, salinity, fermentation magic, and heat?
I am trying to figure out if there is a way to abstract out heat in the Lacto fermentation equation. In fact, I am not even sure if heat is part of the equation.
I know there seems to be a relationship between heat and yeast, but I don't know how or if heat could be a factor in controlling pH after the fermentation process begins, or if heat is just a useful tool independent of pH at that point.
What "lacto fermentation equation" are you referring to?
Your question is missing the word 'bacteria'.
All bacteria have a growth curve. These will vary quite a lot by species.
This is the growth curve for salmonella
As you can see the growth peaks around 40C, and there is no growth at 47C.
Salmonella is a pathogen, and we store food at low temperature to inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria.
'No growth' is not the same as death.
The death curve is different:
If you are trying to KILL bacteria, then it's a combination of temperature and time. Bacteria are killed in seconds around about 72C, so that's a safe internal cooking temperature. If you cook sous vide, you can cook at much lower temperatures safely, as an internal temperature of 54C for several hours would also kill the salmonella.
If we are talking about LAB, then we could be for example making yogurt. When we make yogurt, we add a culture of known bacteria to milk, which may have been heated to 72C to kill existing bacteria. Typically a yogurt culture consists of just two species. For the classic yogurt, using S. thermophilus, and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus, these both grow well at temperatures around 42C. However some yogurts are made with other species, some of which grow better at lower temperatures. For example Lactoccus lactis is much happier around 37C.
If you look at that table, then you can see that L. lactis is relatively more acidophilic than the main yogurt cultures.
The target pH for yogurt should be a fixed number, in that if we were to taste test yogurt at say 4.6 pH against yogurt at say 4.4 pH, then it's likely that we can find an optimum pH which is correct, perhaps +- 0.1 or whatever. Here it follows that if we want to consistently produce good ferments, then we should spend a couple of hundred dollars on a pH testing setup.
It should be apparent that not only do bacteria have a temperature growth curve, they also have a pH curve.
Many pathogens (Salmonella, E. Coli) are classed as neutrophiles:
Many LAB are acidophiles.
By fermenting vegetables with LAB, we reduce the pH to levels unfavourable for neutrophiles. The 'safe' pH of foods is often given as 4.6, but could be 4.4 or 4.5 depending on regulatory requirements.
If we consider the fermentation of, say, a cabbage, then it is likely to be desirable to ferment it anaerobically. This is because LAB do not require oxygen, so by excluding oxygen our LAB still grow but moulds and yeasts do not. The lack of oxygen is so that the specific organism we are targeting (LAB) is the one that is favoured.
In terms of salinity, salt is again there to inhibit bad bacteria. Many harmful bacterial species are salt-intolerant, for example Clostridium Botulinum. This graph shows that L. plantarum, a very important species in vegetable fermentation (though these graphs are strains isolated from Stilton cheese), has roughly the same growth at 0 or 3.5% salinity, slightly slowed at 5%, barely any at 8%, and 10% salinity kills the bacteria.
It follows that if you use WAY TOO MUCH salt, then you may kill some of the bacteria that you want to keep, and if you don't use enough salt then bad bacteria can grow.
This is a combined pH/salinity graph for C. botulinum
If we consider what C. botulinum is, it is not an infectious bacteria like salmonella, but rather one that produces a deadly toxin. Botulinum toxin is not a bacteria, but a protein produced by the multiplying bacteria. So it is desirable for us to have enough salt to keep such pathogens away.
If we return to L. lactis, mentioned earlier, then it follows that if we made yogurt at 37C using a L. lactis + S. thermophilus + L. delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus starter, with a target pH of 4.6, then the flavour of the yogurt is going to be quite different from if we made it at 42C, in which case the latter two species would dominate. That is because the resulting yogurt will contain amount of various different compounds (acids, alcohols, esters, ketones, terpenes) depending on which bacteria gets do most of the work, which we can influence by temperature.
Fermenting using naturally occurring LAB from the source is slightly less exact, in that we are typically relying on the naturally occurring LAB (while inhibiting other things using an anaerobic environment, and salt), which could vary depending on what we are fermenting, where it was grown, and so on.
This graph shows the various LAB in a typical sauerkraut ferment over time:
The key thing to note is the effect of Leuconostoc mesenteroides in the early stages of fermentation. L. mesenteroides is referred to as a 'heterofermentative' LAB. This means that it produces not only lactic acid, but also other compounds such as alcohol and flavour compounds. Subsequent LAB during the sauerkraut process are considered homofermentative. This means they produce only lactic acid.
As can be seen here, L. mesenteroides will grow at quite low temperatures:
Comparing to the main homofermentative LAB in sauerkraut
which likes higher temperatures
The result of this is that if you ferment sauerkraut around, say 18C, then the conditions are better for L. mesenteroides which produces flavour, to grow compared to other acid-only species. And, if you consider for example fermenting in a warm environment then it would be useful to start with a cooler temperature. Referring to the population size graph above, it turns out that L. mesenteroides is neutrophilic and is all dead when the pH reaches a lower level, so when the pH is acidic enough, there's no longer much point in cooling things down.
So:
salinity matters mostly to keep bad stuff away, but too much will also inhibit good stuff, and at different amounts for different species, but somewhere starting from 1% is possible, but 3% may be safer.
heat (as in 'not too cold') is required to get things going and different species with different flavours will be active at different rates at different temperatures. When you've reached your target pH, you can stop the fermentation by chilling down a temperature low enough that bacteria no longer grow at all. Or you can kill all the bacteria by heating at this point, which means if kept sterile, then your product can keep for a long time without refrigerating
low pH keeps bad guys away, but too low will taste bad. Not low enough will allow bad bacteria to grow. pH also influences which bacteria are currently growing and as pH drops, then you will get different chemicals produced because different species are taking over, so that a particular compound may become much more concentrated if you allow pH to get too low (and this might taste bad, over and above tasting 'too acid').
If you consider something like a fermented salami, it can keep a long time because it has a low enough pH will act as a preservative almost indefinitely. If you are not storing the meat, then this might be less important.
fermenting more slowly can often give better results, but you'd have to know roughly the bacteria you are working with and which ones are heterofermentative, and their optimum growing conditions for this to happened - it won't always help to lower the temperature.
LAB have different strains, and a cabbage in Thailand is going to have different strains and even LAB species from one from Germany, so it's a little tricky to be sure about exact temperatures and pH levels and such like referring to a book when you are using wild cultures. Safety rules will stay the same, but the conditions required for best flavour are not necessarily the same using vegetables in different countries, so ultimately you might want to experiment with different combinations of time and temperature.
And with your comment about wild strains varying by locality -- it might be worth trying to find someone in your town to learn from so you have a good starting point. Especially if you live in a valley, things may be different than the next valley over.
I don't think it would make that much difference, especially if the vegetables were grown elsewhere. But you should get a different flavour profile fermenting in Thailand as from Canada, not just because of temperature but because of dfferent strains. The basics are going to be the same but your ferment will have a certain terroir.
In a lactic fermentation, the variables are, temperature (better word than "heat"), salinity, pH, a lack of oxygen, and lactic acid bacteria (not yeast). In order for the product to be safe, a lack of oxygen and salinity support the growth of lactic acid bacteria (out competing unsafe organisms), whose development alters the pH of your product. In the end, it is the salinity and decreased pH (more acidic) that makes the product safe. If the temperature is too hot, this happens too quickly (or not at all), and the result can range from off flavors to unsafe. If the temperature is too cold, the result is dramatically slowed. It is a system of independent variables that have to work together to produce a safe and delicious product. So, yes, you can isolate and manipulate any of the variables. Of course, altering any of these variables will alter the final result, and could easily make your product unsafe if you are not careful or don't understand the system.
It's true that there's a lot of subtlety and a lot of things to tweak, but for lactic fermentation of vegetables, there's a pretty wide lane within which the bus will drive itself. With 2-5% salt, room temperature, and neutral to slightly acidic starting pH, good results are extremely likely.
@Sneftel I largely agree. While success is extremely likely in your scenario, there are ideals...and there are manipulations of the variables that will produce undesirable results. I am simply attempting to identify the variables and their function, as...it seems to me, that is really at the heart of this question.
The important part of the equation is what microbes will do well at at that given temperature / salinity / ph / alcohol level ... and selecting factors where desired microbes flourish and undesired microbes do not.
Another huge variable in fermentation is available sugar. There are recipes (think kimchi) that add white sugar or flour directly to speed up and strengthen fermentation, rather than relying solely on sugars naturally present in the vegetables.
Glad I did no know it was so complicated before I made sauerkraut. I just chopped cabbage sprinkled on the amount of salt in the cook book and let it go - much better than commercial kraut.
Nothing is independent, and there is no "the equation". Fermentation is a matter of different microorganism strains trying to occupy an ecological niche, which is a really, really complicated process. Each change in any of the environmental conditions will lead to a difference in what happens, and not in any linear or easily predictable way. So I would advise against trying to derive any kind of model at home. There is literature available, but I am not sure why you would want to read it if this isn't your job. For practical purposes, all you can do is following the exact recipe somebody else has designed and proven to work.
Actually, there is an equation for microbial activity. Within the typical habitable range of a given organism, there's a formula like 2x activity for every 10°F increase in temperature, assuming all other things are left constant and it has sufficient food. (I'm working from memory ... it was covered in a class on sewage treatment plants that I took ~25 years ago. It might've been 2x per 5°C or 10°C. I remember it was a nice, round number)
I should also point out as it's not obvious -- because each microbe has a different habitable range of temperatures, there's a point at which increasing temperature slows or kills microbes, and so we typically choose a specific temperature based on what microbes would be active at that temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.239340
| 2020-12-01T09:03:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112919",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89316",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj",
"thelawnet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120189
|
What is this veggie sold as "leek sprout" in an Asian market?
What is this veggie I bought at the Asian market? It was called a leek sprout.
Leek sprout to me sounds like it's a baby leek.
Yellow Chinese chives. These are the same as Chinese garlic chives, but they've been "bleached" by covering them; this results in a milder, sweeter flavor.
They're generally minced and put into dishes as a finishing step.
Given it came rom asian market, I assume you are right. But it looks very much like Bulgarian garlic chives. We call it green garlic. I didn't know about bleaching.
@akostadinov "Bleaching" isn't quite the right word - plants left in the dark will not develop as much chlorophyll, so it's more that they don't turn green to begin with and not that the green has been "bleached" out after having previously been green. I don't think you find these sun-deprived yellow chives in traditional European or Balkan cuisine - usually just normal green ones.
I think "blanching" is the typical term, even though it's easy to confuse with the act of cooking. See Cauliflower Blanching.
The botanical name is 'Etiolation' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiolation - it's the same process done with white asparagus and forced rhubarb. Apparently if you go into a dark 'forcing' shed you can actually hear the asparagus growing!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.240522
| 2022-03-30T23:58:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120189",
"authors": [
"Beejamin",
"GdD",
"Ian Campbell",
"J...",
"akostadinov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90559"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120135
|
Russian Recipe Help Needed!
I need help converting this recipe and it's measurements into English! https://pin.it/30QV1w9
I think this question is likely to be closed as off-topic, as it is a translation request, and not so much a question about cooking. There is a Russian language Stack Exchange site, but note that the rules for that site requires that you put in effort to translate first. They offer assistance with translations, but do not provide transitions-as-a-service.
I’m voting to close this question because it's a translation question and belongs on Russian SE
Here are the translations.
Original:
Печенье 300 гр.
сгущёнка 2 ст.л
творог 250 гр.
сметана 2 ст.л
Бананы 2
Мандарин 4
киви 2
клубника 5-6
Translated to English:
Cookies 300 gr.
Sweetened condensed milk 2 tbsp
Cottage cheese 250 gr.
Sour cream 2 tbsp.
Bananas 2
Mandarin 4
Kiwi 2
Strawberries 5 - 6
A mistake at sour cream. it's 2 tablespoons, not 250 gr. 250g is only mentioned once in the screenshot
Looks kind of tasty!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.240673
| 2022-03-22T01:34:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120135",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"FuzzyChef",
"Runley",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65021
|
What is the most time efficient way to serve food fairly to ~100 people?
I'm the food manager at a student cooperative residence with 140 residents. A cook crew of 5 residents cook dinner every night, and usually 60-100 people attend dinner on a given night. Right now, people line up to serve themselves from a large table that has all the dishes. This method is very slow and it can take 30 minutes for someone at the end of the line to get food.
Since we are a cooperative community, we need a method that is equitable to residents. Our current method is accessible, but not time efficient at all.
In comparison, a different house but of similar size to ours uses a "mad rush" method to serve food, which essentially results in residents forming a mob and grabbing the food until it runs out. In this method, the food is usually distributed unevenly; some residents get more popular food items, (such as meat) and some get very little or none of the popular items at all. This method privileges members that are physically stronger and bigger and is very obviously not accessible to residents with physical disabilities or residents that are claustrophobic/have social anxieties. Their method is very time efficient though, with food being served in under 5 minutes.
I am looking for any ideas (no matter how novel) on how to serve food to the house, as long as it is accessible, equitable (all residents get a fair share) and time efficient.
Edit:
To clarify, we usually have ~4 dishes per meal and served in steel insert pans (or if it is a soup, straight out of a pot). Meals consist of at least one starch item, one vegan protein, and one vegetable dish. Meals may additionally have a meat dish, a soup, a dessert or additional starch/vegetarian dishes.
Could you please describe what kind of dishes / combination thereof you typically serve? And welcome to Seasoned Advice! Let me encourage you to take the [tour] and visit our [help] to get good introduction to how this site works.
I'm confused how your method ends up equitable - surely you'd have the same problem with popular things running out before people at the end of the line get any?
@Jefromi if the line is extremely long, people at the end may not get the popular items. However, in the "mad rush" method people end up taking unfair servings (serving sizes that are pretty big) versus in the line, since people are serving themselves in a slow and orderly fashion, they are more likely to self-regulate in portion sizes so the popular items end up being served to more people. also the mad rush method promotes a "fend for yourself" attitude that causes people to not really care about equitable portions.
@Stephie Thanks for the welcome! Meals usually consist of 4-5 dishes-- at least 1 carbohydrate/starch dish, 1 vegan protein, 1 vegetarian dish (usually a salad). In addition, there may be a meat dish, a soup, or a dessert.
Status quo looks like the classic "3 quality attributes... you can have any 2" dilemma. I agree with comments below that talk about a wait staff and family style serving. Maybe have wait staff keep the family bowls full.
Seems like a good use for "family style". Bring platters or bowls of each dish to each table. Then at that table expect decent behaviour such as passing the platters around so everyone gets some. It shouldn't take long to fill and distribute bowls or plates of things. Carving meat into slices might take a while but would have to be done even if people were lining up to get their individual portions.
If some people weren't good sharers you could use assigned seating and put the non sharers at a table that gets its platters last.
As Kate said, "family style" seems ideally suited to this situation. The problem with "family style", though, is that you need a lot of serving dishes. If you have 8-person tables (which tends to be the standard), for ~100 people you need at least 12 tables. Multiply by 4 dishes per meal, and you're at almost 50 serving dishes (and the same number of serving spoons), which all need to be acquired, filled, distributed, and then washed.
If you don't have the resources to accomplish that, the other option is to scale it back a bit: have multiple serving stations, just not quite that many serving stations. Even just utilizing both sides of the serving table (either with identical but separate dishes and spoons on each side, or just orienting the larger hotel pans crosswise and putting spoons at either end) should cut your serving time almost in half. Oddly enough, the biggest problem with this is training people to actually use both sides of the table, especially if they've been used to the one-sided method.
If you add another serving table, again using both sides, you will have theoretically cut your serving time down to 7 or 8 minutes - not quite a 5-minute free-for-all, but way more equitable. "Two tables, both sides" can be achieved with 8 hotel pans and 16 serving spoons, which ought to be well within your resources. The drawback is that you now need to have two queues, and you can end up with one table running out before the other one does, and other such "messiness".
One trick that can be used no matter how many serving stations you have is to not put all the food out right at the beginning. Instead, periodically replenish the serving dishes as they start running low. People are less likely to take more than their share if doing so makes a noticeable dent in the amount left in the pan. This way, even people at the end of the line will have a chance at the desirable items, and there may even be food left for second helpings.
Also worth mentioning for buffets is that the order of stuff can affect the speed of the lines : plates, food, condiments, utensils & napkins, drinks. Too many people put utensils first, so people are fumbling with them while they're trying to serve their food. And until they get their food, they don't know what utensils they're even going to need. And if you can, move drinks (and possibly condiments) elsewhere, so one slow person doesn't hold up the rest of the line.
Oh ... and I always try to put the food for vegans or other restricted diets after the other food ... as people are more likely to take stuff from the first dish, no matter what it is. (which might make the vegan dish run out before the actual vegans get to it).
two ideas come to mind.
I dont know how many dishes get prepared, but if it's a limited selection, perhaps you can have someone prepare plates and people just have to come up and pick up a plate rather than standing there and picking up individual items.
can you create a 2nd serving area? If you can have two tables where people help themselves instead of one, should cut the time in half.
The more I think about it... wait staff is your answer.
Example: West Point Military Academy feeds 4,000 in one sitting. They do it with wait staff.
Since it is a cooperative, could you devise a plan for a rotating cooking/plating/waitstaff?
Would discussing what you want (no beans, please!) be faster than self-service? And plating without "customer input" may lead to more food waste.
The waitstaff would not take orders, but simply bring plated food to the table. A basic menu could be devised, and a process of "ordering" ahead of time for people with dietary restrictions, could help. Could be accomplished online, even.
Unless the "more popular" items are all more expensive to make, why not make sure that roughly the right amount of each dish is prepared in the first place, taking popularity into account? If "food runs out", take note and prepare more next time, if there are significant leftovers, prepare less of that item next time... "Fair share" sounds elusive with perishable food since what people want is the amount of each preparation they want to eat that day. A "fair share" distribution would be more applicable if you gave them universally useful materials or money...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.240817
| 2016-01-02T21:27:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65021",
"authors": [
"Brandy Bolz",
"Cascabel",
"Cassandra Miller",
"Cheryl Zaher",
"Christian Holthe",
"Christine Brown",
"Joe",
"Lynne Stewart",
"Meow Meow",
"Paulb",
"Rungtham Thamsoontorn",
"Shiny Tub Bathtub",
"Stephie",
"Val Baggs",
"Veronica Lewis",
"Vipin Kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42147",
"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
}
|
23122
|
Is golden syrup gluten-free?
In Europe, the very large majority of glucose syrups are actually derived from wheat and thus not gluten-free, while corn syrup is gluten-free (as far as I understand). From this question, I learnt that golden syrup is actually a good substitute for corn syrup, and thus, I am wondering: is golden syrup gluten-free? Does it depend on the source of sugar used, i.e. cane vs. beet?
Golden syrup is indeed gluten free, as neither sugar cane or beet contains gluten. In fact, beet fibre is used in many gluten-free products. See the Tate & Lyle site for more information:
http://www.lylesgoldensyrup.com/healthandnutrition.php
And if you make it yourself, is there any indication to the sugar you should be using? For example, I understand that some brands of icing sugar use wheat-based additives, and thus are not gluten free.
@f'x how would you make it yourself? Also, all powdered sugar uses starch, there is no way to tell which one has wheat starch and which has starch from other sources. Don't use powdered/confectioner's sugar for gluten-free dishes.
You could make it yourself with unrefined caster sugar and citric or ascorbic acid. However, boiling sugar (and washing up the pot afterwards) is a lot of bother considering you can just buy it in a tin at your supermarket (one assumes).
