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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
81690
|
Why flour on bread?
My local bakery tends to put flour on the top of what I thought was already baked bread (but which based on the answers apparently is flour added before the baking process).
It looks something like this:
Is this purely for decoration or is there a good reason for doing this?
Are you suggesting they put it on after they remove from the oven, or were the loaves floured before baking?
@moscafj I am not sure how it is done. All I can say is that on top it looks like regular flour to me and also a lot is falling off, which I find quite annoying. Neither do I care much for the taste of raw flour. I added a picture of what it looks like.
In traditional bread making methods loaves are often risen in a proofing basket:
The bread takes on the shape of the basket as it proves, and is then turned out onto a baking surface, in other words it is risen upside down. You need a lot of flour on the dough to keep it from sticking to the sides of the basket, especially in the caps between the rattan. Any excess flour will remain on the bread as it's baked.
There's no practical reason for having that much flour on the top of a tin loaf like the one you posted in your question as those are risen right side up, there's nothing on the top of the bread to stick to. However, when the bread is turned out of the tin it could be onto a floured surface or a very floury hand, the excess flour will tend to stick on.
It's very doubtful, although possible, that the flour is added after baking. If so it is to give it authenticity. If the bread is good quality and you like it just brush the excess flour off before you cut it.
Thank you for the explanation. I am very happy with the bread below the flour, so will continue to remove the excess flour before eating.
Oh, yeah, right. Now that I think about it, I grease, then flour my bread pans, per the cooking instructions, whenever I make apple bread, so the loaf comes out cleanly.
You don't always grease and flour yeast breads when they go into load pans @PoloHoleSet, in fact I never do. It's generally not needed unless you have a very sticky dough.
@GdD - I realize that, but I was commenting on how flour is sometimes used to facilitate getting the loaves out, which I have been doing, but never really thought about it.
@PoloHoleSet actually the flour in question is on top of the bread, and that part never touches the tin, so it couldn't be for that.
@Luciano - Yes, but as the answer talks about, it is used to get the loaves out of the basket used for rising. Similar, but not identical, but then again, I never claimed it was identical. Just commenting that I forgot that flour is sometimes used for that general purpose, if you track back to my original comment.
That loaf looks like it was generously floured before baking, in which case it's not raw but I can understand if you don't like the taste. You should probably either choose different bread or dust it off all in one go (a pastry brush might help.
As to why it's there, we can only guess. Hand-formed loaves are often quite floury. Perhaps mass-produced bread is aiming to give that impression, or maybe it was actually made by hand.
As Chris H says, we cannot guess why the bakery decided to use a method which uses that amount of flour.
Despite what the accepted answer says, it is entirely possible that the method needed that much flour. For example, when I make Jim Lahey's original no-knead, this amount of flour is needed on all sides so it won't stick to the proof cloth and then to the dutch oven. Granted, once in the Dutch oven, the flour on top is not exactly necessary, but it is way too much hassle to remove it from the hot container, so I leave it there and my bread comes out as the one you posted. Also, my neighbours ask what I burned, since flour dust gets everywhere in the oven and burns, making the whole house smell charred.
But of course the bakery can also use a method where this amount of flour is convenient but not necessary, or, as Chris H said, purposefully added to mimic the looks of homemade rustic bread. It is almost certainly added before rather than after baking, but it still has a distinct powdery taste.
Old question, I know...
So it's the texture that upsets you, not the taste?
As was said earlier - it's usually flour from the proving basket or proving cloth, not flour for the tin. Most commercial outfits don't need anything on the tins and sheets, they're that well seasoned by repeat batches.
The proved dough is tipped into the tin so top of loaf then becomes bottom of loaf and flour is therefor all over it.
If it's a sandwich loaf or soft roll, flour is often added before baking to help keep the top crust fairly soft.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.256575
| 2017-05-15T10:01:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81690",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53270",
"moscafj",
"user1583209"
],
"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
}
|
81139
|
How many minutes between 115 F and 120 F for a ham?
I'm preparing this ham recipe. It calls for a ham 7 to 8 lbs. Well, I ordered a ham described as "7 to 9 lbs" and what got delivered was a hair under 10 lb, so that's what I'm using.
Using the recipe's 20 minutes per lb instruction, I popped that ham in the oven with the understanding that it would be there for three hours and 20 minutes, total. The recipe says to glaze the ham with 40 minutes to go, and when the internal temp is 120 and 125 F. So at 2 hrs and 40 min, I checked the internal temp, and it's 115 F.
How much longer does it need to be in there (325 F) to get up to the 120-125 range?
I have no way to check the internal temp without opening the oven door and pulling out the ham, so when should I do that? (My natural inclination would be to check like every thirty seconds which I understand is counterproductive.)
Did it start out refrigerated?
@Jefromi, hmm: it took me about 15 minutes, maybe 20, to prep it (wresting it out of the plastic, removing some fat, scoring, applying cloves) between taking it out of the fridge and putting in the oven.
Probably another 10-20 minutes. The interior should be heating somewhat faster now than it did initially, since it took a while for the heat to propagate all the way in. And assuming it was refrigerated at 40F, it's averaged about 10F increase every 20 minutes. (Your 15-20 minutes outside the refrigerator isn't going to change that much.)
It's also really not that sensitive, so it doesn't matter that much if you over shoot. So I'd check after 10 or 15 minutes, and if it's not all the way there yet, you'll at least have a good idea how fast it's heating.
Assuming that your ham is roughly a 10lb (4.5kg) sphere, at your 325F setting, it would take 14min to go from 115F to 120F and 27min to go from 115F to 125F. These are rough estimates.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.256968
| 2017-04-22T01:45:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81139",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Codeswitcher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44178"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82328
|
If you microwave leftover egg shells is the salmonella dead on the shells
I don't have any pictures. If you microwave leftover egg shells is the salmonella strain killed or not?
are these broken pieces of egg shell or emptied whole egg shell? Think you are better off steaming them
Yes or no - it depends.
We need to look at the question from two different angles.
Microwaves don't kill pathogens, they create heat that can kill pathogens.
While it seems basically the same, the important difference is that microwaves heat water, not dry substances. If your egshells are dry, you can microwave them for a long time and they will remain cool. Now add to this the fact that while many salmonella bacteria die after a few hours on dry surfaces, some go into a "hibernating" form that remains viable for weeks, your microwaved dry shells remain mostly unchanged with regards to their infectious potential.
Microwaves do not heat evenly.
Microwaves are notorious for heating unevenly. They can create hot spots and cool spots during normal use. The former is one of the reasons why baby food manufacturers typically discourage parents to warm baby food in the microwave, the latter is actually linked to various salmonella outbreaks when users heated chicken meat or other leftovers in the microwave without making sure adequate temperatures were reached. [1], [2], [3]
So the conclusion:
You need to make sure there is enough water and enough time involved to kill your salmonella in a microwave. Consider the techniques used for pacifiers and similar baby items: A closed, microwave-safe container and a few tablespoons of water to generate plenty of steam, a minimum time of three minutes once the water boils. What's considered safe for a newborn should suffice for your eggshells, too.
Personally would probably dump the shells in a pot of boiling water instead, if I wanted to be very sure. Or pop them in a hot oven after using it anyway, e.g. after baking bread or cake.
The actual micro-waves only really interact with the water content in objects. So unless your shells are wet your microwave is not going to interact with egg shells in any meaningful way. That is why the same technology is used on an industrial scale in lumber yards to control the moisture content in wood.
It is also why you get uneven heated food when microwaves are used to heat food with uneven moisture distribution, I believe that to be the case with doughnuts (whether doughnuts are eaten hot or not).
Microbes contain water - but what happens at that scale is probably not well researched yet... Also, fats seem to get heated strongly by microwave energy, not just water...
@rackandboneman A microwave is a standing wave that does not heat everything across it's field. If ants are too small to be affected reliably (or can literally fall between the high-energy waves), I don't think I would rely on them having an effect on the water in microbes.
Yes, if there is a stable standing wave .... I thought in a microwave with a fan and turntable, things were intentionally chaotic? Oh well, entomophagy and microwave ovens are going to be a frontier :) I guess swept frequency designs will be the newest thing then :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.257146
| 2017-06-11T17:47:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82328",
"authors": [
"Robert Cartaino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81359
|
Do I have to change the baking time when I convert fahrenheit to Celsius?
So in this recipe i should bake my cookies to 350 degrees F for 8 to 10 minutes.350 degrees fahrenheit is about 176 Celsius degrees and i dont know if I should change the baking time to more or less minutes.Anybody help me ?
You can think of it this way. If you had a dial set to 350F and you start baking, then someone decided to convert the temperatures shown on the dial to celsius by just placing a sticker over all the numbers. Now the dial is showing 176C with 350F hidden underneath. Whatever you are baking inside the oven would not know anything about the stick and would cook the same as before.
Yes, you need to convert to metric time.
Oh yes. @smithkm. Forgot about that part
No. 350F is exactly the same as 176.66...C
Follow the recipe in exactly the same way
An equivalent Celsius temperature would be 180. The precision with which oven temperatures are measured even in a well calibrated oven is larger than this rounding error (given that most oven temperatures are set with a dial and measured at a single arbitrary point). The difference in cooking time will be well within normal variation as you'd expect from things like ingredient temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.257415
| 2017-05-02T12:05:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81359",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"smithkm",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69230
|
Is it contaminating the spice to touch it after touching raw meat?
When I cook raw meat, especially chicken strips, I have it spread out on the chopping board with a few bags and containers of spice to the side. I don't actually use too many shakers for spice. Since my fingers can only hold so much spice at once, I often go back to the bag and grab some more and rub it on the meat. But this is after my fingers have touched the meat. Does this contaminate the spice in the bag or container?
Also, chefs on TV shows frequently make it that way, does this mean it is a safe practice?
For more on how to avoid contamination: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68085/physical-method-to-season-steaks
Hi Celeritas, your question is a duplicate of an older one which asked basically the same thing - but framing it as a critique on TV chefs who do this. I find your straightforward question better, so I merged the old one into this, and had to add a sentence about TV chefs at the end so the answers to the old one aren't completely out of place.
Small contamination + growth medium (unpreserved food) + room temperature + time = sick people. Most all contaminations start small. People get sick from large contaminations. Your immune exists for a reason. This is why I get annoyed when some news network deals with a slow news day by making some unsuspecting mother cook with invisible fluorescent powder on her raw chicken only to horrify when they come in with a black light and illuminate every surface in the kitchen. No. This nonsense doesn't make you safer. I'd rather lick her walls than eat meticulously handled room temperature food.
The bowl (and the salt/pepper) is contaminated if you touch it after touching raw chicken or any other unsafe food.
In fact, this is precisely why cooks and TV chefs mix it up in a little bowl first. They don't want to contaminate the entire container or even a perfectly good salt/pepper shaker.
They don't reuse the bowl afterward, they throw out any leftovers and toss the dish in the dishwasher. It's a convenient and safe way to season raw meat.
It is probably also worth remembering that those shows are heavily edited, so you may not see them wash their hands, but they do.
you are right ..they probably do edit the show a lot..I didn't think they were that stupid..Ha
@CosCallis: No doubt, although if you're trying to do something like rub a steak or chicken breast, it's pretty inefficient to wash your hands every time you need a little more seasoning. They probably do "double dip" and wash their hands at the very end.
I'm not sure about that. A salt cellar is not exactly the most habitable environment for most food-borne diseases, and some chefs don't bother with discarding the salt. That's not an endorsement of the practice, just an acceptance of fact. Also, when cooking for a show rather than real diners, sanitation is not necessarily of primary concern.
@Ray: It's a valid point, although these same chefs generally do exactly the same thing for other spices, rubs, etc., which are definitely not antibacterial. Salt also doesn't kill absolutely everything (for example, raw chicken can also host norovirus or rotavirus). In the absence of strong evidence one way or the other, I'd prefer to believe that they don't reuse it and hope that none of their viewers take away the assumption that it's OK.
You can use contaminated spices as long as they are cooked to a high enough temperature and soon enough.
@GdD: well sure, otherwise you couldn't rub spice onto the chicken in the first place. The spice stuck to the chicken is definitely contaminated, and needs to be cooked to a high enough temperature and soon enough! There's no difference in this respect between "contaminated spice" and "raw meat", you shouldn't put either of them away in the cupboard indefinitely :-) But I think what the questioner is asking, is whether or not he is in fact contaminating the spice in his packets.
I understand that @SteveJessop. What I'm saying is if you contaminate some spice then you could use it in another dish instead of throwing it away, provided you use it soon enough and the dish is cooked thoroughly.
I get food poisoning much more often after eating out than I do after eating a home-cooked meal. I've noticed the same is true for friends and colleagues. Consequently, I've concluded that the sanitary practices of many "professional" chefs is not adequate.
Yes, that'll contaminate your spices. You really don't want to touch anything after touching raw meat, unless it's something you're about to wash or cook.
It's not too hard to avoid this though. You can keep a clean hand and a dirty hand - grab spices with the clean one, rub them in with the other. As Joe points out, this is also helpful if you end up needing to do anything else, like grabbing another spice, stirring something on the stove, looking at a recipe, or answering your phone.
You might also be able to use a spoon, but you'll want to be careful not to let the part of the handle that you touch also touch your spice containers, which might be more trouble than it's worth.
If you're using multiple spices, it's also often a good idea to just mix what you'll need ahead of time. If it's in a bowl just for this meat, you don't have to worry about contaminating it.
I try to stick with the clean hand / dirty hand as much as possible. The clean hand is my primary hand (ie, the one that holds the knife), and the dirty hand holds the food while I'm cutting. It also means that I have a clean hand should the phone ring.
Mixing ahead of time has another benefit: the mix is more even (sprinkling each part individually could leave you with a salty area and a spicy area). For mixes of dry ingredients, you can save time by mixing a jar full and tipping out what you need into a pinch bowl each time you cook.
As far as salt goes, it was used as a food preservative for 100's of years. Cellular organisms that are transferred from the cooks hand to the salt bowl die quickly. There is an osmotic affect where the cell and the salt dish want to be at the same salinity level. The cell will then let all of its water out trying to dilute the salt. It dehydrates and dies.
With that said most of the cooks are just following cue cards and will throw out all remaining items at the end of show. They don't even set up the ingredients. They may check it over after initial setup but they usually have staff that have to do that.
In addition to toxins, you may have food particles which allow bacteria to grow for a period of time (before the salt has time to dry out the food particle entirely).
Also this doesn't apply at all to things besides salt. (I know the question this answer was originally posted on did focus on salt, but it also mentioned pepper, so I don't think this was ever a really comprehensive answer.)
A high salt environment kills EVERYTHING that lives. including bacteria and germs.
Surely "germs" covers bacteria (already mentioned) and viruses (not living, and not killed by salt)?
If it kills everything id be more worried about touching the salt.
Well it does. Try drinking sea water. Or a bottle of soy sauce. Compared to bacteria you are fairly big. Need a bit more than a pinch of salt to kill you. The problem with this answer isn't that it's wrong. It's that it doesn't tell you how to use this information in relation to the questions problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.257568
| 2016-05-25T03:00:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69230",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Brooke Gritch",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Cos Callis",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ray",
"Stephie",
"Steve Jessop",
"candied_orange",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"marsh",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115191
|
Why does KitchenAid recommend against using the Dough Hook on Speed 1?
KitchenAid's manual for the stand mixer contains several warnings not to use the dough hook on any speed other than 2. While lots of websites explain how high speeds can overheat the dough, what can go wrong at low speeds?
My own KitchenAid mixer manual doesn't mention such a restriction. I checked several others, and they all seem to have the same statement: "Do not exceed Speed 2 when preparing yeast doughs as this may cause damage to the stand mixer." I can find no references saying not to use speed 1 with the dough hook.
@barbecue Interesting! This is the KSM45-KSM200 Series manual from 2017.
Page two includes the sentence you quoted and then, a bit below, "Do not use Speed 1 to mix or knead yeast doughs."
Page 13 contains the additional warning "Use Speed 2 to mix or knead yeast doughs. Use of any other speed creates high potential for unit failure."
I suspect there's something specific to your model, as most of the manuals I've looked at don't include this warning. Also, it's interesting that yours specifically mentions speed 1, because most KitchenAid mixers don't have a mark for speed 1, they have Stir, then 2. Maybe' it's specific to the tilt-style mixers? Or do you have a 220 volt model perhaps?
My manual (for the 5K45SS, I think anyway I don't remember getting the bigger bowl model) says the same. Under the different speed settings it says never use Stir (1) for dough and under mixing dough it says only to use 2 for dough. Edit: I got it about 10 years ago too, so it's definitely not a new thing.
A KitchenAid mixer does not have adjustable gearing; at low speeds it’s being run at low power. If run at low power with a viscous, resistant load like bread dough it can end up stalling, either continuously or repeatedly during the knead. This can overheat the motor and reduce its lifetime.
And a stalled electric motor doesn't know it is stalled, and will continue pumping power into the motor and burn it out. It's not like a car where a stalled motor shuts it off.
@Nelson Nitpick - it depends on the kind of motor and electronics. Some types (esp. those used in cars) do know when they are being blocked/overloaded and can reduce or shut off power accordingly. But that's not relevant to the kitchen aid of course. The competing product thermomix is claimed to be electronically protected against overload, so it is possible (but expensive).
@Erlkoenig Or, alternatively, how it’s mechanically connected to the load. I don’t know of any stand mixers that do this, but I have seen other devices that either use a automatic clutch or an auto-shifting multi-speed gearbox (or both) to provide some degree of stall protection to the motor.
The Ankarsrum also has digital overload protection (and is also quite expensive — though it will last longer).
The other alternative would be something like the Hobart N50, which does have adjustable gearing, so actually delivers more torque at low speed. Though for the price of a Hobart, you could just buy several KitchenAids and treat them as disposable.
Not insufficient power, but insufficient torque to deform the dough is what stalls the mixer. Power is torque times rotational speed. If there were a low gear, the motor could be run with reduced power (by reducing its torque), and then the gear would turn this into a sufficient torque on the hook at a reduced speed. My point is that even with adjustable gearing, low speeds would be run at lower power, and this would be fine as long as the torque is sufficient.
On the other hand if you add some of the water, or a very runny starter, after you've already got dough (perhaps you've autolysed or started the ferment and add the salt with water later) higher speeds flick water out of the bowl. These doughs tend not to resist the hook much, so it's not a problem to use lower speed. A bit of judgement is needed.
I know: Install a flywheel! Connect it with a CVT. Now when the hook won't move, it will dump energy into the flywheel until the flywheel reaches capacity and discharges excess kinetic energy into the environment.
Simple, the motor of this mixer, when using the dough hook, will be overloaded at any other setting but 2. (They are not concerned about the temperature of your dough)
Bottom line, this machine is underpowered for this job.
"This machine is underpowered for this job" ... if you define the "job" as "using a dough hook at power setting 1", then I guess this is true. I'm pretty sure this odd statement at the end of your answer is why you're collecting down-votes.
This is a stand mixer not a blender.
@user253751 It doesn't seem like the OP wants to use their dough hook on any speed other than 2...they just want to know why it is that they shouldn't use any speed other than 2.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.258290
| 2021-04-09T22:18:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115191",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Chris H",
"Deleted",
"Erlkoenig",
"Mike",
"Nelson",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sneftel",
"adaliabooks",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93342",
"hunter",
"nanoman",
"user3067860"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115254
|
bread dough always too sticky
I have two recipes for bread; one is Julia Child's Sandwich bread and the other is honey wheat bread using the recipe on the back of the King Arthur wheat flour bag (can't find the recipe online for some reason).
I've made both breads twice and I have the same problem: the dough is always too sticky. When mixing the ingredients together, it looks like dough but almost like a batter (if that makes sense). But as soon as I try to knead it, it becomes super sticky, getting stuck on my hands and work surface the more I try to work with it. So I ended up adding A LOT of flour to get it manageable, sometimes almost double what the recipe calls for. And even then, it starts to stick to me so I add more flour. The last time I made the breads, I used a stand mixer and after 4 minutes the dough was becoming more batter-like and drooping from the dough hook, so I ended up kneading it by hand (and adding a lot of flour).
Yes my bread always ends up a crumbled mess when I try to cut it and I know I shouldn't be adding so much flour but I don't understand why my dough is so liquidy that I have to add more flour.
I have done a few different things. Like using less water at the start and sifting the flour before using it, and I even made it at different times of the year (summer vs winter in south-central US), and the dough is always too liquidy.
Someone told me I should wait awhile for the flour to absorb the water before I start kneading it (by hand or in a stand mixer) but I'm worried that would affect the yeast.
I'm also a novice baker (I guess you could call bread making baking?) but I run into wet dough issues all the time, and I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas what I'm doing wrong (aside from adding way too much flour for kneading).
For reference, I always do the scoop and level method and use the same measuring cup for measuring water.
Edit: thank you all for the tips and suggestions! I've never used an actual cookbook or used any books for cooking, just online and occasionally videos. So I will definitely look into getting a book for properly making bread especially.
If you're measuring everything in cups you'll never have the same amounts of water and flour twice. Use a scale, it'll be easier to reproduce the same recipe again and again.
Does your dough look like the pictures in the recipe?
they only start looking like the pictures after I add a lot of flour to the dough.
If you are making bread containing whole-wheat flour, it will be more sticky than dough with just white flour. Also that some stickiness isn't bad necessarily it is a sign that the flour and water are combining. Only add enough extra flour to stop sticking for the immediate kneading, then add some more when it starts to get sticky again. This will usually be approx a tablespoon (15 g or 1/2 oz) each time. Get to know the feel of when the dough is ready, not based on wetness.
Like the highest voted answer suggests, merely following a recipe may work, but you’ll get the best results and enjoy yourself more if you research more about how bread works. Beard On Bread is a great book for understanding bread. It’s not like cakes or cookies, it’s literally alive (until you bake it) and there are lots of things that help it grow and mature. In addition to studying and following advice, I’d suggest taking your time and experimenting. Make smaller batches, let the dough sit overnight in the fridge, etc. Really get to know it. Don’t just try to make it quickly.
After it looks like the pictures because you’ve added a lot of flour, do you also knead it a lot? Do you let it rise twice? The pictures of the dough that is ready show that it has an almost shiny, smooth surface. It should have a kind of skin on it that doesn’t stick. It should also be very springy; it should start to fight back when you knead it. If your arms are getting really tired then you’re probably kneading it enough. Kneading helps form long chains of gluten, which give the bread a better texture and help prevent crumbling. Also maybe try a batch with zero fat in it.
The answer that rumstcho gave is perfect, but I want to add to that. You've got a relatively high hydration dough, so it is normal to have a wet dough. And wet doughs require a different method of kneading, like a folding method or the "slap" method. So, I think this is the primary problem. And the second likely issue is the flour, high protein flour can handle more water, and is generally better for high hydration doughs. Ultimately, the idea is that you can't add double the amount of flour to such a recipe, otherwise you are changing the recipe.
The biggest and most important secret ingredient in bread is time. You can't rush bread. Assuming you measured correctly, wait. Don't knead until at least half an hour after mixing. An hour is better.
Go on YouTube and watch some of the pro series specifically made for this, it will be a million times more useful than reading a bunch of words here, (no offense). One of the first things you will learn is never use a recipe without weights and never measure flour with a cup
There are many potential causes, it is impossible to say which one (or maybe multiple ones) is the problem in your case.
Wrong measuring. The only way to exclude that for sure is to start baking by weight.
Wrong flour. You mention that you are in the southern US, I have some vague memory reading that they use bread terms a bit differently. Look at your flour package and make sure that it lists at least 9.5% protein. But if you want to have it easier, I suggest making it with bread flour (11-12% protein). Also, these recipes are made for standard wheat flour, don't do any substitutions.
novelty. Maybe you are simply not accustomed to working with doughs on the wetter side. Especially if an elderly relative taught you to make stiffer doughs by hand, they may have told you to do it without measuring and just add flour until it stops being sticky. Many bread recipes are made with doughs that are sticky during work. If you want to start using them, you will have to get accustomed to them. If not, just disregard any recipe above 70 or 75% hydration.
wrong kneading process. Maybe you are kneading for too little time, or not resting properly.
I am uncertain how to interpret your descriptions, and whether it is predominantly the novelty factor or a problem with the dough. "super sticky, getting stuck on my hands and work surface" - for the Julia Child recipe, this is not super sticky, it is normal for dough with 83% hydration and some butter to stick during initial mixing. "batter-like and drooping from the dough hook" - if it was a ball that was slowly drooping from the hook of a turned-off mixer, then it wasn't batter like. Or did you mean that it was dripping from the hook?
In any case, it seems that you are not getting the results you want, and your attempts at troubleshooting are not helping. So, I would suggest to stop using shorthand recipes from random sites, and learn making bread from a book that describes the whole process of making the dough, proofing it and baking it, as well as containing proven recipes and info on proper troubleshooting. Once you have gathered this initial knowledge, you can start hunting for additional recipes again.
In addition to a book, there are many videos on YouTube or wherever so you can see the process and how sticky or workable the dough will be.
@EricG Yes, videos can be a very useful supplement. I strongly recommend beginning with a book, and only then gradually adding other sources such as videos: a book suited for beginners will cover the things the needed breadth of the skill, and present the material in a logical, properly ordered and non-redundant way. Videos tend to focus on one small thing only. One needs background knowledge in order to find the right videos and to understand them in context. Starting with them is also possible, just less efficient and more error-prone. The right visuals can be invaluable though.
If I recall correctly, it can also be important to use fresh flour to ensure the flour hasn’t absorbed moisture while sitting in the store or pantry. Also I think the asker should try letting the dough sit and even rise before the first round of kneading as they have been advised.
Letting the flour absorb the water can mean a few things depending on the exact method, but it's usually good, and can be done before adding the yeast (and any other ingredients). That may help. The same dough can seem liquid and perfect with nothing in between except time (or firm and perfect, especially with lots of wholewheat flour).
I start in the stand mixer with a dough hook, mixing the flour and water until it just comes together, then wait half an hour before adding the rest of the ingredients and mixing further. If those ingredients are wet a further wait may help, but with that time delay for the gluten to develop the dough is sloppy, but it's still dough - it wouldn't pour like batter, you'd have to tear it.
I have hands that dough loves to stick to, and no longer handle bread dough with floured hands, instead using wet hands or a silicone spatula. My loaves tend be around the 75% hydration mark that rumtscho warns about, but this works for drier pizza dough too (at the kneading stage; I still flour my hands for shaping pizzas).
Personally I found that a very wet dough for pizza got me the results I was looking for, wetter than I would use for bread.
@ToddWilcox there are so many types of pizza and lots of room for personal preference. I make 2 these days: a sourdough that stretches thin and goes crispy, and one in the bread machine that's nice, a bit fluffy for my tastes, but my daughter loves it
Stop adding more flour, and give the dough time to do its thing
My Dad (a retired professional baker) always swears by the "Mix everything to a sloppy mess, then go do something else for 15 minutes" method.
Basically, you add all the ingredients, mix by hand if it's just about manageable, or with a spoon if it isn't, then leave it for 15-30 mins
Over that time, the flour soaks up the water, the gluten structure starts to form, the salt dissolves. This all helps it to get more managable, and is really what would be happening in the first 10 mins of kneeding
You then pick it all up again, and ideally kneed it just by stretching it through your hands - don't worry about it sticking, as it'll start to come away from your hands after the gluten structure fully develops. It does take time to get used to working with sticky doughs, but they produce nicer bread!
I'd disagree strongly with worrying about flour types, if the flour's fresh etc - I've made chibatta dough that is basically liquid, and it still turns into good bread. There's a time to worry about flour types, and it's after you're fine with working with the dough.
Flour type actually does make a difference. If you use bread flour in a recipe that calls for all-purpose flour, you can end up with a hard, rough ball that you can't knead. And alternatively, if you use a low-protein flour in a long fermented wet dough, you'll end up with a sloppy mess because it lacks shape and the necessary spring from shaping, especially if you aren't well experienced with wet doughs.
Also, I am not sure how autolyse will help here if the OP already has a uniformly wet dough. I usually let the dough autolyse when it feels like the dough still has some undissolved parts of flour, to let the enzymes do the work. But, the OP has a batter like dough, autolyse won't make that batter a stiff dough.
I'd be willing to bet it will make something workable - i.e, if I had a choice between pouring it into a tin and adding more flour, I'd probably advise a newbie baker to pour it into a tin and bake it. OP talks about it becoming super sticky when they try to work it, which I'd actually bet is the stage before it becomes workable, hence, let it sit.
And I aslo understand that flour type makes a difference - but I'd not advise someone starting out to worry about it too much - if you're making fairly standard loaves, using most types of flour with water, yeast, and salt will get you something tasty - but a dry dough gets you a rock, a wet dough will, at worst, get you a chibatta
Yeah, I feel like the OP isn't exposed to a lot of wet doughs and instantly associates it with failure. But, wet dough requires a different approach. You just can't knead wet dough the same way you do stiffer doughs, you'll end up with a sticky mess. But, if you do bake the wet dough when it has no shape, it won't be a good ciabatta, it'll be flat, the crust can also be very hard, and a whole list of other issues.
Yeah, that's all fair commentary - think I was keen to get OP to try it, because the odds are that what a new baker thinks of as "unmanageably wet" is probably something that would make a very nice loaf :p
You might try keeping your hands wet instead of dusting them with flour. I've used wet hands to fold extremely wet bread dough.
The main ingredient of Bread is TIME
...and good measuring
Good bread needs time. Time for the yeast to provide air. Good bread "goes" at times more than it is in the oven!
A good mix I have learned from a baker that gives a dough that isn't runny I found is working for most sorts of flour. It's simple:
one cube of fresh yeast
300 ml warm water.
1 tablespoon of sugar
Prepare this mix.
500 grams of flour
Add in the yeast mix
The 300 ml of water per 500 g of flour is essential here. Not more, not less. More water makes the dough too runny, too little makes it super hard to knead.
Now, you need to mix this vigorously with a dough hook. Mix till the resulting dough gets sticky between two fingers and no lumps of flour remain. Depending on the flour used, this can be earlier or later, but you will mix at least several minutes. It doesn't matter how the dough kneads at this stage. It just needs to be sticky and well mixed.
Now, Covering the yeasted flour up in a high bowl, put it into a warm spot. Like onto a heater or into the sun. Forget about your dough. Go away and just let the yeast have some 20 minutes or even an hour (or more) of alone time. The more, the more air it will make. And the less Gluten there will be. Some bread doughs require 8 hours in this stage to be perfect!
Once you go back to your dough, give it a proper beating and kneading. Use flour on your fingers and the surface you use for the kneading. Some flours will be stickier than others at this stage, or more or less runny. But they all are workable. If it's still too fluid, just knead in more flour via the surface.
Looking at the JC recipe, it is not a high-hydration dough meaning as it is only 65% water or so. As others have said, weigh the ingredients and use quality ingredients like King Arthur flour. Do not make substitutions at this stage. KAF Bakers hotline is also helpful and they know their recipes and ingredients. Use them.
I have made thousands of batches of bread dough, both at home and professionally.
Stickiness is all about hydration (the ratio of water to flour), with a bit of effect by way of fat content, but that is usually so low as to not be a noticeable reason. A good, basic bread dough does not have to be sticky. (Some, such as the best English muffin dough I have ever made, are very sticky and take practice to handle.)
If your dough is too sticky, using a measuring cup for the flour is not the problem. The problem people almost invariably run into when measuring flour by volume is not the water absorbed from the air, but from packing too much flour in. That would make your dough drier -- not stickier. If you lightly spoon the flour into a measuring cup and knife off the extra (with blade tilted in such a way that you are scraping the excess up and away, rather than pushing it down and into the cup), you will be fine.
The whole idea that weighing flour is somehow superior to measuring it by volume is questionable, at best. Apparently, people aren't considering that 454 grams (one pound) of "flour" kept in a somewhat humid environment has a higher water content than that kept in drier conditions. That means that you're getting less of the solids (including the proteins that make gluten) -- and added, unaccounted-for water -- per pound in high humidity.
When you measure by volume, gravity will cause inescapable packing of "wetter" flour, meaning that you're probably going to end up with very close to the intended amount of flour solids at any time of year -- but a little extra water, too. When it's humid and I'm making a batch of dough that normally calls for 10 1/2 ounces of water, I'll cut it down to 10 or maybe even 9 1/2 ounces.
I have used both mass and volume measurements with a high degree of consistent success. (Even intermixed -- pounds of flour with quarts of water...) Because of variables you cannot possibly measure exactly (such as the exact protein or water content in a particular batch of flour), don't sweat the details. What you need is a good starting point: good ingredients and a recipe that you know to be good. Once you have that, purposely use a little less flour than the recipe calls for, get it thoroughly mixed, then add flour a little at a time until you achieve the desired consistency.
Thoughts: If your bread is always a crumbled mess, that implies lack of gluten development. If you were forced to give up on developing the gluten through kneading and/or time, that could have affected it. Also, it could be because you added a lot of extra flour to the wet dough -- but did not add more fat. (It's fat that makes the bread moist.) Another thing is the yeast. If your yeast was good, about the only thing that will kill it is heat. Use water no hotter than 125° F to be on the safe side. Tepid (body temperature) water is fine. Much below that will only slow the first rise -- but will allow superior gluten and flavor development!
If you give me the exact measurements and ingredients (brand, type) that you used, I can probably tell you what went wrong. In any case, good luck. Homemade bread is one of the most sensuously satisfying things to come out of the kitchen. Just don't make and eat too much of it, as I have over the years. All those carbs are not good for your health.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.258750
| 2021-04-13T12:56:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115254",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Eric G",
"J...",
"Luciano",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Tori",
"bob1",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93410",
"lupe",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115353
|
Meat loses weight after some time
Context
My physic teacher told a story where he bought some beef, put them into
a vacuum (separated), measured their weight and put them into the freezer. Some days later he wanted to cook one of them but he couldn't see a difference between the beefs and his other meats. So he decided to weight them since he wrote their weight down before. Surprisingly none of them had one of the noted weights, he told that they were completely different. His biggest beef weighed about 1.300g but now it weigh less (I can't remember the number anymore).
What's your question?
What could be the reasons that the beefs lost their weights, although they were packed in a vacuum and put into a freezer?
This sounds like a homework problem.
No it isn't. He couldn't explain it himself so he told us this story and asked us if we knew why the reason. I'm interested into this "phenomenon" as well and I'll send him a link to this question if someone knows the answer.
Have you tried repeating the experiment, to see if it happens consistently? Maybe he made some mistake in his recordkeeping.
Well it wasn't an experiment. That happened during his normal day. So now, I haven't tried yet to repeat this "experiment".
What do you mean by "packed in a vacuum"? Were they in a sealed plastic bag?
OK, to state it more precisely: You think your teacher observed a counter-intuitive phenomenon. Before you can find an explanation for its cause, you should prove that the phenomenon exists, by recreating it in a well-documented experiment. There are lots of alternative explanations which do not require the meat to actually have lost weight.
If the outside of the bag was wet (such as if it were rinsed after sealing), that water will have evaporated. There may have been some small amount of outgassing from the plastic itself. Neither of those effects would amount to more than a few grams. If the reported difference was greater than that, the most likely explanation would be measurement/recording error.
Ok, so my teacher said that he also thinks that he probably measured both times differently. Anyway thanky you for your answer :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.260471
| 2021-04-21T09:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115353",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"TornaxO7",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93524",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115395
|
Reducing acidity in Northern Indian Cuisine (chana masala)
I have been buying various spice mixes to make Pakistani/North Indian food myself. My issue is that in dishes with yoghurt and/or tomatoes, the end result always winds up being too sour. It happens with my karahis and also, most annoyingly, with channa masala.
I have tried various kinds of yoghurts, including plain low-fat yoghurt but also a Turkish one I found which had 10% fat. The result didn't change much. So, I don't think the type of yoghurt I am using is the problem.
Other than the acidity these dishes turn out alright. Which steps can I take to reduce the acidity of my dishes?
Update
I am restricting this question to chana masalas since that's what I have played around with the most. However, I am open for more general answers as well.
I usually put about half the amount of onion as tomatoes. Other than that, I usually follow the recipe on the box. The one I am currently using is this one.
You may need to post your recipes. I've never known karahi or channa masala to use yoghurt [which I always thought was itself acidic] This reinforces what I've always considered a 'real' karahi - https://fatimacooks.net/lamb-mutton-karahi-recipe/
Are you using fresh tomatoes, tinned tomatoes, or tomato puree?
@MarkWildon Hi, I am using fresh tomatoes.
@Tetsujin Well, the karahi spice mix I am currently using is "White Karahi" by National. I guess maybe I should try a different one. However, I think I will restrict this question to chana since that's the recipe I have experimented the most with; I tried several different mixes, and their recipes vary but the end result is always a bit too acidic.
ahhh… white karahi is an entirely different thing. "Regular' karahi is tomato-based, white avoids the tomato entirely in favour of cream & yoghurt. You might still have to post an 'average recipe' for your channa masala. I'd only be using perhaps one med/large tomato to 2 cans of chickpeas [if I use cans, which I don't always]. Frying it down first with your onion & bhogar should kill any acidity in it. I've still never had a channa masala with yogurt in;)
@Tetsujin Well, I have added a link to the mix with ingredients that I am currently using. What do you mean by bhogar?
A bhogar is 'spices fried in oil' at the start of the process, then other ingredients, onions etc fried, then water added to cook. The alternative method is bhuna, which is spices boiled with onions & oil, reduced until dry, then allowed to fry before continuing with the rest of the recipe. The pour-over spiced oil on your box recipe is a tarka or tadka. They all produce different flavour profiles. Bhuna is the 'softest' but requires a lot of patience to boil down, tarka the 'freshest/most aggressive' flavour.
Maybe your spice-mix has too much amchoor in it for your taste. Check the ingredients. If you cook this kind of food often enough, grinding and combining your own spices will taste much better. You will be able to adjust to your own taste, and add the spices at the right time in the cooking process.
The questioner reports using fresh tomatoes. At least in my country, fresh tomatoes are always a disappointment: the common large varieties are not very sweet and because they are refrigerated, they have very little flavour. This is one possible reason why the curry comes out too acidic.
To bring out the sweet notes in tomatoes I suggest roasting them first. But it is easier to use high quality tinned tomatoes (for example Italian San Marzano tomatoes). Tomato puree will also significantly increase the sweetness.
Thank you! I think you may be onto something; Thinking about it, my mom always uses tomato puree, so I'll experiment with tinned tomatoes and tomato puree instead of fresh ones.
Perhaps you could try using a smaller kind of tomato, like cherry tomatoes.
These are usually much sweeter in my experience and in general have a lot more to offer in terms of taste, compared to large tomatoes.
A mixture of both would also work if you don't have enough small tomatos at hand, since the sweetness of the cherry tomatoes will counteract the acidity of the larger ones.
If smaller tomatoes aren't an option, I would also go for high quality canned ones, as other people have suggested.
You can play with the recipe by avoiding tomatoes and yogurt altogether. Many households here in India make dishes that way. If you want, you can thicken the gravy with a tablespoon of any kind of flour.
You can simply add a pinch of sugar in your sauce to balance the acidity. I always do that when I cook something with tomato sauce, it works like a charm!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.260814
| 2021-04-24T17:45:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115395",
"authors": [
"Avatrin",
"Mark Wildon",
"Robin Betts",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93560"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81478
|
Melted pot residue on solid plate cooker
My enamel pasta pot, which I've had for years, melted into my solid plate stove after I forgot the plate on. It smelled like burning plastic. I removed the pot and it was so hot that it charred my wooden chopping board. The stove plate was glowing red and after removing the pot there was a residue burnt into the solid plate of my cooker. I tried scraping it off but it had hardened and feels like plastic and looks like solid aluminium. How can I remove the melted parts from the solid plate?
Maybe just use it as is?
Try using a Dremel and sand the enamel off using finer & finer grits and a sanding wheel. If the hot plate isn't aluminum, you can try soaking it in a lye solution to see if it will dissolve the enamel. Lye dissolves aluminum.
This might not have a happy ending I am afraid. You might need to get a replacement part for the plate.
If it was a true enamel pot (and it sounded like one) rather than an aluminium pot with an anodized surface, that is a metal pot with an enamel coating, once it is heated to above the fusing temperature of the enamel (500C at least, likely much higher), the coating will melt. What you went through is the reverse of the process to apply the enamel.
Enamels are metal based compounds, ceramic or glass like once re-solidified. It tends to fuse with metal and glass with no defined boundary. Despite that it is typically brittle, it is going to be very difficult to get it off the stove, especially if it is a metal hot plate or a ceramic hob. Enamel is pretty unreactive. Anything that would dissolve it would likely first dissolve your cooker surface. It is also much harder than the cooker materials. Heating it back up to fusing temperature would only help enhance bonding of the enamel to the cooker.
Not a terribly helpful answer I am sorry to say. Hopefully, I am wrong and there is a more helpful suggestion from others.
Also, heating a hobplate element to such a punishing temperature can have weakened the insulation inside significantly, so even if you can remove the residue, the plate would remain unsafe to use - it could short out and catch fire, or suddenly fail, or shock you, or cause any water spilled on it at a later point to become live...
My brother once did a similar thing (30 years ago) when putting some water on to cook ramen and forgot it ... he turned off the stove, rather than trying to move it, but that meant that the pot fused to the electrical element underneath it. There was no saving the element or the pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.261199
| 2017-05-07T11:51:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81478",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81642
|
How to make ridge structure of crispy chicken
In food shop, we see many fold ridges on crispy chicken like this Picture:
While googling about the secret, I found most of them advised to put the chicken pieces in a bag after dipping it in the butter, then shake, dip and re shake. But in practical, this shaking process does not create ridges structure [Like in the above picture]. In many youtube videos, although at the beginning of the video, it is showing ridges picture, but after completion of the video, the chicken pieces do not cover with ridges. Some other advised to use corn flakes to make these ridge structure. But corn flakes are expensive.
My question is how to make these ridges without corn flakes? Is there any alternative or real video tutorial?
This question and answers may help you out - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5764/35357
In this picture, you can see the curled shape of cornflakes.
I believe this kind of coating is often the result of batter-coating the chicken, not dredging them in any kind of flour/cereal. Perhaps search for recipes that involve batters, as opposed to dredging in in different things?
In many places cornflakes are very cheap, I am assuming where you are they are expensive because they are imported. You aren't going to be able to get the ridged structure without something like cornflakes because it's the flakes themselves that give the breading that texture. You need to find something that you can afford, perhaps another cereal that is similar to cornflakes would work, it all depends on what you have in the stores. If you can find them Panko breadcrumbs would give you a nice texture, not the same as cornflakes but pretty good. Otherwise I suggest you go shopping and see what you can find.
would potato crisps or chips work? Those should be common and relatively cheap in most places
I tried potato chips, but it did not work. Chips absorbs water and become soft. So it would not create ridge structure.
are you frying or baking your chicken pieces? deep frying?
Japanese Karaage batter and tempura batter can create ridge effects without adding another solid crunchy bits like cornflakes. Possibilities?
It's not that difficult to make flakes out of starch, if taste is not your major concern, as you are going to season and fry them and not eat with milk.
All you need is flour of your choice and water.
Take a skillet and fill it evenly with flour, the thickness of cornflakes.
Sprinkle water over the flour, till the flour is just soaked with water. Do not create a dough, just let the water soak in.
Heat the pan so the water starts to evaporate.
Now carefully scramble the mixture like when you do scrambled eggs.
The way I achieve this texture is to place the chicken in a large bowl and pour evaporated milk over it - just enough to wet all of the pieces well. I mix the pieces around with my hands to make sure the chicken is coated well with the milk. Then I pour a generous amount of seasoned self-rising flour over the chicken and mix it around with my hands to ensure that all of the chicken is coated well. (You should end up with a thick, semi-moist coating on the chicken.)
At this point, if you want, you can add a little more evaporated milk and mix the chicken around in the flour again. (I don't usually do this as the first steps give me the texture I want, much like what you see in your picture.)
Before frying I remove the chicken from the bowl, lay the chicken pieces on a piece of foil or a dish, and let the coating set for ~15 minutes. (Longer time won't hurt.)
If you use any seasoning(s), be sure to season your chicken beforehand. I use the same seasoning(s) in the flour as I use on the chicken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.261442
| 2017-05-13T15:01:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81642",
"authors": [
"Abdullah Mamun-Ur- Rashid",
"Debbie M.",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57870",
"senschen",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81711
|
Expiration date for block cheese (mozzarella, Monterey Jack)
How long after the expiration date is block cheese (mozzarella, Monterey Jack) safe to eat IF it has been kept refrigerated AND has never been opened? They LOOK as fresh as the day I bought them, about 6 months ago.
Thank you.
Most, if not all, of the block cheeses I've seen have a 'sell by' date or a 'best by' date rather than an expiration date.
It is easy to see if mold is forming on block cheese. I have, many times over the years, simply excised moldy portions from blocks of cheese, rinsed the remainder with cold water and if it looked and smelled okay, tried a nibble. If I was satisfied that it still tasted good, I've gone right ahead and eaten it, with no ill effects.
Shredded cheese, on the other hand, can be difficult to evaluate. Usually, once shredded cheese starts to go bad, the whole bag picks up the smell and off flavor, rendering it garbage.
Of course, I am NOT recommending that anyone (including you) eat foods beyond their expiration dates and I would NOT risk anyone else' health with such gambles. I'm just sharing what seemingly silly, reckless behavior I've managed to get away with, unharmed. Your mileage may vary. Beware.
In the US, only infant formula are required to have an expiration date and selling an expired product is illegal. Other than that, everything is at the manufacturers' and sellers' discretion, method of determination (or arbitrarily), lingo (exp, best-before, sell-by, use-by, made-on, etc), have it or not, decision to sell or discard post such dates. Liability insurance cover may have a hand in this. Such dates are not always scientifically and statistically determined. https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm210073.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.261768
| 2017-05-16T07:41:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81711",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"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
}
|
82101
|
Why cooking times for rice are different in different locations
When I learned to cook rice in the New Orleans area, I used the following recipe:
In a big sauce pan measure 1 cup long grain rice to two cups room temperature water, salt to taste.
Bring to a boil, turn heat down to simmer, cover with lid for 30 minutes and rice is done. Never use a spoon in rice, only a fork. This is the way I was taught and it worked perfectly every time.
I moved to Indiana and tried the same method, same rice brand, same water, approximately the same type of stove. Now I have to use more water and less cook time, about 20 minutes total, instead of 30.
I know that Indiana is more than 700 feet above sea level, and parts of New Orleans are actually below sea level. But from what I have read, you ought to add to cook time when at a higher altitude, not subtract.
What causes this difference? Is it really due to altitude? Perhaps relative humidity? New Orleans has a very humid climate, Indiana is usually much drier. Today for example, I checked and Indianapolis has 39% relative humidity, and New Orleans – 90%.
Has anyone else heard of such a difference in cooking times? I would like to see if there is any kind of table giving cooking times based on local climatic differences. Please confine answers/comments to either experience or research.
Are people in Indiana just boiling rice ? (like pasta)
Are you using the same stove? If not, I'm guessing that your burner is hotter in Indiana... It's much more likely that it's the method that has changed, not the climate.
@Max I'm not sure how that matters? It's the OP who's having to alter their method, they're not generally asking about how to make rice in Indiana.
Humidity will affect the natural moisture content of the rice but not so significantly between the two places. Besides, New Orleans ought to need less time. Altitude is not enough (and wrong way round as you noted). 700ft would change boiling point by 1.2F or 0.7C, not a discernible difference. Are you using the same rice? Mineral contents of water or water pH is different? (although doubt if that is significant either)
Burner output will indeed change the time it takes to bring water to boil. Also, is the starting temperatures of the water the same in both places? Is the a chance that somehow your water in New Orleans is cooler than that in Indiana? Same type of stove?
For the 1 cup rice and 2 cups water you have, a 500W net output burner will take nearly 6 min to go from room temperature to boiling. A more efficient and more powerful burner giving a 2000W net output would do that in 1.4 min. That could well account for most of the difference. Add to that, perhaps a different pan (heavier one will take longer), you can easily get 10 min difference.
"Same water" - you brought New Orleans water with you for making rice? Or were you using bottled water or something like that?
@PoloHoleSet To answer your "question," I use the same bottled spring water from a large wholesale outlet.
@ user110084 Extreme thanks for the technical data! that gives me something to work with. btw, I have been using exactly the same pan.
@Vekzhivi - why the quotation marks around "question"?