@rumtscho at least in France, golden syrup is not very common and one often makes it (I make it when I prepare cocktails, for example)
As an aside it is worth noting that glucose syrup is gluten free even if derived from wheat. The same goes for dextrose and caramel colour.
If an exact brand processed product is not declared as gluten free (by label or manufacturer statement), and if it is to be an ingredient in either a product sold as gluten free and/or to be served to an actual celiac patient, assume it is not. So above answer will be valid for the Tate&Lyle product mentioned, but not for generic "golden syrup".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.241530
| 2012-04-17T15:08:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23122",
"authors": [
"Akhil Alfons K",
"ElendilTheTall",
"F'x",
"Grannie Vee",
"Jessica Gregory",
"cory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9940",
"qwaz",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23816
|
Eucalyptus tea: is it safe to drink?
I have a big Eucalyptus Gunnii (If I am not mistaken) tree just out my door. It smells splendid and I have always wanted to know if I could make tea out of its leaves. However, something stops me: I don't know this tree, it could be dangerous to ingest. Can you tell me otherwise?
This is what the tree looks like:
I think I remember that the young leaves contain cyanide, while the old ones are OK - it was from a Grzimek book, but I don't have the book here to check.
I hope thats a joke, I read that Australian pioneers used to make tea with these leaves as a secondary ingredient elsewhere so I went and made myself some tea. I have drank a glass already, it was very bitter.
No, it is no joke - a quick Google search found somebody quoting the cyanide part from another Grzimek book, http://cheryl-kraynak.suite101.com/what-do-koalas-eat-a98285. I don't know how dangerous the one cup of tea could be, but people can eat small quantities of cyanide without ill effects, e.g. in bitter almonds. If you think you might have digested a dangerous amount, I think that there are hotlines equipped to give help for poisoning, maybe there is one for your area. The bitterness alone doesn't mean you had cyanide for sure, not all euc. species have it.
The toxicity is even mentioned on Wikipedia...
Nvermind, nothing happened. Thanks for the help!
Wolter, thanks for following up... I was a bit worried, having grown up with my mother always warning me not to ingest Eucalyptus. Glad to hear you're fine
That's very kind of you Ray
I'D CHECK THE SPECIES CAREFULLY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptol
Eucalyptus is technically poisonous, but it depends on amount.
Concentrated Eucalyptus Oil, like an essential oil, should always be kept out of reach of children and have a childproof cap, for example (http://www.poisons.co.nz/fact.php?f=27). It is a dangerous and confusing point because, like clove oil which is also poisonous in sufficient amounts, it is used in various remedies in small amounts. Of course, when you have a concentrated oil, "sufficient amounts" is relatively small. Putting a leaf in some tea is quite different.
There are a number of places on the web selling Eucalyptus tea and giving recipes, but the general recommendation is not to drink too much or make it too strong. The general recommended amount is 1/2 tsp dried leaves or one torn up fresh leaf per cup of water, and 1-3 cups per day.
This responsible looking website notes some safety issues: http://www.eucalyptusoil.com/safety
This website gives more details of the chemicals found in Eucalyptus, and tells you how to make a tea. It also gives a list of medical conditions which indicate you shouldn't drink Eucalyptus tea. http://www.livestrong.com/article/523149-what-is-eucalyptus-tea-good-for/
Another website also contraindicates eucalyptus for use with some drugs - 5-Fluorouracil, Pentobarbital, Amphetamine (I can't provide source because not enough reputation to post the extra link)
Note: Many things that are contained in various herbal remedies and so on contain active ingredients that can ... have all sorts of effects. So everyone should research them themselves or check with a Natural Health Practitioner or doctor first before taking them with medications, or giving them to small children, pregnant women, asthmatics or any high-risk health group.
Thank you for your answer, you are certainly a better researcher than I am haha.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.241730
| 2012-05-17T19:52:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23816",
"authors": [
"Arnie Kay",
"MobiDevices.com",
"Patrick Tescher",
"Ray",
"Severo Raz",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"e_m",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64574
|
How do I know if I can double, triple or quadruple a recipe for caramels?
I have a really good recipe for caramels, everyone raves about them, so I am thinking about selling them to the public. But the recipe I have only makes an 8 x 8 inch pan of caramels and they take a looong time to make. Does anyone know how to know if the recipe can be doubled, tripled or quadrupled short of actually having to do that.
Can you put the recipe in your question? If nothing else, there are people here that love experimentation.
Before undertaking this as a profit-making endeavor, make sure you know the story of Lucy and Ethel with Aunt Martha's Salad Dressing. — Calculate the cost of all your raw ingredients, extra utensils you may need to buy, cooking fuel, packaging and distribution, and of course, something for your own labor; and then figure out how much you'll need to sell your caramels to break even. — Spoiler: Lucy and Ethel lost money, and had to make a commercial, encouraging people to cancel their orders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ybBEo6ZnF4
No I don't want to have the recipe in the question. It is a secret.
I love Lucy and Ethel. I will have to see if I can find that episode on the web somewhere so I don't make the same mistakes. Lol Seriously tho' I am in the beginning stages of this thought process. If I can figure out if it can be quadrupled, I think that will make the best use of my time in the cooking process, then I can consult with our local business development council on starting a new business.
The short answer is yes, but I would do it by weight and absolutely not by volume.
A lot depends on how many times you are scaling up your recipe. With high viscosity materials, mixing small amounts is trivial, but with large enough amounts, the geometry of your mixing vessel and the type of hook/blade/impeller all matter, and matter to the point the sometimes the recipe itself needed changing. It is all about mass transfer. The same with heat transfer during cooking, hot spots and uneven temperature distribution are common problems. Without knowing the specifics, it would not be possible to calculate what "large enough" is. Twice is probably fine. Quadruple the batch, you might want to look out for mixing and heating issues.
A bit off-topic, when it comes to the economics of making a recipe into a business, allowances for wastage, measurement inaccuracies, ingredient and product losses do pile up when scaled up. These are unnoticeable in a small batch in a home kitchen. Hygiene when scaled up becomes disproportionately effect and cost intensive too. Budgeting errors lurk everywhere even for very experienced finance minded people. Underestimating power consumption is also common.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.242008
| 2015-12-19T18:53:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64574",
"authors": [
"Chidera Innocent",
"Cindy Wiksell",
"Debbie Trogstad",
"ElmerCat",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lyse Michaud Nehme",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81682
|
Why does canelé batter have to be made 24 hours in advance?
I am experimenting with making canelé. All recipes I've found call for the batter to be made and left in the refrigerator for at least 24 hours before baking, but none say why.
One guess is that maybe the batter needs to reach a certain temperature get the right consistency while baking (caramelized exterior and moist interior). But I don't think that it would need anywhere close to 24 hours to reach the fridge temperature.
Does anyone know the reasoning or the origin of the 24 hour time, or if it really makes a difference between leaving them in for, say, 6 hours?
Considering the two very-well researched recipes I've just seen recommend 48 hours over 24, I think cutting the time is a very bad choice. As to why, no clue... but I wonder if it relates to the process of Yorkshire puddings which also have a long (though not as long) rest period.
Thank you for your research and reply! After a bit more research, I found someone who said that the reason for the long time is so that the flour can fully absorb the liquid, and that without it the canelé won't have the same consistency. They also said cutting back the time was a bad choice. I'm going to do some more research and if I can come up with some good references I'll leave an answer to my question, although I would still be very happy to get an answer from someone else
http://www.cookingscienceguy.com/pages/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Explaining-Gluten.pdf may help shed some light on this
canele is tricky, a batter that works well for minis is often too soft and lacking texture inside for bigger ones. You need to play around with resting time, temperature and may be agitation.
I am pretty sure it is for cross-linking to form gluten and possibly rearrangements of other proteins also. As far as I can work out, there is no impact to either caramelisation or maillard. Resting time and temperature do need fine tuning for different sizes though which is quite logical and may explain different recipe timing. So, do look out for that. Temperature plays a part in the reaction kinetics. Again, not looked into it, but chilling suggests better to slow things down and possibly to prevent unintended fermentation. 5C from experience is perhaps the upper limit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.242260
| 2017-05-15T02:51:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81682",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Darren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41176",
"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
}
|
60283
|
Vegetarian replacement for pork mince in Chinese style stir fry
In Chinese cuisine it's very common to start a vegetable stir fry with a bit of minced meat, typically pork, to give the dish a deeper flavor. To make a vegetarian version I usually just leave this out, but I've been wondering if something else would give a similar effect taste-wise.
Typical meat replacements like tofu or seitan don't work here because they focus on providing the texture and protein of meat, but not so much the flavor.
I would use a vegetarian bouillon (soup base) to provide the flavor, personally.
Minced mushrooms give that Umami touch as well.
If you can get it, dried tofu skin sticks are great substitution for texture. Lots of surface area and folds trap sauce to make it feel juicy and chewy in the mouth. Kanpyo, Japanese dried gourd strips, is another option for texture. For umami, seaweeds are great, as are fermented salted bean curd (esp the red type), and miso just to name a few. Search under Chinese Buddhist cuisine for amazing vegan substitutions
It seems like you are primarily interested in reproducing the umami of the meat. Tofu does in fact have glutamic acids that will add to the umami; just make sure to thoroughly dry the tofu (extracting as much liquid as possible) before use. In addition, you can use minced mushrooms, as Stephie mentioned in the comments. You can also experiment with adding Bragg's Liquid Aminos, since it has a lot of umami but has less than half the sodium of soy sauce.
Keep in mind, though, that the meat in the original recipe is also relied upon for its fat; tofu does have some fat, but not as much as meat, and it's unlikely to render out during the initial fry. Therefore, I would suggest adding 7 grams of fat (e.g., vegetable oil) for every 100g of meat you are replacing.
Let's recapitulate the textural options you have:
Crumbled firm tofu, sauteed (with or without some soy sauce and/or wheat paste - mind the color you want too!)
Brunoised/minced fresh/reconstituted shiitake mushroom (potent taste, and you get a great stock from rehydrating :) ), sauteed.
Brunoised/minced "perfectly normal, western mushroom" (Cremini, Champignon or whatever it is locally called :) ), sauteed thoroughly.
TVP mince, cooked in strong soy sauce broth.
Firm (baked) seitan, chopped.
Now about the umami you are missing: Most of the things mentioned are absorbent (mushrooms, crumbled tofu...), so they will soak up umami rich sauces when sauteed with them, especially when you add them when most of the water is fried out. Other are made with or cooked in a liquid (seitan, TVP). So let's look at some umami sources we have:
Soy sauce. Try korean gukganjang (strong, but doesn't discolor things much).
Shiitake broth. Or Soy sauce with shiitake extract (commercially sold). Or a full shiitake + kombu dashi.
Tian mian jiang (sweet bean sauce).
Nutritional yeast.
Straight, unapologetic MSG.
Doenjang (strong taste) or Miso.
Minced fermented black beans.
Marmite.
Various Chinese pickled vegetables (strong taste).
Doubanjiang (strong taste).
Jackfruit supposedly works well as a pork substitute. [Source].
When jackfruit is ripe, it has a sweet taste and can be used in desserts but when it’s unripe, the taste is savory.
The texture is similar to chicken and pork and is often called “vegetarian meat.”
The part of the fruit used as a meat substitute is the fleshy coating around the seeds.
Don't know many dishes that start with pork mince because my experience is limited to North China, mostly Beijing.
There, mince was added to noodles mostly; with veg was eggplant, sometimes mushrooms; and of course in Mao Po Tofu.
I believe it's the mince browning that adds the flavor.
Getting some good caramelized flavor can be done by adding just a bit of sugar -very typical in wide range of recipes- allowing to really brown.
Also, black vinegar from Shanxi adds some caramel flavor.
Consider also adding just pork seasoning: a bit of 5 spice.
Not really a sub but adds depth: couple of drops of szechuan oil (prickly ash)with dribble of toasted sesame oil, replacing a bit of plain cooking oil.
Serious Eats used a dry fried minced mushrooms to substitute for, in that case, beef in a dish. I don't know if it will substitute for pork mince in the same way, having no firsthand experience, but it may be worth trying. The results are, reportedly, rich and savory and deeply flavored, lots of umami - which sounds like it would do a similar job of adding depth and flavor to your stir fry, even if the specific flavor added is different.
To make the mushroom mince, they used button mushrooms, well minced and fried until the water had mostly evaporated out and they were deeply browned, and added them to the minced mushrooms they had on hand from the broth in that recipe. With a bonus of very mushroom-flavored oil, to fry in. That's a nice addition, adding flavor and, also, fat (since meats usually add both).
For your stir fry, it seems like a similar substitution might work - start with a few minced mushrooms, making sure they get quite dry and brown by the time you're done. They should give the flavor some of that extra depth and savoriness, just as a meat mince would do. You might want soy sauce or liquid aminos or even something like kombu to touch up the umami flavor a bit more - your stir fry might need a little more since that recipe had other flavors to rely on.
Straight up msg my guy, alternatively get some course salt and whole Sichuan peppercorns, toast together in a dry pan and pick out the peppers after it gets fragrant
This idea works for me when I'm cooking Italian-style foods, but it should translate to Chinese cooking with some modifications.
I use green lentils, cooked through and then mashed and spiced. For Italian-style, I use cumin, smoked paprika, nutmeg, salt and pepper.
For Chinese, I would suggest some hoi-sin sauce, with cumin and ground coriander.
You could try pressed bean curd. If you chop it up, it might have a similar texture, and it does provide protein. It comes in plain and seasoned kinds that you can try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.242474
| 2015-08-27T12:31:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60283",
"authors": [
"Andy Beverton",
"Barry Simmons",
"Bobby Sr",
"Enosh Ong",
"Erica",
"Seth W",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"user110084",
"william ohara"
],
"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
}
|
15969
|
Nutrient composition of milk vs. home-made kefir
I got a bit confused when looking up nutrition values for milk versus kefir made from that milk. For some reason many tables list higher values of some nutrients (e.g. potassium and magnesium) than is in the source form, i.e. the milk.
Can someone shed light on how this would happen?
I realize that lactose from the milk gets turned into carbon dioxide and alcohol, but where does it take the additional nutrients from if the only nutrition for the kefir grains is the milk and air?
Are the serving sizes the same?
Can you edit the question to provide links to an example of this? I've not seen it when looking up kefir stuff.
I have never had homemade kefir. Does it produce a whey like yogurt does? Maybe it is measured after the CO2 evaporating somewhat and the whey thrown out.
@Aaronut: yes, they are. Mostly calorie tables are given per 100 ml or 100 g.
@rumtscho: yes, it produces a little bit of whey. But I personally don't throw it away. The CO2 should mostly affect the lactose content, not other ingredients such as potassium or magnesium ... but I may be missing something.
My point was that if they take 100g milk and make kefir out of it, and the CO2 evaporates and they throw out the whey, they are left with less than 100g kefir. Which means that the Mg and K are more concentrated. This would explain small differences, but not big ones. There is no USDA nutrition entry on kefir, but the difference in milk vs buttermilk is 10 vs 11 mg Mg, 132 vs 151 mg K, which is plausible as a concentration issue. And then, the real values vary from cow to cow, season to season, etc. With a low number of data points (USDA has 12 for buttermilk), a difference is expected.
@rumtscho is correct. 100g of kefir takes more than 100g of milk to make. It is the same reason why protein and Ca is typically much higher in cheese than in milk. The is mass loss from CO2 alone. Whey may or may not be separable depending on the age of the kefir. A one day old kefir at 20C will likely not have any. If you are only taking out the kefir "grains" for nutrition analysis, then the mass loss has to be well over 50%.
@user110084: that last sentence doesn't make sense to me. Also, the CO2 is mostly created from digesting the lactose, right? So it should be at most the mass-equivalent to the lactose, usually less though (because it would be converted to lactic acid and CO2, right?)? Btw, I always stir any whey that may have separated right back in. Of course the concentration of the other components may change because of this transformation.
Kefir often forms little clumps called "grains" within the body of thickened liquid. Many would drain off just the liquid for consumption and save the grains as starters. I have not actually taken measurements, but certain that grains and liquid have different composition and water content. You are stirring everything in, so the mass loss is exactly as you described.
Well the grains are what you have to put into the kefir to get it started, so yeah I am removing those to start the next batch. But those grains are growing fairly slowly. Still, I'll concede that they would have to have an effect on the overall composition. I thought, though, that the discussion was about the whey versus the "curd" (well, perhaps not thick enough to warrant that term, but you get what I mean).
It could just be the difference in milk sources. Different cows, receiving variable types of feed, produce milk with varying nutritional content. They probably only tested kefir using milk from one or at most two sources. In comparison, the figures for normal milk could be drawn from hundreds of dairy farms across the nation.
I would expect there to be changes in the carb/protein/fat content of the milk, as well as vitamins produced/consumed by the kefir. Specifically, the carbohydrate level should be lower from lactose being digested into lactic acid.
Agreed. The USDA lists ~60 data points for milk and 12 for buttermilk. So I doubt that the milk data is all that good too. But the kefir is probably even worse. Add to that that the stuff makes up only 1/10 000 to 1/1000 of milk, and you see how the measurement can be imprecise. I bet that for any nutrient, "has x g of carbohydrates" is as false as saying that my body temperature right now is exact 37.00 °C.
@rumtscho: yeah, I just got mainly confused by the fact that some nutrients seem to be only in either or that the amount should differ that much. Bob's answer is actually quite logical, though. Would perhaps make more sense to see in relation what milk and resulting kefir contain. I bet that would be more interesting. The milk I buy lists at least some of its ingredients ... so I would expect some changes but not really drastic ones :)
There are many products that the nutritional value changes with aging and kefir is one such. You are growing good bacteria and yeast while fermenting and this adds to the milk's value. Also if you do a secondary fermentation you increase some of those values (like the B vit.)
ck
Not so. You cannot create new mass and new elements that were not the system to begin with. In some cases, you have to include gases from the atmosphere, but this is definitely not the case with milk to kefir, you lose mass as @rumtscho commented
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.242925
| 2011-07-06T01:23:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15969",
"authors": [
"0xC0000022L",
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Christian Davis",
"Dan Livingston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78967
|
How to prevent light-colored macarons from browning?
I have a problem with baking yellow macarons, or any light coloured macarons.
The yellow (or any light colour) ones always brown, always!
I tried lowering the temperature, I bought the best colours I can get in the UK. The colours are powdered, to reduce the liquid content.
Does anyone have a method they could suggest that is fool proof.
Are they browning on top, underneath, or both?
@Joe they are browning on all sides, I can't add foil to block the heat, but where would I place the shelf?
As well as the previous answers and if not already doing so, try using beet sugar (e.g. Silver Spoon in UK) rather than cane (e.g. Tate Lyle in UK)
as beet sugar takes a little longer to Brown.
Bravetart wrote an article about this years ago, and noted that some coloring formulations don't play nicely with the oven. She suggests a few brands of gel pastes which work for her.
There are two types of browning, Maillard begins at around 140C and caramelisation at 180C.
Maillard needs protein and sugar. Caramelization is a sugar only reaction. Both are exothermic (from memory, could be wrong) and once started, the reaction generated heat will accelerate the browning. Alkaline condition will also promote caramelization. So watch out for baking soda and other alkaline ingredients that are not adequately neutralized by acidic ingredients.
There are bound to be proteins and sugar present in your dough. So, if possible keep your temperature (especially at hot spots in your oven) below 140C.
Baking powder should be self-neutralizing. Baking soda however is alkaline. For every gram of it, you will need a touch over 2.2 grams of cream of tartar to neutralize it assuming you have no other acid ingredients like fruit juice in you dough.
I don't see how this theory is relevant for macarons. They have no leavening agents (actually nothing that's especially alkaline or acidic). As for the temperature, if you set it below 140, they won't cook properly. The major chefs all do it at higher temperatures and they don't discolor.