Maybe it is sourced from different farms and different strain
Humidity and altitude both can have very large effects on cooking times and methods, especially with methods that are moisture-sensitive, like baking, braising, etc.
In your case, since the altitude difference is negligible, the rice is probably being affected by the ambient humidity; in Indiana, the rice is in a less humid climate and will thus be drier; it will require more water than rice which is stored in a naturally wetter climate like Louisiana. The difference in cook time could be either due to a difference in your stove's efficiency in heating the water, or possibly due to drier rice being more efficient at absorbing water, I'm not sure (and can't find any real references either way).
I live in a place which is high in altitude (around 4800 feet/1460 m) and very dry (it's classified as a desert), so I have to heavily adjust any recipe involving rice, baking, etc to use more moisture and often cook longer (boiling rice I usually add about 25% more water and it takes about 25% longer, sometimes more, than the instructions specify).
Generally, if you move from one climate or elevation to a very different one, you have to experiment a little to figure out how to adjust for your specific circumstances.
OP is looking for an explanation. Elevation change of the magnitude you described will have a significant impact: water boils at 95C or 203F. However, as OP pointed out, the shorter cooking time was in at a higher elevation, and a 700ft change is not noticeable.
I added a link to a similar discussion regarding the effects of ambient humidity on sushi rice.
Indiana is also on a giant limestone bed putting a lot of calcium in the water. It is possible the differences in water are making some differences in the chemistry. My first look though would be to look for stale rice causing an issue,
@technophile your answer gives me the technical side I was looking for, and thanks very much for the link!
A chance in pot can also have an effect. (width of the pot affecting how thick of a layer the rice is in, how well the lid fits affects moisture loss & evaporative cooling)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.261949
| 2017-05-30T18:33:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82101",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Max",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Vekzhivi",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"technophile",
"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
}
|
82014
|
Sealed package submerged in water in the fridge, still safe to eat?
In my fridge I had a sealed package of bacon and hotdogs in the bottom drawer, and the water of the fridge somehow got in there. The package was partially submerged in this water (1 inch of water). The reason why I think they might have gone bad is because something in water may not get as cold as if it wasn't. Is it safe to consume?
You've presumably got a self defrosting fridge. The drain hole is probably blocked.
I know the mantra here is "when in doubt, throw it out", and we know you are in doubt, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question...but, nevertheless:
The speculation, "something in water may not get as cold as if it wasn't" isn't true. Something in cold water will come to the same temperature as the water, just like it does in cold air, and probably faster than in air.
I don't quite get how that water got into the bottom drawer of your fridge, but if the water was at refrigerator temperature when it came into contact with the bacon and hot dog packages, and if they truly are sealed so that the meat isn't touching the water directly, then they shouldn't be harmed by having the outside of their packaging touched by cold water.
So true! Actually, water is great for conveying cold temps. Put a can of soda (or beer) in a tub of ice and one in a tub of ice and water and the one in the tub with water will chill faster.
Firm believer in when in doubt, throw it out, but in this case, I agree, nah. As long as it is just water and the packages were still well sealed, use em. If it was thin or showed sighs of leaking I might feel different. Think about going camping though. Ice + cooler = everything is always wet and I for one use the dry stuff first because the wet stuff I know is cold.
If packs of raw meat had leaked into the water I'd be more concerned about what else would be contaminated.
Except for something newly introduced into the fridge (or something that had been taken out of it for a while and put back in), anything that has been inside the fridge for half a day or longer should have the same temperature. Everything should reach "steady-state". (ok, most fridges are designed to have different zones with slightly different temperatures, but we can afford to ignore that for this question). As @LorelC pointed out, whether it was submerged or not really makes no difference.
The big question however is whether somehow the water had been warm at some point and raised the temperature of the contents of your drawer to an unsafe level and then before you had noticed anything awry, the fridge managed to chill everything back down to a normal safe temperature.
Without knowing how the water got there, what the source of that water was and whether that was was once at a much warmer unsafe temperature, it is impossible to say whether you food had been exposed to an unsafe temperature and for how long.
I have no idea how big your drawer is (half inch depth is only one of the three numbers needed to figure out how much water was there). Also, you have not said how much food is in the packet. I am assuming that you had a pound or half a kilo of meat, and your fridge is set to 3C or 37F. For your meat to reach 15C or 59F, very roughly speaking, you would need 2lbs of water at 15C/59F or 1lb of water at 30C/86F. For a 1 inch depth pool, your drawer needs to be something like 18"x24" to give you 1lb of water, or twice that size for 2lb of water. How likely are you going to have that much water going into the draw in one go at that range of temperatures? I would not rule it out completely since I know nothing about your case but I would say not very probable. For that reason, there is no need to delve into how much time it would take to warm your meat and then cool back down.
So, after thinking through what it would take to warm your meat to an unsafe temperature, unless something extraordinary had happened, your packet likely was not exposed.
All meat products that are closed packages should not be harmed and should be safe for consumption if kept at same temperature . If the packages had been opened you would then want to throw them out ! Had this experience myself with both closed and opened packages . Closed packages were fine and opened ones were tainted in flavor and smell !
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.262383
| 2017-05-26T22:49:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82014",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
}
|
82132
|
Is this the way to make good pies?
I'm working in a small bakery shop and my boss is new to the business and have no passion in baking at all. He only learned it from his dad few years ago and his dad learned from other people too.
I love baking but was told not to try anything different than what he's told me to do.
At the moment, the pies I make, the flaky crust on top keep lifting up after baked and don't know why.
Here is how i make the bottom crust pastry:
7kg of all purpose flour
3.5kg of butter (forgot the brand name and the butter is ok to leave outside at room temperature)
2.1L of water
Mix it for about 7 mins roughly until it combine together and sometimes it's quite stretchy after 7mins of mixing (is this normal?)
Here is how i make the top flaky crust pastry
6kg of all purpose flour
1.5kg of pastry gems
3L of water
Once it's all well mixed, add 2.2kg of pastry gem on top and mix it for 1 mins just to roughly combine.
So normally I would just mold all the bottom crust into the pie trays and leave it at room temperature then add the filling then cover it with flaky top pastry that usually keep in the fridge for about 1 or 2 hours. I also notice that the top pastry need to be refrigerated for at least 2 or 3 hours before use, otherwise it is hard to cover the pie tray.
After I cover all the pies with flaky pastry top, brush with eggs then usually my boss leaving the tray at room temperature for about 10mins as he would turn the oven on after I have made all the pies.
My question is, are these the right way to make good crust pies and why is the top flaky crust keep lifting up after baked?
"mix" how exactly ... this is known crucial in pies...?
Man, that's going to be some tough pastry. Absolutely working the hell out of it, way too much gluten development. Sounds terrible.
Oh everything is machine use. Like flattening and mixing all machine use. @mrwienerdog: Do you mean the recipes use little water? Apparently now my boss had told me to change the recipe for bottom crust. He told me to add 2L water, 5kg flour, 2.5kg cake margarine. He also told me to mix it for 13mins. After 13mins, the dough is very stretchy, more like donut's dough. Is this the right type of dough for bottom crust?
What I'm saying is that when you make a pie dough, the last thing you want to do is work the mix too much. When you mechanically mix (and I mean mechanically as in by hand or by machine) flour and a liquid, the proteins in the flour develop the gluten. The more you mix, the stronger the gluten gets, which causes the dough to be tough. Exactly what you want with bread (the gluten needs to be well formed to trap the co2 dispelled by the yeast - leavening). However, in cakes and pastries, this is the enemy. I wouldn't use an AP flour for cakes or pastry. Too high of protein.
My question is, are these the right way to make good crust pies
You're doing things at commercial scale and with commercial equipment and ingredients, so your method is going to be somewhat different right off the bat. As well, the owner's goal isn't necessarily to make the very best tasting crust that he can. Rather, his goal is to run a profitable business, and that means making a crust that's sufficiently appealing to customers that he can sell it, and to do so as cheaply and efficiently as possible.
There's not enough info here to know whether you're just using regular old salted butter or something that's more shelf-stable. A bakery probably goes through huge amounts of butter, so maybe it's delivered every few days, and it's not unreasonable for butter to be kept at cool room temperature for a few days, especially in large blocks that have relatively little surface area.
Home bakers generally use as little water as they can to make pastry crust, and they'd mix it as little as possible and let it rest in the refrigerator to hydrate. The goal is to get the dough to hold together while forming as little gluten as possible, so that the crust is tender and flaky. Your recipe definitely contains much more water and calls for much more mixing than home recipes. It may be that more gluten is helpful to make a dough that works reliably with the machines you use to form the bottom and top crusts. Home bakers generally wouldn't have access to "pastry gems," which I'd guess are preformed lumps of shortening that give the top crust the desired flakiness.
You really have to be the judge of whether the crust seems good to you: how does it taste? Is it tender and flaky? Also, is it good considering the owner's goals: do customers like it, does it work reliably, and can you make money selling your pies?
and why is the top flaky crust keep lifting up after baked?
It's probably due to steam building up inside the pie, and possibly even within the crust itself. Do you dock (poke tiny holes in) the bottom crust before adding the filling? Do you cut one or more vents in the top crust before baking? If not, steam is very likely the culprit.
I have tried to poke holes on the bottom crust before put the filling in and for some reason, the puff pastry on top still split from the bottom crust. I have also tried to poke a small hole on the corner of the pies (don't want to make it too obvious as the boss doesn't like me playing around with his pies lol).
Docking (poking holes in) the bottom crust just helps to let the steam out of the crust itself, so that the bottom doesn't lift up. Might not really be important since you're filling the pie before baking and the weight of the filling should hold the bottom crust in place. The top crust needs some way to vent the steam that'll come mostly from the hot filling. But if your boss doesn't want holes in the crust and doesn't mind the lifted crust, don't put holes in the pies. They're his pies, right? When you bake your own pies at home, put a vent in the top crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.262727
| 2017-06-01T19:39:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82132",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58297",
"mrwienerdog",
"rackandboneman",
"user222452"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64797
|
How much calcium propionate should I use as a bread preservative?
Love to bake homemade whole wheat bread, but after a few days it becomes moldy. No refrigerator, nor freezer available. I understand that calcium propionate is a safe preservative, but don't have any idea what amount to use. If my bread has four cups of whole wheat flour, how much calcium propionate should I use?
Most sources recommend 0.1% or so, but not more than than 0.5%. Try to use only enough to achieve the preservative results you desire.
In other words, for 1000g of flour, start with 1g of calcium propionate. If that works good for you, then stop there. If you still think it's spoiling too soon, then next time try 2g of calcium propionate for 1000g of flour.
Adding more calcium propionate may or may mot make it last any longer, so don't use more than needed — and never more than 5g for 1000 of flour.
Why never? The way you've highlighted that seems to quite dire, would be good to have an explanation.
@BJury Simply stated: the references I found listed a beneficial range of 0.1% to 0.5%. Doing the math, that yields a maximum of 5g for 1000 of flour. If one wishes to limit the amount of artificial additives in their food, this seems like a practical limit, considering there's no research suggesting adding more calcium propionate would achieve superior results in any fashion.
ElmerCat has it mostly right -- 0.1% to 0.5% of the flour weight. Why such a wide range? Because the need depends on factors other than the recipe. No matter the recipe or environment, when fully baked bread comes out of the oven, it is mold-free. Mold simply won't survive the baking process. It's what comes later that introduces mold to the bread -- either through handling or exposure to mold in the environment (which could be air, smallwares, knives, cutting boards, containers (bags or breadboxes)... It's all around us. So, the unseen and unknown amount of mold exposure determines how much calcium propionate you'll need. For most situations, it'll likely be from 0.2% to 0.3%.
The calcium propionate powder that I recently bought weighs, on my scale and using my measuring spoon, at a shade over 0.625 grams for a quarter (1/4) of a teaspoon. (Your results may vary. I recommend checking your weights first, if you have a milligram-capable scale. If not, 1/4 teaspoon of calcium propionate isn't likely to give much mass, in any event, and such small amounts are unlikely to have a detrimental effect either on your health or the quality of the bread.) Using that much per pound of flour works out to 0.625g/454g, or 0.138% of the flour weight. That is where I'll start. I have some dough rising right now. (For what it's worth, I whisked the powder into the flour before water was added. I would imagine that it could be dissolved in water, instead, for sure-fire even distribution, but that's extra work and the amount of mixing and kneading of the dough should suffice, in my mind.) That batch should make eleven or twelve English muffins. Usually, I'll freeze about half the batch to prevent spoilage; this time, I'll keep them all in the pantry and see how well they last. (Tip: I've taken to adding lecithin to my bread doughs to keep the final product moist longer. It works well -- but should also provide a more favorable environment for mold growth. I think this will make for a good test of the effectiveness of the amount of calcium propionate that I use.)
I hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.263294
| 2015-12-26T04:20:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64797",
"authors": [
"BJury",
"Bashir. Tanwri",
"Bill Diamant",
"Christianne Thillen",
"Delores Stanghellini",
"ElmerCat",
"Jacob Matthews",
"Sandra Lytle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79342",
"rachel mevs"
],
"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
}
|
82208
|
Cleaning my cast iron from exploded battery and plastic
I am a baker and just moved houses. I used my cast iron to hold my electronic scale, which is made of plastic and had batteries in it, and without checking put the whole container into the oven at 450. I realized my mistake not soon enough, and while the plastic was not molten, the batteries had certainly exploded by the time I took everything out. Uh oh.
How could I clean battery acid/plastic off my cast iron to make sure its safe to eat from?
If these were off brand batteries, treat any residue as if it contained mercury.
Lots of of abrasives. Electrolytes from the batteries won't soak into the iron, and lithium is not soluble in solid iron if they happened to be lithium batteries. If you can get all the plastic completely removed, the chemicals from the battery are water soluble so it will just wash off.
EDIT:
Depending on your battery type, you might want to dispose of the pan. If alkaline batteries were used, be aware that the electrolytes from the battery are caustic. They can cause tissue damage(topical burns), which should be treated with soap and water.
Either way, cleaning the pan could be dangerous, and you might consider throwing it out completely, because of the precautions you'd need to take. However the pan should not have suffered any corrosion from the battery, metal is non reactive with a base, and there is no compound in a alkaline battery that is reactive with metals. You can confirm this via the MSDS for most batteries. KOH is the only chemical that is corrosive, but its not corrosive to iron. In fact KOH is commonly used to clean cast iron, because it will corrode everything but the iron.
Lithium wouldn't be the issue here - and there are a lot of different electrolytes and additives around, some corrosive enough to create their own kind of porosity - I wouldn't trust a cast iron surface that had that kind of stuff on it unless I could polish it down to smooth, bare metal.
@rackandboneman Inclined to agree with you on that, adsorption risk if nothing else
There is no chemical in an alkaline battery that would be corrosive to iron, in fact the battery housing is steel for exactly this reason. Being that it is steel to resist corrosion via outside sources such as water, and added durability. So it would not corrode iron, even if heated.
Unless you had a lead acid battery in there, but I've never heard of anyone putting a car battery in a kitchen scale. But that's just me
Further more these consumer batteries(alkaline) were create specifically with the purpose of being able to dispose of the electrolytes without special treatment. Lithium and rechargable batteries would be an issue, and likely not with corrosion, but heating either of those can be problematic because mercury vapor is the leading cause of mercury poisoning and both those battery types contain mercury and other dangerous metals(lithium, lead, cadmium).
So lithium and other toxic metals would 100% be the concern here, unless the batteries are rechargable lithium, or lead acid. Both unlikely.
@rackandboneman I would back that claim up with, say an MSDS. Because according to the MSDS provided in my answer you are wrong.
@tsturzl All the scales I have owned to date have CR type button batteries. Do these have non-rechargeable Li chemistry? Can't help wondering if a long hot citric bath after removing all the plastic might be the way to play safe.
Mine takes 2 AAs. Those contain lithium in several toxic varieties that I would advise not touching whatsoever.
CR button battery MSDS
Wrong about what? About lithium contamination being a problem? Ah, I was unclear ... I was assuming there's stuff EVEN WORSE and especially more penetration capable than the lithium ...
@rackandboneman That there are harmful additives in batteries, alkaline batteries contents are pretty straight forward, per the MSDS provided in my answer this is the same for all brands I could find. Lithium, mercury, and lead are the most harmful things contained in most batteries, none of these found in typical alkaline batteries. As far as lithium batteries lithium salt is incredibly dangerous, though none of these things will "penetrate" iron, hence why battery housings are hermetically sealed steal containers.
Furthermore these are no materials in NiHM, Lithium, or alkaline batteries that would corrode iron. The only battery that would do this would be one typically found in your car(lead acid battery). Even then, KOH isn't toxic in its own, but its very caustic. In fact KOH, as previously state is often used to clean cast iron because it will not effect the metal.
KOH along with zinc or magnesium oxide form the electrolytes in just about all common house hold batteries. Still haven't found these mystery additives that you speak of on any MSDS. It would be illegal to not list any substances that are toxic, corrosive, caustic, irritants, or otherwise questionable in terms of safety and cleanup of the material.
Please back your statements with facts, not suspicions.
@tsturzl yes, but are batteries as supplied along inexpensive scales usually by the brands that will even publish a datasheet? I'd be wary of a situation like it is with cheap CFLs - even if the design is made to work with a very minimal amount of mercury, someone in the manufacturing chain might think putting in excess mercury is cheaper than measuring it precisely...
Batteries are required to supply a datasheet in the united states in order to be sold.
I would run it through a long cycle in a self-cleaning oven. This will take it down to the bare metal. (If it doesn't, do it again.). You will, of course, have to completely re-season your pan from scratch.
DO NOT do this if you're batteries contain mercury, lithium, or acids. This could create very harmful vapors.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.263603
| 2017-06-05T23:14:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82208",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"rackandboneman",
"tsturzl",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81379
|
Why do some say my fried chicken tastes like peanut butter?
When I cook fried chicken, my friends sometimes claim it tastes like peanut butter--especially after it sits for a while after cooking. Why?
I know I'm not the only one who has encountered this phenomenon because this Burger King commercial features a man who was quoted saying the BK chicken sandwich tastes like peanut butter after he microwaved it.
Fried in peanut oil?
A roux, which is flour and fat cooked together to thicken soups or sauces, can have a nutty aroma while cooking. Fried chicken is usually floured, and cooked in fat. So, I suppose there could be some correlation there. I can’t imagine the peanut butter flavor being that strong, though. Interesting phenomenon.
@moscafj Best comment ever
Not fried in peanut oil. When the chickens cooked. Bonless tenders. Its a Simple marinated in butter milk and breade in flour and pepper chicken when uts cooked it tastes fine but when it sits for a bit it gets to tasting like peanut butter.
I'd be tempted to ask whether the guy in the commercial has cleaned his microwave recently, and whether he uses peanut oil or (more likely) eats a lot of Chinese food. However, that doesn't answer the question about your own fried chicken; the formation of nutty aromas in a roux might explain it, especially if you aren't frying it completely, and the crust remains moist instead of crisp and dry.
I like to eat some Asian food for the sole reason it's made with peanut oil. So it's taste like peanut butter but have different texture.
In the case of BK I would say that it's more of a metaphor because people from USA love their peanut butter and it's taste.
Anyway. If you make your chicken without peanut oil or spices that resemble in taste peanut butter maybe it's the chicken itself?
I've bought a few times chickens that was feed with fish flour. And guess what - they tasted like fish (not the best thing in the world). Chickens feed with corn have yellowish color and have a cornflakes taste.
So maybe chickens that have been feed with something peanuty?
I've linked the relevant commercial in an edit to the question. It doesn't appear to be a metaphor. They quote a tweet that seems to unfavorably compare the chicken to peanut butter.
Maybe that why people always say things "taste like chicken"?
@PrestonFitzgerald It seems the accusation was that microwaved BK tasted like peanut butter. So probably reheating the whole thing bring the taste to similar to PB.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.264058
| 2017-05-02T21:19:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81379",
"authors": [
"Preston",
"R. Richards",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Shotgun Ninja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58381",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"tsturzl",
"user57430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81621
|
Peanut oil with maybe some residue of raw egg
I poured too much oil into the measuring cup, so I poured some back into the bottle. However, the measuring cup was used for eggs before measuring the oil. I rinsed it from the eggs but didn't wash it properly with soap, just water. Did I contaminate the whole bottle of oil, or is it safe to use? I put the bottle of oil in the fridge after that and the color and texture changed
oil in the fridge will solidify; as for the eggs, I don't know.
More specifics about "color and texture changed" would be helpful here
Oil with an unexpected pocket of watery liquid in it could become unsafe in another, more treacherous way - a drop of water in oil that is being heated from cold tends to very, very abruptly leave once its boiling point is reached....
If you heat the oil to around 95C, any egg residue should solidify and the oil should be sterilised at the temperature. You can then strain the oil and decant off any aqueous phase. If you want a more certain clearing, make a small amount of brine say 5% salt by weight, pour it into the oil, shake it up, let it settle and separate out, decant the oil phase and heat it to 95C and strain.
addendum: there is a somewhat related method here
Only if you can rely on all the water separating and/or your heating never going above a 100°C ;)
Very much so @rackandboneman. My experience is that there is always tiny droplets of water suspended in the oil. So, the first time you heat the oil after a water wash, you always get some spattering.
I'm sorry to say but I would tend to lean towards cross contamination...
Raw egg being the poultry produce it is, is certainly a vector for potential salmonella contamination and, well, I would simply not risk cooking with it, especially since oil tends to last much longer than a few days for me.
I know good quality oils can be quite expensive, but I would toss it, simply because a bottle of peanut oil is not worth potential salmonella in my opinion.
The color and consistency change is probably due to refrigeration, but, yeah, rinsing the measuring cup was probably not enough for mixing it back in.
@user110084's answer is legitimate, but I simply wouldn't risk it. If I can avoid cross-contamination I will. Perhaps this oil could be used as frying oil though instead of being wasted, and like he said, heat it up before preserving it for future use in order to kill off bacteria
To be honest @Louis, if it happened to me and it is peanut oil and not litres and litres of it, I would not want the risk or the hassle.
Indeed. If it's a small amount... I think I would just toss.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.264295
| 2017-05-12T15:20:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81621",
"authors": [
"Louis",
"Max",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57652",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19157
|
Bread for the very beginner
First of all, thank you for reading this absolute beginner topic :)
I want to make bread at home. To be specific, I used to live in Germany and ate a lot of this type of bread:
It's called Zwiebelbrot in Germany.
I also have something like this.
For the very very, absolute beginner, what do I really need to make bread at home?
Do I need a bread-maker machine, or is my kitchen already enough for this task?
Are there any tip that you want to give me on my first bread adventure?
RESULT:
First of all, gather all types of stuff from (mamas) kitchen :D
Mix everything youghly, drop an egg on it
In a pan, easily fry some onions
After that, mix everything together, add the onions:
After that, knead everything WILDLY (notice the blur on my head:) :
The final result should look something like:
SUMMARY:
My FIRST try ever to make bread, I'm so proud:)
After that, the raw product was:
The finished product:)
and the grande finale:)
Thank you very much :)
Note that if you haven't worked with dough yet, you should probably start easy, a standard white bread at 60% hydration if you are kneading with mixer and 50% if you are kneading by hand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_percentage) After you have made that, you can start with zwiebelbrot (recipes for it go to up to 100% hydration, and it is hard to work with such dough).
Good job! :---)
@HerrKaleun: If we ever get a Cooking.SE blog, I think you've just written the first article. Congratulations on your first bread!
To make basic bread, including Zwiebelbrot, all you need is a place to mix and knead ingredients (clean work surface or large mixing bowl), a warmish place for rising, and an oven with reasonable temperature control.
For the onions you need a small pan, and a stove top. Or you can do them in the oven too!
Therefore, your kitchen looks fine.
Making bread is not difficult, or hard work. The effort and time required for kneading bread is way overrated. Also have patience, allow the dough to rise properly.
Expect a few failures; search the net about any failures, if you have them.
Use a marker pen on the oven dial when you find the right temperature (The calibration of the dials is usually not very accurate).
For Zwiebelbrot, you can cook the onions in a shallow tray or light pan in the oven while waiting for it to come up to temperature for the bread. Make sure you cool the onions before spreading on the dough. A simple way is to spread them out on a spare metal oven tray for a few moments first.