There are two ways foods go brown in cooking (perhaps a third involving enzymes which do not function much above 60C). Given that we are dealing with egg whites, maillard is more relevant here. Ingredients do not need to be "especially" high or low in pH to promote or inhibit browning, just on either side of 7. I am not pretending to suggest a cure for these recipes but more about places to look for causes when baking. There may be inhibitors you use. I do not make macarons, but a casual search turned up a couple of recipes and both had exactly 140C or 285F, "bake to set but not brown".
Again, I have never made macarons. If I were to do it, I would be very tempted to add a bit of lemon juice or cream of tartar to the egg white and compare results with another without the addition. Lowering the pH might (speculating here) even shorten the setting time for the white.
Just dawned on me that food colours may not have a neutral pH. And if it is an azo type, does the nitrogen in the dye do any incidental chemistry with the ingredients to promote browning?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.243452
| 2017-03-07T22:52:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78967",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jelly46",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44290
|
How do they make Mexican vanilla extract?
I would like to make 'Mexican Vanilla' extract. I have used it for years and now would like to make it.
Isn't Mexican vanilla just vanilla grown in Mexico? Possibly a certain cultivar of vanilla? Once you have the vanilla beans, you soak them in alcohol to make extract
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/24561/67
You can find many instructions on the web for how to make your own vanilla extract, such as this one from Beanilla. As Derobert mentions, it is essentially just soaking the beans ins spirits long enough for the flavors to infuse. The beans you buy will determine the flavor profile. To make Mexican vanilla extract, you would buy pods imported from Mexico.
Regarding commercial products:
If you are speaking of pure, genuine vanilla extract of the type legal for import in the US, then Mexican vanilla extract is the same as any other.
Such vanilla is subject, in the US at least, to the FDA standard for identity for vanilla extract, and so cannot vary from this model. It is made, usually, by soaking vanilla beans in an alcohol/water solution, although there are alternate methods permitted. Several minor ingredients such as sugars or glycerine are permitted, but if used, must specified on the label.
On the other hand, there are products available in Mexico that are not true vanilla. These are made from extracts of the tonka plant, and contain a substance, coumarin, that is not permitted in foods in the US, as it is a blood thinner and can cause bleeding. The FDA says:
Be wary about buying products labeled "Vainilla" or "Extracto de Vainilla" in Mexico and other Latin American countries. Look for "vanilla bean" in the ingredient list on the label. If it has "tonka bean" or if there is no ingredient list or a vague one, do not purchase this product.
I tried the method linked, including Mexican vanilla beans and the recommended 35% vodka, but my result had much stronger alcohol content than Mexican vanilla extract I've had. Using a couple tablespoons amounted to spiking my drink, whereas I got no hint of alcohol when using Mexican vanilla extract. Any ideas why?
@spiffytech a couple tablespoons of extract in a drink?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.243710
| 2014-05-21T14:46:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44290",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Business spam",
"Civil Physical Therapy spam",
"Couvreur Toulon 83",
"Joe",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"emily",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6705",
"spiffytech"
],
"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
}
|
81595
|
To knead or not to knead, that is the question
I recently saw a recipe for no-knead bread. The process was the same except that instead of kneading, you just let the bread sit for 12 hours. The bread maker claimed that no-knead bread tastes better than kneaded bread.
Is kneading just a time saver and we would be better off letting it rise naturally over a long period of time, or is kneading better?
Can you give us some quantifiable measures of "better"? What outcome are you looking for in bread?
Might be more productive to just ask what the general differences are between two methods, presumably the no-knead method you describe, and the common knead and shorter rise method.
Would it be helpful to mention bread in the title? Or is the word kneading already obvious enough?
Sorry, but I'm going to put this on hold - I agreed with Catija's concerns before, and now the answers seem to be demonstrating that those concerns were justified. They're potentially helpful, but they don't seem to be really focused on answering any particular question. I would be quite happy to reopen this if edited, though.
In order for dough to bake into nice bread, you must develop a gluten structure that can trap the gas the yeast release as they feed on the flour. You can do this in several ways:
Mechanical action (kneading)
Natural fermentation through yeast
There risks to overdoing it in both cases. If you overknead, see Are there any negative effects to kneading bread dough longer?
If you overferment (overproof) the dough, the yeast will break down the gluten structure completely and you will have a saggy/gloopy mess that can't contain the escaping gas. See this post.
Many doughs can't develop a good gluten structure without at least some mechanical action, so we typically use a combination. Allowing a natural fermentation (particularly with wild yeast or starter) allows for a more flavorful, easier to digest bread as well.
I thought yeast does not have proteases to break down gluten, only amylases to convert starch to simple sugars. The problem I had with overproofing was that the yeast had nothing left in them to support a second proof.
No-knead bread works and can be very flavourful. Instead of relying on kneading to work the gluten, you rely on self-organising by increasing the hydration ratio to around 65-70%, you have a very gloopy dough. It takes time. So, there is a real risk of over-fermenting unless you let it rise at unusually low temperature. I have tried leaving a covered dough outdoors overnight (<10C) which worked well, and also in a warm room which ended up not so well (off-flavours and dense bread). This is well worth a read NY Times article
update:
I forgot to mention low dosage of yeast
Main differences: 65-70% hydration ratio, low yeast, ferment in a cool place.
There is a bakery in Lincolnshire in northern england that uses 24 hour fermentation
Yes, that is the article that got me started on the question. Lahey seemed to think that the 12-hour no-knead bread tasted better than the kneaded bread.
The difference in taste would not be attributed to kneading or not kneading, it would be because of the additional time that allows for more flavor development from the flour. You could slow proof a kneaded loaf of bread to achieve the same results. As far as gluten development you can read the answer to this Question.
Why is the high hydration ratio necessary in your view? From experimenting, normal hydration did not work well for no-kneading. I can see how slow proofing a kneaded dough would work.
I have found 4 factors that are most important to a good bread -
water to flour ratio (hydration)
temperature at which you rest it
kneading of the bread
how long do you rest it
The recipe you are talking about says no kneading, it is definitely possible to get good bread without kneading but then the other 3 factors become really important.
You have a risk of gloopy dough will might lead to over fermentation and under cooked bread. 12hrs should be a good enough time but you have to make sure you dont use too much water and also make sure the place where you rest the bread is cold enough otherwise you will get dense and funky tasting bread.
Hope this helps!
Cheers
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.243927
| 2017-05-11T19:41:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81595",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
}
|
113615
|
Identify mark on cast iron skillet
I have an old skillet (about 10 inches) with a solid ring on the bottom and a straight raised mark about 4 inches in the middle of the bottom. There is also a capital B R on the bottom. No other identifying marks. My mother gave it to me and said it was her great grandmother's. I have had it for 49 years.
I have not been able to identify maker. Any help from anyone?
I am by no means a cast iron expert, but I like mysteries. So, I have been doing a little research about your question. As @Max points out, a picture would be very helpful, but a raised straight mark on the bottom of your pan is known as a "gate mark". Gate mark casting was used in the 1800s, and could very well signify that you have quite an old piece. The line comes from the piece actually "breaking the mold". The ring, if it is also raised, is known as a heat ring. Since these pans were made to work with wood fired stoves, the ring was meant to raise the piece slightly above the surface.
I have been unable to locate a reference to "BR". Is it possible that the B is actually an 8? Numbers were often cast into vintage pieces to indicate size. Some companies added letters, known as "pattern letters", to indicate the mold pattern. Could it be 8 R?
There is lots of good information here.
From your brief description, it appears possible you might have a piece that is quite old, perhaps from the early 1800's.
Given your photos in the update, it's tough for me to tell if it is an 8 or a B. I've been unable to locate any images that match your pan. However, using the link above you can work your way through a list of foundrys. Many do not have pictures, unfortunately. I've scanned the most obvious ones, thinking that if it is a "B" it might be related to the name of the producer. No luck.
However, that site has a link to a discussion forum. Perhaps you could post your pics there. That way, a real expert could point you in the right direction.
By the way, if you do identify it, please return to add your answer here.
Photos added, looks to me like it could be 8R instead of BR, maybe
@Snow yes, that page comes from the site I linked to in my answer, an is where I got the information about the letters and numbers. It's probably the place for the OP to go.
I did attempt to register on the site CastIronCollector.com; however, I only have a Gmail and Yahoo email accounts and the peramiters there will not let me register.
@LindaBihl that website you mention is awfully designed, it seems you need to send a message through the forum contact form to ask for forum registration, make sure you are not a robot :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.244263
| 2021-01-05T22:59:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113615",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Linda Bihl",
"Vickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90659",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113688
|
Concern over whether roast chicken is safe
I prepared a roast chicken for the first time today. The chicken weighed about 2 kilograms and I cooked it for about two hours at 190 degree Celsius.
My concern is that the vegetables that I stuffed into the chicken cavity don't seem to be cooked. I cut a huge potato(25g roughly) into two along with some small onions and put it into the cavity, they're still crunchy and the potato isn't cooked...
Should I be worried about whether my roast is safe for consumption? When I removed it from the oven, there was juice flowing out, is this alright? My family doesn't really eat roast chicken, in fact where I come from, we're most likely to boil it than to roast it. So I don't really have anyone to ask about it.
Can anyone please help me?
Stuffing vegetables you intend to consume in the cavity of a chicken is generally a bad idea. By the time the vegetables are cooked, the chicken will be extremely overcooked. Moreover, since the vegetables have been in contact with raw chicken, all of them should reach a safe temperature for chicken (at least on the outside) before they're consumed. And making sure everything in the centre is cooked to a safe temperature makes the meat overcooked. So I would say that the chicken is probably fine, but you shouldn't eat the potatoes. If you want roast potatoes to go with it, cook them on a separate tray in the oven.
I would be hesitant to recommend eating. If the interior is uncooked...where does it go from safe to unsafe? How would you know? Isn't there a chance of cross contamination when taking the vegetables out?
Yes, we dumped the vegetables before carving the chicken. I think we're okay. We had it yesterday. I'll be more careful next time. Thank you all so much for your help. I really appreciate it.
The only way to know if your chicken is safe to eat is to measure its temperature. You should check the breast (165F/74C) and the thigh (can go higher than breast), ensuring your are measuring at the center and not touching bone. Stuffing is usually not a good idea, because it increases the cooking time, and will likely result in overcooked white meat or under cooked items in the cavity. Invest in a good thermometer and learn how to use it correctly, you will feel more comfortable and produce better meals.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.244508
| 2021-01-10T18:10:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113688",
"authors": [
"Tida",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90759",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113778
|
How to reduce smokey BBQ liquid flavor in a Mexican soup
I have Mexican soup with BBQ smokey sauce, but the flavor of it is to intense. I am trying to reduce the intensity, but I don't want to add more tomatoes. Is there a way?
I would think you could add starches. As this is Mexican, beans may be a good bet to soak up some of that excess flavoring. Depending on the recipe you could also use potatoes or rice.
Dilution is the solution to pollution.
There is no way to cover that smoke flavor. But you can thin out the Mexican soup with some other bland soup and that might turn out good. You could use tomato soup, or cheese soup or really any soup with flavors you think might be complemented by the Mexican soup. I am thinking clam chowder with smoky Mexican soup might be pretty good.
That said, I think some liquid smoke flavor is just bad. I never use it because I am scared of it. If the problem with the Mexican soup is not just too much smoke flavor but bad smoke flavor, throw out the soup. That bad smoke flavor comes out your pores after you eat it which is freaky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.244728
| 2021-01-16T22:11:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113778",
"authors": [
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24056
|
How can I clean this cooking pan?
I have this non-stick tefal cooking pan which works great - nothing sticks to the telfon part.
The only problem is the silver metal rim to the pan - it just gets more and more brown the more often I use it. It requires more scrubbing with soap than I am able to manage if I want it to stay shiny silver. How can I clean the brown gunk off?
What's the actual material of the pan? I doubt it's an actual silver finish after all
In my experience, a scrubbing pad will cost you hours of work without noticeable results, but you are welcome to try and prove me wrong if you want to. The material of this strip is usually stainless steel, and the way it glints is suggestive for it. The pan itself (below the teflon) is almost surely aluminium.
Don't clean it.
You have the same issue as in How to remove film from stainless steel pan. This is polymerised oil, the same stuff which is intentionally built on cast iron pans. The cleaning methods listed in the linked question will also work in your case.
But the catch is that they will also strip the teflon from your pan. So, unless you are completely sure that you can somehow clean the steel part only, without getting drops of abrasives and strong chemicals on the teflon, don't bother. It doesn't harm anything, and it surely isn't contaminating your food with anything. And if you do try something caustic on the strip, don't use it on the rim, because the strip is probably SS, but the pan's bowl is likely to be aluminium and will be corroded by many aggressive cleaning products.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.244840
| 2012-05-28T21:52:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24056",
"authors": [
"Gabriel Feo",
"Peter Gowdy",
"Zelda",
"erockcmu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7778",
"mkrieger1",
"ntg",
"rumtscho",
"user54631",
"user64542"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24049
|
How do I clean this silicone tray?
I use this silicone muffin pan to cook things in the oven. It's supposed to be non-stick, but actually food sticks to it quite a lot.
Often I can just scrape dried food off with my fingers, but it's gradually building up brown stains and crusts that I can't remove even by scrubbing hard with a scourer. Is there some kind of trick to make it spotlessly clean again?
Try to put your silicon tray in boiling water for 3 to 5 minutes. I had the exact same problem and it worked fine for me.
To clean burnt food from silicone bakeware, place the bakeware in the oven at 350 degrees for 10 minutes and fill a sink with water. Remove the bakeware from oven using tongs and wipe clean with water and a sponge.
or maybe try alcohol or a baking soda solution
350 F or 350 C?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.245004
| 2012-05-28T22:02:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24049",
"authors": [
"IdiotSavant",
"James K",
"Jette Co-Garcia",
"Kathy Baker",
"Marlene Bower",
"Peacekeeper",
"Phil",
"Raqibul Islam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54647",
"quidnunc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78207
|
Boiling potatoes with vs. without skin
It seems I got me thinking ...
When boiling potatoes in water or a steamer, what, if any, is the effect of peeling the potatoes before vs. after the cooking process?
Does it matter at all whether they are peeled before or after?
wrt. to taste in general
wrt. to "texture" of the boiled potatoes, when post-processing them further.
For potential answers: Please note that discussion of nutrition is off topic here, so please avoid this when writing answers.
I almost never peel potatoes. I like the flavor and texture of the skins, even in mashed potatoes, and unpeeled potatoes are less prone to becoming waterlogged.
According to Tablespoon.com, the Idaho Potato Commission recommends that you leave potatoes unpeeled for boiling for reasons of flavor and texture, even if you intend to peel the potatoes after boiling.
Nice find. I'd +1 that just for "Idaho Potato Commission" :-D
I like both, but they do taste differently, and "ash" quality pretty much fits what I feel on the tongue. Also, maybe it's my imagination, but I think unpeeled ones are bit more acidic, I prefer unpeeled for red meat and dishes with strong taste, and peeled to go with chicken, sweet meats etc. But here your mileage may vary. Some people can't tell difference, some can always tell, and some - only sometimes.
According to these datasheets:
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt
Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt
Per 100g serving potatoes boiled with skin provide 22% of vitamin c, and without - only 12%. Given it's water soluble, I think it's safe to assume that even if you discard peel, you still get more C if you boil with skin. Other differences are small. Largest are fluoride and ash. Even if the nutritional meaning of ash is a bit different, it really fits to what I taste. And vitamin C is acid - again, fits with how I can describe taste differences. Maybe that's just a coincidence, maybe not, can't really tell.
Note: nutritional info presented here only as a background to discuss taste.
Yes, there is a difference in taste. I can't tell you what causes it, possibly the skin preventing the water from properly penetrating the potatoes. But when I eat a peeled boiled potato, I can always tell if it has been boiled skin on or off.
My personal preference is very much for boiled-skin-off. Boiled-skin-on potatoes have their own specific taste even after peeling, which is slightly bitter and has a slight physical reaction on the tongue - not exactly hot, not exactly astringent, but somewhat reminiscent of both.
This is a taste I get when eating the potatoes as they are. Mashed, or swimming in some dip, the difference is too slight to notice.
I have noticed the astringency but only when there is some sign of greening, though I may just notice it less without the greening. With russets I too prefer skin off even though I feel I may be losing some vitamins. With thin skin red potatoes I am used to skins on, so they taste bland to me without. May be entirely in my mind from what I am used to though.
FWIW I like the flavor and texture skins add, yet your description of the (very mild) flavor is pretty much what I taste too. @dlb I don't think I ever have (or would) boil any green of a potato, but I imagine it would taste like the flavor (astringency) we're discussing, but very concentrated.
When cooking potatoes with the skins on, the startch stays inside the potatoes instead of dissolving into the water.
Makes the potatoes taste different (better in my opinion) and more beneficial for you.
Tip:
After they are cooked, it's easier and quicker to peel the skins of, just run them under cold water while peeling so you don't burn yourself!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE. :) Can you provide a link to anything online that supports the idea that the starch stays in the potato (not in the water)?
@elbrant : you can look at the water. It's pretty obvious
Leaving the skin on can make them more difficult to mash or whip later without over working the potato. Over mixing it whipping too vigoursly will result in a glue like consistency. I still mash both peeled and unpeeled depending on the dish it is being accompanied with. When using a ricer the skins often get caught in the mesh and do not make it through. You can just scrape them off the bottom and chop them by hand but it will take more time. It is generally faster to peel them first (even though it won't seem like it) if you need them on the fly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.245134
| 2017-02-07T22:03:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78207",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin",
"Mołot",
"dlb",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"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
}
|
19732
|
How to deal with a fresh hare?
My neighbour has just given me a freshly shot hare, but has been pretty unhelpful as to what I should do with it. Pheasants I can deal with, but this is a step too far.
Any suggestions (apart from get rid of it) on how I can use it? How should I prepare it and what cooking methods will be effective?
Note by the moderators:
This question is not looking for recipe suggestions. It is OK to explain what methods (e.g. slow cooking, grilling, etc.) are generally good for a whole hare not prepared by a professional butcher. Answers about how to prepare it for cooking (e.g. gutting) are also welcome. Recipe suggestions will be deleted, as they are off-topic on our site.
Is it skinned and cleaned (gutted)?
No - that's the problem, he's only just shot it! Should I hang it - if so, how long? Should I gut and/or skin it first?
If it hasn't been cleaned in 13 hours, I'd start to think about quietly disposing of it. If it's been kept in a cold place, maybe not. But gutting and cleaning it should be your first priority.
Yeah you pretty much want to clean them right away.
@kdgregory your comment should be an answer here
Voting to close, as this is too broad under current guidelines. The right answer would be a recipe search for hare or rabbit.
How to deal with a freshly shot hare.
Immediately it is shot, or as soon as possible thereafter, take hold of the carcase between the rear legs hold the legs downwards and apply pressure with both thumbs between the legs on the bladder to expel any urine onto the ground. This will stop stale urine tainting the meat.
Do not paunch the hare. Leave the entrails in situ and hang the hare by the hind legs in a cool dry place. Use a perforated metal fly proof game larder if you have one. If not, a cool dry area of a garage will suffice but you will need to inspect the carcase regularly to see that flies nave not laid eggs that have hatched into maggots. Do not worry if it happens, just cut away and discard the affected area when you butcher the carcase. The hare may drip blood from the nose this can be collected by tying a jam jar around the head to hang under the nose.
According to how gamey you like the meat to taste and the local temperature, ideally 40 – 50°F, hang the carcase for a week to two weeks. After five days sniff it regularly to judge how ripe it is. Fresh hare is tough, the longer it is left the tenderer and tastier it will become.
Paunch (remove the entrails) and skin the carcase. Remove the head and tail but retain the liver, kidneys and heart to give added flavour to the stew. Joint the carcase into from eight to ten pieces.
Cook according to any recipe you fancy, There are lots on the web. To my taste the essential ingredients among the many herbs listed are, in order of priority: juniper berries, a hot peppercorn (remove before serving), a glass or more of port, an onion studded with cloves (remove before serving) and other herbs to taste.
The keys to success are hanging the carcase until ripe and gamey and long slow cooking with plenty of herbs. The dish is always nicer if left to cool overnight and then reheated. Bon Appetit!
I've never worked with wild hare, but I know that Hank Shaw's site, http://honest-food.net, is a good source for game recipes, and instructions on breaking them down. Here is a good starting point for hare:
http://honest-food.net/wild-game/rabbit-hare-squirrel-recipes/
I'll assume it is skinned and cleaned already. I would discard the organs and make a stew with it. Chop it into pieces (bigger than bite-size is fine--you don't really want bone fragments) and simmer it in broth on low heat until tender. Probably the meat will be rather tough, so this cooking method will do well to make keep it moist and as tender as possible. Typical European stew vegetables (onion, carrot, etc.) will go well with it. If you want to fancy it up a little, you could toss the hare pieces in flour and brown them in butter before adding to the stew.
Unfortunately it's entire, not skinned or cleaned - see my additional comment above.
Nonsense a freshly shot hare should be hung for up to 10 days at a temperature below 10degees celcius. The head should always hang down in other words the hare should be hung up by its back legs. The animal should NOT be paunched {cleaned and gutted or skinned until you are going to cook it. I KNOW I come from an old traditional knowledgable farming family.
10C (50F) is awfully warm to be storing raw meat, and leaving the guts in the animal for 10 days goes against all common sense.
@sourd'oh aging game is a traditional process. It may go against USDA guidelines, and the result may taste unpleasant to today's palates, but it is an established practice - so it may go against your "common" sense, but there are many people who don't have their sense in "common" with you :)
Storing an ungutted, unskinned animal in the danger zone for 10 days. I'm just going to let that sink in for a minute. Recommending this process seems borderline unethical to me, if it was merely gross I wouldn't bother mentioning it, but this sounds like something that gets people killed.
From New Zealand...
I NEVER hang hares and I ALWAYS remove the stomach, intestines, bladder, pretty well right away after the hare is shot and I head shoot or neck shoot my hares.
Simple recipe. In the evening, in a bowl place the meat (know your meat, i.e. back steaks, rump, hind leg, etc). You don't need to add salt. You can use Garlic & Herb Salt. Always sprinke pepper. Mix. Add thyme and sage - not too much. You can also use cut up rosemary leaves which is really good to do. Mix. If you like you can pour over 1/2 Tablespoon of Rich Ruby Port. Mix. Cover with saucer plate and leave overnight in fridge. Before cooking add chilli flakes - not too much - if you are me. Fry on middle heat. You don't have to cook all the meat as you take what you want and put the rest back in the refridgerator to age. Tenderness depends on how you shot your hare! And also the age of your hare.
Vegetables go in first before the hare meat.
Potatoes or cut up kumara go in first and meat doesn't go in until those are browned both sides (seasoned with pepper or tumeric or cumin). Some red chilli slices and red capsicum slices go in when one side of potatoes or kumara browned. Use olive oil and that burns off (vapourises) eventually or use Avocado Oil (nice). Cut a tomato or two in halves and salt & pepper the halves and these go in when the meat is half cooked. Use a lid over the pan! The pan stops the hare meat drying out and the tomatoes add water which turns to steam to help moisturise and tenderise the meat!
Drink with whatever you want.
Hare for me is up there with Wildebeest and Thompson's Gazelle as my most favourite red meat or bascially my most favourite mammal meat. No wonder Cheetahs hunt them down.
If you have a copy of The Joy of Cooking, it has a semi-decent overview of skinning/cleaning a rabbit, with illustrations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.245513
| 2011-12-18T01:01:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19732",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"BryguyF69",
"Connie Lund",
"Dmitry Romanov",
"GDZ",
"Guster Flannegan",
"Igor Del Norte",
"Joanne Schock",
"Jujube Rat",
"Matthew Stewart",
"Nat Bowman",
"Parag Meshram",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam",
"Simon",
"SourDoh",
"Stuart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95656",
"kdgregory",
"rumtscho",
"vishvAs vAsuki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46962
|
Is putting meat in the fridge to marinate necessary?
I watched some cooking videos and sometimes I see that in order for the pepper, salt, sake, or whatever go into the meat, the meat needs to be put in the fridge, even for 30 minutes. Why is that? Is there any reason it needs to be put in the fridge?
For a 30 min marinade, no, you don't have to put it in the fridge. In fact, many recipes will call for removing thick beef cuts from the fridge 20-60 min before cooking, to let the meat come up to room temperature.
That being said, there has been some testing of what sort of difference bringing a steak to room temperature makes, and the general concensus is that cooking a cold steak gives better results. America's Test Kitchen's tests found that people preferred frozen steaks, although it required freezing to ensure you didn't develop surface ice crystals, and cooking in more oil than typical.
America's test kitchen also said in that video that they still prefer cooking fresh steaks for the better texture, but if your steak is frozen, don't thaw it before cooking.
Food safety. Leaving meat around at room temperature is never a good idea. Two hours is the USDA recommended limit for the whole 'lifetime' of the meat.
It makes little or no difference to the flavour absorption.
In order to put the decomposition process on hold you need to put the meat in the fridge.
strictly speaking, refrigeration only slows all the decomposition reactions which still continue
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.246538
| 2014-09-08T11:53:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46962",
"authors": [
"Brian Schonfeld",
"Collin",
"N.T Joseph",
"Relebohile Makhotsa",
"amykathleen1981",
"friel agnes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5079",
"shameer shami",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77657
|
Sous vide a whole chicken : temp/time?
I have a butterflied chicken in the fridge that is marinating in a mojo mix.
I have read many times to SV it at 148f.
But what about time?
I would like the bird to be uniformly cooked and the meat to be juicy but not stringy.
What do you think would work best?
What is the outcome you are looking for?
Hi, juicy and non stringy breasts. Tender dark meat.
This is a very crude estimate:
If you have a 1kg chicken cooked straight out of the fridge at 2C to 65C, and assume that the chicken has thermal properties of water (near enough given that it is 70% water give or take), you need roughly 265kJ.
Heat transfer is limited by surface area and thickness of the chicken. If we approximate the chicken as a cylinder with say 150cm length and 10cm diameter, with a total surface area of 628 sq-cm, the average heat transfer rate for the temperature range is around 24W. So, it would take 11,141 seconds (or 186 min or just over 3 hours) to move 265kJ from the water into the chicken to bring it up to 65C.
If the chicken were fully immersed in water without a bag, heat transfer would be much quicker since the cavity will also be filled with hot water and the path length is roughly 1/4 of the bagged chicken. So, expect cooking time to roughly fall by 3/4.
thermal properties assumed: Cp 4.2 J/g/K, conductivity 0.6 J/s/m/K
Given your situation, and your question ("What would work best?"), I would use the grill or the oven. Sous vide is not the correct tool for this job. Cooking a whole chicken sous vide will basically result in a poached chicken. You are probably going to need about 4 hours. I would also go with a higher temp, dark meat at 148F (64.4C) will be safe, but will probably feel under cooked. 150 - 155F (65.5 - 68.3C) would give you a better result. If that is the result you want, sous vide will get you there. However, given the description you provided the oven or grill will be much faster, and likely result in a more desirable outcome. Sous vide chicken can work well, but white meat and dark meat are generally preferred when they are cooked at significantly different temperatures.
It's way different than poaching. All (most) of the rendered fat and juices will stay in the chicken and it should have more flavor than a poached chicken. You can also grill the chicken on very high heat after it's done, broil it, sear it in a cast-iron skillet, etc. to get crispy skin.
This is why I asked the original poster to provide more info. If his/her intent is to achieve crispy skin, in this case sous vide is not helping. For the crispiest skin, you need to remove as much moisture as possible. It would be far better and much quicker to grill or roast the chicken without the sous vide step. I respectfully disagree with @Caleb. The will not be "way different" from poaching, because, in essence, that is what you are doing.
@moscafj hi, thanks for your response. I agree with you : the end result is very much like poaching. I tried 3h at 64c and the breaks were a bit too cooked for my liking and the legs slightly undercooked. Bottom line: breasts and dark meat should be cooked at different times. A solution may be to inject the breast with a brine to avoid removing too much moisture in the SV while cooking the while bird
@Choubix himself might have found the answer. Sous vide the white and dark meat at different temperatures to get the " juicy and non stringy breasts. Tender dark meat." that he asked for.
That was how I found out too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.246724
| 2017-01-21T16:00:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77657",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Choubix ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53867",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79234
|
How to prevent a baby scoby from forming in bottled kombucha
I am brewing kombucha at home.
Apart from pasteurizing the finished product, how does one prevent the kombucha from growing a new scoby?
I have a baby scoby forming in my glass bottles regardless of whether I do a single or a double fermentation.
Is refrigerating the end product the only solution? (I dont think GT and the likes have baby scobies forming in their bottles ;))
Thanks!
Pasteurisation would reduce viable cell count in your kombucha which is undesirable.
Refrigeration, as I just recently discovered, only slows the growth of the scoby but it would give you enough time to keep the liquid clear. Given enough time (>3 months in my case), you will see growth at 3C.
Whether it is a single or double ferment, there is really no difference unless your substrate is very different in the second fermentation. The yeast species are responsible for the fizz while bacteria like G.Xylinus is responsible for the formation of the cellulose mat you want to control. I have not yet looked into what makes G.Xylinus thrive, but even in a scoby there has to be some conditions that favour yeasts over bacteria, whether it is a pH threshold or nitrogen or some other micro nutrient.
You might want to experiment with it. What I do notice is that old scoby kept at low temperatures are less capable of producing gas, which suggests that the yeast population is harmed by high acidity or high acidity at low temperature.
G.Xylinus and other bacteria feed on ethanol from yeast to produce acids (primarily acetic and lactic). So, you might want to try a removing the new growth and rebottling without any further sugar addition.
Agitation also prevents mat formation but you will still find sediments and "scum" suspended in the liquid. If that is acceptable, you can just shade the bottles periodically to disrupt the mat.
The best ways to reduce scoby formation are filtration and refrigeration. Once the scoby is removed there are still active yeast and bacteria in the kombucha. Filtration down to a small enough micron level will remove most of the yeast, which are larger, preventing both continuous fermentation(into ethanol) and the formation of scoby. The bacteria will still be present which comprises most of the desirable probiotic content. This might allow the ph to continue to decrease, becoming more acidic, but if refrigerated, this too will be quite slow or nearly imperceptible.
When folks suggest using packaged kombucha as a starter, it has be left out in a warm space long enough for the yeast to build back up and then for the scoby mat for reform, before adding new sugar and tea.
How about using Cascade or nothern brewer cone hopps for flavor ? Let batch ferment to 3.0 acidity. Remove scoby. Add hops then let batch sit in fridge for 7 days. Prime, bottle. My thinking is the acid and oils from the hops would prevent a booger snot scoby from forming in bottles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.247016
| 2017-03-18T15:55:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79234",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78456
|
Caramel Apple cocktail garnish
I am a bartender who has little experience using caramel. I want to use caramel as a garnish by dipping dehydrated apple slices in it. How do I create a "dripping effect" on the dehydrated apple slice? I need it to look "drippy", but also need it to be hardened. Also, is it possible to prepare the apples in advance, or do I need to do each one when making the drink? This is for a cocktail competition, so the garnish has to be on point. Any help is appreciated!
Define "dripping effect", please...
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Visit your competitors and get us a picture of what you're looking for.
To help you get a start, you probably want a fairly hard (or at least solid) caramel, and to melt it for dipping. You'll need to experiment with how hot, and how you cool it.
Are you making the caramel from sugar yourself? Do you have a sugar thermometer or a normal thermometer that would measure up to 200C?
Leave the caramel to cool further, as the thickness should increase as it cools. Once it is at the required thickness, you can drip ropes of caramel on to the apple to make a drip effect. Alternatively have a separate thicker caramel to make the drip effect.
This is can be seen as a sugar work/pulled sugar technique. Also it woudl be recommended to do this in advance to allow the caramel to fully harden. Note: temperature and humidity can affect the caramel.
I am assuming that you are making the caramel by heating sugar. This is a good place to start reading up on sugar temperatures
Soft-crack and hard-crack are likely to be where you want to experiment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.247250
| 2017-02-16T08:29:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78456",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"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
}
|
81686
|
Is it possible for a foreign object to be embedded in a piece of pork?
A couple of days ago I made a sweet and sour pork dish, and had some leftovers for lunch today. While chewing I noticed something hard. When I took it out of my mouth, there was a diamond stud earring, about 3/8" (1 cm) long.
Now the ingredients were pork shoulder strips purchased at a local supermarket, under a well-known name brand. I cut them into 3/4" cubes. The vegetables were cut up from whole so clearly they weren't the source. All the other ingredients were liquids or powders like flour.
Nothing was otherwise noticed in the original batch or in the leftovers. I am scratching my head but my only conclusion is that it was embedded inside a piece of the pork.
But how could it get there? The clasp was still on the earring so it didn't fall off someone's ear. I know pigs eat anything, but...
Anyway, to make a long story short, I am asking if anyone had had such experience, and if so, what was the explanation for it.
Even if a pig ate something like that a piece of jewellery wouldn't end up in the muscle (meat). It would pass through and out the other end; if it didn't have time to do that it would still be in the digestive system, which is removed before the meat is cut into portions (if you'd said dog food it might be another matter).
I suspect that it entered the dish sandwiched between two strips,or pinned into a side of a piece that you didn't see. If you cut across the strips to dice it, it could still get in. I know from experience with diced game that you can deliberately feel for shot and miss bits. That of course would be embedded, but you weren't looking for metal in your meat.
On the other hand, what liquids did you add? Passata/creamed/chopped tomatoes from a can could introduce something without you noticing it.
In either of these cases it was probably removed at the start of a shift in a food factory and transferred via clothing, as it had the back on it. In some liquid foods it could have come from the farm like that but most pass through a sieve at some point.
I assume you've checked that no one who spends time in your kitchen has lost an earring? Is hard to see how it could get into the dish that way, but not completely impossible.
The pork strips have white connective tissue along one side. I wonder if that is on the outside of a larger piece of meat before it is butchered, and if so maybe something happened during handling at that time (pushed into the meat from the outside). I doubt it would be intentional especially if the diamond is real. The liquids were only vinegar, ketchup and honey and from bottles that would not allow such a problem. My wife was out of town and I purchased, cut up and cooked the pork.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.247406
| 2017-05-15T05:35:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81686",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114281
|
When can milk substitute for buttermilk in sourdough recipes?
I want to prepare buttermilk sourdough pancakes:
One part sourdough starter
Two parts flour
Two parts buttermilk
Sugar to taste (about a quarter part, depending on mood)
The idea is to leave it overnight and let the sourdough SCOBY incorporate the buttermilk culture. In the morning, the sponge can be used for pancakes, waffles, etc. At a chemical level, the yeast eat the flour and make sugars and carbon dioxide bubbles, the lactic acid bacteria eat lactose and other sugars and make lactic acid, the overall pH drops from a milky 8 to a sour 4, and the buttermilk effectively spoils but in a very controlled fashion.
I'm currently snowed in due to a blizzard. I don't have any buttermilk, but I do have some milk. From a chemist's perspective, surely the desired reaction will proceed eventually, and the only changes will be how long it takes for the culture to rise and sweeten, and the overall proportions of lactic acid bacteria. However, from a cooking perspective, those two things matter quite a bit. What are the consequences of substituting milk for buttermilk in sourdough recipes?
As a practical matter, I do have some lemon juice and can sour milk into buttermilk using that common combination. I'm mostly curious about whether there's a flavor or safety reason for preferring prepared buttermilk.
Do you have yogurt? You can often substitute yogurt for buttermilk.
I think your understanding here is incorrect.
The idea is to leave it overnight and let the sourdough SCOBY incorporate the buttermilk culture.
With a mature, functioning starter, there won't be much of any "incorporation" overnight, in the sense of actually reaching a new equilibrium of species in the starter. I don't think the buttermilk is being added to change your starter, it is just there because it is a common ingredient for pancakes and the like.
So, just go ahead and do whatever substitution you like that would be appropriate for the same batter without sourdough. You can expect analogous results, maybe even closer to the original, since you already have some lactic acid production from the sourdough.
curious about whether there's a flavor or safety reason for preferring prepared buttermilk
Flavor yes, buttermilk tastes differently from buttermilk substitutes. Safety no, adding buttermilk to a batter doesn't make it shelf stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.247641
| 2021-02-13T21:17:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114281",
"authors": [
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76540
|
How do you minimize the heat loss from adding meat to a hot pan?
Yesterday as soon as I added 2 chicken breast fillets to a 350°F (175°C) pan (the oil) it dropped all the way to 250°F (120°C). And it took forever for the heat to climb back up.
Is there a way to minimize the heat you lose when you add ingredients?
Would you be interested in a technique to sear chicken breasts in a way that they are always crusty on the outside and juicy and fully cooked on the inside? Even if that technique does not involve measuring the temperature of oil?
Is your meat at room temperature or fridge temperature ?
Heat up two pans and after 30 seconds in the first pan transfer it to the second pan. Add pans to taste.
It sounds like you're trying to deep fry the chicken (at least from the target temperature and the fact that you've got a thermometer on the oil). Is that correct?
@Jolenealaska: I don't know if the OP would, but I know that I certainly would!
@DavidThomas Watch this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76338/how-do-you-get-a-sear-on-chicken-breast-without-overcooking-it, I'll write up a new answer this weekend.
Yes, you need to place the meat in a system which can keep more heat. This means 1) more mass, and 2) less conduction.
This is generally done with cast iron pans, because they are great for that purpose. You have to wait until they are properly heated, but once they are there, adding food does not faze them and they keep the original temperature pretty steadily.
Also, if you use too little oil, the oil itself will cool down quickly. Fill the pan generously, to come a bit above half of the chicken breasts, and then you will see much less heat loss. You can also deep fry them, which keeps the temperature really stable, but then you need something much deeper than a pan for safety reasons.
If cast iron is the way for searing - how come a lot of recipes suggest cooking steak on stainless steel?
People use all kinds of pans. If stainless steel pans were useless, there wouldn't be a market for them.
@rumtscho That snark is not necessary.
Thick (including sandwich construction with copper) stainless also holds quite a bit of heat.
@Paparazzi I didn't mean to be snarky. Just stating a fact - stainless steel pans are widespread, so it is natural to expect that recipe authors use them. My answer does not mean that cast iron pans are the only viable way to sear meat, just that they are a good solution to the particular problem the OP encountered.
Stainless steel pans are better than cast-iron for making pan sauce with the fond created by searing the chicken breasts. Stainless steel, cast-iron and nonstick pans all have their purposes. Since the original question asked how to maintain the temperature of the oil, it is only natural to gravitate towards cast-iron. That is what cast-iron does. There was not a hint of snark in @rumtscho's comment.
@BarAkiva Stainless Steel pans are better at heating evenly than cast iron. Cast iron makes up for it in being heavy and thus keeping the heat once heated. But the pan does not heat as evenly as stainless steel, it will tend to have hot spots and such.
The type of pan doesn't really determine whether or not it'll hold its temperature well. Except probably cast iron. That's why I like op's answer to use cast iron, for nobody owns a thin/light cast iron pan. The truth is you could find a non-stick pan that holds its temperature very well, or a shitty stainless pan that doesn't.