Wow thank you:) will any recipe do the trick? How "long" should such a venture take approximately? THANK YOU!:)
Try a few, see which works best. They should all be much the same. A local recipe from your grandmother etc. often works well. It should take 20 minutes (not including rising and cooking) when you are good. Take your time to learn
You don't really even need a warm-ish place for rising, it'll rise just fine at room temperature (even if that room is 65°F), it'll just take longer. Keep the dough covered (with oil-misted plastic wrap, for example) to prevent it from drying out.
In terms of equipment the one thing you may not have is a dough scraper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dough_scraper
I recommend one of the really cheap flexible plastic ones. These are good for the first stages of mixing the dough, scraping dough out of the bowl and partitioning the dough if you want to make rolls.
Other than this, a large bowl, a flat surface and a kitchen scale (weigh ALL ingredients) are all that you need.
Most recipes should work. I also recommend using this method for kneading dough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvdtUR-XTG0&feature=related
You don't have to knead as long as in the video to get a decent result. It's cleaner than the more typical method of using the heel of your hand and you don't have to add excessive amounts of flour which makes it easy to get a good result every time.
Once you have the basics down, variations are pretty easy.
Don't forget to cover your bread when it rises.
You can do this with a towel, this prevents the bread from drying out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.264536
| 2011-11-26T22:26:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19157",
"authors": [
"08915bfe02",
"Herr",
"LiamM",
"Mathieu Rodic",
"Mien",
"Sten",
"TFD",
"Thraka",
"Unni",
"William Cummings",
"david",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7976",
"mausumi razzak roni",
"rumtscho",
"user41664",
"wahwahwah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67321
|
Is freezing browned meat the best option
I've previously browned chicken in the pan before freezing it for use at a later date but recently a thought has occurred to me to prepare it 'white', freeze and then brown it when using it defrosted later. Is this a better approach and can it be done with other meats just as well?
To clarify, nothing is especially wrong with the chicken I prepare just now using the above method but if anyone else has experience with similar, have you noticed a better flavor from browning after thawing rather than before?
Why are you browning it first? What purpose is it supposed to serve? I've never heard of anyone doing this in the past.
It is often beneficial to sear frozen meat (steaks for example), prior to sous vide cooking. This limits the potential for overcooking in a low-temp scenario. One could sear and freeze...nothing wrong from a health perspective, ...but, as Catija mentions, what's the point?
in re-reading...when you say "prepare it white" do you mean completely cook the chicken, freeze, later thaw, then brown?
@moscafj yes, that's what I mean
I would think that cooking before freezing would make the worry of freezer burn worse. I don't know this is the case but freezer burn seems like a loss of moisture and cooking usually causes loss of moisture so cooked foods would logically seem to be more prone to freezer damage.
My instincts tell me that this is going to ruin the texture of the meat. Think tough like shoe leather. If you're going to try this--especially on a lean protein--I would urge you to heavily brine the meat before par cooking.
We can provide a more useful answer if you explain what you mean by "better". What is disappointing you with your current approach, or what are your concerns? What are you trying to achieve by changing your method? Why have you been doing this in the first place, and what is your end goal?
This all depends on your cooking and storing procedures. Here is a scenario where it would work, with a chicken breast as an example: Bring home your fresh, unfrozen chicken breast, give it a one minute or less sear in a very hot pan, package in vacuum bag with or without herbs or seasonings (but no salt), cook sous vide, chill, freeze. When ready to use, remove from freezer and reheat in water bath, remove from bag, sear for crust formation, final seasoning...hey presto! Dinner.
Here are the issues I see:
You brown for flavor and texture. Texture is lost if you don't brown right before serving.
Freezer burn is always a risk, but can be mitigated by the removal of air from packaging, thus vacuum packaging.
All freezers go through freeze thaw cycles, texture degradation is also likely, whether this happens more readily with cooked vs raw food, I do not know.
The flavor will likely not be aided through this process, so I assume you are suggesting it for convenience.
You'll have to decide for yourself, but it could be worth it (weighing the quality pros and cons) to cook a lot of proteins when you have time and re-therm later when you want to eat. It depends on your own workflow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.264926
| 2016-03-11T10:10:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67321",
"authors": [
"Baded Polon",
"Catija",
"HandsomeGorilla",
"Kenneth Hester",
"Linda Newman",
"Matt Small",
"Rinabel Pennell",
"Scott Downey",
"Susie Keeling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44085",
"logophobe",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67323
|
What is the relation between mixing the dough and the final result?
I often see recipes that just ask to mix the ingredients until you get an homogeneous mix. Others ask to mix the ingredients to exhaustion.
What happens to the though while I mix it? Does that really make a difference? What should I expect, as final result (after cooking) from a dough that was only mixed to the point it gets homogeneous from one that I mix hard for a long time?
I am mostly talking about bread and cake dough. But I was wondering if there is a general rule so I know what to expect.
This question is very broad, and not very clear. What kinds of recipes are you talking about?
Two words: gluten formation.
Just a heads up: Cake is usually made from batter which will be way more slack than dough, which is what we'd make breads out of. When we talk about mixing batter until homogeneous, we mean mix until the mixture is smooth, with no discernible lumps.
Hi nsn, if your question is not a duplicate, please edit it to point out the difference. To me, it seems to be asking the exactly same thing.
@rumtscho I actually saw that question. I would like an answer a bit more general and agnostic to the type of dough. I am really interested in know the general concept and chemistry and result from just mix it to mix it hard.
Agnostic to the type of dough would be way too broad to be answered. If I hadn't noticed the duplicate, I would have asked you to focus more on a specific dough. You are seeing this in the answers here and there already: they talk about one small aspect of it all (gluten), and the desired amount of gluten is different for different doughs and batters. And the interaction with other ingredients can't even be mentioned because these ingredients have different roles in different types of dough, and are not present in all of them anyway. It's a matter for a book, or at least a book chapter.
Okay, so I presume that we're talking about recipes containing wheat flour and you're putting together a dough (or batter) for a bake or maybe even a pasta.
In general, mixing wheat flour with water results in the production of gluten. Gluten is pretty tough stuff; it's essentially what gives a finished wheat product its chew and contributes greatly to its overall structure. The more you mix (or knead), the tougher the resulting dough and finished product.
Why would that be good either in a cake or bread? doesnt that make the final result "heavier" ?
Well, 'good' is a relative term when we're talking about the final product. It depends largely on what you're baking. I think what you mean when you say 'heavier' is 'denser'--the finished bake will have many tiny air bubbles that are much more closely spaced together, and with quite a bit of bite to them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.265221
| 2016-03-11T13:26:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67323",
"authors": [
"Danielle Watters",
"Doug Tracy",
"GdD",
"HandsomeGorilla",
"Kasee",
"Paula Lashley",
"Sadie Wills",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"margaret moonie",
"nsn",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115524
|
Converting bread recipes for an overnight rise?
I often find myself with an urge to bake things in the evening, but without enough hungry mouths left to justify actually producing anything substantial by the time the recipe is done.
As such, it'd be handy to have some guidelines for how to modify a recipe so that I can do part of the preparation in the evening, leave the dough to rise overnight (either at room temperature or in the fridge), and continue with the recipe the next morning.
Things I imagine might come into play:
A conversion from counter rise times to fridge rise times - does 90 minutes at room temperature correspond to a certain duration at 40F? Is the risk of over-proofing more or less, if I sleep in and miss my target?
Reducing the amount of yeast in a recipe by some fraction, so that it doesn't rise as quickly (but what fraction?)
Specific features of a recipe that make it an especially good or bad idea to try this kind of modification - certain ingredients, cooking temperatures, whatever.
Any advice along these lines would be appreciated! Interested in guidelines for both bread and other yeast-based doughs (rolls, buns, pizzas, etc.).
I found a lot of almost-duplicates, maybe we should have closed. If the community thinks this should have happened, feel free to cast your close votes, me having answered shouldn't influence your decision. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17784/, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32420, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63999, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44363, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13948, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14184
Thanks for the links! I did find some of these threads while searching, but most of them seemed to deal with specific individual recipes, or were requesting existing recipes that use an overnight rise, so it seemed like this question was treading somewhat new ground - apologies if it's too close in spirit to existing material!
There are no strict formulas or conversions, the mathematics of bread baking are too complex for such predictions.
Rising at room temperature overnight is not recommended, it is generally way too warm in our homes.
The thing you can do is to take any recipe you have, and stick it in the fridge as-is, either for the first or for the second proofing. It should generally turn out OK overnight, but if it tends to overproof or underproof, you will have to adjust the amount of yeast in the future. You have to find this out by trial and error. In the morning, you will have to give the dough time to warm up back to room temperature before continuing to work with it.
There aren't that many things to be said about ingredients. Doughs with very high amounts of butter will tend to change their handling with refrigeration and are more demanding about the temperature at which you shape them.
If you have a basement accessible (and clean enough for open food storage), that can provide a nice middle ground between fridge and regular out-in-the-open temperatures. But in the end, it just boils down to trying
Interesting. When I make bread, I have regularly let mine rise overnight on the counter and I've never had a problem.
This is a supplementary answer.
There are apps for calculating the ingredients for overnight rise. For example, I use PizzApp which has yeast ratios for long rises, either at room temp or refrigerated. Sometimes this means adding 0.5g of yeast to a recipe, but it works. There are similar apps for bread making, but I haven't used one so I can't recommend any.
This is not strictly an answer but I though I would add this (I have no problem removing this answer if it is too off topic).
One thing I do when baking bread is combining equal amounts of flour and yeast to make a kind of pancake batter that can rise overnight and then I incorporate the rest of the flourer in the morning. One needs to lower the amount of yeast, the recipe I have followed suggests 1 gram of fresh yeast per kg of flour, but I've done maybe 1 gram of yeast to 300 grams to 500 grams, which has turned out fine (It doesn't really matter if the batter has over-proofed). The point is that after you incorporate the rest of the flour and kneed you get a nice and flavourful dough, which needs to rise only for a couple of hours, 2~3.
I think you can apply this method for most bread recipes, I tried it with pizza dough and it worked fine. BTW, according to book I follow (in Swedish unfortunately) this is the method used for making baguette and making this kind of batter is apparently a technique from Poland.
Best of luck with the baking! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.265588
| 2021-05-04T05:13:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115524",
"authors": [
"Hobbamok",
"Michael Mior",
"RavenclawPrefect",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93724",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115783
|
What got salisbury steak its name?
I love salisbury steak, ever since I first tried it in Wendy's, but now I want to know exactly why it is named the salisbury steak.
What's the reason it's called a salisbury steak?
Origin: Wikipedia
James Salisbury was an American physician and chemist known for his advocacy of a meat-centered diet to promote health, and the term Salisbury steak for a ground beef patty served as an entree has been used in the United States since 1897. Today, Salisbury steak is usually served with a gravy similar in texture to brown sauce, along with various side dishes. It is a common item in supermarket frozen food sections.
Dr. Salisbury recommended this recipe (somewhat different from modern Salisbury steak recipes) for the treatment of alimentation:
Eat the muscle pulp of lean beef made into cakes and broiled. This pulp should be as free as possible from connective or glue tissue, fat and cartilage...previous to chopping, the fat, bones, tendons and fasciae should all be cut away, and the lean muscle cut up in pieces an inch or two square. Steaks cut through the centre of the round are the richest and best for this purpose. Beef should be procured from well fatted animals that are from four to six years old.
The pulp should not be pressed too firmly together before broiling, or it will taste livery. Simply press it sufficiently to hold it together. Make the cakes from half an inch to an inch thick. Broil slowly and moderately well over a fire free from blaze and smoke. When cooked, put it on a hot plate and season to taste with butter, pepper, salt; also use either Worcestershire or Halford sauce, mustard, horseradish or lemon juice on the meat if desired. Celery may be moderately used as a relish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.265949
| 2021-05-24T01:13:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115783",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115896
|
Does preheating a pan before sautéing aromatics make a difference?
Many recipes call for things like garlic and spices to be sautéed first before combining other ingredients into a pan. I have always preheated the oil in the pan first to get a good “sear”, but is it possible to achieve similar, or at least serviceable, results from starting the aromatics in a room temperature pan and oil?
I would consider doing this only for the added time flexibility. A slower start could allow me time to focus on a more intensive task elsewhere, without the risk of overheating the oil.
Not an answer to your question, but you can preheat pan+oil slowly on a low flame while chopping ingredients with minimal risk of overheating. Then it comes up to working heat much more quickly when you're ready. This is for domestic stoves - commercial ones I've used don't adjust as low but preheat faster anyway
I'd say you specifically do not want to sear those. Sometimes you want to sear, sometimes you do not. Also, there's a huge difference between starting with a "somewhat hot" pan versus a "very hot" pan, and as you say the third option is a cold pan. All three are really different.
I prefer to cook aromatics starting from a cold pan/oil, whenever possible. Starting with a cold pan makes it easier to avoid singeing the ingredients. (You really don't want a "sear" in most cases. Garlic, for example, becomes bitter and horrible when over-browned.)
Cooking food starting with a hot pan is important in other situations for two reasons:
To get a higher temperature differential, and thoroughly cook the outside without overcooking the inside (the "sear" you mentioned). Not really relevant for finely chopped aromatics.
To prevent food from sticking to the pan. In situations where you're sweating aromatics, they're generally suspended in the oil, and in any case they lack the starches/proteins that would tend to stick, so this isn't really a problem.
you mean "thoroughly cook the INSIDE without overcooking the OUTSIDE"?
@curious_cat No. If that’s all you need, a low temperature will work fine.
@curious_cat: Think of a steak: browned (or even with grill marks) on the outside, still pink on the inside. Ideally with as thin a layer as possible of "overcooked" meat between the flavourful crust created by searing, and the medium-rare inside. You achieve this by searing in a very hot pan, and then turning down the heat or moving to an oven to finish the steak and let heat conduct into the middle to get it sufficiently cooked inside without too much overheating of the parts near the surface.
@PeterCordes Fundamentally I don't understand how physics would let you "cook" an inside ever more than the outside? Unless you used microwave heating. Conduction would always be outside in right? So the concern about "overcooking" should always be for the outside rather than the inside right? Assuming it is a uniform block of meat.
@curious_cat It's not a matter of trying to make the inside hotter than the outside; it's the opposite. The surface of a steak needs to be around 150 degrees in order to brown properly. But the inside will be overcooked (by anyone's standards!) if it gets above 70 degrees. Using a hot pan lets you get a high-temperature outside without getting a high-temperature inside.
(Those are temperatures in Celsius, BTW.)
Is this a case of taking the phrasing overly literal? Lots of people like their steaks rare, overcooking the inside would simply be cooking it until the inside is no longer pink. If you were to literally burn the inside the outside would have already turned into a charcoal briquette
@Sneftel: That explains it. Interesting that the situation with steaks is reversed. Typically with other cooking situations one is worried about how to get the core to a high enough temperature without overexposing the surface.
It depends heavily on what you're cooking.
For Indian or central Asian styles of cooking, for example, the spices get tempered in the hot oil first, and the oil absolutely needs to be heated first. The aromatics (ginger, garlic) go in after the hard spices (ie: cumin seed, mustard seed, cinnamon stick, star anise, bay leaf, dry chilli, etc), which only take about 10-20 seconds. Tempering just doesn't really work that well if you throw everything in and bring the heat up slowly.
The hard spices have some water content, but you don't want it to all ooze out slowly between 100C and 200C because that water is what prevents the spices from burning. For things like mustard seed you also need the moisture to heat up quickly so that the seeds pop. They should hit the 200C oil with all their moisture intact so that they fizz up quickly - the waning of which really helps with timing when to throw in the wet aromatics to crash the temperature and halt the temper (before things burn).
Southeast asian cooking generally starts with aromatics first (ginger, garlic, scallion), and that's usually done with cold oil added to a hot pan with aromatics following a few seconds later, just as the oil begins to smoke. Adding cold oil to a hot pan also helps prevent sticking, which is nice if you cook on steel. This style of cooking is often fast and very high heat, so you want to get it done quickly before things lose their crisp and colour. You can start with cold oil in a cold pan here, but it makes timing more difficult unless you're cooking through paper-thin steel over 100kBTU. With water in the aromatics the oil never really gets hot enough for that scalding hot initial-contact. Not at least until you've reduced the aromatics to pan stickings.
Really, it's not hard to try it both ways and see what you like. Other styles of cooking will have different needs that may be more or less amenable to a slack approach with the oil temperature.
For sweating aromatics, I find no disadvantage with tossing everything in a cold pan and slowly heating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.266122
| 2021-06-01T02:49:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115896",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Fattie",
"GammaGames",
"Peter Cordes",
"Sneftel",
"curious_cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81904
|
Adjusting Cooking For Smaller Portions
I am going to University in the fall. I love to cook and bake but since I will be myself, I cannot cook the regular portions I had before. Is there a way that I can figure out the correct cooking time and temp for a recipe that I have halved? I use many kinds of meat and veggies in most any kind of cooking style (crockpot, stove, oven, etc.).
If you will have access to a freezer, consider making your dishes the usual size and freezing the leftovers in portions suitable for one or two meals. then when you don't have time to cook a full meal you can simply defrost and reheat a portion made previously. I find this a great solution for baked goods especially, since it lets me have just the one cookie at a time.
@Senschen if that was an answer I'd vote for it. I did the same at uni (or fridge and use in a few days) and still do 20 years later . Works very well for most meat+veg in sauce dishes
It is difficult to offer a general answer applicable to all recipes and all cooking methods.
In almost all situation, there is no need to change temperature (I cannot think of any exceptions off the top of my head, but I am sure others will think of a few).
The most obvious effect portion size has on cooking time is the time needed to take the food from starting temperatures (say from freezer or fridge or room temperature) to cooking temperatures. Once the food is reaches cooking temperature and if there is a need to cook it further by holding it at that temperature for a certain amount of time (for example a casserole has holding time requirement, but a piece of steak does not), this time should not change regardless of portion size.
For the same stove or oven and at the same setting, half the amount of food by weight will take half the energy to raise it to cooking temperature, a linear relationship. However, the transfer of heat into the food is strongly influenced by the shape of the food, surface area and thickness. This affects the time it takes to raise the food's temperature. This is where "it depends" matters. If you are comparing a small chicken to a large chicken, then size difference is usually accompanied by change in surface area and thickness. A 1kg chicken will take more than twice the time than a 0.5kg chicken. However, if you are cooking one piece of chicken breast instead of two pieces of the same, the heating time will be halved.
If you are making two trays of pasta bake, then cooking just one of the two trays will take half the heating time and unchanged holding time. However, if you are going from one big tray to one small tray with half the quantity, the change in geometry (thickness and surface area) will mean that heating time change is no longer a straight forward linear decrease.
In practice, doing a heat calculation will only give you a very rough idea so that you know where to aim, but you will need to test it and get an empirical relationship.
Edit: There is one more caveat. Imagine frying a piece of chicken breast in an open pan. You will likely find that adding another piece (or more) does not change cooking time noticeably. They probably all cook to the same doneness in the same duration. That happens because with a single piece, especially in a large pan, there is considerable "wasted heat". Your stove is likely putting out far more heat than there is food too cook most of the time and you end up heating up of kitchen air.
I don't know that it relates to this question but when I make mini cupcakes instead of cakes, I lower the oven temperature to 325 F.
I can see how that may be useful. Heat transfer rate is dictated by three main factors, temp difference between the food and oven air, food surface area and thickness. So, lower temperature would give you a bit more control by slowing things down, particularly during the heating period. Assuming that you have 1lb of cake and 1lb of mini cupakes also, the difference in surface area and thickness is enormous. So heat transfer rate is also drastically different. Often times, baked goods never actually reach the oven set temp in the centre.
Another suggestion that may solve the underlying issue (making too much for one person): If you will have access to a freezer, you can make your dishes the usual size and freeze the leftovers in portions suitable for one or two meals. Then when you don't have the time or inclination to cook a full meal (which will happen often at Uni!) you can simply defrost and reheat a portion made previously.
I used to make large portions of something --often in a crockpot-- and freeze the leftovers in individual bags or plastic containers. I still find the "make a whole batch and freeze extras" method a great solution for baked goods especially, since it lets me have just the one cookie without having to make and bake an entire batch every time.
There is a very useful book for helping you learn to scale recipes,
Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind the Craft of Everyday Cooking.
It breaks down various recipe 'types' and teaches how you might tweak a recipe to scale it up or down. In addition to helping you with the present question it will further your general skills in the kitchen.
The crock pot should be forgiving enough that after the same amount of time it will be good (assuming you don't start counting the time from cold ingredients; I always get it hot to start with after browning meat/veg and adding hot stock). If it comes out a little overdone the first time you can knock a little time off. You may find that on high it browns a bit more on top if there's less in there (this isn't normal browning, it's too cool).
Similarly cooking on top of the stove often calls for "bring to the boil then simmer for x minutes". The first part will be quicker, the second unchanged. Other dishes are cooked until they look done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.266841
| 2017-05-22T23:03:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81904",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"senschen",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82164
|
Are eggs left in car trunk for 3 days safe to eat?
I had purchased eggs at the supermarket and i forgot them in the trunk of my car for for 3 days are they still okay to eat?
It is not just the number of days but what sort of temperatures they are exposed to.
What country are you in? This question is unanswerable without that information.
Would you risk getting sick for ~ $4. It's not like you left a tin of Beluga caviar in the trunk for 3 days. Toss them!
In Europe, eggs are always stored out of the fridge and last there for weeks, so I'd say yes they are safe.
There is a potentially significant difference between a kitchen counter top and the trunk of a car. For example, particularly in the summertime, a car trunk can get exceedingly hot. Are you sure you have enough information to answer this question confidently?
European eggs are not washed to remove their natural protective film and sold at room temperature. If your eggs have been washed and refrigerated, they should be kept in the fridge.
Read below for a better international answer and why European habits don't carry over to the US.
As long as the temperature there was not above, say, 21 degrees Celsius. Eggs can be stored at room temperature, though I still like to put mine in the refrigerator.
They are probably OK as long as they didn't get too hot, but you should test them before eating. Here's how:
Fill a bowl with cold water and place an egg inside.
If it sinks to the bottom, it's good.
If it sinks but stands on its point, it's good, but won't be good for much longer and should be used soon.
If it floats, toss it.
As far as refrigerating eggs in the U.S. vs. European room temperature storage:
"In some European countries, egg-laying hens are vaccinated against salmonella. In the U.S., vaccination is not required, but eggs must be washed and refrigerated from farm to store, and producers must follow a host of other safety measures."
Why The U.S. Chills Its Eggs And Most Of The World Doesn't — September 11, 2014, Rae Ellen Bichell, NPR Eating And Health
Also, commercially produced American eggs are washed with soap and hot, steamy water after collecting which removes a thin protective layer from the shell, which can effect shelf life at room temp. As long as you use the water bowl test, you're good to go.
I always thought the float test was just for determining age of the eggs. If that's the case, then this won't help.
Density test will unlikely reflect the main risks from pathogens.
Test eggs by submerging them in water. If they float, they are bad and filled with gasses. If they remain on bottom, they're fine. Dry and refrigerate.
The density test only tells you how much water has been lost through the shell, which gives you an idea of the age. It doesn't tell you anything about pathogens.
@mrog Well, these guys and these say, if anything, the egg can still be good even after failing the float test and to just go by smell. Did you have odorless early-onset pathogens people should worry about?
@lly "Foods contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms usually do not look bad, taste bad, or smell bad." Source: https://food.unl.edu/food-poisoning-foodborne-illness If an egg smells bad, don't eat it. If it smells okay, but it's been stored in questionable conditions, don't eat it. You can smell the result of decomposition, but you can't smell things like salmonella, which love to grow in warm conditions.
Even if the egg was filled with pathogens, as long as the eggs are cooked completely (meaning no runny yellow or white) then they would still be safe to eat. CDC website states that cooking eggs this way sufficiently renders any and all salmonella that may be in the egg completely harmless. Hotdogs and cold cut meats are also prone to these types of pathogens and most people don’t worry about them. I still advise my pregnant patients to heat hotdogs and cold cuts to steaming in the microwave for safety. You can always wave your plate of cold cuts in front of the freezer right after to cook them back down if you’re craving a cold - cold cut sandwich.
But back to the eggs, I understand not wanting to waste food by tossing it but if despite using the egg sink/ float method AND cooking it sufficiently to kill bacteria. If you’re still worried, then just buy a new dozen. It sucks to waste money and food but what truly matters at the end of the day is your own comfort level and peace of mind (if you can’t find peace with eating the eggs after doing the above). But a new dozen and move on. I know this post is old but I found it and wanted to chime in since people are still checking this post for answers.
Killing off bacteria is not sufficient to make a food safe to consume if it's gone off. The bacteria produce toxins that are what make you sick, and those are not killed off unless you heat the food until it turns to charcoal.
And egg pathogens are not limited to salmonella.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.267319
| 2017-06-04T12:13:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82164",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Jędrek Kostecki",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57440",
"lly",
"moscafj",
"mrog",
"senschen",
"user110084",
"user141592"
],
"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
}
|
82354
|
Cooking sirloin steaks with Anova sous vide gave me leather tough steaks
I'm new to the Anova sous vide machine and have successfully cooked tenderloin steaks beautifully with the device.
The other day I saw nice thick sirloin steaks in the supermarket which I then cooked at the same temperature as the tenderloins but for 15 minutes more (This was all using the temperature and time guide in the Anova app so from 45 mins for tenderloin to 60 minutes for strip as there are only guides for porterhouse/ribeye/stri/tenderloin)
The one thing I did differently is I forgot to season the tenderloins before I sealed the bag.
Seasoned before I seared and sat down to enjoy my tender juicy steak and it was like eating a piece of leather. As in it was totally uneatable. The temperature was spot on but the chewiness was horrible.
One bag did end up getting pushed around in the pot and was touching the Anova for most of the sous vide time but boh turned out the same.
Any helpful advice on why the steaks turned out so tough?
Thanks in advance!
what did they recommend for temperature? And did the guide take thickness into consideration? You might want to read http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Effects_of_Heat_on_Meat
It would be helpful to know what the recommended temperature was.
If you think of tenderness on a scale, sirloin and tenderloin are nearly on opposite ends of the scale. Sirloin, in general is not a tender cut of meat. Your result has little to do with seasoning or location in the water bath...or even cooking method. Sirloin is a lean and tough cut. Often sous vide can be used to make tough cuts of meat more tender, but sirloin doesn't really have the collagen or connective tissue that will break down like, say, a short rib. If you like the tenderness of a tenderloin, you will never match it with a sirloin. Don't blame your circulator, it is akin to blaming your stove when things don't go well there.
I agree with this, with US sirloin. In the rest of the english speaking world the sirloin is a very different cut, much more tender.
I had two identical experiences in the last month with grass-fed and followed up with a trusted butcher (he did not supply the chewy meat).
Aging of the sirloin was to blame in my case. There was no hint of how long the beef was aged in either case, only sell-by dates. I did have a chance to ask one of them and it turned out to be about two weeks by the time it reaches the counter, and the ones from the trusted butcher were at least twice that. I am not sure if that is the only reason.
15min extra sous-vide time should not make much of a difference for a sirloin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.267750
| 2017-06-12T23:50:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82354",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"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
}
|
81683
|
What is 1/4 ст кукурузного крахмала in english?
I'm trying to make a green tea tart but the recipe is in Russian. Google keeps translating it to '1/4 v cornstarch ' but I have no idea what measurement 'v' would be?
This may be better suited to https://russian.stackexchange.com/.
If you post the recipe, we might be able to give you an idea of how much cornstarch to use, in units we know.
Possibly related: What is the American measurement equivalent of 3см.л in Russian. Seems to be tablespoons...
Think tablespoon also. столовая ложка is a tablespoon.
1/4 стакана кукурузного крахмала, 1/4 cup (literally "glass") of corn starch
See this: Exactly how much is “one glass”, in Russian recipes?
It is not a tablespoon, this would mean that 1) they missed an important part of the abbreviation (it should have been ст. л.) and 2) they are directing you to use 2.5 grams of starch. This is a tiny amount which has few possible uses in a tart. Also, since Russians don't use the Imperial system, they don't have measuring spoons graded in "1/4 tablespoon", so if it were tablespoons, the recipe would require the baker to visually judge when his eating spoon is 1/4 full. It is not impossible, but very rare.
My guess is that they mean "стакан", which translates to "glass" - the one of which you drink, not the material as such. So you need to use a quarter of a drinking glass, which falls in a much more reasonable range. Of course, there is the problem of finding out exactly how much to use.
Russia does not use the Imperial system, so all volumetric measurements are done with whatever actual crockery you have lying around the house. You can see more discussion in this question. Your choices are:
Use the size of the glass sold by the Soviet manufacturing plants years ago, but a green tea tart recipe is unlikely to have existed in Soviet times.
Interpret it as 1/4 cup. Some translations use "cup", but I suspect that the people who translate them are not aware that this is a standardized unit of measurement as opposed to the physical item. But if you suspect that the recipe has been translated to Russian from a Western source, this becomes a very good bet.
Third, you can wing it, since it is a very inexact measurement anyway, and use anything that falls in the range (from 150 to 300 ml per glass), that's 25 to 50 g for your 1/4 ст. Then you have to adjust your recipe by trial and error.
Lastly, you can look at the role of starch in the recipe and calibrate it using standard ratios. Here you will also see if it is not some other measurement (tablespoons) after all!
If you say now "this is too complicated, I only wanted the right amount to use" - sorry, the recipe just doesn't say it. Most people who think that measuring in glasses is simple just don't realize that it is an unreliable measurement.
Oh good so I guessed right, thank god! Thank you so much, this was extremely helpful!!
OK, so I am now curious. What amount of starch did you use, and how did your tart turn out?
It turned out great! I used a 1/4 cup of cornstarch, it was nice and smooth. I've made pastry cream before so based on previous recipes I guessed that 1/4 cup would be ok.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.268008
| 2017-05-15T04:04:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81683",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Mars B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57908",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho",
"user110084",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82150
|
Too much Rosemary
I put too much Rosemary spice in a pureed vegetable soup. Ingredients were onions, peppers, celery, ,cauliflower, vegetable broth, tamari and Rosemary and coconut milk. The Rosemary is too strong. How can I save it?
The problem is it's a pureed soup -- if you had caught this before, I'd have considered draining the liquid and freezing it in small amounts to use similar @user110084 suggested, but more as a flavor enhancement for soups or sauces. (and then either serve the vegetables as a side, or add some corrected broth to it to make it back to a soup). It's also worth mentioning that rosemary is one of the few herbs that you don't assume 1tsp dried is equiv to 1TB fresh -- it's closer to 1:1.
And depending on the consistency ... you might try tweaking it to be a sauce over pasta or rice ... or cook some potato and blend it with some of the soup and maybe some olive oil to make some flavorful mashed potatoes. (if you bake them, it'll absorb more liquid)
Is the problem bitterness (salt and sugar can sometimes mask it) or too strong aroma?
My condolences. You can try adding strong pungent flavors that work well with rosemary like pecorino Romano, but it would probably still be pretty unpleasant to eat.
Make a second soup with out rosemary and combine the two final products.
Or call it Rosemary Soup.
I was inspired by @StevenXavier's answer.
Instead of remaking the soup, however, consider doubling the broth and coconut milk, then adding equal parts dried sage, thyme, marjoram, and celery salt* to make it akin to a poultry seasoning. It might end up tasting a bit like stuffing/dressing, but could be salvageable. Salt and pepper to taste, of course.
*and maybe a bit of nutmeg, opinions on poultry seasoning vary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.268396
| 2017-06-03T15:09:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82150",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82016
|
Whipping cream that has been frozen won't whip
I have whipping cream that has been frozen; it is now separated and won't whip. Is there anything I can do to make it whip?
Possible duplicate of Can heavy cream be frozen?
Sorry, no.
Whipping cream that has been frozen is perfectly fine to use in many dishes, but it won't whip.
As far as I know, this is irreversible, so no, you can't make the cream "whipable". If you are very lucky, you will get it to a sort of semi-stiff stage, but nothing that would be suitable for cake decorating or similar.
Not part of your question, but possibly interesting for next time:
Whipped cream can be frozen, so if you have leftovers, you could pipe little tufts or similar, freze them and use them to decorate desserts.
There seem to be mixed experiences of whether or not frozen cream can be whipped: this discussion thread has voices on both sides. Note that those who say it can be whipped talk about possibly needing to re-emulsify it. If I were to try to whip frozen cream I would add some soy lecithin to try to help with the emulsification.
just add a bit of powdered sugar and whip as usual.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.268573
| 2017-05-27T00:23:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82016",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"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
}
|
82313
|
Sous vide bath cooled after reaching cooking temperature, still safe to eat?
I was doing boneless short ribs for 48 hrs at 140. I had to leave town suddenly and unexpectedly for a day and I added enough time via WIFI to continue to cook for an addition 16hrs.
My water level dropped below min while gone and the Sous Vide shut down before I was able to get home.
The temp of course started to drop. By the time I get home here in a few hours, the short ribs will have been in water that has been slowing cooling for 8hrs.Current temp 89.1
Is the meat unsafe to eat?
Thanks for the comments. It was two separate packages of approx 2lbs each. No pre sear. Container was covered in foil and wrapped in towels. It spent 48plus hours at 140. Inside house temp was probably 60. Im in Alaska. By the time i got home the water temp was 74.8. They had been cooling for approx 10hours. I will toss them. Bummer!
The danger zone is between 40 and 140 degrees F for 2 hours or more. The closer to the upper end of the scale, the less time you have. It doesn't matter how it was packaged or prepared. Your short ribs spent far too long at too low a temperature. I would not consider them safe.
So, does that not make common sous vide cooking between 130F and 140F for more than 2 hours automatically unsafe? And OP's meat was unsafe as cooked whether the mishap occurred or not?
Yes, food safety rules are older than the rise of sous vide. So it was unsafe from the beginning.
Understand rules part. How do/can restaurants and equipment manufacturers comply with them? So, it is not the cooling part that makes it unsafe, but the cooking part from the start which is worth stating lest anyone assume that it was just the accidental cooling.
Pasteurization follows a logarithmic formula. In other words, it is not only temperature specific, but temperature plus time that determines whether bacterial growth is limited, or eliminated. Perhaps my answer was too general. It sounds like, in the original question, that the poster's ribs were sitting in cooling water for many hours. There is no way to know if all of the bacteria were eliminated during the earlier cooking time. So, there would be opportunity for bacterial or spore growth as the water cooled. Restaurants using sous vide either cook and chill, or cook, finish and serve.
I think @moscafj is absolutely on target here. Pasteurization != Sterilization, or even ultra Pasteurization for that matter. While those ribs are definitely safe out of the bag when they've been at 140 for 48 hours, the temperatures just north of 89 degrees are what you'd use to incubate bacteria. There's just no way to know how much bacteria regrew in that period of time– it could be a whole lot.
As an aside, if anyone hasn't checked him out, Douglas Baldwin is a great resource for safe Pasteurization times/temps with sous vide cooking:
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.268694
| 2017-06-10T23:53:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82313",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"David Wrightson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82283
|
Does beating hot oil into eggs before cooking an omelette make a difference?
Usually, when I prepare an omelette, I pour oil in a cast iron pan and heat it.
In the meantime, I prepare the eggs and I beat them fluffy. When the oil is pretty hot, I pour it in the eggs while beating them and finally I cook it in the pan.
As long as I can remember, I've done that following my mom's example. I assumed that it makes a difference but today my wife asked me why I was doing that.
I couldn't find an answer other than "I always do like that".
I'd like to know if this process have any value on the end result. If so, I could give her a better answer. If not, I will change my habits.
What kind of oil are you adding? Are you adding it as a flavoring or to keep the eggs from sticking to the pan?
I am using olive oil. But I don't know what is the purpose of that. Hence the question :)
In that case see my answer to come
@A.D. how much oil are you putting into how many eggs? I have to try this out!
What you're describing sounds like tempering (adding hot liquid slowly so it doesn't end up curdling) ... but I don't know if you're adding enough for it really to be a significant difference. And the oil would affect how easily the proteins can link up ... so I would assume that you'd end up with more tender eggs.
@user110084 I don't know exactly. I eye-ball it every time, but I think it's about a table spoon.
Not tried or heard of this before. I can only arm-chair experiment in my head until I try this out. This seems to be an encapsulation/spherification method.
I can see a thin "shell" of cooked eggs coagulating around the hot oil droplets, trapping them and preventing separation. With many tiny beads of egg encased oil (effective oil buoyancy reduced) in suspension and thus more fats locked in the eggs there is likely a richer mouth-feel. This would not be achievable otherwise. Pretty neat trick. Your mom sounds like a modernist cook!
I like this idea :) Let me know when you try that.
In addition to adding fat (for flavor and more silky eggs) I've seen this technique used used to temper cold eggs before adding them to the skillet.
As to whether you should keep making eggs this way… there are so many ways to cook eggs, I'd suggest that you keep trying new ways so that you have many options for preparing delicious eggs.
Personally, I prefer scrambled eggs beaten with some cream and cooked over low heat with a pat of butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.268948
| 2017-06-09T20:04:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82283",
"authors": [
"A.D.",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"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
}
|
65456
|
Can I use agar as a coagulant to make homemade tofu?
Good tofu is really hard to come by where I live, especially silken tofu.
I want to try making my own tofu. There are tons of recipes online.
BUT, some of the coagulants (gypsum, or nigari) are also a bit hard to come by. I don't want to use epsom salts because they can cause a grainy tofu.
Will it be possible to use agar in this instance?
I have never made tofu, but why do you think that agar would be a coagulant at all? It's a very strange choice. \
You can find recipes that suggest using an acid (lemon juice etc.)...
I think if you use agar, you'll end up with soy Jell-O rather than tofu.
Have you tried epsom salts? While different from gypsum or nigari, I don't find the result overly grainy.
Agar is a gelling agent and will not work as a coagulant. Give epsom salts a try. I have not experienced the graininess that you suggest.
This will give you a soymilk jelly, which might or might not make a good component for desserts, but that is a distinct preparation from tofu, which works by coagulating the proteins in the soymilk itself instead of leaving the soymilk intact and incorporating it in a jelly.
It will not have the same texture or taste as tofu which may be acceptable to you. It is very much a jelly/jello as pointed out by others. The biggest difference is that you will not be able to cook this gel-based tofu. For cold use, it would be fine. Agar will soften and melt when heated, melting point is concentration and acidity dependent but always well below boiling point of water.
If you have had some of the imitation almond tofu desserts in chinese restaurants, you can imagine the type of texture you would get.
Worth experimenting with it, just don't expect real tofu.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.269181
| 2016-01-15T12:35:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65456",
"authors": [
"Alex A.",
"Daryl Friesen",
"Donna Grebenc",
"Gerald Suenishi",
"david heinbaugh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56600
|
How much is a "round" of butter? This is in an old pound cake recipe
I have a very old pound cake recipe that calls for a “round” of butter. How much is that? I have no idea.
Can you post the entire recipe?
Looks like a misprint for Pound. The point of Pound Cake is that you use the same amount of each ingredient - for example, a pound.
Yup, modern recipes do stray from that a bit, but since this is an old recipe, I'd be pretty confident.
A round of bread or butter seems to be a term that is used by some English speakers, but I'm not sure where from. I'm not sure what equivalent measurement it has, if it even has an exact measurement, but I think it has the idea of an entire piece of butter.
Survey of English Dialects:
Slices of bread alongside a round of butter and a hillock of sea or river salt was neatly presented on a plate deliberately pottered with bits missing.
from a restaurant review
The butter is weighed into balls either the size of those sweet tiny pats (used in restaurants and on airplanes), the most popular round 220 g block (not sure if it is called a block if it is round…) or the sleek rectangular blocks (very sexy in their shiny silver wrapping, with the label stamp-pressed on) for restaurant use.
Pepe is making a special round of butter for our breakfast
from http://mondaymorningcookingclub.com.au
In old recipes this is also entirely possible -- in which case the OP's best approach would be look at the other ingredients and estimate proportions.
@Erica I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that it's a pound cake. It most likely wouldn't be called a pound cake if it didn't have real measurements, a pound of each.
The very definition of a pound cake is a cake that is made of a pound each of butter, sugar, flour, and eggs -- that is why is was called a pound cake. It's a simple misprint.
Fyi, a pound of flour may be given in the recipe as about 4 1/4 cups. A pound of sugar measures out at about 2 1/4 cups. For a pound of eggs, use 9 medium, 8 large, or 7 extra large. (Eggs sizes aren't 100% reliable and sizing is done by total container weight, not individual eggs, but these numbers should get you close, if you don't have a scale.) Oh, and by the way, a pound of butter displaces 2 cups.
Pound cake recipes can be found with infinite variations, but the one-pound weight of each of the above ingredients is the reason it was named pound cake hundreds of years ago.
Egg sizes to weights is different in the US vs. UK: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3705/67 . Also, they might have started as a pound of each, but we still call them pound cakes, even though the ratios have changed significantly.
I'm guessing you are young. It weren't long ago we kept butter on the table in a covered round dish and the butter inside the dish sat on ice chips to stay cool (I can't add any extra pics because Pussykins is lying on my other arm).
The butter molds were round and the ones for home use were generally 1/2 pound, 1 pound up to 2 pound. Some housewives made their own butter, some ordered butter, some ordered butter then re-molded into fancy shapes to impress company.
[Butter Molds] (http://dairyantiques.com/Butter_Molds.html)
So.. you're saying a round of butter is 1/2 pound, 1 pound, or 2 pounds? Not sure that's terribly useful for someone trying to bake a cake.
So you are saying that there was no common notation for a "round of butter then? Who's Pussykins? and why is this part of your answer.
What i was trying to say was that a round could mean 1/2 pound, 1 pound or 2 pounds of butter
those were the common sizes for the butter molds (rounds)
This is why i suggested the OP post the receipt because without seeing the measures for the other ingredients it's really difficult to guess on the round used
Pussykins is one of my kitties...shouldn't have included her but as she was on my arm i couldn't add the links i wanted
Dairy Butter History
I believe the word "round" is a misprint and that it should read "pound". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_cake - you'll find this link from Wikipedia useful. "Pound cake refers to a type of cake traditionally made with a pound of each of four ingredients: flour, butter, eggs, and sugar. However, any cake made with a 1:1:1:1 ratio, by weight, of flour, butter, eggs, and sugar may also be called a pound cake, as it yields the same results."
Hello Crystin, you have linked a definition of pound cake, but I don't see how you address the actual question, which is about the word "round" as a unit of measurement for butter.
In the future you can just edit your post and flag it for attention, no need to post a separate answer. Went ahead and took care of it for you. (Also, do note that Bob's answer from a couple days before yours says basically the same thing. You may find that your answers are better received if you try to offer something new!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.269368
| 2015-04-11T18:37:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56600",
"authors": [
"Boo Spanyer Cassiopeia",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chef_Code",
"Claire Edwards",
"Damien Olive",
"Erica",
"Erin Tippett",
"James Runyan",
"Joe",
"Needhu Harish",
"R Lacher",
"Scott Meech",
"Tracy T",
"Valentine Ntinyari",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78226
|
What is the lowest temperture I can use to cook fresh pasta?
Say I want to cook fresh pasta and I don't have access to a stove or hotplate. I can heat water with an immersion circulator. I can get close, but can't achieve a boil. What is the lowest temperature needed to cook fresh (water and/or egg based...but not dried) pasta? While I provide the circulator as an example, this is less of a modernist technique question and more of a science of cooking pasta question.
see: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91685/is-it-possible-to-cook-pasta-at-room-temperature-with-low-enough-pressure/91730#91730
I wonder if 140 F would apply here for food safety?
Thanks @Jolenealaska. There is one response in that discussion addressing fresh, which references a paper examining polymerization of gluten in dried pasta. While the abstract (all I have access to) mentions that the researchers studied protein polymerization first using fresh pasta, and provides a temperature range of 60 - 68C for two reactions, it is mainly a paper about dried pasta. So, for me the questions then becomes does protein polymerization = "cooked" as we would experience it in a finished dish?
@Paparazzi so far, it sounds like temps at or above 140F (60C) are necessary anyway.
In the highest village in Italy water boils at around 92C Wikipedia - high altitude cooking, 2000m. They can probably eat decent pasta. Can your circulator do that?
@ChrisH, yes it can. But...how low can one go? Your comment also adds the additional physical phenomenon of boiling to the situation. I don't think a boil is necessary (regardless of temp), but will stand corrected if that is incorrect.
The boil shouldn't do anything (except possibly affect convective mixing). I think you might end up doing an experiment - to me that's the point of circulators (though the one I repaired recently had a max setpoint of 100C). But I thought the effect of altitude led to an interesting bit of context.
@ChrisH sell that method of preparation to hipsters as ancient mountain pasta before some other yahoo does it :)
@rackandboneman Nice idea, but you can have that one -- my file of daft hipster business plans is getting rather full and I still don't want the compulsory beard.
Not related to temperature, but as I understand it pasta needs to be in the water to cook properly. I don't know about you, but I would definitely not put pasta directly in the water my immersion circulator is circulating. That just sounds like a recipe for getting things all kinds of gummed up. That said, I suspect there are all kinds of interesting things you could do with sealing the fresh pasta in an bag with the sauce...
@senschen I have not had a chance to test this yet, but my thought was to place a bag of water in the bath, then put the fresh pasta in the bag of heated water. That way the circulator would only be in the heating water, not the pasta water.
@moscafj That would probably work. Since there wasn't anything like that in your question, I thought I'd drop a note. I just got my own immersion circulator, so I was intrigued by the question, but with that one big caveat. :) If you do try it, you should post an answer and let us know how it works out.
I have cooked dried shell pasta in an electric filter coffee machine before. It took a while but it worked. I am not sure what water temperature that had, probably high 80s C.
Do yourself a favor and pick up a camping stove, they are only around $20 and use disposable butane. They are brilliant if you don't have access to a full stove.
Cooking pasta at a full rolling boil (100°C at sea level or less at higher altitudes) is just conventional, it is not the boiling the cooks pasta but the temperature:
pasta cooking is influenced by three factors: water penetration inside the pasta, gelatinization of the starch (it normally occurs at a temperature between 60°C and 70°C for wheat starch) and the denaturation and consequent coagulation of gluten (at 70°C-80°C).
A temperature above 80°C for a certain time (slightly longer than what you'd need at 100°C to compensate for the slower penetration of water into the pasta) should guarantee a perfectly cooked pasta.
This is the same for dried pasta and for fresh pasta; fresh will cook in less time, and you should probably taste it during the cooking process to find the right texture.
The rolling boil helps to keep the pasta well separated and to avoid sticking, but a water circulator would probably take care of that too
source: http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/02/07/la-cottura-della-pasta/ (in italian)
If you can [edit] your answer to add the source it would be better
From Ask the Food Lab: Can I Start Pasta In Cold Water?
Even if it loses its boil, the pasta will still continue to cook so long as it's kept above 180°F/80°C or so.
I don't think this answers the question -- they're talking about dried pasta. With fresh pasta, you need to gelatinize the outside of the pasta quickly, so it doesn't turn into paste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.269791
| 2017-02-08T16:37:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78226",
"authors": [
"Andrea Shaitan",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luciano",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"senschen",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68396
|
How to get rid of plastic and residual weird taste from food stored in tupperware?
When I store leftovers in plastic tupperware and eat them later, I sometimes taste plastic. I do have some glass pyrex containers and they don't leave this aftertaste, but I would like to be able to use my plastic tupperware since I have so much of it.
Is there a special way to clean plastic tupperware? I tried handwashing and after it's dried, putting newspaper in there to absorb stuff.
On another note, it seems like some of my plastic tupperware absorb some food material onto itself. Kind of like forming a seasoning on a cast iron pan, except this is a waxy-food-weird-tasting film on the insides of the tupperware. Anyway to get rid of that? Soaping doesn't seem to work. This film is way too waxy.
Tupperware lasts a long time, but it sounds like yours has lasted a bit too long and is chemically deteriorating. I'd stop using it for food purposes. Might see if anything you notice acting weird is on this list? http://parentsr.us/tupperware-admits-to-containing-bpa/
If you are using "tupperware" as a catch-all for plastic food containers you need to be aware not all are created equal. there's lots of cheap stuff made of sub-standard plastics which may not be good for you.
There are many different types of plastic, but it sounds like your tupperware is made of the porous kind, which will hold on to food particles and explains your note. Heat will expedite the leaching of chemicals into your food, so you should use the containers only for storage, and heat up and eat food from an actual plate or bowl. If you have to continue using them, you could always wrap your food in paper to minimize contact.