@Sarumanatee Nonstick has the bigger issue though that you can't preheat it dry - you have to preheat it with the oil in it, which means you can't necessarily preheat it as well (particularly if your oil has a lower smoke point).
@JoeM I agree! Every type of pans have different utilities. But if OP doesn't own a cast iron to keep his oil hot, maybe he's got another type of pan at home that could do the job, given that its bottom is heavy enough !
The main reason cast iron pans are seen as holding more heat is that they are thicker, not because the iron itself inherently holds heat better than stainless steel, which is really just iron with some stuff added. A thicker pan means a larger amount of metal, which means more total heat capacity.
@barbecue the specific heat of iron and stainless steel differ, and most important, their conductivity differs. So they would not have the same loss of heat in the described situation even if you had two pans of exactly equal shape and dimension.
@barbecue in addition to rumtscho's comment above, many high quality steel pans like All-Clad are actually layered with different types of metal (typically aluminum or copper) which have much better conductivity. This is why they heat more evenly.
I agree with the point that more (thermal) mass helps but I'm not sure conductivity is really a factor here. The point of cooking in a pan is to transfer the heat from the pan to the food/oil. If you have less conductivity, yes, the metal will not cool down as quickly but it's not going to help you sear or keep the oil hot.
@rumtscho You are correct that iron and stainless steel have different specific heats, but not THAT different, and both pale in comparison to the specific heat of water, which is a significant percentage of most food. Thermal conductivity is only part of the question. The goal of grilling is not to maximize heat transfer, but to maintain a high temperature during the process.
If you want to ensure your water keeps boiling when dropping food into it, you use a high volume of water and small portions of food. Same goes for frying. Same goes for any cooking scenario. Thermal transfer in metals is slower, because there is no convection, so conduction and radiation are the only factors. But a big solid chunk of metal will stay hot longer than a smaller one, and if the total amount of heat is high enough, the food will not remove enough heat to drop the temperature rapidly. You can easily reproduce this in your own kitchen, it's directly observable.
@barbecue if we were boiling, sure. But if we are talking metal, especially searing with little oil instead of shallow-frying, try it and you will see that cast iron loses much less heat on contact with cold food than stainless steel. If you want, try forged iron, which is as thin as SS. So, 1) the claim that all the effect comes from the iron thickness is wrong, and 2) whatever your average cooking process, a change to iron does exactly what the OP asked for, preventing the heat drop at the moment of introducing the food.
@rumtscho Nowhere did I ever claim that all of the effect comes from thickness, but what I'm describing is readily observed in your own kitchen, it's observable.
@barbecue what you said is "The main reason cast iron pans are seen as holding more heat is that they are thicker, not because the iron itself inherently holds heat better than stainless steel" - and no, that is not the case. Cast iron does inherently lose less heat when cold meat is thrown onto it.
@rumtscho When someone says "the main reason" they do not mean "the one and only single reason." Yes, there is a difference in thermal conductivity and specific heat between iron and steel. I never said there is not. You seem to be extrapolating from what I really said and concluding things that I did not in fact say.
@barbecue OK, I may have misunderstood the one or other detail. In the end, it seems that I think that material difference is the most important reason here, and you think that it does not contribute much. By now, we both should know we won't be able to convince the other one - how about we end this already tedious discussion?
One additional factor: moisture. The more there is on the exterior of your chicken, the more energy is lost turning that moisture into steam. Try patting your chicken dry with paper towels or just a clean dish towel before frying. That is probably only a part of your problem though, a drop from 350 to 250 probably means you need more thermal mass in the pan as the other answers say. Drying the exterior of your meat is more important if you're searing than deep- or shallow-frying.
I agree moisture is a factor and energy is required to turn the water to steam but I think it's important to understand that liquid water will never be hotter than it's boiling point which is roughly 210. The oil will tend to move towards equilibrium with the water temperature as it evaporates (taking the heat with it). I larger thermal mass is probably the best solution but when using my steel wrapped aluminum pans, I'll use the biggest burner and once it hits the right temperature, crank the heat all the way to 11 as I things in.
That seems like a big drop. Some temperature drop is expected.
The temperature and mass of the chicken is a factor. Don't use frozen chicken. You could pull the chicken from the fridge a few minutes before and let it warm up a bit. But just a few minutes for food safety.
Add more mass / heat capacitance to the pan as covered by rumtscho.
The target cooking temperature is like 300°F to 325°F (150-165°C). Start with a higher temperature (up to the smoke point). Find what starting temp works for your conditions.
A lid will reduce heat loss even if it is tilted for some circulation.
An odd idea. Lean them up against each other and stand them on side for a short time.
I don't think pulling the chicken out a few minutes ahead of time would make much of a difference, it wouldn't raise the temperature enough when talking a 300 degree differential, would it?
@JoeM So it would not make much of a difference. It would make a difference.
IIRC Serious Eats did a test and found that 'resting' your meat out of the fridge made no difference whatsoever (even when done for longer time), though it may have been more focused on roasts/larger pieces of meat.
One other thing that might be worth noting in the answer: pay attention to the oil smoke point if preheating to a higher temp; if you're using an oil that has a 400 smoke point, you don't want to heat it to/past that, after all, so the (good) advice to heat to a higher temperature has an upper limit and/or may require changing the oil.
''resting' your meat out of the fridge made no difference whatsoever (even when done for longer time)' - but unfreezing meat (in fridge) will certainly make difference (energy necessary to melt ice is enormous).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.247850
| 2016-12-16T09:26:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76540",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Chris H",
"David Thomas",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe M",
"Jolenealaska",
"Max",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Sarumanatee",
"barbecue",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51349",
"paparazzo",
"reducing activity",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103110
|
How long can I hold spätzle in ice water or drained?
When making spätzle, it is common to chill each batch in ice water to stop the cooking. I need to make spätzle as part of a large feast for 10 people; I'm wondering if I can just leave the spätzle in the cold water bath for 4-5 hours to hold them aside, or if they will become gummy and waterlogged in that time.
If the answer is, yes they will become waterlogged, can I drain them and hold them in a bowl for 4-5 hours without them sticking together?
(if relevant, I'm planning to use a spätzle grater and not the board-and-knife method)
This Swabian born and bred cringes at the thought - and I would never use milk... >.<
Europeans tend to use a lot less ice than Americans. If you see a purportedly-European recipe that calls for ice water, it might be a sign that the recipe is not actually of European origin. (I've been cooking spaetzle for 20+ years, and never once have I so much as rinsed it in cold water, nevermind ice water. Neither has my mother, or her mother. We just dump the hot cooked pasta in a casserole dish. A little butter or oil solves any sticking issues.)
Marti: how does that work if you need to make 3-4 batches of spatzle?
@FuzzyChef You may want to check my answer here. Just cook batches, then put them back in the pot or pour the last batch, water and all, over the previous ones in the colander in the sink to unstick any that may have stuck together of the previous batches.
@FuzzyChef: 3-4 batches work exactly the same as one batch, except for the size of the casserole dish. You can put on a bit more butter and stir after fishing each new batch out of the water.
Stephie: huh, didn't find that answer searching. Probably because of the variable spelling of "spatzle" in English.
I would not keep them in water; they will absorb water and get soggy.
I'd just drain them and toss them with a little bit of oil, just enough so that they will not stick together and put them in the fridge.
A little bit like when you're making pasta salad.
I agree that they should not be kept in water.
I usually rinse them well with cold water (from the tap, but no ice) after taking them from the pot, and then let them drain well. After rinsing, they also don't stick together very much.
Before serving, I heat them by lightly sweating them in a frying pan with butter.
Yes, this is what I have done too. A rinse under cold tap water works very well.
Plunge in cold water to stop them cooking any longer. Wait 90 seconds. Drain and leave as little water on them as possible. Toss in mild olive oil, just a small amount to help prevent them from sticking. Transfer to a bowl and cover. You can then store them for up to 24 hours in the fridge.
A Swabian wouldn’t use olive oil. Either butter (typically) or a very neutral oil, like refined sunflower oil. And up to three days in the fridge is perfectly fine, both with regards to food safety and quality.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.248750
| 2019-10-27T21:49:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103110",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"JPmiaou",
"Marti",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"nathancahill"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63496
|
Very Bitter Cocoa Powder Measurement
My father is a retired chef so he is kind of picky with the quality of his ingredients. In most cases it causes no problem, but there is a single exception. The cocoa powder he buys is extremely rich, powerful and bitter as hell.
It is so much that any recipe I found on the internet which contains cocoa powder becomes a total gamble as I don't have the his gift of measuring by eye. I cannot put the same amount of cocoa from the recipes henceforth I am asking, how do you deal with the amount of very bitter and strong cocoa powder you put into your recipes, compared to normal supermarket stuff?
Can you state the brand (if any) that he purchases?
We are not from USA so I am not sure it would be very helpful
Not sure why not. It certainly can't hurt.
It is called Elit Chocolate.
Their website has recipes... you might consider looking at how much they use in similar recipes using their own cocoa powder. Like this one: http://www.elit-chocolate.com/recipies/nuans-bitter-cikolatali-browni-keki/
Unsweetened cocoa is very bitter no matter what brand you buy, are you comparing it to sweetened drinking cocoa by any chance?
Nope, I am comparing to more popular brands such as Doctor Oetker. Thanks for recipe advice, I will try it this weekend and try to post results.
Does your father still bake? You could monitor one of his "by eye" recipes and try to get the weight of cocoa powder he uses, along with the total weight of the other dry ingredients. Then you'll have a ratio you might be able to apply to other recipes.
I'm familiar with Elit (which is actual cocoa solids) but I'm not sure of what you're comparing it to. If it is hot cocoa powder, chocolate powder or cocoa solids (they're 3 VERY different things).
Or maybe, dutch processed vs ordinary is being compared by accident?
I am going to risk pinning the problem on the measuring method. Cacao powder density can vary. The only way to measure powdery ingredients is by weight, not volume. Even for the same batch of powder, every cup could be loaded differently. Weigh what your father is using.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.249043
| 2015-11-15T17:25:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63496",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ElmerCat",
"GdD",
"Glynn Jarrett",
"Jackie White",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Laura Dunning",
"Mewsic Smary",
"Orkun Koçyiğit",
"Robert Turner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81781
|
What can be added to veggie burgers to increase texture?
I add chopped onions, garlic, grated carrots, some flour and spices to pre-soaked TVP. Onions add a bit of texture but after baking tvp densifies becoming like soft rubber.
I think mushrooms, beans, corn and peas can make it more texturized but I'm not a big fan of all those ingredients. Anything else you can think of?
Variants of tofu skins are great for meat-like textures. If you look up chinese buddist cooking or monastery cuisine, you will find many imitated meat and poultry dishes that are often called "vegan duck roast", "vegan abalone" etc (probably by non-practising consumers). One of the best for this is dried tofu skin sticks (not promoting the seller, just a random search result for a picture). Fried tofu skins pockets and pressed tofu also work pretty well. You will need to cut them into tiny shreds or chop them up coarsely to get the effect. These ingredients have plenty of surface area and are great at taking up seasoning and sauces to mimic meat juices.
An excellent suggestion! I know what tofu skin is, they make a super delicious Korean salad.
Instead of adding ingredients as an answer, how about tackling the TVP texture?
Try many-hour soaking first off. Drain and let steam in it's own 'juice' in a tight-lid pan (not too big) on low for just a few minutes. Done at your desired chewiness.
This has the effect of giving off some of the soaked up liquid that would otherwise wick off during burger frying.
Can add in your seasoning while cooling. Binders best added when room temp.
Now, for texture and sogginess prevention, my fav vegburger addition is cooked brown rice. A little goes a long way.
Also, terrific crunchy chewiness with fine chopped raw broccoli.
Raw sunflower seeds add meaty-ness if burgers are fried several minutes.
If quicker fried then maybe soak them first. Pumkin seeds too.
You could dip in egg wash (or other liquid if vegan), then breadcrumb before frying/baking.
Try adding grains like cooked rice, quinoa, bulgur, unripe spelt, oatmeal. With grains that can be used soaked raw, undercooked, or cooked, consider all three as separate options adding different textures.
For binders, legume flours (red lentil flour, chickpea flour) tend to do a great job.
One special kind of beans is worth trying: Douchi (chinese salted black soybeans) - just rinse and mince. Not too much, these are flavor and texture intensive, a tablespoon to a pound of mixture is a lot!
Also, a classic ingredient in meatballs (and old-school burgers) works brilliantly in veggie burgers too: breadcrumbs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.249265
| 2017-05-18T17:39:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81781",
"authors": [
"Marina Dunst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41531"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79140
|
Old family recipe has cryptic measurement for flour
My husband's grandmother's recipe card for bread calls for "one half canister of flour".
Does anyone have any ideas on what that might equate to? My brother-in-law has been playing with measurements and all attempts have been undesirable.
The whole recipe would help (recipes are encouraged in questions, not in answers.) The nature of the undesirable results, and what amount was used for them would help. I suspect it's half of whatever her flour canister on the kitchen counter was, rather than something standard. Can without the -ister would suggest a 1, 3 or 10 lb "tin" can, though in that case a size is commonly specified. For my canister, half would be roughly 2.5 lbs, as it comfortably holds a 5 lb. bag.
As Ecnerwal said if we could look at the recipe we could make an educated guess. At least tell us how much water and other liquids and we could give you an idea of different hydration levels To try.
I've seen bail type canning jars called canisters... if you still have her canning jars, check what sizes they are....
@Ecnerwal : you're an optimist if you think most sizes are commonly specified when people give measurements in 'cans' or 'tins'. I collect old & community cookbooks, and a good number of them just assume there's only one size (which there might have been when and where they wrote it) ... but cans of tomatoes come in lots of sizes these days.
Has anyone located Grandma's canister and looked to see if she marked it? It might be that simple. Otherwise... this is a shot in the dark, but without any other clues to go on, I'm going to guess it means 2 1/2 pounds, or 9 to 9 1/2 cups. Typically, flour canisters will hold 5 pounds of flour (a standard bag), with a little headroom. I don't know what kind of bread recipe you're looking at, but if the amount of liquid is in the neighborhood of 2 1/2 to 3 cups, it's probably around 2 1/2 pounds of flour.
I know "around 2 1/2 pounds" and "1/2 canister" sound terribly imprecise, but an experienced baker knows that imprecise measurements are a way of life when it comes to baking bread. Ambient humidity -- as well as the moisture content of flour -- are in a constant state of change. I'm guessing Grandma baked a wonderful loaf of bread, which is why you're trying to duplicate it. She, like any good baker, would have started with slightly less flour than she knew she would need, then gradually added more as she mixed and kneaded it until the dough reached the desired consistency.
You have tried this a few times already, right? I suggest that you simply take what you've learned so far and guess a little low for the volume or weight of flour, mix it thoroughly, then add a bit at a time until you arrive at a workable dough.
Oh -- one more thing: many of us are not perfectly consistent in recording our recipes (especially when using scant, rounded, or heaping measurements). Some improvements we simply remember and don't take the trouble to jot down. Grandma might have left out a detail or two, so don't beat yourself up if your best efforts to follow a recipe don't yield the expected results. With experience, you'll figure out how to make results more to your liking.
Good luck -- and happy baking!
In the book "Ratio" by Michael Ruhlman, a typical flour to liquid ratio for bread is 5:3 by weight, so that would probably be a good starting place. If you provided more information on the rest of the recipe, that would be helpful.
In baking that's called 60% hydration. 100% flour, 60% water (by weight of flour.) But we don't even know if this is a yeast bread where that is one typical ratio or a quick bread which might be a lot different.
This does not address OP's question though
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.249497
| 2017-03-15T03:44:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79140",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81487
|
Forgot to add sugar to the dough how can we fix it?
I have a dough rising which I realized was made without sugar. I used pineapple juice so I assume there was some sugar in there but this was supposed to be a sweet bread.
Can we do something during the shaping? I am a bit scared to spray sugar water because dough is already wet.
I am thinking to fold it 5-10 times by sprinkling powdered sugar in each fold.
Any advice would be appreciated.
If you share the recipe or the final product you are trying to achieve, you will probably get better advice.
Craziest thing I ever tried: pouring forgotten extra oil into a half-set pan of batter that had already been in the oven for a couple if minutes and stirring ... that kind of half-worked :)
For me, I never am happy with a product that is missing an ingredient mainly because I'll be wondering how it would have been if it wasn't missing. You have to take in to account that a recipe is a balance between all the ingredients reacting with each other to create the final product. So for me the fix is to chuck it in the bin and start over.
Most interesting is if you finish both, the one without (or jerry rigged with) and a new batch with the ingredient - afterwards you KNOW what significance the forgotten (or hacked in) ingredient will have...
Added sugar is not essential for a bread recipe to "work", so if it were me --
if the structure has already been established, I would probably let the dough proof to completion without trying to add something after the fact. Without the added sugar, you may need a bit more proofing time for the full rise, but you may end up with something wonderful.
But if you're absolutely sure the recipe would be ruined without the addition sweetness, I would toss the granulated sugar into a blender to make it a bit finer and fold it into the dough before kneading it again. Powdered sugar would likely work fine, but powdered sugar also contains cornstarch or tri-calcium phosphate, and blending granulated sugar will also let you measure the correct amount before you change the volume of the finer product.
Don't add any additional water; you'll change the hydration ratios. After eight to ten folds incorporated into the dough, the sugar will be mixed through about 250-1000 layers, so there has been plenty of mixing to incorporate the sugar adequately. Wait a few minutes for the sugar to hydrate and knead it a few times more.
I think it will be fine.
The OP already mentioned using powdered sugar; I don't think tossing it into a blender is going to do much!
@Jefromi Yeah, powdered sugar contains cornstarch or tri-calcium phosphate, so when I'm substituting fine sugar straight up for granulated, I usually just "make my own." I doubt there's enough to alter the recipe in this case, but the amount of powdered sugar will be different than granulated when measured by volume. That's why I mentioned it.
You can make a swirl bread or a sugar-studded bread, by adding sugar in chunks. Or soak in syrup after the fact. Or add toppings.
From your question, it sounds like you're worried about the sugar being evenly distributed or the dough being overworked. This might be the case, though Carlton's answer does seem like a viable option if you really want a well-mixed sweetness. However, it doesn't have to be evenly sweetened to be sweet, or tasty, or well received.
One alternative is to use rough lumps of sugar - broken sugar cubes, rough sugar crystals or broken candy, pearl sugar (from which the idea actually came, though it may not be as easy to find). It would take very little shaping to fold them into the dough, so it should not be overworked. The sugar won't be evenly mixed, but it will be a feature, not a problem - the overall effect will be sweet and the textural differences in the sliced bread visually appealing, and the bursts of sweetness will be expected, not a surprise - like suikerbrod. You could even add in some visual effect, perhaps by sprinkling some extra spice that will work with the other flavors, or bits of fruit, or colored sprinkles or something, when the sugar is added.
Another option would be to use a syrup after the bread is baked. You would poke a skewer through the bread in a few places, and drizzle the right amount of sugar, in syrup form, on top of the loaf slowly (with plenty of time to soak in rather than run off). Again, you could optionally add other flavorings into the syrup, though it is not required. This option is used in cakes, to help keep them moist and sweet - a sweet bread, especially if a quick-bread, should find the results reasonable. If there's sugar syrup that doesn't want to soak in, or you feel it would get the bread too wet, you could make a glaze of the rest. Again, it would be sweeter than the rest of the loaf, but that would be expected of a glazed bread.