Here's some more info
I think the handwashing you're doing is the opposite of the best approach. Please use the dishwasher; it will heat water hotter than your hands can stand and that heat will get rid of the smells in the containers.
Baking soda is an excellent, food-safe cleaner for metal, glass, and plastic. You can use it as a non-abrasive scouring powder to remove the oily-waxy buildup from your containers.
Baking soda also is very effective at neutralizing odors. However, if you continue to taste plastic or remnants of other foods, then it's probably time to retire those particular containers.
It's quite convenient to fill a shaker jar with baking soda, and keep it handy near your kitchen sink for multiple cleaning purposes.
Baking soda can also safely extinguish grease fires without poisoning the food, which is another reason to always keep it prominent in your kitchen.
A food safe plastic container should never ever leave a "plasticky" taste in anything. However, the commonly used containers will literally absorb a bit of the food, especially oil-soluble compounds in it (notice how paprika and turmeric can permanently discolor them in a nearly irreversible manner) - and also put some of these compounds back into their contents. Common plastic is not 100% impenetrable to liquids and gases; metal and glass are for all practical purposes (except to helium and hydrogen :) - that's why containers that have to sustain pressure or vacuum are made of these. counterintuitive because your floor stays dry if you put a plastic bucket full of water on it.
You can buy Preseasoned Bowls from Dollartree. It helps with the taste. They preseason them for 3 full days before hand so you know what you will taste.
Er... seasoned in the sense of cast iron, or seasoned in the sense of "garlic herb-flavored tupperware"?
Its true...its damn true.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.270190
| 2016-04-19T17:14:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68396",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80882",
"user80882"
],
"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
}
|
68557
|
Optimal cooking tool for long-duration steaming
I'm a recent college graduate, and will begin working 40 hour weeks soon. I'm not good at cooking, and I prefer to cook all of my food (fish, chicken, turkey, vegetables) by steaming them in a small rice cooker. This currently works out great, and is quick and simple enough to clean up without a mess.
However, I was wondering if it's possible to use one of these "multi-cooker" steamers, such as this Cusinart model for steaming and then slow cooking (i.e. "keep warm") chicken breasts for 4-5 hours while being away.
I was thinking about coming home for lunch, starting the steamer, then letting it run for 4-5 hours until I get home from work.
My current rice cooker isn't built for very long durations of "keep warm", and if I use the "keep warm" setting for more than an hour, it makes it more difficult to clean up.
Question:
What would you recommend for an optimal cooking tool given this situation. I'd rather start the cooking mid-day (12pm), then have it finished and ready by the return from work (5pm).
Hello Kyle, we don't do purchase recommendations for specific models here. You would have to find a cooker to suit your needs yourself. Your question could be interpreted as a safety question on a stretch, so I didn't close as opinion based, but as a duplicate of a safety question about keeping food on "warm" instead of a setting specifically designed for cooking.
I didn't see it as a safety Q, or a request for purchase recommendation. "However, I was wondering if it's possible to use one of these "multi-cooker" steamers, SUCH AS ____." I read as more open ended cooking tools question.. the SUCH AS was posing an example for clarity then drawing discussion. (I was going to recommend no day cooking, just use a pressure cooker in the evening)
@Paulb if you and I see such different interpretations and none sees the other one's in the question, then this is a classic example of "unclear". If the OP clarifies, we can reopen, provided the question is really one we can answer.
@rumtscho I have edited to clarify the question.
@Kyle.Belanger thank you. I removed the sentence which asked for specific models, in case somebody else reads it the way I did. It is much clearer now what you were asking.
On kickstarter a while back, there was someone trying to raise funding for a crock pot w/ chiller. (so it'd stay cook 'til it switched into cook mode). I can't remember the name of the project (or find it based on search terms I was using), so don't know if it got funded ... but it sounds like what you're looking for.
Barkode is right.
Also consider electric pressure cookers. There are many on the market. Mine has many modes programmed in, most notable: slow cooker (ie. crockpot), rice cooker, pressure cooking.
You could also experiment with foregoing the long steam. With my pressure cooker, I put in frozen chicken tenders and in 18 minutes they are done. They probably very closely resemble your half day steamers.
(if get a pressure cooker: read the manual)
If you search "multi cooker" on Amazon, you'll see a multitude of devices similar to the one you linked and the vast majority of them are able to do what you're asking. Another option that would defintely be worth considering since you're already accustomed to preparing the sort of dishes you're wanting to make with your rice cooker is upgrading to a higher-end Japanese model such as the Zojirushi Umami. I own a comparable rice cooker and it's probably my favorite small kitchen appliance. It also seems tailor-made to do exactly what you're saying you want to do. It uses an array of sensors to slow-cook/steam to perfection and automatically enters a 4 hour keep-warm cycle when the cooking is done. You can also set a start-timer if you need more time and want it to wait a while before it starts cooking.
As an added benefit over the multi-cookers, you'll also be able to effortlessly prepare rice that comes out so indescribably perfect that even the rice at an upscale Asian restaurant won't compare to what you can make at home with the touch of a button. That's Japanese design for you; when the electronics capital of the world also happens to be a place where pretty much everyone eats rice daily, their engineers are going to produce one hell of a high-tech rice maker.
I apologize in advance if this answer is deemed inappropriate; I understand that answers aren't supposed to just be opnions, but there are many different methods and appliances/tools that could be used to accomplish OP's goal and no objectively best way to do so. Anyone's suggestion would probably just be based on what they'd do in their own kitchen.
Even less expensive rice cookers often have a 'keep warm' mode (although, some will only 'keep warm' for a limited period of time, then shut off) ... if they also have an insert for steaming, it might be possible to put some rice & water at the bottom, then the item to steam at the top and rely on the rice finishing to switch it to 'keep warm' ... of course, I don't know if the 'keep warm' will keep the stuff in the steamer section warm enough, so you'll likely want to do a test case, then take a thermometer to it to make it sure it's safe.
You're correct that they do have that function, but the lower-end ones will usually only allow it for an hour or two due to the very things that make them inexpensive; cheaply built components with short duty cycles. They're also timer-based, which is why they usually only have one cook/keepwarm cycle. In contrast, the high-end Japanese ones offer numerous cycles. Mine even has a setting to do what you described without the need for an insert; Just throw in meat, veggies, etc. with the rice and the machine decides for itself how it needs to go about cooking it all perfectly together.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.270601
| 2016-04-25T17:18:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68557",
"authors": [
"Barkode",
"Joe",
"Kyle",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116090
|
Reduce flame maximum on cooktop
My wife always uses the maximum setting which results in flames shooting around the outside of many pots melting their plastic handles. Is there any way of reducing the maximum to keep the flames under the pots?
If the slightly obvious „turn the flame lower“ doesn’t help, does she match pot size and burner size?
Welcome to SA! However, it seems like you're asking us to troubleshoot a marital issue, rather than a cooking problem. This isn't the right board for that.
My cooktop has 5 burners that are different sizes. Highest on the smallest two is "OK" even for small pots, where even medium on the larger burns might be too much. If your cooktop is similar, make a rule that certain pots can only be used on certain burners.
There is an issue with some stoves, if cooking in two small pans, but with only one small burner. The solution is still to turn the bigger burner down after lighting though; my medium burners on minimum are fine for my 16cm pans, and this has been true of all domestic gas stoves I've used. Carefully positioning the pan may also be needed
You really shouldn't be tampering with gas appliances unless you're properly trained and certified; it may even be illegal depending on where you are.
I wonder if a simmer diffuser might help here, left on unless not needed. While it widens the heated area, heating more of the handle, it should reduce the peak temperature. If pot skirts for indoor gas stoves were readily available that might also help direct the heat in the right direction (or make things worse) but they seem mainly to be for camping stoves. While I'd experiment and indeed have, I can't suggest anyone else does
The short answer is no, there's no practical way to reduce the heat output of your cooktop without so much modification you may as well buy a new really horrible one with pathetically small burners. Then you'll hate it because it takes a calendar year to boil water for pasta.
I feel your pain with this, I've had family members break my good kitchen knives and burn the non-stick off brand new pans before I've had a chance to use them, and it is frustrating. Education and a bit of zen are what is required.
You need new pots and pans.
How wonderful to have someone cook for you! It is fun to have a powerful stovetop. She needs better equipment to cook the way she likes to cook. Not crappy pans with melted handles.
Go to a place that sells new pots and pans and get some all metal ones with metal handles. There are lots of nice ones. Buy a set. Unwrap them and wash them and leave them out on the stove with a flower on one.
You can tell her that you wanted some things she could use that would not fall apart when she used them! Because you like to eat what she makes. Do not mention the melted handles. I am sure you already did but it is not too late to not mention them again.
The handles will get hot. She knows that already.
Tip: even though you got new ones, don't throw out the old ones right away. There may be some in there she likes just like I like my old carrot grater and that weird little orange glass saucepan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.271068
| 2021-06-15T20:03:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116090",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Stephie",
"Stuart F",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85536",
"manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116192
|
Is it a mold in my scoby?
For the fist time in my life I make a apple cider vinegar and don't know anything about mold in the scoby. What I know is there is a mother that will formed in there process but I don't know if its had a whiteish thing on top of it. Is it a mold or its just normal?
If it's a mold, how can I remove them?
fyi its been 5 days since I started the process
This does in fact look like mold. I would recommend removing the scoby and letting it continue to ferment. If it returns quickly, you may need to toss this batch and start again.
You could remove the scoby by skimming with a sieve or you could pour the liquid out of this container and use something(clean hand) or sieve to catch the scoby. The first option is probably best.
Have you been covering the container with some kind of cheese cloth or breathable lid? In general, that is recommended as it will catch most stuff floating through air, allowing your ferment to develop more safely.
I am covering the container with a breathable lid, but I need to frequently open it to take the data, like pH and image every single day. is there any safe way to do so?
It shouldn’t be an issue to open it up for testing, just make sure your hands are clean. What’s your pH down to at this point?
Any updates on how the project is going?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.271354
| 2021-06-24T00:16:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116192",
"authors": [
"Achmad Setiawan",
"Keith Fletcher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94493"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116341
|
Need help in identifying a specific italian salami/sausage for pizza
I came across a very intense and savory salami recently at a great pizzeria in Frankfurt (Germany). The pizza guys however are from Napoli and sell their amazing and traditional pizza since ages with a salami I have never seen somewhere else and which I could not identify up until now.
Does anyone have an idea, what type of salami is used here (see pictures below)? They call it salami but it doesn't have to be a salami in a narrow sense. It is very finely ground and looks rather like a typical sausage (like mortadella/lyoner etc.) when cooked and raw.
I would be very happy about any hint that helps to identify the name of this specific salami.
What was the name of the pizza you ordered? That might be a clue.
Are they both the same salami?
Is it possible this is a German salumi?
@hb20007 Name of the pizza is: Napoli de Luxe (toppings: Salami, Mushrooms, spicy pepperoni sausage)
@Tetsujin: Yes, same salami on both pictures
@moscafj: No, this is not a german salami.
Totally not an answer, but just a thought - Do you know Z/Cervelat? Tastes like the more grainy salami, but is ground finer?
@Stephie: Cervelat comes very close in taste and appearance but it still isn't the type of sausage they use. Hmmm...
Salami is a generic term referring to all sorts of salt cured or cooked sausage, from a variety of countries and cultures. My guess is that pictured is German fleischwirst or extrawurst (Austrian cousin). The Italian version is mortadella, but typically has white chunks of fat and pistachio nuts.
Well put! In fact, the sausage looks so much like a German "Fleischwurst" or like a Turkish "Sucuk" but it is not the same. It assumes it is something for the Napoli area in Italy.
@Daniel I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think this is a salumi from Italy, or from Campagna specifically. Perhaps it is just "marketing" to call it Napoli de Luxe.
@Daniel Virtually nothing about that pizza is “traditional Neapolitan”. (That’s not a bad thing; Naples doesn’t have exclusive license to decide what good pizza is like.) It’s likely that local sausage is being used.
But as a German, I can’t pinpoint a German sausage that would fit…
@Sneftel: Yes, might be a local one. They have been operating their pizzaria for more than 50 years now and might have move away from traditional italian ingredients in the meantime. However, I don't have any idea what local sausage this might be.
I'm afraid the local sausage is likely something like "Italian-style Pre-Cooked Salami Sausage, 30mm Diameter, 300mm Length" from their food supplier. That is, the exact details are specific to the source, and you won't be able to find the exact same thing in a market.
@Sneftel you are probably right... I already checked the local cash and carry store with the attributes you mentioned but did not find anything like this. Anyways, thanks for your support!
Very often, the only thing 'Italian' in a pizza restaurant is the red-white-and-green colour scheme.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.271515
| 2021-07-08T12:32:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116341",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"Michael Harvey",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"hb20007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94603",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116347
|
Are tuna pouches still good after being in fridge?
I have unopened pouches of tuna in the fridge with expiration date of 9/1/23.
My question is, are they still good if I take them out of fridge and store at room temperature? We are moving and I have several pouches that I would like to take with, me as long as they are still good!
Can you be more specific about the product? Are these packages meant to be shelf stable, or are they meant to be refrigerated?
its Star Kist chunk lite tuna in water, flavor fresh pouch
Your product is shelf-stable. The expiration is a "best-by" date, meaning the quality degrades, but it remains safe. Refrigeration has no relevancy, unless you opened the package.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.271771
| 2021-07-08T21:08:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116347",
"authors": [
"Vicki Meadows",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94610",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68813
|
Yogurt-based sourdough smells like alcohol
I'm following this yogurt-based sourdough recipe, and (right now) at the 18-hour mark, it (the dough) smells like alcohol. Is this a bad sign, that it should not be consumed? And, moreover, is this recipe perhaps dangerous for leaving yogurt out for extended periods of time? Or will the baking process make it safe to eat?
Note: I'm aware that when sourdough starter smells like alcohol, it needs to be fed. But this is actual dough and not starter, which is cause for my concern.
Edit: Finished baking it. Smelled sour-dough-y and fine so I tried a bit. Not as good as regular sourdough but I think the alcohol-smelling issue was actually a non-issue.
It's actually acceptable here to answer your own question. I'd recommend that you take out the last line you edited in and submit it as an answer below - that way you'll get credit for both and anybody else with the same question would see your results.
Yeast make alcohol; it's normal.
I'm with @ecnerwal on this: if the yeasts had very good conditions, even the dough can smell noticeably "yeasty" and/or alcoholic.
You should try the same recipe again, but use a cloth instead of plastic wrap to cover your dough for the fermentation period. The alcohol smell is the ethanol the yeast is producing, and in my own experience the more anaerobic the greater the level of ethanol produced.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.271864
| 2016-05-05T22:54:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68813",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24442
|
Do breadcrumbs really act as a binder in meat preparations?
I routinely hear that breadcrumbs are added to burgers and meatballs to bind them. For example, see the answers to this question: how to stop meatballs falling apart. On the other hand, I have heard professional chefs say that the bread does not bind the meat. The egg is added to bind, the bread is added as filler.
I have never put bread or breadcrumbs in my meatballs or burgers and I don't have problems with them falling apart. I do however, put an egg yolk in and work them long enough that they don't break when pressure is applied.
So which is it? Filler, binder or both? If it's a binder, by what mechanism does it bind the meat?
Actually it is neither filler nor binder, but moisture retainer. Breadcrumbs in your ground meat will absorb much of the natural juices during cooking and then will release that moisture back into the meat as it rests resulting in a 'juicier' burger, meatball or meatloaf.
Breadcrumbs should never be referred to as a binder. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I like to add breadcrumbs (or rice) when I want meat to fall apart more easily.
This is especially useful in meat loafs. No one wants cut into a meatloaf that is really a square shaped burger. The bread does absorb flavor but primarily serves as a way to soften up the loaf so that it is easy to cut into.
Egg yolk is the only real binder as it is typically added to bind non bonding particles together (such as meat and veggies).
Actually, it's the proteins in the egg whites that bind...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.272002
| 2012-06-14T04:50:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24442",
"authors": [
"DividedByZero",
"DrRandy",
"Emil Jeřábek",
"JEETER JUICE VAPES",
"Susan Barnes",
"Sweetpea46",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55652",
"user55649"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116024
|
Which utensil or device can be used to make spirals or conveyor screws with vegetables?
I don't know if there exist some tool or utensil to make these spirals or screws.
I mean the shape which I am intending to replicate follows the idea seen in the figure from below:
Another example of this shape can be seen in this site
In other words what I intend to do is to make this sort of accordion or screw sonveyor shapes with cucumbers or perhaps potatoes, and yes without that metal rod in the middle connecting the spirals.
But I don't know if there exist some tool for that? Does anyone how a way how to make this? Please don't say to replicate this using a regular knife because that's now the way how I intend to do this, and kind of it looks difficult. Can someone help me here please? I browsed for different tools on Amazon, but none of those seem to display exactly the result which I am trying to get. So any cooking expert can help me?
To be absolutely clear, in the final object do you want the "central spar" AS WELL ? Or was that just for example?
these devices are really popular for apples in france BTW, folks bring them home as a souvenir!
My favorite tool is a spiral cutter sold for apples or potatoes, here’s an example.
(Source)
A tiny screw-plus-rotating-knife gadget is often used for Bavarian radish spirals, e.g.:
(Source)
Note that both types will produce spirals without waste, so to achieve the look in your question, you have to gently pull the cut vegetable lengthwise. Depending on the vegetable, the spiral will be more or less inclined to spring back.
For potatoes, frying the stretched spiral will set them, that‘s a common fair food in some places, sometimes going by the name “Tornado Potatoes”
I thought "Tornado Potatoes" were just going to be curly fries, but they are 100x more awesome.
There are tools specifically designed to do this with pineapple. You could use them on other foods or a large enough diameter, and not too hard. You'd need to hold the turns open a bit to make it look like a screw thread, and the core is also removed
Despite the name, spiralisers don't produce tidy spirals very often or easily, but something more like noodles.
It's called a spiralizer
They come in many shapes & sizes - this BBC Good Food guide has a selection
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.272179
| 2021-06-11T04:46:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116024",
"authors": [
"Fattie",
"Phil Frost",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114828
|
Pudding vs. laundry starch - Add water gradually or all at once?
I recently watched a YouTube video "How to use old fashioned starch" by Constance MacKenzie about how laundry was starched in ye olde time. The only relevant information for my question is that you can use potato, wheat or rice starch and that it must be made into a paste with water and boiled, very similar to a pudding / blancmange / custard. Laundry starch has only those 2 ingredients: starch and water.
The process in the video started by mixing the starch into a little amount of cold water. This was then put on the stove at medium heat and roughly "a kettle full" of hot (but not boiling) water was added in very small increments under constant stirring. The mixture only started boiling after all of the water was added.
This process reminded me of making a roux sauce. You start with melted butter and flour and have to add the liquid in small increments to avoid lumps. It makes sense to first evenly mix butter and flour because the butter would probably stay seperated otherwise. But laundry starch doesn't contain any butter or fat.
If you added some flavors to the laundry starch you would end up with an edible pudding / blancmange / custard. Those are usually made by mixing all the ingredients and then heating them up with all the liquid already incorporated. This has the benefit or avoiding lumps. So I see no reason why the laundry starch needs to start with such a small amount of water that needs to be tediously increased in increments.
On the other hand, I learned that our ancestors weren't half as stupid as we make them seem and probably had reasons for starting with less water. They may not have understood the chemistry and physics behind the process, but they had much more practical experience.
My question is:
Is there a difference in the physical or chemical properties of starch if you:
start with a small amount of water and gradually add more while heating the mixture, or
add all the water before heating the mixture
assuming you never stop stirring during the process and you let the mixture boil until it looks translucent? It may be important to keep in mind that the quality of the end result (starched laundry) depends on the properties of the dehydrated, coocked starch.
while it may look similar to making a roux, mixing the starch with fat is a crucial difference. I suspect a bigger issue is simply the usual one of wetting powders
It's actually a cooked slurry, not a roux. As ChrisH pointed out, there's no fat.
Yes, both processes are valid ways of making pudding (not roux). You can either dissolve the starch in a little cold water first and then gradually warm it up, or you can dissolve the starch in all of the cold water and then start warming it up. After it is warmed up, you can bring it to a boil.
The "dump all together" method is the more tedious one, because you have to stir constantly until you are ready, else the starch sediments and burns on the bottom, especially if you are an old-time cook using direct fire. If you warm up most in the water in a kettle first, your time of cooking the slurry (and stirring it) is reduced a lot, which makes it the preferred method.
Another reason is that most people cook blanchmange with milk, not with water. To reduce the amount of water used, they make the slurry with only a little water, then add the slurry to the warmed milk.
You also get lumps if you add all the water at once. You'll have to stir these out. Making a thick, hydrated paste first avoids that problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.272387
| 2021-03-16T11:59:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114828",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99948
|
Soda water first stored in refrigerator and then at room temperature
If I put an unopened bottle of soda water in the refrigerator and decide two weeks later that there is not enough room so I store it in a cabinet outside the refrigerator, will it lose its bubbly taste and carbon dioxide?
If it's unopened it will stay perfectly fine, cold or warm, until the Best Before date printed on it.
It doesn't need refrigerating until opened - unless, of course, you want to drink it cold ;)
The CO2 would have to actually leave the bottle for the drink to go flat, and that's no more likely than when you store it at constant temperature. I often do this anyway as I'm short of fridge space and don't drink many fizzy drinks, and I've never had a problem
The storage temperature doesn't really matter, but the temperature when you open it matters a great deal. If you open the bottle while it's warm, you'll lose more carbonation than if you open it while it's cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.272757
| 2019-07-03T16:37:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99948",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25564
|
What does it mean when a recipe calls for coring a tomato?
When I was making gazpacho, I looked up a video, and found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDt0L1-SaRg
In this video, almost the entire interior of the tomato is removed. I followed this video, and ended up with a less gazpacho than I thought I should have. (I asked this question Cored tomatoes measured before or after coring? assuming that that first video was the correct way to core a tomato).
Now I think that maybe that first video was deceptive--other videos suggest that the core is just the tough part right near the stem.
I assume that there may be a good reason to core a tomato both ways, for different recipes, but if a recipe just calls for coring a tomato and doesn't specify further, is there a consensus on what part is meant, the part by the stem, or the entire interior?
Especially regarding tomatoes, there can be some discrepancies on what coring means. In some cases, they mean to just scoop out the stem and the tough white bit under it, and in others they mean to remove the whole central bit with seeds. In my experience "cored" usually means just removing the stem and white bit, whereas "cored and seeded" means removing the stem along with the seeds and central part. This is just a rule of thumb, as recipe authors may vary on their usage.
The coring of tomatoes has a lot more to do with tradition than any sound foundations; the seeds in tomatoes can be bitter (and of course will ruin the texture of a smooth gazpacho) but the pulp surrounding them that is also discarded is rich in umami containing compounds:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2007/oct/23/hestonblumenthalstomatosauc
It proves something many cooks already knew or suspected - that the jelly around the pips of tomatoes contains most of the tomato's flavour. This is not so important for us home cooks - we tend to leave the seeds in the final dish we are preparing; but in the professional kitchen, the seeds are often discarded for the sake of appearance and presentation.
The title of Heston's paper that recently appeared in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is Differences in Glutamic Acid and 5'- Ribonucleotide Contents between Flesh and Pulp of Tomatoes and the Relationship with Umami Taste (with co-authors Maria-Jose Oruna-Concha, Lisa Methven, Christopher Young and Donald S. Mottram from the University of Reading).
The paper's abstract cites the difference in taste we've all observed "between the outer flesh and the inner pulp of tomatoes," and the fact that "the pulp, which contains the seeds, had more umami taste." Umami, discovered by Ikeda in 1909, is the fifth taste, the meaty, broth-like or savoury taste that is now accepted as an addition to the traditional sweet, bitter, salty and sour gustatory sensations.
The paper shows that the inner pulp of the tomato contains up to 11 times the concentration of compounds associated with the umami taste as does the other flesh. This was determined experimentally, subjecting many different varieties of tomato to both chemical analysis and to sensory evaluation by a panel of human beings, who wore noseclips "to evaluate taste attributes" and took them off "to assess all other attributes." And just to make sure they weren't prejudiced by visual clues (such as the deeper red of some tomatoes) all the tests were done under red lighting.