Another option would be to make some sort of topping to add the sweetness to your bread after it's sliced. The dead-easy option used on all kinds of bread would be jam (or other preserves), this is an easy sweetening option. You could make a glaze (or use aforementioned syrup in individual portions rather than the whole loaf), or else top with whipped cream or caramel or sprinkles, or use to make a layer desert, or toast and spread with butter and sprinkle sugar on top (serve warm), or any number of other alternatives. Again, it may be possible to come up with flavor pairings that work well with your bread's existing flavors or are somewhat neutrally flavored.
You might be able to simply fold the sugar in as you (and Carlton) suggest, depending on where in the process the bread is. But even if that is the best option, I wanted to point out other options are available in case someone should find them useful or inspiring, or came to the problem from a different context.
I often make an up side down yeast cake, placing plenty of fruit and sugar on the bottom of pan and covering it with rolled out yeast dough. During baking, lots of syrup is created, the dough partially absorbs it, bakes up beautifully, sweet, moist and delish. It might be worth a try to bake a yeast dough in syrups. This could be the perfect solution for the question of correcting the dough with forgotten sugar.
Welcome! I’m afraid this is not a discussion forum, so please always post answers that don’t require a community discussion. The [tour] and the [help], especially [answer], should be a good starting point to learn more about how the site works. I removed the bit inviting for discussion and leave it up to the community to vote on the “bake in syrup” suggestion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.249823
| 2017-05-07T23:12:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81487",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Stephie",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81536
|
What can I substitute for pineapple juice in this recipe?
My group in cooking class has to make a beverage and they chose my recipe coconut kiss. But, one of the members tells us she is allergic to pineapple. It is hard you see because I made it before and the pineapple really boosts the taste in the coconut cream. I want it to taste no less than it should and so I need a really good alternative for the pineapple juice.
What can I substitute? These are all the ingredients:
2c coconut cream,
2c pineapple juice,
1c apple cherry juice,
1c orange juice and
Crushed ice
Make sure that's their only food restriction -- often we can come up with a 'similar' thing, but it's too similar, so it's still a problem. Food subs says orange or grapefruit. If you can find it, blood orange juice has the sweetness of pineapple juice, but it might be too sweet in this case and not have enough sour to it.
Is she reacting to fresh pineapples or canned ones too? Protein digesting proteolytic enzymes in some fresh fruits causing inflammation is quite common. They can be denatured and deactivated by heat (65C should do it). Canned juice will not have active enzymes. That is assuming that it is not actual allergy.
Thanks but figured it out would just make it 1 c pineapple and 2 c orange she says it is only for fresh pineapple she has an allergy so since we are using boxed pineapple juice and I lessen it to 1 she should be fine
There are several other fruits known for proteolytic enzymes, kiwis and papayas come to mind immediately, great for tenderising meat or making pureed meat. I wonder if reaction to proteolytic enzymes is a real allergy involving an immune response or it is sensitivity. Does anyone know the answer to that? Boxed juice may not have had enough heat to deactivate these enzymes. So, do watch out.
Substitute with mango or papaya juice.
It will not taste the same, but it will still have the exotic flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.250339
| 2017-05-09T21:01:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81536",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"cooking queen baking boss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82074
|
My rhubarb pie is runny
I have been baking rhubarb pie since the 60s. All of a sudden I made a couple and they both came out runny. What happened? I always use the same recipe.
What recipe? Do you pre-cook the rhubarb? Do you normally make it throughout the season of just early/late (rhubarb changes quite a bit)? Home grown or bought (variety differences)?
Did you add the same amount of flour, cornstarch, nutmeal or whatever thickener you use as usual? Add sugar at the same time as usual? Are you positive your thickener didn't get mixed up (eg you thought it was cornstarch but it was confectioner's sugar or milk powder)?
The answer from zerobane provides some reasonable suggestions for working around a few common problems. Of course, they require you to know you're going to have problems ahead of time, which is a problem if you're using a "tried and true" recipe that fails infrequently... So ideally, you find a way to identify these problems before you start making your pie, and adjust the recipe as needed.
Water content
To gauge the water content, macerate your rhubarb ahead of time:
Cut the stalks into small pieces
Mix well with sugar - most pie recipes call for a rather large amount of sugar in the filling, so add it all now.
Refrigerate for several hours.
The sugar will draw out moisture from the rhubarb, allowing you to estimate how much thickener you'll need before you start cooking. Which thickener you use will depend on the style of pie you're aiming to make. You could also pour off some of the juice at this stage, but this will tend to reduce the rhubarb flavor.
Pectin content
The other variable here is pectin. A high pectin fruit (like the granny smith apples zerobane suggested) will - when mixed with sugar - happily thicken its own juices. Pectin levels in rhubarb vary, but generally it is fairly low compared to self-jelling fruits such as apples or oranges so you'll generally always add some additional thickener or (if you're making a jam) additional pectin; adding apples accomplishes the latter, while tapioca flour / clearjel / corn starch accomplish the former. Note that if you opt to add grated apples, you can press the juice out of them first (press them into a sieve or wrap in a towel and squeeze) - this'll increase their ability to thicken the rhubarb juice.
If you were hoping to depend heavily on pectin to thicken the filling, you could estimate that ahead of time too. But for a pie filling this is probably overkill; as zerobane suggests, simply pre-cooking the filling (with thickener adjusted based on the liquid released during maceration) will quickly tell you if additional assistance is needed. To add additional starch-based thickener to the hot filling, first mix it into a small amount of water (or fruit juice, or reserved rhubarb juice) and then slowly pour it into the filling while stirring; then simmer for a few minutes until the filling reaches the consistency of gravy - remove from heat, pour into a pie shell, and bake to finish.
Well, watery pie is a very common problem depending on the recipe used. If you are not adding anything to deal with it you are basically counting on the rhubarb to have only so much moisture. Definite risk overall.
For more consistent results I would use one of the following:
1-2 TBsp tapioca flour and 1 grated granny smith apple; this will create a natural "gel" and make consistency easier to achieve.
Use clearjel; it basically replicates the above; results are 100% consistent and you don't have to worry about moisture content of fruit.
Pre-cook fruit and adjust the moisture accordingly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.250523
| 2017-05-29T12:38:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82074",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76523
|
Safe heating food in a chafing silver plated dish that is showing copper underneath?
If our silver plated chafing dish has some copper showing ( the silver plate has worn off) is it safe to heat a cheese dip in and serve it from?
What's wrong with the copper? Many pots and bowls are made from copper.
@Catija copper becomes toxic in relatively small amounts, and is a rather reactive metal which can build exotic compounds. Copper vessels meant for heating are tinned such that the food does not come in contact with the hot copper. More decorative items are left alone, and sometimes you will see cold preparation of certain foods in copper bowls (the infamous eggwhite whipping) but they are not suitable for everything, or for long storage. So, "when does eating from copper became dangerous" is a god question.
You may have problems using copper in contact with food while cooking (heating). Copper is fairly safe otherwise.
Vinegar+copper -> verdigris. Poison. The sulfate is an emetic. The oxide isn't exactly healthy either....
If you are considering heating any food in it, I would say no.
Silver itself is not especially pleasant (wikipedia and a more detailed CDC study). So, if you have a dish that is losing its silver plating, it would be wise to be overly cautious than casual about using it for food again.
Is the base copper or brass? There is copper in brass anyway.
Copper has far worse toxicity potentially (wikipedia ) when exposed to acids. Cheese could contain some lactic acid though not in significant amounts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.250907
| 2016-12-15T21:45:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76523",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"rackandboneman",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114631
|
How can I clean chia seeds?
I'm wondering about how to properly clean chia seeds since they cannot be washed in water as other seeds.
I've read that they need not to be washed, but then how to clean them?
Why do you believe they need to be cleaned?
@dbmag9 Because that's what one does before cooking or eating seeds. For example soy or sesame seeds.
I've never washed a seed in my life. First I've heard of it.
If you buy a bag of prepared seeds you don't need to clean them as that's already done. Washing them is a great way to ruin them.
Three main methods of cleaning dry seed:
Blow on it with a fan to remove chaff, dust and some leaf bits.
Sieve it to remove both the stuff that's too course or too fine.
Run it slowly down an inclined plane, like a breadboard. Seeds tend to bounce, crud doesn't and will stick to the board.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.251062
| 2021-03-06T19:08:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114631",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"Verónica Rmz.",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91663"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114602
|
Reduce Sweetness in Fudge
I am currently living in an Asian culture where taste buds are apparently more delicate. Many first-time tasters of fudge almost gag due to the overwhelming sweetness of fudge. I have searched in vain for recipes that reduce the richness of fudge in order to make it more palatable. Any suggestions as to how to reduce sweetness in fudge but still allow it to be fudge?
If this is East Asia we're talking about (and I'm guessing it is, since South Asian cuisine generally doesn't have a problem with inordinate levels of sweetness...) then with fudge you also need to bear in mind lactose intolerance ...
Traditional "fudge" gets its structure primarily from the sugar, which forms fine crystals; the texture of fudge is a stiff suspension of the sugar in the fat. So simply reducing the proportion of sugar will mess up the texture, as GdD alluded to.
But fudge isn't the only thickened-fat confection out there! One dish that immediately comes to my mind is sesame halwa, which uses the sesame particles in the same way fudge uses the sugar particles. Nut butters generally have a similar suspension (if you've had "natural" peanut butter without hydrogenated oils, or tahini or sesame sauce for that matter, think of the extra-thick layer that forms when it hasn't been stirred).
So I think you could temper the sweetness by combining a fudge recipe with something like sesame halwa, or by adding peanut flour as a substitute for some of the sugar. If you use light-colored peanut flour I don't think it would even affect the taste too much (other than reducing the sweetness, of course).
You've generated within me an irresistible urge for some halwa (or halvah as I learned it), as soon as possible :)
I second this advice. I’ve seen some recipes for peanut-butter fudge that use ground peanuts in place of part of the normal sugar content to cut back on the sweetness. You also lose out on some of the chocolatey flavor that way too, but it may be significantly more palatable to those who are not used to or do not like fudge.
Make sure you call out the peanut content, in case of diners with allergies who might not expect the peanuts in a fudge.
I found a zero-sugar "fudge" recipe in a book that I haven't had the guts to try. Apparently it depends on using fats that are solid at room temperature as the base ingredients. I don't normally expect to see crisco, peanut butter, and bacon fat in the same recipe. As I said I haven't had the guts to make it and the recipe was basically heat, combine, pour, and let to congeal.
Source: https://www.amazon.com/Lipsmacking-Backpacking-cook-your-travels/dp/1904263577
@Joshua that seems more like a way to get fat palatable and stable (for its energy perhaps) than to mimic fudge - see also pemmican.
You can't make fudge less fudgy. Fudge is a concentrated mass of butter, sugar and milk, if you change the balance to reduce sweetness it will be too buttery, if you reduce the butter it's too sweet. It's an intense flavor that isn't to everyone's liking even in areas where it's widely available.
If you want to introduce people to the flavor without them being overwhelmed use small amounts rather than big chunks, preferably used as a feature in a different dessert with less intense flavors.
Those small amounts are often served as part of a chilled desert, which also seems to reduce the fudginess. A lemon- or orange- flavoured recipe ( using zest or oil) might also be of interest to offset the sweetness
Yep. I'm not Asian, but I don't eat many sweets and most "western" desserts I find cloying, especially when you're used to desserts being light and fragrant rather than heavy and intensely calorie dense. For some things you can make less sweetened versions, but fudge without sugar is like pesto without basil - I don't think you can really make un-sweet fudge. Its whole purpose is to be absurdly sweet.
@J... You can potentially approximate the texture though without the sweetness if you know what you’re doing. I’ve got a friend who uses homemade red bean paste with some cocoa powder mixed in for this purpose on occasion. It’s definitely not fudge, and I’m not sure how exactly he prepares it (I’ve never asked), but he’s able to get a texture and flavor that’s remarkably similar to fudge without the over the top sweetness.
@AustinHemmelgarn You can, but without sugar there's not much left that's particularly enjoyable on its own... it's just a fatty paste at that point, and that's not terribly exciting as a dessert.
@AustinHemmelgarn Ube was my thought, as an Asian equivalent to a fudge texture without actually being so sweet or rich.
@J... Depends on why you were using fudge though. By itself it’s not particularly great without the sweetness, but as a component of other deserts the texture (and especially the stiffness) may be more important than the exact flavor, and that type of thing is what this friend typically uses this crazy red-bean concoction for.
@AustinHemmelgarn Agreed, as an ingredient it can work, but fudge is all about fudge on its own for its own sake. You don't typically use fudge as an ingredient - it's a dish unto itself.
I'm not sure this will temper the sweetness enough for your audience, but you can bring it down a bit by using dark chocolate and putting stuff in your fudge. I haven't tried this exact recipe but it's fairly close to my generic fudge recipe, except that I just eyeball the quantities of whatever I want to mix in: dark chocolate, pistachios, and candied ginger.
Another option is to try a non-chocolate fudge. Matcha green tea fudge seems to be popular, and it might be a more familiar flavor for your tasters.
Have you considered different forms of sugar like pure glucose? You could also add in some maltodextrin which is a kind of sugar, it's used in sugar-free candy/chocolate like Russell Stover brand.
I agree with the other answers that say the fudge gets its consistency from the sugar. You're going to need to substitute some of the sugar with something of similar consistency. This will be a small experiment.
There is a velveeta fudge if you want to google the recipe. That might help bring down the sugar.
I’ve had it and it’s UHMAZING
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.251194
| 2021-03-05T06:01:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114602",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Chris H",
"Chris Sunami",
"J...",
"Joshua",
"Ross Presser",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114823
|
Pie crust too soft to put in pan
My pie pastry is too soft that I can't pick it up to put in pan after rolling it. The softness/pliable is like the butter/shortening too warm needs to be refrigerated. I tried refrigerating it overnight (this delayed the completion of my pie) but next day it was still too soft and I am still unable to put into pan. I ended up pressing it into the pan, making it less flaky but at that point was reaching I give up point.
Should I add more flour but isn't sticky? Or more cold water but won't that make it more soft and overly pliable?
I want to try again to make pie crust but want to figure out what I can do to fix it. Note: This pie crust comes from Joy of Cooking and uses shortening and butter.
Update:
I followed the recipe so here is the recipe. It's from Joy of cooking. I've never tried this recipe. I made pie with all butter crust and it worked well so thought I'd tried the more traditional one with shortening and it was very soft.
2.5 c all purpose flour
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp sugar
3/4 c cold lard (155g) or vegetable shortening (145g)
3tbsp or 45g butter
Used food processor to blend the added
6 tbsp ice water mixed with 1 tbsp vinegar.
I put in fridge for 30min then tried to roll out but was too soft. Put it overnight, hoping would be better but still top soft.
One thing is that with all ingredients, I used cups except butter since 3 tbsp is hard for me to figure out amount and so I weighed that bit.
As I type this out, I notice the lard and vegetable shortening weights are different. I just used 3/4 cup vegetable shortening. Could that be the reason?
Did you make any substitutions in the recipe, for example, gluten free flour instead of wheat flour?
Which kind of dough are you making? Do you still have the recipe? Is it the first time you are experiencing this problem?
Could you include the recipe itself and describe your own process rather than just referencing where it is from?
Are you using American butter? European butters tend to have a higher fat / lower water content, but I don't think it'd be enough to cause to the problems you're having. Kitchen temperature is another typical issue, but if that was the problem it would've set up in the fridge.
That's an unusual problem, rollable pie crust recipes will in my experience always get hard enough in the fridge and actually too hard/brittle after a full night there.
Troubleshooting should go in the following order:
Make sure you are using a recipe that was designed to be rolled. Pressing is a legitimate way of making a pie crust, and maybe you had a recipe intended for it.
Make sure is that you are working from a good quality recipe. You mention yours comes from a reputable book, so we could assume that it's good, but keep in mind that sometimes older sources have more elaborate/difficult recipes than newer ones.
Make sure that you are following the recipe exactly. Possible sources of error include
absentmindedly mismeasuring something, forgetting an ingredient or adding it twice
measuring by volume instead by weight (if your recipe is only given in volume, try to still measure accurately, but in the end you can't really be precise that way),
making a substitution in ingredients (maybe you substituted the fat, e.g. used some kind of plant-based spread when the recipe asked for butter?),
not following the steps to the letter,
using the ingredients at incorrect temperatures (although the fridge should have fixed this in your case),
if the recipe requires you to add something by feel (common with the water in German pie crust recipes) maybe your feel is off.
If the recipe still behaves weirdly, you can try workarounds. In your case, I see two possibilities. One, maybe you are rolling out using modern techniques (silicone or fibreglass mat, or on an oiled surface) while the recipe might assume that you will be rolling on a thick layer of flour, hardening your crust. If this is the case, roll on flour. Two, you can roll using the plastic wrap technique, then transfer to the pie dish while still on the wrap, then peel the wrap off.
If all else fails, just look for another recipe until you find one that functions.
Update: What you posted is an absolutely standard recipe with the most widely used ratio for American crusts. Typically, a recipe with this ratio will be not too soft, but too hard after a night in the fridge, being too brittle to place in the pie dish. This means that you can exclude points 1, 2 and 4 from my answer.
It is highly likely that it was a fluke that happened once, maybe because you made a mistake without noticing. I would give the recipe another try and see how it turns out, and measuring everything by weight. If it keeps turning out too soft in that case, you must be doing something very unexpected, or maybe using not classic shortening but some kind of modern product intended to stay soft at fridge temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.251656
| 2021-03-16T04:39:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114823",
"authors": [
"Jennifer S",
"Joe",
"Sarah BDnO",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90615"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122260
|
How do I fix my smoke-emitting pizza stone?
I'm trying to cook "authentic" pizza in a home oven. The recipe I'm following asks that you preheat the oven to the highest it can get (500°F/260°C for me) with the stone inside. So, I follow this instruction. For the first 15 minutes, everything's fine. Then, I see liquid forming at the top of the stone. Soon enough, tons of smoke is coming out and I have to turn on the fan. I decided to abandon my plan to create the perfect pizza because of this problem with my stone.
I think the liquid coming out of the pizza stone is oil that's been absorbed from past times I've cooked with it. It wasn't a problem then because I didn't preheat my pizza stone previously and only cooked at 425°F/220°C. Then, the oil heats up and evaporates into smoke.
How can I fix the issue of oil coming out and smoking up everything when I'm preheating my stone at high temperatures?
Edit: Just found out that my mom puts oil on the stone every time she cooks pizza D:<
You shouldn't be oiling the stone.
@GdD it didn't occur to me that they were deliberately oiling it, because some toppings can give off quite a bit of oil and that can drip. If it turns out they really were deliberately oiling it I'll delete my answer because there would be way too much smoke
Some people may think that you oil the stone to keep the pizzas from sticking, which isn't the right thing to do with a baking stone. Using cornmeal or coarse semolina is the way to go on that, but you may be right @ChrisH.
@GdD even flour is better than oil in domestic ovens that don't get too hot, though I use semolina by choice. But there are instructions out there for seasoning stones with oil (there are probably instructions for all sorts of far dumber ideas as well)
Semolina is much tastier isn't it @ChrisH, plus a nice crunch.
@GdD I amn't oiling the stone intentionally. I use a lot of olive oil in my pizza dough, so I assume that's where the oil is coming from. Also, I think cheese releases grease sometimes, and pepperoni and other meats are very greasy.
Start using less oil in your pizza dough. If it's soaking into the stone, you're using way too much.
@FuzzyChef Just found out that my mom puts oil on the pizza stone every time she bakes pizza. That's my main problem
Well, you know the long-term solution, then.
You'll have to burn it off, but you can do it quite slowly, then it should be fine for future use.