Very interesting, but that still doesn't tell me what I ought to do for my gazpacho--as you say, the seeds will not be good for its texture, and can be bitter, but it is hard to discard the seeds without discarding much of the rest of the pulp. Should I just leave the seeds in? Or more to the point, do recipes that call for, for example, "3 pounds of tomatoes, cored", expect you to include or exclude the seeds?
I would leave the seeds in but that's just me; however, when I need to remove seeds from tomatoes I normally push the pulp through a sieve which leaves the seeds behind. Also, if I read "3 pounds of tomatoes, cored" in a recipe I would expect that to be the weight after coring.
If I read "3 pounds of tomatoes, cored" I would expect that to be the weight BEFORE coring. If I read "3 pounds of cored tomatoes" I would expect it to be the weight after coring.
Sorry, that was a mistake, I meant to write 'before'.
and then there are those who view "Coring' as removing the stem and green/white part under the stem...
http://www.myrecipes.com/how-to/video/coring-tomato-10000001847232/
"Coring" means that yes, you should remove the whole central part of the tomato - the seeds as well as the lighter, slightly fibery part to which they are attached. You only use the external "walls" of the tomato, which have a much more uniform texture and taste.
It is not imperative to core tomatoes. I almost never do it. I eat the pulp, seeds and skin of raw tomatoes (e.g. in a salad) as well as tomatoes intended for cooking. This is what you saw in the later videos. Even when the whole tomato is used, people usually remove the green part just under the stem, because it is very tough and has a strong taste. However, this is not called "coring", and results in a different texture than a cored tomato.
If you don't want to throw away half the tomato, you can just choose a recipe which uses whole tomatoes as opposed to cored ones. I wouldn't recommend to make substitutions if you are new to cooking, this is more of an intermediate skill. Instead of just trying your current recipe with whole tomatoes, look around for another one which doesn't specify coring, there are lots of them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.272868
| 2012-08-09T12:57:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25564",
"authors": [
"All American 'Sgetti Eater",
"Amber",
"Azurespot",
"David Wicks",
"Jackie Barry-Henrick",
"Karptonite",
"Mickidydooda",
"Stefano",
"Tataaa",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"user58559",
"user58561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18672
|
What do I need to make pho at home?
For those people that don't know, vietnamese pho is usually a beef broth with noodles as the very basic; variations of pho will include beef, beef meatballs, etc.
However, I'm looking for ingredients and instructions on how to create this perfect bowl of pho at home. Has anybody done this before?
This seems to be a recipe request, which is off-topic according to the FAQ. Do you have a more specific question about phở?
I was just wondering if it's MSG that they use for the soup or if i have to buy ingredients to actually make the beef soup?
I believe it's usually a beef broth (like you said) with some other seasonings (spices, onions, ginger...). I don't think you'd need generally need MSG; broth made from good bones should have plenty of umami. Google pho recipes and click on a few to get an idea of what's common.
In Serious Eats, the author provides some insight on how to do this:
The process was easy: onions browned and then removed, meat and water
added and boiled, then the rest of the aromatics go in, skimmed
occasionally and simmered for six hours. By the time the broth was
finished it was incredibly phở-like—the cinnamon and anise came
through beautifully and the stock was insanely meaty.
The next day I took off the layer of fat and set about assembling the
rest of the phở ingredients. I got my hands on lovely basil, bean
sprouts, and some shabu-shabu beef.
Source: Serious Eats
Additionally, Viet World Kitchen provides some great basic techniques for building your pho broth:
Pho Secrets?
Roasting the bones.
I've tried this and have not found that it's done
much to the broth aside from making the broth dark, something that
I've not found to be attractive. If you start with good bones, there's
no need to roast, as the French would do for a veal stock, or
demi-glace...
Source: Viet World Kitchen, 2007
Viet World Kitchen has so many great articles about pho as well:
Advanced pho techniques
Beef Noodle Pho recipe
If you're looking for more resources loving pho has a great article about pho:
There is no single perfect technique for creating good pho broth. The
Vietnamese always say that the best pho you will ever taste is the one
cooked by your own mother (plus maybe one or two favorite
restaurants), and she will have her own ideas of how good pho broth is
made. These ideas, in turn, are ones that have been handed down to her
by her own mother. Thus, no two bowls of pho made in two separate
kitchens will ever taste the same.
Source: LovingPho 2009
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.273651
| 2011-10-30T16:38:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18672",
"authors": [
"Alan Mathies",
"Blaszard",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Ching",
"Derk-Jan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7784"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114959
|
Dried garbanzo beans not expanding when soaked
I recently tried soaking dried garbanzo beans for the first time. The 'quick soak' method which involved boiling them for 5 minutes and then letting them sit an hour didn't seen to change their overall size as much as I expected, and neither did leaving them to sit in water for another 12 hours. Does this mean they are bad to eat?
How old were the chickpeas? That makes a difference
See: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104604/soaked-chickpeas-overnight-12-hours-not-plump?rq=1
The soak doesn't swell them to 'cooked' level; the cooking does that.
It is true that very old beans will never be tender, but you have no good way to find that out before you spend the next two hours simmering them. [Change the water first & don't salt them until the last half hour].
This covers most of the basics, over several methods - How to Cook Dried Chickpeas (Ultimate Guide)
Dried chickpeas/garbanzo beans don't swell as much as some others IME
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.273894
| 2021-03-24T19:12:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114959",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
}
|
116143
|
My roasted vegetables turned out soggy, can I roast them again to make them crispy?
I was attempting to roast a head of cauliflower with olive oil and seasonings so it comes out crispy. Following the instructions, I roasted it for 35 minutes at 450°F (the recipe said 30 minutes, but it didn't seem done), stirring once halfway through. However, after they cooled, it appears that they've steamed instead of roasted. My guess would be that I put too many on the sheet. Can I stick them back in the oven for another try? If so, for how long, and should I use more oil?
No, cooking them for too long will make them mushy, whether they’re roasty or not. You could try oiling then a bit and sticking them under the broiler for a couple of minutes (watch them closely!), but i wouldn’t cook them longer than that.
At that point, I'd try buttering and grilling them to add some brownness, and maybe a little cheese.
If the food has steamed, means there was a lot of moisture there in the first place. Could be you washed all the heads but they still had a lot of water, which steamed in the oven and kept the overall temperature too low to roast.
Your other option to save the food, is smash out a quick white sauce, dump in some grated cheese, and then pour it over the cauliflower for Cauliflower Cheese. Optionally grille that for a crispy brown top too.
A dusting of carb -sugar flour or starch- clinging to the oily surface will create a crispy crust after a short hot roasting time.
Below that layer, soft.
Vegetables get mushy when cooked because the cell walls burst. There's no way to restore that cellular structure that by cooking more. You might be able to dry them out by cooking for longer but you will never restore their turgidity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.274021
| 2021-06-20T15:12:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116143",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115095
|
Bread: Hydration change for making Wholewheat bread with oats
I make 100% whole wheat bread with 80% hydration. I want to experiment by replacing some whole wheat with oats. How should I change the hydration level?
I replaced 50% whole wheat with oats and made hydration to 100% as oats absorb more water, and the bread was fine!
Next I tried to replace 80% whole wheat with oats and made hydration to 140%, and the bread was quite gooey (soft and sticky) from inside while the crust was hard!
Any suggestions? I think I should decrease the hydration.
Have you considered that your problem may not be the hydration, but the lack of gluten when you use mostly oats?
@Stephie Sorry, I was not aware of it. May be you could expand a bit on your comment and write an answer.
If you try to make a bread exclusively or almost exclusively out of oats, you are missing good gluten formation. Oats are gluten-free(1), so won‘t be able to develop the network that traps the CO2 from your yeast like a wheat bread does and what you made was (slightly sloppily phrased) baked oatmeal. Most bakers will tell you that you need a minimum percentage of wheat (or wheat relative like spelt) for a good bread. That’s not true, as some bread traditions that are based on rye have shown. Oat is not a classic bread grain, though.
Now, it would be too easy to simply say „you can‘t make bread out of oats alone“. It is indeed possible, but you need to use a few tricks along the way - and accept a few differences. I am basing this answer largely on the experiment of one German baker and blogger that I usually trust, so I will be paraphrasing the core findings in this post. He used an oat sourdough, a pre-soak/autolyse step for 1/5th of the oats and a comparatively low amount of yeast (which is probably more of his trademark than essential). Overall, he works with a hydration of 125%, which is lower than your 140% and still ends up with a quite wet crumb, so perhaps that would help you getting closer to your desired target - you were perhaps a bit overzealous when amping up the hydration?
The dough is quite soft and sticky (I don’t think classic kneading would work too well here), and is left to rise in a pan until almost fully proofed, then baked with a standard falling heat from 250°C to 250°C. The high hydration means it needs a significantly longer time to fully bake, aim for over an hour (65-75 minutes) and a core temperature of 98°C.
If you look at the photos, you will notice that the bread doesn’t have the light structure of a wheat bred, but is indeed still rather wet.
(1) Not going into the finer details of food chemistry and all that.
I find Stephie's link fascinating, but also very much a "kids don't try this at home" thing. For me, it is only something that a hardcore baker enthusiast would do - somebody who has been there, seen it all, is bored by the usual ways of baking, and wants to push the envelope, challenge himself by trying to work with very difficult constraints, and is not deterred by the amount of effort needed or by the expectation of modest results at best.
If you are not that person, I would suggest that you make it easy on yourself. If you want to use such a high amount of alternative flours, just add gluten until you have matched the percentage of bread flour or AP flour, whichever you prefer. This will give you a nice, well-behaved dough that bakes up nicely. As for the hydration, don't change anything against the original recipe at first. Replacing the gluten is a substitution after all, and you are increasing your chance of failure (and reducing your chance of tracing back the reason) if you start doing many major changes to the recipe at once. Also, you are already starting with a very high hydration, so even if it turns out that the oat flour likes more hydration than the wheat flour, you should still be safely in the good range with the original recipe. Only after you have made it 2-3 times and seen that it shows signs of being underhydrated, start changing the recipe by adding more water incrementally.
Now I am sooooo tempted to give it a try...
@rumtscho What are the signs of being underhydrated? I know that adequate water is necesssary for soft bread.
@Porcupine that would be a whole teaching course, best done in person, not a quick answer in a comment. If you don't yet know how bread recipes act, I would suggest getting lots of experience by following classic recipes. Wild experimenting can be fun too, do that if you prefer to, but don't expect it to be predictable, or to be able to do any kind of directed work, before gathering the experience.
Stephie's comment shows the real issue: oats do not have gluten (strictly speaking, they lack the proteins gliadin and glutenin that react in the presence of water to form gluten), so when you swapped out 80% whole wheat for oats, there was almost nothing to give the loaf structure. Basically you made baked porridge with a bread crust.
Another way to get an oaty taste, without affecting the structure of the loaf, is to roll the dough in oats before baking. An egg or milk wash will help them stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.274203
| 2021-04-03T20:15:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115095",
"authors": [
"Porcupine",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57528",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116322
|
Using the plastic tray liner from meat packaging as a cooking aid
My wife says that she has gotten advice on Facebook that using the plastic absorbent liner from packaging can also be used in the oven to distribute the heat more evenly. I am hesitant to put plastic in the oven in temperatures of 325 F.
Are there BPAs in the material? Is this a safe practice?
Facebook is a bad place.
I can't imagine there's any benefit in using the tray liner as a cooking aid, anything about them distributing heat evenly is a load of garbage, that's what pans are for. Plus, cooking your food on a sponge of silica gel and plastic that's absorbed a bunch of blood is just plain gross.
It's impossible to say whether the plastics have BPAs, different manufacturers use different plastics so there's no way to know. Regardless of the BPA question melting plastic is never a good thing.
Please don't do this.
Personally, I wouldn't even consider it. If it melts both your meat & roasting tin are trash.
I also wouldn't consider it to 'distribute heat more evenly', it will start as a cold spot, then eventually become a steamer. It would probably prevent browning on the underside.
I'd consider it with the same scepticism I do most of the "clever hacks" I read on the interweb… based on hearsay, small test runs done by amateurs & incomplete information.
Unless it melts or tears, however, it's not actually unsafe.
Info from What’s That Absorbent Pad in My Meat Packaging (And What Happens if I Cooked It)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.274627
| 2021-07-05T18:30:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116322",
"authors": [
"Eric G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21555"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112958
|
Can I bake cookies without baking paper?
I just returned from the store with all the ingredients for baking cookies, and now I notice that I am out of baking paper.
Is there some common household item I can use instead (Regular paper? Tinfoil? Just put them on the raw baking tray?), or do I have to make another trip to the store?
Very much related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51824/cant-i-just-grease-the-baking-sheet-instead-of-using-parchment-paper/51827
Similar: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54823/substitute-for-baking-parchment
@Stephie I would say those are duplicates, especially the first one.
Does this answer your question? Can't I just grease the Baking Sheet instead of using Parchment Paper
Given this got slightly better answers than the other two, it may be appropriate to close those in favor of this one?
A moderator like @Stephie can merge the questions :-)
Sorry for my ignorance, is "baking paper" the same thing as "parchment paper"?
People have been baking cookies for a heck of a lot longer than "baking paper" has existed. It is, in fact, a relatively recent invention.
If you get a teflon or silicone baking mat, it's reusable so you're not going through consumable parchment paper. Just put it on top of a baking tray and cookies slide off without having to grease a pan, and less to wash.
First of all, if your baking sheet is nonstick you may not need baking paper at all. If it is not, then either directly greasing the baking sheet, or putting tinfoil on it and greasing that works reasonably well as a substitute.
My mother never used baking paper in 60 years of cookies baking, (in several different ovens and as such different baking sheets.)
What I was thinking. I'm always curious about questions like this, which suggest the OP thinks baking was impossible before the invention of baking paper. It makes things easier to clean, is all.
@Graham: You're mostly correct, but there is one logical gap here, i.e. if since the advent of baking paper, baking sheets were no longer made to be non-stick because baking paper is (allegedly in this example) a clearly superior solution. I'm not saying this is the case (because it isn't), but the principle is valid, and from OP's point of view, it can't logically be excluded that their oven expect baking paper to be used in it.
@Flater It can only be logically excluded if they might think there was something special about old baking sheets, which for me is where it becomes a bit odd.
@Graham: It's only odd if you already know there wasn't anything special in the past. Based on today's baking sheets, it is impossible to deduce whether baking sheets have always been the same way as they are today. Technologies change, sometimes by reverting certain decisions e.g. after new information shows previously unknown dangers (asbestos is a great non-culinary example) or if a consistently superior solution is invented (i.e. why cell phones have mostly driven phone booths away).
@Flater, see my comment at the start of this series. When my mother started backing cookies in her own oven, 61 years back, there was nothing like 'non stick' baking sheets. As far as I remember those baking sheets, used till I was a teen at least, they were just common steel. And when my grandmother was baking in the early part of the 20th century, before my mother moved out, the choice of baking sheets was as simple, only kind of metal on offer. No 'non stick' and no baking paper either.
At the bakery I worked at when I was in high-school everything was baked on steel sheets. I had the job of scraping them clean afterwards! Plus Mum also used steel sheets, lightly greased with butter.
In Spain it's very common to "grease and flour coating" to any baking mold or tray!
It is quite easy! Get some butter, apply it to the tray evenly, add some flour (regular flour works) and with your hands tapping on the mold or tray, make sure it gets evenly spread!
It will be easier if you see it by yourself! Below you can see very short videos!
For a cake mold
For a tray (I pasted the exact second as well).
So doing this will ensure that as the cookies grow and get flat, they will do on top of the flour nd won't get sticky. IT may seem a bit messy but ADVICE: if you spill some flour or whatever, clean asap. The tray will be easy to clean afterwords if sipped in water.
More or less something like this but with the tray! I'd definetly do this before using tin foil! I haven't found any "100% scientific based report on not using tin foil when baking", but definetly avoid using foil when cooking at high temperatures or cooking acidic foods.
Image from https://www.cocinadelirante.com/tips/como-engrasar-un-molde
Most foil local to me is actually aluminum foil, and cookware is frequently also made out of aluminum, so I'm not sure why you're avoiding it.
The only thing I see to be worried about aluminium foil is the edges; sometimes it doesn't tear cleanly, and you end up with a thin line of foil in your food.
@Kat, aluminum foil is definitely not good for the environment when not several times reused before it's finally recycled... Most people use it once and not even recycle it. M.K's suggestion with butter and flour is also used in Switzerland.
For cookies, you probably only need to butter/grease the pan, and skip the flour. The flour is an extra step that helps ensure that very little sticking occurs. This is quite helpful for a cake, but for cookies you can just slide a spatula between the cookie and the baking sheet if there's a little bit of sticking.
Butter tends to burn at high temperatures, and butter burnt onto a pan can be hard to clean.
@ThomasZuberbuehler the answer is not claiming it's bad for the environment or it wouldn't mention high heat and acidity. It's implying it's bad for your health, for which there is no evidence. Absolutely if you can use something reusable instead of something disposable then you should. I agree there's no need for foil here.
As a person of Science, I'd recommend you to read the last paragraph again! It is not scientific based and I say it beforehand. But what you say is actually wrong. There are some studies determining more amounts of aluminium in food cooked with aluminium foil or utensils. The only thing is that the amounts are usually low, and can be excreted easily by our internal system. @Kat . I guess it's different to search for "aluminium foil is good!" to "is it bad"?
If you like this method but are lazy, Pam makes a baking spray that is regular Pam nonstick spray plus flour.
At my house, we simply grease our pans with some olive oil, spreading it around with a piece of tissue. Sometimes, we dust our pans with all purpose flour instead.
The flour dusting takes away a little of the crispness, but I like it more than the grease option because it feels healthier.
I've never used anything between the pan and the dough when baking cookies. Sometimes they stick, but they're just cookies; it's easy to pop them off with a spatula or even your hands.
Yes, you can bake cookies without baking paper. I've been in the same situation before. Instead of baking paper, you can use greased aluminum foil or simply grease the baking tray directly.
Just ensure the surface is well-greased to prevent sticking. I've used this method countless times, and the cookies turn out just fine. No need for an extra trip to the store!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.274808
| 2020-12-03T14:02:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112958",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Chris Bouchard",
"Cody Gray",
"Damila",
"David Waterworth",
"Flater",
"Graham",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Joe M",
"Kat",
"M.K",
"Michael Seifert",
"Peter Cordes",
"RonJohn",
"Stephie",
"Thomas",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89958",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117915
|
Why does mixing the salt and yeast sometimes work?
I've always learned that DO NOT mix salt with yeast. Because the salt kills the yeast, and the sugar actually helps. You should always put the salt.
So what is the "magic" of this recipe (Classic Challah Recipe) that they mix altogether? How does it actually work?
A long time ago I saw a video of someone doing a pizza dough that they just put the salt and yeast in two different parts of the bowl, so when it's mixed there is a low probability that will get together.
I was taught the same thing, growing up. Turns out it's just flat not true.
I think there is an issue with this sentence: “You should always put the salt.”
It doesn't work "sometimes", it works pretty much always. People are just being sloppy when they say "salt kills the yeast".
Certain levels of salt inhibit the yeast, so that it multiplies less, or slower. If you have an old or improperly stored package of yeast, or you are working with a strain which is not very resilient, then the negative effect may be enough that you don't get a healthy growth process established, and the dough doesn't rise at all. But it is a matter of probabilities, not of certainty.
So there is no reason for a recipe with a direct exposure of yeast to high salt concentration to not work, especially with today's modern, carefully engineered yeast supply. It just has a higher chance of failing when compared to recipes where the salt is added at a different step.
The recipe you linked is also not in any way critical. There you disperse both the dry yeast and the salt with the flour, and by the time you have added the wet ingredients and the yeast wakes up, the salt concentration is as low as it is ever going to be. The finicky recipes are the ones which ask you to bloom the yeast with a teaspoon of salt and teaspoon of sugar in a small amount of water, for example, or prescribe a different high-salt preferment method.
Bonus points for mentioning the salt-yeast method!
Can you explain why "there is no reason for a recipe with a direct exposure of yeast to high salt concentration to not work" follows from the previous paragraphs? It seems to me the previous suggest direct exposure of yeast to salt can only damage the recipe.
@Daron salt does interact with yeast. The “old” rule was that it “kills” yeast cells. Turns out, the salt puts them under stress, affecting their metabolism, but will kill them only if the yeast is already weak or damaged. It’s too complicated for a comment, but in short, a preferment with salt and yeast can help dough structure, cause higher CO2 production during the rise(!) and can improve the workability of the dough. (See my comment above.) Salt concentration can affect the rise of the dough, but it’s usually a desired outcome.
@Stephie I get what you are saying. but my question is about the internal logic of the answer.
@Daron The point of the first two paragraphs is to say that salt doesn't kill yeast. Because the yeast is not killed, it is still living, still multiplying, still producing gas, and the dough rises. So there is no reason to expect the opposite to happen - the opposite being, the dough staying flat, without air bubbles, and not baking into edible bread, or, in short "the recipe not working".
The way I usually worked with yeast & salt would be "let yeast feed on some sugar first and grow, then inhibit a bit with a pinch of salt". Is prefermenting with salt from the very start better in some ways? Does it affect proportions?
@Lodinn I have no evidence, theoretical or practical, that it is better in any way. I mentioned it because there are many recipes which prescribe it.
The vast majority of bread machine recipes add the salt and the yeast to the pan at the same time but not touching, then mix.
The recipes for mine all add salt (& sugar) to water, then flour, with yeast at the top. By the time the yeast gets wet, the water is uniformly salty.
What you do need to avoid (in general) is mixing dry salt and dry yeast, then getting them wet. Then you're trying to rehydrate the yeast with really very salty water. Even then, the overall effect is more likely to be a slowing down than killing all your yeast, but if you're working to time (or a machine is) that's a problem.
As mentioned a lot of the impact of salt depends on the concentration of salt.
To illustrate consider this graph
from this paper https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nfluence-of-salt-induced-osmotic-stress-0-10-NaCl-on-yeast-cell-growth-Saccharomyces_fig5_286917973
Its not great for seeing effects at the time periods we would be considering for rising but makes the point that increasing amounts of salt inhibit maximal growth. However, the amounts that have profound effects are at levels of salt that are unpalatable: most bread recipes end up around 1% final salt concentration; 5% would be incredibly salty when you consider that things like Vegemite and the like are about 3% salt concentration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.275522
| 2021-11-19T11:33:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117915",
"authors": [
"Daron",
"FuzzyChef",
"Giacomo1968",
"Lodinn",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96553",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79692
|
Is Mulan-themed Szechuan McNugget Sauce really just a blend of BBQ and S&S?
Regarding the limited-time Mulan-themed Szechuan McNugget sauce from McDonald's in 1998, I do remember it being tasty, but I don't recall the exact flavor to properly judge recreating it. Some internet rumors have inferred that is it really just a simple blend of the pre-existing McNugget Barbecue and McNugget Sweet & Sour sauces in varying proportions.
Is this true, or is there more to it than that?
It might be time to break out the Mass Spectrometer and get out our Chromatography medium.
That being said, I've mixed Sweet and Sour and BBQ before. I can't talk about the specific sauce from Mickey D's, but sweet and sour + BBQ in a 1/1 ratio is pretty dope.
These are the important mysteries that keep the internet running @Sidney.
Probably not an exact answer but...https://www.inverse.com/article/30540-szechuan-sauce-recipe-rick-and-morty-mcdonalds-mulan-mcnuggets
I would expect it to be spicier than that; "Szechuan" in American Chinese foods connotes spiciness. (What relationship it bears to actual Szechuan cuisine, I can't say.)
Maybe it has to do with "Szechwan" sauce, which actually an indian-chinese sauce?
It was release in conjunction with the movie "Mulan", so take that into consideration when trying to interpret the origin.
Related on Skeptics: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38472/was-a-package-of-mcdonalds-dipping-sauce-just-sold-for-almost-15k/38473#38473
Won't asking questions about McDonald's as if it were actual food get you banned from the site?
Not when a moderator obsesses on your question, @PoloHoleSet.
@JoshDM Hey! Obsessive mods have feelings too! 17 edits isn't that bad, I've done worse :)
Plus an answer and a related question in a separate SE site. :-).
Put simply (and based on the previous answer), no, it's not.