Although 425°F (220°C) is rather cool for pizza, it's around the smoke point of many oils. But as you didn't preheat the stone when you used it at this low temperature, it probably never even got that hot (BTW you sound like you've learnt this by now, but if you're not going to preheat it, there's no point using a stone).
So you should probably start by putting it in a cold oven and turning on to 425°F. When that temperature has been reached and held for a good few minutes, and it's not smoking, increase by 25° and wait until it stops smoking. Keep going until you reach the maximum on the dial.
You can do all this on a day when you can ventilate well, not just before use. Alternatively it's not unknown to use pizza stones in barbecues, so you could try and burn it off outside, but without the temperature control.
If there's any chance that water could have soaked in, from even a brief dip or a wipe with a dripping wet cloth, start with a couple of hours not far below boiling point (say 80°C or 200°F) to dry it.
New stones are supposed to be baked with nothing on top before first use anyway. I think mine wanted the drying step when new as well.
I think this answer is valid even if the stone was deliberately oiled, it will just take longer to burn it off.
@GdD I'd definitely want to do as much as possible outside in that case, and bringing up the temperature gradually is probably mire important
@ChrisH Should I be burning off the oil after every time I make pizza? Is there a way to prevent oil from getting into the stone in the first place?
@SomeGuy that depends on where the oil is coming from. Pizza is crust on the bottom, and (classic) pizza crust dough doesn’t contain oil. So what went wrong?
@Sneftel I amn't oiling the stone intentionally. I use a lot of olive oil in my pizza dough, so I assume that's where the oil is coming from. Also, I think cheese releases grease sometimes, and pepperoni and other meats are very greasy
The fairly thin dough I most often bake on my stone is sourdough, with no oil at all; the other, rather fluffy, dough I make in the bread machine before rolling out, uses 1 tablespoon to 350g (~12 Oz) of flour, so not oily at all. If you're using an oily dough, it might be worth looking at methods that part baking parchment on non-stick sheet on top of the stone (check temperature suitability for any particular product). Some people do this for focaccia, for example. That might also help if you want a generous amount of topping and little crust for a margin.
I reckon burn it off once to fix it, and solve the problem of getting loads of oil onto the stone. Minor drips are dealt with by putting the stone (scrape off any spilt lumps of cheese) back in the hot oven as it cools, and preheating it next time.
Alternately, if the OP has a grill, that's a great place to burn the pizza stone clean.
@FuzzyChef grill as in barbecue (which I mentioned) or as in broiler (which is how I broke my last pizza stone making naan bread)? English vs. English!
As in BBQ. That way all the smoke is outside. Low heat, so you don't crack the stone.
@FuzzyChef thought so. I made a very good pizza in a kettle barbecue fired with charcoal and oak, but it was too much effort to make a habit of it. Even if used so gently it didn't get hot enough to finish the burn-off it would make a good start
Incidentally, the stone should be good up to like 600C. What causes it to crack is uneven heat -- if the middle of the stone is 200C higher than the edges, it'll crack (or vice-versa). That's why you need to be careful with the broiler or charcoal BBQs.
@Sneftel Found my problem, apparently my mom has been oiling the pizza stone every time she bakes pizza this whole time
@FuzzyChef yes, that's what killed mine - the naan shielded the middle from direct heat and cooled it, so even though the whole thing was preheated it cracked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.252072
| 2022-11-07T04:50:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122260",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"Some Guy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97460"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113334
|
160°C fan forced or 325°F convection
I have recipe that recommends 160°C fan forced for approximately 1 hour.
I have a convection feature on my stove, so should I use it at 325°F with the convection on or just 325°F direct heat? It is a gas oven.
The recipe asks for convection and it sounds like you have that feature available. Is there a reason you think it isn't appropriate here?
If your oven allows, 320°F is closer to 160°C, but I know some ovens are bit clunky and only go 25 degrees at a step.
Since "Fan Forced" is just another term for "Convection" you should use the fan if the recipe recommends it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.252562
| 2020-12-23T22:56:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113334",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90370",
"jdouglas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73222
|
Oven cook times - thawed vs frozen
There are many "foil" meal recipes online that are quick and easy.
http://www.bettycrocker.com/menus-holidays-parties/mhplibrary/recipes/15-foil-pack-favorites
However, they all have cooking times based on the ingredients being thawed. I would like to make these meals and then freeze them for later use. Is there a good method for determining the proper cook time in an oven for frozen ingredients compared to thawed?
I think your best solution will be to thaw them before you cook them and then follow the same time and temperature settings (unless the contents start out hot, which they do in some cases). As long as you remember move them to the fridge in the morning or the evening before, they should be defrosted enough by the time dinner comes around.
Cooking raw meat from frozen is not (in my opinion) a good idea. The outside will start defrosting and cooking long before the inside even defrosts, which means you're likely going to have issues with very undercooked centers of your food... which is particularly an issue with chicken. And, even if you do wait to take it off the grill until the chicken is fully cooked through, the outside will likely be overcooked and unpalatable.
I'm not authoritative on this matter and haven't tried making the foil packets you linked to. However, if you can ensure that the meat has fully thawed all the way through prior to starting the timer for the time specified by the recipe, then it should be good.
Additionally, depending on the way you're cooking, you might have to worry about cooking the outsides before the insides. Because the recipe for your foil packets says to seal the packet, this should help somewhat with cooking evenly. However, there are two issues with this method. If you try to open the package to see if it had thawed yet, you will interrupt the cooking process. Also, using a grill increases the chance that the outside of the foil's contents will cook and get burnt before the insides start cooking. You did mention baking in an oven. If your food is in a covered pot in the oven at a lower temperature (e.g., if the recipe calls for 350°F this is considered lower), the meat should cook more evenly.
From my personal experience just now, I had bought 1.5lb of chicken (boneless, skinnless thighs) at the supermarket and was disappointed to find it fully frozen when I opened the package at home due to how it was fridgerated while on display. My recipe calls for a covered pan in the oven at 350°F for 1 hour followed by uncovered for 15 minutes. I decided to wait to start my timer until after I had verified it was thawed and take notes for the future (this supermarket tends to have half-frozen chicken like this). I checked every 15 minutes by prodding the meat with a fork. After 30 minutes, it was no longer frozen, so I started my timer for baking at that point. Thus, I went from 1.25 hours to 1.75 hours.
From this blog which addresses cooking pieces of chicken individually on a tray rather than in a pan and using a temperature of 425°F, the author added 10-15 minutes to a recipe calling for 20-30 minutes. The author also says:
Bake the chicken breasts for 50 percent longer than they would normally take. Unfrozen chicken breasts usually take 20-30 minutes at 350ºF. So for frozen, you’re looking at 30-45 minutes. It depends on the size of the chicken breast though, really.
The author's guideline of adding an extra 50% time in the oven applied to my situation would have directed me to cook my chicken for a total of 1.875 hours, a bit over my total actual baking time of 1.75 hours. So this might be a good starting point.
However, I am not a food safety expert or scientist and these things all depend on what exactly you're cooking, etc. None of my experience or research findings apply to grilling foil packets. Even the recipes you referenced at Betty Crocker mention that you need to cook “until juice of chicken is clear when center of thickest part is cut (at least 165°F).”—it doesn't claim that their suggested cook times are guaranteed to be sufficient.
I am submitting this answer here just because you mention oven/baking times and I had an experience to share regarding that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.252641
| 2016-08-17T20:00:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73222",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81418
|
Volumetric conversion between frozen and fresh spinach
I like to freeze my spinach and use it in smoothies. When I bring it out of the freezer, I crush it as much as I can. I then measure it out in 2 cup quantities. How much would this equal in fresh spinach.
Thanks in advance.
My frozen spinach doesn't change in volume enough to notice. I think it would be the same- at least unless it has freezer burn and dried out.
There was a question on here somewhere about comparing iron content in fresh vs. cooked spinich ... I would assume a similar density change in fresh vs. frozen.
found it -- https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7397/67 ... so 3.57 mg vs 2.71 mg / 100g would suggest that you'd need 30% more by weight ... and if you compare the volume of 1lb of cooked spinach volume vs. 1.3lbs of fresh, you could figure out the difference by volume.
Surely if you have frozen it yourself, then you should know what the quantities are. When initially freezing it, write on the bag/container what the quantity is - problem solved?
Freeze the spinach in 2-cup portions. ;) I always wonder why the use volume instead of weight for measuring solids... use weight instead.
Best to use a scale. Measure how much fresh spinach you normally use and use the same weight for frozen. Moisture content for frozen spinach may be slightly less than fresh but it should not matter that much. There are very few occasions when volume measurements are actually necessary and a weight measurement is not appropriate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.253353
| 2017-05-04T16:50:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81418",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81946
|
Sugar Free Chocolate Cake Too Dense
Yes, I know it's almost impossible to get a good sugar-free chocolate cake, but I won't give up trying,as my husband is a diabetic, and I want to make something nice for his birthday. This recipe is good-tasting, but too dense, with a fudgy layer at the bottom. I've been working on this for quite a while, but I need the help of professionals with this one.
Sugar-Free Black Magic Cake
Good tasting, but too much moisture, and a fudgy layer at the bottom
½ cup coconut oil (115 g) 2 ¼ cups Splenda (56g) 1 medium banana (½
cup when mashed) (59 g) (try leaving out) 1 teaspoon baking soda 1
large egg plus 3 large egg yolks (117 g total) (save whites for
another use) (try 2 yolks) 1 cup full-fat Bavarian-style buttermilk
(240 g) (try ½ cup lowfat buttermilk) 1 tablespoon pure vanilla
extract ¾ cups unsweetened natural dark cocoa powder(63 g) ½
teaspoon baking powder ½ cup nonfat dry milk powder(g) (try 1 cup)
1 teaspoon salt 2 teaspoons freshly ground cardamom 1 cup
self-rising flour (125 g), or convert plain flour to self-rising,
sifted twice (try cake flour) 1 cup strong brewed coffee (240 g), or
1 cup water plus 4 teaspoons Nescafe instant coffee Dark unsweetened
baking chocolate (190 g) (try leaving out)
Preheat oven to 300º F. Grease and flour two double-parchment-lined (bottom only) 8-inch round cake pans with 2-inch sides. Prepare brown paper collars for the pans.
In a small saucepan set over low heat, melt together baking chocolate, cocoa, coffee and coconut oil, whisking to combine. Set aside.
Using a fork, mash banana with baking soda on a plate. In the bowl of a mixture, add banana mixture, eggs, Splenda, buttermilk, vanilla and the rest of the ingredients, except flour and chocolate mixture. Whisk thoroughly, using whisk attachment.
Switch to mixing attachment. Bring chocolate mixture to a boil. Add flour and boiling chocolate mixture. Mix again on medium speed, scraping down sides and bottom of the bowl, until batter is well mixed, a couple of minutes.
Pour batter into prepared pan(s). Tap pans gently several times on the counter to remove air bubbles. Bake on middle rack 20 to 25 minutes or just until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean.
When just out of the oven, remove the cake from the pan and place both cake and the parchment it was baked in, on a rack and then straight into the freezer for at least 30 minutes. After this time, wrap with plastic wrap, then foil, and place back into the freezer until ready to frost.
Notes:
For best flavor and sweetness, banana should have dark spots on the skin. Try adding ¾ cup cornstarch to lighten the cake 1 ½ recipe for 2 (9”) cake pans. If using 1 (9”) pan, bake 40-45 minutes. Wet ingredients should be at room temperature before mixing. Batter should be no more than 2” deep Try Bain-marie-Place cake pans into a bigger pan of water. If using cake right after cooling, flip the top layer over so that the domed top becomes the bottom of the cake. Flip the second cake so that the bottom becomes the top of the cake, slicing some of the dome off if necessary to make an even cake. If making one cake, cut in half horizontally and flip.
I've made cakes using some of my regular older recipes but substituting sucralose (less expensive store brand Splenda) straight out for the sugar and they came out just fine. I rarely bake sweet desserts now but still, I can't see why you need a special recipe. Have you tried substituting Splenda in cake recipes before?
Compared to regular chocolate cake recipes, you are not using enough flour. Most recipes with 2 cups of liquids use 1 3/4 to 2 cups of flour.
What do all these "try leaving out", "try 1/2 cup" etc. mean? Are they suggestions by the recipe writer, or something you tried? If the recipe writer suggested them, did you try any of them, or did you follow the unmodified suggestion? If they are suggestions, it is possible that one of them works, but two of them can interact in unusual ways.
There's a few things that could be happening here, you could have too much moisture in the batter, not enough leavening agent (unlikely in this case) but my money is the oven temperature - it seems low. I'd usually bake a cake at 350F.
When baking a cake you first get a rise from the action of the leavening agents and the expansion of air and water vapor due to heat, next a crystalline structure forms which holds that shape. If your oven is too low that crystalline structure won't form in time to hold the rise, the leavening agents will run out and the steam and air will escape, and your cake will collapse leaving it dense.
In addition to the oven being low the baking time might be too short, if the baking time is too short the batter won't have time to crystallize and it will collapse when taken out of the oven, again making it dense.
I'd try upping the temperature a bit and see how it goes. Also, the toothpick check isn't the most reliable, use a touch bounce test and a digital instant read thermometer. Most cakes are done when they read between 200-210F in the middle of the cake.
It looks to me as if you've made a cake that's not only sugar-free, but almost fat free as well. A number of years ago, using mashed bananas or other fruits or veggies as a fat substitute was popular, but that idea faded away, thank goodness. No wonder it wasn't good! If you want a delicious chocolate cake, and your only concern is that it's sugar-free, your first job is to find a delicious conventional recipe. Then you can sub sucralose (Splenda) for the sugar. They make it in a version that is a 1:1 substitute for sugar. Don't try to use the kind that comes in little packets! The amount that's in the straight sucralose packets is equivalent to at least 2t of sugar in sweetness, so it would be way too sweet and probably have texture issues as well. Use the one that's made for baking. Don't try to use aspartame (NutraSweet), because it loses its sweetness in heat. But do yourself a favor and don't try to make a "healthy"version of a birthday cake. Stick with a delicious recipe and just sub out the sugar. Just say no to gluten-free, fat-free, dairy-free, egg-free, flavor-free recipes, and just concentrate on the sugar.(it will still have carbs in it from the flour, of course. And you'll want a recipe that uses unsweetened chocolate or cocoa for the chocolate flavor.
All the cakes I make use less sugar than the normal recipes. Sugar is needed to give structure to the cake. What I do is I add just over a teaspoon of cornstarch and gluten each for every 100 grams of sugar I cut back.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.253512
| 2017-05-24T03:24:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81946",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54773
|
I want to make a mug cake, can I use hot chocolate mix instead of cocoa?
Unfortunately, I do not have any cocoa powder left. If I use Cadbury's hot chocolate mix, would it give me the same effect?
The issue with hot chocolate mix is the lack of cocoa and high amounts of sugar.
You definitely want to use cocoa powder if you can...but...
I've done it in a pinch. It's not as good as cocoa powder though because hot chocolate mix is usually also sugar & sometimes powdered milk. But it's still something to fix a chocolate craving when you don't have much else in the cupboard.
I've added hot chocolate mix to waffle mix/pancake mix and always found it delicious, though of course not as chocolate-y as with pure cocoa powder.
I have been in the same situation as you and I used hot chocolate mix and it worked just fine.
But if you want a stronger taste, use cocoa powder. When I used hot chocolate mix, my cake was a bit bland and not very chocolatey - although it might have just been the hot chocolate mix I was using.
I have used hot chocolate mix instead of cocoa powder... As state earlier it is usually a blend of cocoa, sugar and milk powder... so, you need to adjust the sugar levels. However, also be aware that some of the new style hot chocolate mixes that want to emulate the milky froth of a hot chocolate made with an espresso machine also contain a frothing agent... The "rise" I got from this mix was very "interesting". (and the mess was unwanted)
Another substitute I found for cocoa, is chocolate pudding mix, or even on one occasion a chocolate pudding cup; this produces a very rich, moist chocolate mug cake, or a really nice enhancement for a packet chocolate mix.
You can probably use the nutrition information line for sugars to get an estimate of how much sugar your hot chocolate mix replaces, and increase the quantity to get the same amount of non-sugar (assumed to be cocoa).
I personally would recommend using cocoa powder as it gives it that nice rich chocolaty flavoring.However, if you don't have cocoa powder use hot chocolate mix but keep the sugar down on your original mix as it will become too sweet. Also, the colour of the cake will not be as dark as it would be with cocoa powder
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.254014
| 2015-02-15T16:58:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54773",
"authors": [
"Alicia Roose",
"Antoinette Keylon",
"Bei Tian",
"Cheryl Cross",
"Chris H",
"Doug",
"Libby Welton",
"Loretto O Regan",
"Maja Tokić",
"Martyn Budd",
"Myra Robinson",
"Nigel Wakeman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20469
|
Cooking juicy beef in a pan
I recently cooked beef in a pan, and it came out pretty leathery. I came to cooking.SE to find some advice, and found this:
"The cut is important for both techniques. For sauteing, you need a lean cut - fillet, sirloin, or good rump steak. These should be cooked quickly over a high heat" from Cooking beef: how to make it tender? (most of the advice on the page seems to be "high-heat low-time")
My question is for a bit more follow-up on this. Most importantly, how will I know that the beef is cooked well enough to be safe, without it losing its tenderness? Also if it makes any difference, I'm using a non-stick pan (cooking it in olive oil is okay?)
if you don't have a quality steak you may need to marinate it to tenderize the meat
The best way to test if it's done is to use an instant-read thermometer. Slide it into the thickest part, away from any bones. I like to lift up the meat with tongs and poke it into the edge, all the way to the center. You're looking for about 135-140F for medium rare; take it off a little early if anything because the temperature will go up a bit once it's off the heat. Let it rest for ten minutes or so before digging in to let the juices re-distribute.
I don't like using nonstick for steak, or olive oil. Neither does well at high heats, which is what you need to cook off moisture at the surface and get a nice browned outside before the inside gets overcooked. Cast iron and steel (stainless or carbon) both work very well in my experience. For fat, use a high smoke point oil like safflower oil, or clarified butter.
In addition to what Adam said, I would also include the quality of the meat. Most of the meat you can get in your average megamarket is going to be tough and not the greatest choice when you want to cook hot, fast and under medium. Finding a good butcher and spending that extra buck per pound, will help ensure a tender chunk of beast. My favorite way to cook a steak is the Alton Brown method. Fire up my charcoal chimney starter, salt the steak and place the chimney on top of the steak for a minute and a half. Flip it over, another minute and let the steak rest. Best steak I've ever had (and made).
the chimney on top of the steak? Do you have a picture?
When you're grilling or pan frying, toughness with beef is correlated directly to cooking time. The more you cook it, the tougher it's going to be. In fact, probably the easiest way to check for doneness, without use of a thermometer, is by pressing on the meat. If it's soft, it's raw. If it's hard, it's well done.
Now, for expensive cuts like fillet, you have some leeway. Fillet is a very tender cut, and it can handle a lot more cooking and still be south of chewy. On the other hand, a tough cut like flank steak or skirt steak will tolerate very little heat before it becomes hard as a car tire (though here, you can cut across the grain of the mean to somewhat mitigate this).
As for safety, generally a quick sear on the outside kills everything you really need to worry about. With steak, your main worry is contamination from handling and processing, and that's nearly always external. So sear the outside, and your steak is safer than the side salad you're having with it.
My experience with beef is that if you want good results with cheap parts you should cut in very thin slices and cook quickly keeping pan very hot. If you like thick "saignant" it should be very good quality meat and you should rub it with fine salt and the ground spices you like, then burn in very hot pan for about 30 seconds every side until you cook it externally to keep all juices inside. When the color is right, lower the heat source to avoid charring and continue cooking as you like. Remember that when you see juices coming out from meat it should be retired from heat because will become soon dehydrated and hard to chew. I'm obtaining very good results marinating hard meats with milk, yogurt and spices for one or two weeks at about 2°C covered in fridge. Will try to add some pineapple and ginger slices to shorten times. When marinating to tenderize don't add salt but keep liquid acidic to avoid poisonous bacterial growth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.254232
| 2012-01-16T02:21:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20469",
"authors": [
"Greta Wood",
"KMC",
"Kate Gregory",
"Nadia Solovyeva",
"Wai Ha Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18450
|
How to Make Nutella Icing without Powdered Sugar
I received so many good tips on how to make a sugarless no-bake cheesecake:
How to Replace Icing Sugar in a No-Bake Cheesecake
As a final touch I want to put Nutella frosting on top of the cake. A layer of Nutella will be amazing, and it really complement the basic recipe. But nutella is very thick, and rigid. Spreading it on top of cheesecake will be tough, and I thought why not change it into an icing ! I found a number of recipe to do this, but they all involve powdered sugar. For example (I got this from http://juliatylerfoodblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/nutella-frosting/):
Ingredients:
3/4 c butter, softened
1/4 Nutella
1 tsp vanilla
1 Tbs milk
3 c powdered sugar
Blend all ingredients in a bowl until smooth. Adjust consistency by adjusting with a little more milk if too stiff, or a little more powdered sugar if too runny.
Can I still make a frosting out of this recipe without a powder sugar?
What about heating it up to reduce viscosity? Just use it full strength..
Are you avoiding powdered sugar from the store here, or sugar at all again? Running normal sugar through a food processor + a lil cornstarch is powdered sugar.
@rfusca thank you for the info. I am trying to avoid sugar at all again.
@Ray I tried heating the nutella. It still very rigid, and hard to spread =(
Have you tried to beat the nutella? I would think that incorporating air into it would make it very spreadable. God knows there's already enough sugar in that stuff. You wouldn't end up with the same color, it would obviously be a lighter shade. I must admit, when spreading that stuff on my kid's toast on a Saturday morning, I have wondered if you could beat that stuff and use it in that way.
You can't really be avoiding sugar and using Nutella. The first listed ingredient is sugar.
A simple alternative would be to make a ganache flavored with Frangelico or another hazelnut liqueur. This has the advantage of having much less sugar, and probably better overall flavor, than an even-more-sweetened Nutella, assuming you start with a reasonably dark chocolate. All you do is boil cream, and pour it over a similar quantity by weight of chopped chocolate, into which you've added a healthy splash of hazelnut liqueur (or the liqueur can go into the cream as you bring it to a boil; either way works in my experience). Then stir vigorously until all the chocolate is smoothed out. You can pour it over while the mixture is still moderately warm and refrigerate it with the cheesecake. It will not be Nutella, but from experience it will be good, and evoke the same basic flavors.
Alternatively, most cheesecakes I am familiar with aren't topped with an icing, but a mixture of say cream or sour cream and other ingredients, sometimes added in the last few minutes of baking. These usually spread out reasonably well. You could consider softening the nutella in the microwave and mixing with a bit of cream, which will be a sort of less heavy ganache.
Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try and post the result here
Making ganache requires heating though. Do we want to keep with the theme of "no bake"?
I would suggest making an almost mouse out of it by heating then folding into whipped cream or going more with just adding some cream and whipping together.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.254590
| 2011-10-19T01:37:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18450",
"authors": [
"Carole Scandrol",
"Megasaur",
"Ray",
"bonnie hunt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7690",
"ilovecookies",
"mrwienerdog",
"rfusca",
"zfranciscus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68912
|
CharBroil Propane Grill - Troubleshooting a problem
I asked on Meta if this was on-topic and was given the go-ahead to post, so...
I purchased a CharBroil 2-burner propane grill a few weeks ago. The flame is the right color and certainly hot enough, but the grill acts as if there are random momentary interruptions to the gas flow. It makes soft puffing sounds and occasionally the flame will go out for a fraction of a second. I captured a short video of the problem. Watch it with the sound turned up and pay attention between 7 and 10 seconds in to see the flame puff completely out momentarily.
I called CharBroil support and their response was to send me a new Hose Valve Regulator. The new HVR did nothing to fix the problem. Another call to CharBroil and they told me it was the Blue Rhino propane tank I was using. Something about a proprietary refill valve that prevents 3rd parties from refilling the tank and also doesn't work well with CharBroil HVRs.
I obtained and tried 2 other tanks from different suppliers (AmeriGas and Bernzomatic) with the same results. CharBroil's response to a 3rd support call was to send me a new burner, which I won't receive for a week or more.
Nobody at CharBroil support seems to be interested in seeing the video or actually troubleshooting the problem. I spoke to both a first-line tech and a supervisor and both explicitly refused to view the video. I seriously doubt the new burner will fix the problem.
Has anybody seen this behavior? Is it dangerous to use the grill in this state? Can anybody identify the cause?
EDIT: The new burner did not resolve the problem. If anything, it's worse. I am returning the grill tomorrow.
Stupid question... is it windy?
Good question actually. There was no wind at all when I made the video.
Are you opening the propane tank valve slowly from the fully closed position to the fully open position with the burner off? And are you leaving the tank valve in the fully open position?
Are you sure there is no leak anywhere? (ie: Use soapy water to check the threads)
No leaks, double checked.
I used Blue Rhino tanks on two different CharBroil grills for years ... and the only problem that I had was the regular issue that Kevin Nowaczyk mentioned (and David Schwartz hints at).
A few possibilities:
Make sure you open the valve on the gas tank before opening the knobs on the grill. If you do this in the wrong order, the regulator will see a large increase in gas flow and cut back.
Temperature: As LPG expands, it will cool the tank off. When pulling a lot of gas off, the side of the cylinder can even build up some frost. If the air is already cold, you might not be able to build up enough pressure to keep the gas flowing.
Restrictions in the tubing: Grills that sit out for the summer can have spiders or wasps in the gas hoses. These can restrict the gas flow. (not likely with your new grill, but there could be manufacturing debris).
Air intake: Propane needs air to burn. Some grills will have an air intake hole where the burner rests on the gas tubing. Make sure nothing is obstructing this, and if it's adjustable, try opening or closing it.
I'll second that first item -- it cuts back the flow so much that a small gust will blow out the flame ... and if it doesn't, it'll take seemingly forever to cook things. (I'm not sure if that's the problem in the video, though, I'd have to compare it to a known good flame from that style of burner). For #3, there could also be debris past the tubes, but if that were the case I'd have expected more variation in the color or size of the flames.
I always open the tank valve fully before opening the grill valve to light it. Temperatures here in Oregon are in the 60s. The grill and tank are both brand new and have not sat out in the elements at all. The entire gas system (HVR and burner) have been replaced by CharBroil and the problem is still there. As to air intake, the venturi tubes have a metal mesh where the injector from the valve inserts. This is completely clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.254881
| 2016-05-10T03:18:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68912",
"authors": [
"David Schwartz",
"Jim Garrison",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7208",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114861
|
Need advice re chance of damage to a stainless steel tray in a very hot oven
I need to heat a clean stainless steel tray to the temperature of boiling water. Would the self-cleaning cycle of the oven damage my tray in any way?
Last I heard the self cleaning cycle of most electric ovens is hotter than the highest temperature you can set it to. SIGNIFICANTLY hotter than you need to boil water (212F & 100C). And they usually lock the door till the cleaning cycle is done so 500F (or more) for several hours!
The temperature of boiling water is 100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit. This is considerably colder than the self-cleaning cycle in your oven. It would be perfectly sufficient to set the oven temperature to about 120°C/240°F to heat the tray. It would not take long to reach the desired temperature for the tray at those lower temperatures since metals conduct heat well.
This doesn't answer the question about damage at all.
Per our Help Center answers that offer a viable alternative are fine. >>The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”.<<
If it is non-magnetic (304) it could be sensitized at about 1100 F (very dim red heat) which would reduce corrosion resistance to boiling brine. If it is magnetic (410), I can't imagine you could hurt it in the oven or surface burners. It could ruin bakelite handles. So there is no way you can damage any stainless in a home oven .
This sounds plausible for a single lump of steel. In the kitchen, you can have all kinds of complications - a thin tray becoming permanently bent due to uneven heating, or some decoration (beyond the bakelite handles you mention) suffering, or even having a layered item where it is not steel through and through (admittedly, this is usually seen in pans, rather uncommon in trays). Just because the steel can take it, I wouldn't be quick to promise that a random kitchen item "made of steel" can.
Cladding is tolerant ; We tested some by heating to 500 F and blast cooling with saturated steam , thousands of cycles . It was roughly an inch thick ( steel with stainless cladding ). Many refinery and chemical plant vessels are clad).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.255229
| 2021-03-17T23:34:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114861",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"Stephie",
"Steve Chambers",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114910
|
Can meat spoil outside the fridge if it's baked into bread as a filling?
I made some meat buns tonight (that is, buns with cooked chicken stuffed inside them before being baked), and I'm wondering if I should bother keeping the buns inside the fridge, because that would mean having to reheat them later.
Will the chicken inside them even go bad if the bread's there to protect it? It seems to me that the bread will act basically like a tin can and keep the meat preserved as long as the bread is, since the meat inside was heated and all the bacteria that might have been on it was cooked to death.
Is this a wrong way of thinking? Should I just refrigerate them just to be safe?
A steamed meat bun can be easily reheated by wrapping in a wet paper towel and microwaving briefly (less than a minute). If your baked buns have an egg glaze, you might get away with this technique without making the crust soggy. Or you could do a quick microwave steaming followed by a quick toast in the oven or toaster oven to dry off the outside.
With the answers in mind, it's good to realize that what seems safe for one person isn't necessarily safe for another. I mean, if you've eaten stuff that has been left out your whole life (as maybe they did in medieval times, and as some people still do in some countries), you might be less likely to get sick with a particular dish than your modern neighbor who follows strict safety guidelines, perhaps due to your immune system getting more used to the harmful pathogens, or perhaps because you've somehow cultivated the right gut flora to balance it.
There are two differences between your buns and a tin can.
First, your buns were heated to a core temperature of under 100°C. Yes, your oven was probably set way higher, but the water content in your filling prevents it from getting hotter than boiling water. Commercial canning is done in the vicinity of 120-130°C, which is possible because the cans are cooked under pressure. So unlike in a can, most pathogens were destroyed, but not necessarily all of them. For human consumption, that’s perfectly fine as long as the remaining ones don’t get the time-temperature combo to regrow.
Second, a bread dough may be dense (although the aim is usually something different), but by no means airtight. Interestingly, wrapping meat in dense dough was used as preservation method in medieval times - the “ancestor” of today’s pork pies and pastries. But while the hard flour crust (not intended to be eaten originally) did form a protective layer and usually extended the shelf life more or less, it was by no means food safe judged by modern standards - although some pies were stored for months. But your fluffy buns are truly not a protective layer. Which means you should refrigerate your buns, but also that you get to enjoy the whole dish.
Spot on. Those pies might get you a couple of days safety in a cool climate, a little more at acceptable risk levels when they became common, but no more.
@ChrisH It seems some pies were kept for months, but I would expect a high failure rate and requiring optimal (=cool and dry?) storage. Regular pies, probably in the range of days, agreed. In any case, the preserving effect of the asker’s dough is negligible.
I'd like to see (but definitely not taste!) one that could keep for months in anything but winter. I know people often carry pork pies, made with very dense hot water pastry, in a pocket (i.e. nearly at body temperature) on bike rides lasting a couple of days; that's common enough that ill effects should show up but far better sealed than bread. I wonder if those long-life pies used and removed a similar pastry. In those of course the filling is also drier than in many recipes; that would help too as would the aspic layer.
@ChrisH see the link I included in the post. I would suspect “add enough fat” inside (-> think confit/rilettes?) plus a glueish/hard outer layer are the key?
I missed the link on my phone, thanks. Maybe I need to try a Devizes pie next time I'm passing through that town (it's a couple of hours on the bike from and I go there quite often) though I don't eat much meat.
Pork pies today can be kept for quite a while in cupboard or fridge. I suspect the high fat content of the pastry assists.
When I was a kid in the UK, home made pork pies (made from home-grown and home-killed pork) were regularly stored for 6 months with no refrigeration at all. Nobody got sick from eating them. If the meat supply for a family is one large (600-700 pounds) pig per year, you obviously aren't going to eat 600 pounds of meat in a couple of days before it goes bad!
@alephzero blows up my mind actually, learned something today. Is there some link to look at the technology. Pie's as means of conservation, I'll boast about that for years to come, lol
I don't know about chicken specifically, but pork filled baozi (steamed buns) need to be stored in the refrigerator. Bread crust isn't exactly non-porous after all (squeeze a bun, the air doesn't bulge out of another part of the bun, it escapes and then flows back in when you release it).
I wouldn't risk it.
Stephie's answer is thorough. I just want to add a couple more points in favour of refrigerating:
Firstly, the cooked meat inside is not the only thing that can spoil. Fluffy bread itself is prone to growing mold within a few days in a moist environment (especially if exposed to people's hands and breath), or drying out and being unpleasant to eat in a dry environment.
Secondly, since the meat was cooked before being stuffed into the buns, it means it was exposed to the atmosphere, to your hands and to kitchen tools between being cooked and being baked. Which means it is potentially re-contaminated. How contaminated depends entirely on your kitchen hygiene practices.
EDITED TO REMOVE:
In the post I had a rather generous time-limit for leaving freshly cooked food out of the fridge. It was neither well-thought/researched, nor as strict as I would actually do for myself. And was in no way meant as legal hygienic advice. To prevent potential misuse, I have removed that sentence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.255452
| 2021-03-22T02:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114910",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Chris H",
"MolbOrg",
"OrangeDog",
"Stephie",
"alephzero",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115145
|
Can I add fresh minced garlic to a jar of Huy Fong chili paste without risking botulism?
Can I add fresh minced garlic to a jar of Huy Fong chili paste without risking botulism?
Ingredients: Chili, salt, acetic acid, potassium sorbate and sodium bisulfite as preservatives, xanthan gum.
Are you asking if you can add it and leave it out without risk? Or keep it in the refrigerator?
I'm asking if i can keep it in the fridge without risk
I would probably not do it myself, as the garlic could "go bad", i.e. other bacteria could grow, even if there is no risk of botulism.
But garlic chili paste is a staple of Cantonese cuisine, so there should be a safe way to make it. Personally I would add the garlic every time I cook something.
According to WHO
"botulinum will not grow in acidic conditions (pH less than 4.6), and therefore the toxin will not be formed in acidic foods (however, a low pH will not degrade any pre-formed toxin)."
Paste is probably acidic enough on it's own to kill any introduced botulinum from the garlic -reasonable quantity added-
To be extra sure, I would sprinkle mince garlic with a pinch of vit C or equivalent acid (and a pinch of salt to draw out flavor) before mixing.
Heat also sterlizes:
"Despite its extreme potency, botulinum toxin is easily destroyed. Heating to an internal temperature of 85°C for at least 5 minutes will decontaminate affected food or drink."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.256028
| 2021-04-06T20:09:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115145",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"M.S.D.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93299",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79182
|
How to prevent carrot juice from turning brown?
I've been juicing up carrots with a centrifugal juice extractor. There's a lot of overhead (prep and cleanup) so it makes sense to do a big batch and keep it in the fridge for a couple of days.
Unfortunately, the refrigerated juice seems to turn brown pretty quickly. Here it is after 48 hours:
The pulp has precipitated to the bottom and retains its pleasant orange hue, but the juice has turned an ugly and unappetizing brown. It tastes better than it looks, but the flavor has suffered too. It's pretty extreme at 48 hours, but there is significant browning even at 24.
I'm using refrigerated carrots and putting the juice immediately in a plastic screw-top (Ziploc) container in the fridge.
Is there anything I can do to keep my carrot juice looking and tasting fresh?
You could try crushing a vitamin C tablet and mixing that in the juice. I don't know if it will help, but I do know that it helps keep avocados from browning.
@Jolenealaska Carrot juice is already pretty high in vitamin C (8.5 mg per 100 g, about 1/3 as much as lime juice) so I'm not sure that more would help, but I'll give it a try. Your avocado answer is fantastic btw.
Like wine give it less air space
Might it help to portion and freeze the juice? Many things store better in the freezer, though I have no information about carrot juice specifically.
This is classic enzymatic-oxidation browning. Two main culprits - oxygen and a group of enzymes (polyphenoloxidases) that promotes a reaction between oxygen and polyphenolic compounds in the juice.
The juicing action will inevitably end up stirring into the liquid a lot of air which will end up dissolved in it. Air has 21% oxygen in it. Solubility of gases improves with lower temperatures. So, cold juice will hold more oxygen, and warm juice less. Unless you do your juicing inside a sealed cupboard filled with nitrogen, you will not be able to exclude oxygen from getting inside your juice. At lower temperatures, the enzymes become less active which will slow down the browning and counter the higher concentration of oxygen in your juice, but given enough hours, browning will still happen. You can try putting a barrier on the surface of the juice (a sheet of parchment or plastic for example) as soon as you finish juicing and before you put it in the fridge to prevent more oxygen from dissolving into the juice as it chills. It is unlikely to stop the browning.
You can restrain the enzymes by making the juice more acidic, with lemon juice for example, or vitamin C as suggested above (the key is pH not how much Vitamin C it naturally has) or citric acid. That would only slow down the browning and you might not like the altered taste.
You can deactivate the enzyme permanently by heat which means heating the juice to at least 65C, or better still, heating the carrots before juicing to well beyond 65C briefly. I suggest cutting the carrots into smaller pieces and putting them into a very hot water with any of the above acidic additives. I am sure heating will inevitably affect the taste, but it will stop the browning. It works with apples and pears. You can play with timing so that you destroy a certain amount of the enzymes, enough to have a good compromise between less browning and less taste change.
There are suggestions you find online such as freezing. You can freeze your juice, but again it would only slow down the browning a bit more, it will still happen given enough hours.
Other more extreme (and normally impractical) ideas include vacuuming the juice to extract dissolved gases from it, or using UHT and high pressure methods to break the enzyme.
I typically use 65C acidic water to blanche whatever fruit or vegetable, and I use a barrier on the juice surface before storing/chilling.
Since cold juice holds more oxygen than warm juice, would it be helpful to use warm carrots (I've been storing them in the fridge up till now) and wait until the juice is sealed to cool it down?
You can give it a try for sure. I did not see much difference between chilled and room temperature apples. It is always a trade off between dissolved gases and enzyme activity. At below 7C, enzyme activity is supposed to cease for browning but I have only experienced a slow down. Even at 3C in the fridge it still continues. Acidic blanching is the only method that worked well for me.
I'll give acidic blanching a try, but it sounds like it's more trouble than just juicing a fresh batch every day, so probably not good for my specific use case. Thank you for this thorough and comprehensive answer!
You are very welcome @Robert. Try different methods. Reducing pressure with VacuVin may help too. If you find a way to use oxygen scavenging agents without getting the sachet wet, it may be worth a try too. This is cat-and-mouse sort of thing for sure.
juicing up carrots with a centrifugal juice extractor
This is very common for centrifugal juice extractors and one of the reasons why the juicers crowd prefers masticating juicers. Of course, the solution is not practical for everyone, and it does not completely prevent this type of browning and separation, but it does slow down.
Based on Paparazzi's comment, I'd store it in a cleaned wine bottle and use a stopper/air-remover like a vacu-vin. That's a brilliant comment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.256167
| 2017-03-16T07:38:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79182",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"paparazzo",
"user110084"
],
"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.