From Flickr
Recently, images have finally appeared of the real Szechwan Sauce packets on Flickr, as well as a video on YouTube, both of which clearly show the original ingredients list as:
Water, high fructose corn syrup, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans,
salt), sucrose, modified food starch, distilled vinegar, corn vinegar,
apple cider vinegar, ginger, soybean oil, roasted sesame seed oil,
natural flavor (salt, hydrolized corn gluten, wheat gluten, soy
protein, sugar, chicken fat, corn starch, partially hydrogenated
cottonseed oil, tapioca, maltodextrin, dehydrated onion, autolyzed
yeast extract, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, turmeric,
thiamine hydrochloride, lactic acid), xanthan gum, spices, salt,
caramel color, sodium benzoate (preservative), garlic, citric acid,
natural flavor, onion powder, succinic acid, garlic powder, phosphoric
acid
And following the "one day limited release," photos of the modern recipe have been posted online, showing the ingredients as:
Water, sugar, distilled vinegar, wheat, soybeans, corn starch, salt,
contains 2% or less: corn vinegar, apple cider vinegar, ginger,
soybean oil, sesame seed oil, xanthan gum, preservatives (sodium
benzoate and potassium sorbate), spices, yeast extract, garlic, wheat
starch, natural flavor, citric acid, sunflower oil, dextrose
Ignoring the ubiquitous water, salt, and HCFS, we're still left with a number of "missing ingredients" that are present in the BBQ (tomato paste, grape vinegar, dried chili peppers) and the S&S (apricot/peach puree, dried chili peppers). The first of each of these missing ingredients contributes the primary flavor of the sauce. Meanwhile, both the BBQ and S&S sauces are missing Szechwan's ginger and (roasted) sesame seed oil, as well as the larger amount of vinegar, the key flavor components for that sauce.
Based purely on the ingredient lists for all three sauces, even taking into account what may be a "modernized" recipe for any of the three, Szechwan sauce cannot be a blend of BBQ and Sweet and Sour sauces.
See related question on Skeptics, which is basically a continuation of the original of this answer: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38472/was-a-package-of-mcdonalds-dipping-sauce-just-sold-for-almost-15k
EDIT:
Was the 1998 Mulan sauce a mixture of McDonald’s sweet-and-sour sauce and barbecue sauce? The world may never know. But since Rick and Morty has endorsed this cooking video from Binging with Babish (the endorsement is here in the description), and I suspect the makers of Rick and Morty are pretty cozy with McDonalds, maybe Babish knows something the rest of us don’t.
In the video, Babish mixes two parts McDonald’s sweet and sour sauce with one part McDonald’s Tangy BarBeQue sauce. He declares it not bad, but not as good as the following:
He really likes the sauce he made from a recipe from a Reddit user, who created the recipe with his father in an attempt years ago to duplicate the Mulan sauce. The video doesn’t give measurements, but luckily I was able to track down the original Reddit post and the recipe.
• Mince 6 cloves of Garlic and sweat (heat them up in a skillet)
• add 4 tablespoons Balsamic Vinegar
• add soy sauce to taste (DO NOT USE LOW SODIUM SAUCE)
• add 2 tablespoon Plum Sake (Drink additional 3 oz Plum Sake)
• Reduce sauce slightly (Drink additional 1.5 oz Plum Sake)
• 3 1/2 tablespoons cock sauce (Sriracha)
• add 2 tablespoon brown sugar
• Red pepper flakes to taste
• Minced Ginger to taste
• Consume remaining Plum Sake
Simmer that shit for a solid 5 minutes, stirring pretty much constantly. The brown sugar helps it keep the proper consistency, so it's important to use. Play around with the recipe to your taste. Might want more or less balsamic vinegar. Might want more or more Plum Sake. I'd definitely recommend you make it several times to figure out your own flavor.
The rest of this answer is as it was before I knew for sure that the Mulan sauce package in the news recently was a hoax See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38472/was-a-package-of-mcdonalds-dipping-sauce-just-sold-for-almost-15k
TL;DR
According to the labels on the sauces, the answer to your question is no, McDonald's Mulan SzeChuan Teriyaki Dipping Sauce is not a mixture of McDonald's Sweet and Sour Dipping Sauce and McDonald's Tangy BarBeQue Dipping Sauce. I say that because because the sweet and sour sauce lists "apricot purée concentrate and/or peach purée concentrate" as its third ingredient. The Mulan sauce does not list that as an ingredient at all, so the Mulan sauce doesn't contain the sweet and sour sauce.
That should be it, right? This is where it gets weird.
The first thing I looked for was a list of ingredients for the sauces. I couldn't find that as text anywhere, so I looked at images of the actual sauce containers. I quickly saw that I wasn't going to have any problem reading the ingredients from pictures of the packages. I choose the first two images randomly. Notice that they're from completely different sources.
From: TheEater.com
And
From: Mouthful of Sunshine
There are two very weird things here. These are supposed to be pictures of the Mulan sauce package and the BBQ sauce package, respectively.
The ingredients on both packages are identical:
High fructose corn syrup, water, tomato paste, grape vinegar, distilled vinegar, salt, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans, salt), food starch- modified, spices, dextrose, soybean oil, natural smoke flavor (plant source), xanthan gum, caramel color, garlic powder, cellulose gum, dried chili peppers, malic acid, natural flavors (fruit and vegetable source), onion powder, sodium benzoate (preservative), succinic acid
But that's not even the weirdest thing. Got your tin-foil hat?
Look closely at the two images:
They are the same photo of the same package, with different sauce names Photoshopped in and the color manipulated.
Now that my mind had been totally blown, I looked for other images of the packaging of the sauces that didn't seem to be manipulated. I figured one of the packages above listed the wrong ingredients. Well...
From Popsugar.com
and
From An Immovable Feast
Full-sized, you can read the ingredients on both. They are identical to the other two.
So, either (a) McDonald's had a massive labeling error that would have cost them millions if caught at the time, or (b) the Mulan sauce is actually made from the same ingredients as the BBQ sauce, in the same order of quantity (so, very likely identical sauces), or (c) something is afoot.
I am going to get to the bottom of this with McDonald's, I am starting an email campaign now.
For the sake of completeness, the sweet and sour sauce contains:
High fructose corn syrup, water, apricot purée concentrate and/or peach purée concentrate, distilled vinegar, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans, salt), salt, food starch - modified, dextrose, soybean oil, xanthan gum, spices, sodium benzoate (preservative), natural flavors (fruit, vegetable and plant source), garlic powder, cellulose gum, dried chili peppers, malic acid, onion powder, extractives of paprika, succinic acid
From Craveonline.com
This video gets into the lore of the new-found interest in McDonald's Mulan sauce. The video repeatedly refers to the Mulan sauce as only available for a limited time. Hmm. Scratch the surface of the "Mulan" name, the BBQ name might be underneath.
I suspect that the reason the photoshopped image exists is that it was used in a pitch, showing how easy it would be to fool people into thinking that McDonald's created a sauce, available for a limited time only, to tie into the Mulan movie.
EDIT
I just noticed this!:
Now I'm really at a loss. Even Time missed that date. A new Mulan movie is scheduled for 2018. Is this whole thing a marketing gimmick? The Mulan sauce had been discontinued for a very long time by 2011.
I tried to read the copyright date on the picture of the container in the hand, but couldn't. The printing looks suspiciously like the photoshopped C2011 package, but it's either not the same package or it has been further Photoshopped since the lower left hand corner is clearly different.
I find this whole thing very mysterious, so I will continue the investigation. I think I'll ask the folks at Skeptics for some help with this.
Bonus related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBhhlE92mIQ
I am writing an email to Mcdonald's, challenging them to answer this question in time to get the bounty!
Why shouldn't they use the same ingredients in similar proportions? First, there is no rule saying that you can't sell the same product under two names. Second, it is entirely possible that the two sauces are different, but that one of them uses a bit more garlic powder than the other, other natural flavors, etc. and taste different.
@rumtscho Certainly, but there is currently a kind of revival of interest in the Mulan sauce. The video in the comment above reiterates the question of mixing sweet & sour with the BBQ to make the Mulan sauce, so I would find it very weird if the BBQ and the Mulan sauce turn out to be the same. I said weird, not nefarious. And the photoshop thing is very weird to me.
Teriyaki is Japanese and Szechuan is a province in China with its own renowned cuisine, one of the four major Chinese cuisines. Szechuan Teriyaki? Catalan bolognese next?
It is perhaps unlikely that it was just a mix of two pre-existing ones although you can probably recreate that taste that way. A bit like bulldog sauce for Tonkatsu which can be recreated with worcester sauce and tomato ketchup
This earns the bounty, but I'll hold out till the system forces me to apply it and in the event you get further on your research. Or if someone else posts something more compelling.
Just so you know, Mulan sauce really did exist; I had some back in the day. This is regardless of whether the images you are posting are photoshopped. And I did originally ask this after seeing it referred to on the Rick and Morty season opener episode. I don't think McDonalds had anything to do with the sauce reference on the show. The show is nothing if not irreverent humor at random stuff, moreso than Family Guy.
@JoshDM I vaguely remember having it too, on a road trip just before I decided to drive/move to Alaska.
I'm giving you the bounty, but I can't accept the answer till we get the true ingredients list of that Mulan McNugget Sauce, Morty! That's my series arc!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.275975
| 2017-04-06T16:18:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79692",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Jolenealaska",
"JoshDM",
"Joshua Engel",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sidney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37271
|
Frozen Kefir Grains Seem Dead...Any Suggestions?
My kefir grains were frozen by accident when the temp in my fridge was turned way down. I turned the temp back up, and after a couple of days took my grains out to culture a fresh batch of milk. After two days, however, I still have milk with kefir grains at the bottom. They don't seem to be doing their job anymore. Should I throw them out or wash them off and try again with new milk?
I don't have any more grains, so I'd hate to lose this batch! Any suggestions are greatly appreciated!
See related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5976/how-to-properly-freeze-kefir-grains One answer suggests that this accidental freezing should work, but that you may have to begin the process of balancing the kefir again, and it may take some time.
During the freezing process, ice crystals can cause cell damage to microorganisms. This means that a lot of the bacteria in your kefir may have died in the freezing process, leaving your culture significantly weakened. It may take a few batches to get it back up to full strength.
My kefir has been frozen approx 18 months and I just made a new batch and it looks great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.276883
| 2013-10-02T04:48:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37271",
"authors": [
"Miranda Mcvay ",
"Rana",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"eyal_katz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87640",
"sam motala"
],
"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
}
|
25379
|
Is it possible to make soymilk without a "beany" taste?
I've made soymilk several times using dried beans. I've done it using a pot of boiling water to cook the pre-soaked beans, blending in a blender, and straining. I also have a SoyaJoy soymilk maker. No matter what I've tried, I always wind up with a "beany" taste, certainly like nothing you get at the grocery store which always tastes so delicious. I honestly don't know how they make soymilk taste so unlike soybeans! I've tried blending with oats, adding sweetener (which I don't like doing), etc. Does anybody know if it's possible to make home-made soymilk taste like store-bought?
Related to soymilk bitterness: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/24688/2001
I soaked mine for two days and boiled for 8 hours. Then used a blender. And squeezed with muslin to get the milk. The residue was used for making cookies and tofu. Tofu weren't too successful.
@BlessedGeek- The solids left after making soy milk are called "okara". It is still very nutritious. Tofu is made by curdling the milk not from the okara.
@BlessedGeek, okara is really great in bread or veggie burgers. Tofu is made my curdling the soymilk with vinegar or nigari. You need a lot of soymilk to get a decent amount of tofu.
The beany flavor is destroyed by heat. Some recipes do call for boiling the beans before grinding as you said.
Most recipes that I have seen call for boiling the milk for a while after it has been strained. I find this more convenient as the milk is strained and pressed cold and then heated.
If your milk is still excessively beany then you may not be boiling it long enough to break down those indigestible compounds.
As for making it like commercial- most commercial soy milks contain a lot of extra ingredients to enhance the flavor and texture. Vanilla and sometimes sugar are added as well as calcium carbonate for creaminess, preservatives, etc. You can experiment with these if you would like but I found that I developed a taste for the flavor of fresh soy milk. It seems crisper and more naturally sweet to me than store bought.
This is what I've seen living here in Asia. If you don't boil the soy milk long enough it will taste very planty. The process I've seen (and used) is soak 8-12 hours, add more water and blend well in a blender, then boil gently for 1-2 hours, then strain. Add sugar after straining if so desired. The okara also goes well beaten with an egg and fried like a pancake!
How much time is too long? And do you know the ideal temperature? E.g. at 70c for 5 hours? I'm thinking of leaving a pot inside a temperature regulated water bath. So I'm wondering if 10 hours is better than 2 hours, or if cooking for too long would also damage the nutrients?
Glad you asked this - I had the same question a couple weeks ago when making homemade soy milk with a new SoyaBella maker I got. This article from the VeganYumYum provided some good information. Here's a summary of things to try.
Always soak beans in boiling water, then rinse the beans off thoroughly before making your soy milk. This is probably the most important step (see below)
Remove the skins. Soaking in very hot water (just boiled) make aids in this process, by loosening the skins. See below for my method for doing this
Add some sugar or another sweetener
Drink it cold
Steam the beans first. A commenter on that article says is how Silk does it.
Try different varieties of soy beans. People say different beans taste different. A brand called Laura soy beans is highly recommended, but I have yet to try. I bought organic bulk soy beans from Whole Foods, as I have found their other bulk beans to be fresh with good flavor, but they produced beany flavored milk following the normal overnight soak and machine mill method.
Try adding other grains in there, like cooked brown rice or oats.
Try adding other flavors. Vanilla is an obvious one, but you can be creative and try fruit or other vegetables that you would like to drink.
If you google around for this (beany homemade soy milk) a lot of stuff comes up, but most of it has been summarized here.
My method is to soak in just boiled water for a few hours or overnight, and then remove the skins using the method listed below. After the milk is made and still hot, add 2-3 tbsp of a good organic sugar. Adding it while hot is important for dissolving the sugar.
A lot of the flavor is in the aroma and the beany aroma may persist, but the flavor tastes a bit cleaner to me. Adding sugar and using it very cold and settled also helps.
Tip for removing the skins easily
I have come up with a very easy way to remove the majority (not 100%) of the skins. One day I will make a video of this, but here's an explanation for now. You will need a large bowl and a spider or skimmer. A spider or skimmer is ideal, but a slotted spoon or small strainer might work as well. The process takes 5-10 minutes.
After soaking in hot water, pour off the soaking water and rinse beans.
Then place beans in a very large bowl, preferably glass to make it easier to see what you're doing, and fill with lukewarm water.
While under the water, squeeze the soybeans between your hands and fingers vigorously for a few minutes, squeezing the beans out of their skins, but leave the beans and skins in the water. Skins are removed in the next step. The beans should pop out of the skins easily, though they may split in half during the process, which is fine because you'll be grinding them in to a pulp when making the soy milk anyway. The goal here is to get as many of the skins off as fast as possible.
To remove the skins from the water, swirl the water for a few seconds around the bowl. This will create a whirlpool and the heavier beans will sink to the bottom while the lighter skins will float up, and you can catch them quickly with the spider or slotted spoon.
This takes a little practice, but if you swirl than catch the skins quickly, you can remove the majority (probably 80-90%) of the skins this way, while leaving the beans behind in the water, and you don't have to worry about picking the skins out by hand, which is very time-consuming
Always soak dry beans in boiling water
Wikipedia confirms that soaking unhulled beans (skin on) in boiling water will reduce/remove the beany flavor, which is caused by lipoxygenase.
In 1969, Mattick and Hand at Cornell University made the important discovery that most of the so-called beany flavor in soybeans was not inherent in the beans themselves but was produced by the enzyme lipoxygenase when the split beans came in contact with water. Lipoxygenase could be inactivated and most of the beany flavor removed by either dropping unsoaked soybeans directly into boiling water or by removing any cracked or split beans prior to soaking, then carefully dropping the soaked beans into boiling water.
History of Whole Dry Soybeans - Soyinfo Center
If you prefer sources with more academic rigor, some of the original work on this can be seen here:
Lo, W.Y., K.R. Steinkraus, D.B. Hand, L.B. Hackler, AND W.F. Wilkens. 1968d. Yields of extractcd solids in soymilk as affected by temperature of water and various pre-treatments of beans. Food Technology 22: 1322-1324.
Mattick, L. R., and Hand, D. B., Agric. Food Chem., 17, 15–17 (1969).
Removing the skins is a huge pain. It's almost not worth it. You have to get a lot of the skins off to make tempeh, I spent over an hour doing it and probably didn't get half of them gone. I've also tried adding other grains (see my question), and that didn't help. Maybe I'll try steaming though. Seems like the heat treatment is necessary.
This would become more credible if you don't cite Wikipedia, but rather follow their references (assuming they have them) and cite the original content. Wikipedia doesn't have a lot of credibility on its own.
@SAJ14SAJ In this case they cite a secondary source, http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/whole_dry2.php, which doesn't cite the original paper, just the authors. But for your researching pleasure, I have added some primary sources for you. I didn't include them originally because they are quite old and not available online (as far as I could tell), whereas the wikipedia article, which is pretty well researched and technical, is.
I know Soyafarm, a Japanese company, invented a process that reduces the grassy aroma of soybeans in soymilk, soy yogurt and other soy protein products. I believe the process is enzymatic, but I haven't read the literature; there is some patent information that the parent company and some related companies have filed; many of the techniques would be hard to replicate at home, except maybe the calcium one; I'm not sure the enzymes they use are available to the general public. Most US-market products use other flavorings to cover up the base bean flavor.
Since I mostly use soymilk for soups and other Chinese and Japanese-style culinary applications, I find it a little strange to hide the fresh, beany flavor, which is kind of key to what I expect from soymilk; the thin, watery, aromatized, heavily sweetened versions seem beside the point to me.
I find it rather strange to prefer the flavored supermarket brands; I learned to appreciate fresh soymilk and find the store-bought stuff to be mostly unpleasant, but clearly the market thinks differently.
I agree that the beany flavor may be what the soy milk machines were designed to produce, as this is what is typical in Asian soy milks. However, the question asker is asking how to make something not beany, which should be possible given that the commercial soy milk makers do it.
Yes, should be possible, given access to similar technology; the challenge is that the best examples of this, like Soyafarm's product line, don't use techniques usable by most home cooks.
Thanks for the response. I'm interested in the most natural, home-made way to make soymilk that I will drink, and honestly, I won't drink it if it's beany. I'm just picky!! Not everybody has the same taste.
Boil the soybeans when they are raw (10 minutes), then soak them (10 hours, refreshing water every 2 hours), then dry them (10 hours), then boil them with baking soda (1 teaspoon per 10 cups of water), then rinse, blend with water, and boil mixture for 30 minutes, then cool, filter through muslin, and refrigerate. Done.
What is the point of "then dry them (10 hours)" again?
I honestly do not recall. I wrote this so long ago, and no longer make homemade soymilk. Try skipping that step and see if it still works! :)
We have an older SoyaJoy soy milk maker. When we first tried making soy milk it had a very beany taste. I was told by a friend that it was the BEANS that were the problem. I contacted a tofu manufacturing company and purchased organic, non-GMO beans from them. We are very happy with the milk we get from these soybeans. We rinse the beans before soaking them in hot tap water. We soak them for about 8 hours or overnight and rinse them again before putting them into the SoyaJoy. We make no effort to remove the skins, nor do we boil the beans. The SoyaJoy takes care of any heating that is required to make the milk. We strain the milk in 2 layers of cheese cloth and put in a few shakes of salt and approximately 1 tsp of honey. Our soy milk has no beany taste.
We use three batches of soy milk (about 4 1/2 quarts), that yields approximately 18 - 19 ounces of tofu. We use Nigari for curdling the milk. We mix 3 3/4 tsp. of nigari crystals in 1 cup warm water until it is dissolved. One half the disolved nigari is added to the 150-155 degree soymilk while the milk is being stirred in a figure 8 pattern. Then add the remainder of the nigari mixture and stir well again in a figure 8 pattern for 20-30 seconds. Cover the resulting curds and whey and let sit for 15-20 minutes. During this time the curds will sink to the bottom while the whey comes to the top. Carefully drain off some of the whey and pour the remaining curds and whey into a press lined with 2 layers of cheese cloth. Fold the cheese cloth over the curds and whey and place about 5-7 pounds of weight on it for approximately 1 - 1 1/4 hours or until the tofu is as firm as you desire. We enjoy fresh, sweet-tasting tofu every week.
Have fun.
This does not answer my question. I use new (dried), organic soybeans and the milk still tastes beany.
In addition to what Sobachatina suggested, I've also read that (after soaking) to remove the skins, which might help. How long do you soak your beans? I have soaked mine (in the refrigerator) for a day or two, and I think the longer soaking time helps, too.
Removing bean skins is so time consuming that I really don't want to do that. Also, I've tried and it didn't make much of a difference. Generally I soak at least overnight.
Beany flavuor is due to lipoxigenase enzyme. It can be deactivated with the help of heat. But, still I have seen there is some beany flavour left in it. There is a sow cow machine developed in CIAE, Bhopal, India which sucks out all the aromatic compound out of it and hence give soy milk a bland taste.
I soak the beans overnight and rinse them well before using my soy milk maker. I add about a 1 inch slice of a vanilla bean that I slit open and cut up into 14" pieces. I add that to my soy milk maker and after straining the milk I put another fresh 1" slit open piece in the milk. I also add 1-2 Tb agave syrup. It really has a nice taste. I only use organic non-GMO beans which I have been told make a difference in the taste. I cannot tell mine apart from the store bought after it sits overnight in the fridge.
I have used pretty much that exact method and could absolutely taste a beany taste not present in store bought soymilk. It didn't even taste remotely close.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.277061
| 2012-07-31T17:29:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25379",
"authors": [
"Antoine",
"Apoorva Ramamurthy",
"Becca",
"Bre4416",
"Brian Colavito",
"Cynthia",
"Happy House",
"J. Chris Compton",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe Braico",
"John Cvelth",
"Lee K-B",
"Matthew",
"Natalie Sasso",
"Newbee",
"Nils",
"RedactedProfile",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Snapdragon",
"Sobachatina",
"Ynara Pineda Sincioco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83740",
"jerinisready",
"kxr",
"lemontwist",
"matt",
"paul",
"rebecca cater",
"user280593",
"user58917",
"user65674",
"user67460",
"user76575"
],
"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
}
|
47257
|
What is an alternative to chicken broth for Mexican rice?
A recipe for Mexican rice calls for chicken broth. Where I live, this is difficult to buy and expensive. Is there any alternative?
Some recipes might be pickier, but Mexican rice is almost certainly the kind of thing where the broth is just there to add a bit of background flavor, and it doesn't have to be specifically chicken. So you can be pretty flexible. Your primary options are:
Use a different kind of pre-made broth. They'll all work for something like that, just provide slightly different flavors.
Use bouillon cubes/paste. These are likely to be less expensive since they don't have all that water weight/volume that costs money to ship. You can even buy them online, depending where you live. They do tend to be saltier, so be careful - if the recipe calls for any other salt, you can probably just leave it out.
Make your own. If broth is expensive but you can get a whole chicken you'll be in fine shape. And again, not-chicken is fine too; you can use any other kind of meat with plenty of bone in it. If you go to a little trouble, you can get something way, way better than you'd ever buy. (Just search online for recipes; there's no shortage.) But even just boiling a whole chicken in water will get you something usable.
And if somehow none of that works... water, a little seasoning (something with some umami in it) and salt if necessary? Water plus some kind of instant seasoning packet, even ramen seasoning? It's hard to say, since I don't live where you do and know what's easy to find.
+1 What he said, plus if you have food reaching the end of it's glory days - vegetables, leftovers, whatever; chop 'em up and throw them in a pot. Simmer for an hour or two. Some of the best broths I've ever tasted were made that way. A key to thinking like that is not to get totally hung up on the Mexican label. Rice is eaten just about everywhere.
Chicken Ramen packets work great, just add a little bit of cumin and garlic in some form.
When in Mexico we don't have chicken broth for cooking rice or whatever we use «caldo de pollo la suiza (Knorr brand)» and water. This brand is THE ONE WE LIKE IN MEXICO. The others are not that good.
And so people don't have to look it up -- chicken bullion. (literally translated 'swiss chicken broth' ... no idea what makes it swiss)
Suiza is the sub-brand of Knorr brand. There is nothing swiss on it. Ha ha ha! But that is the favorite brand. Sorry for any inconvenience, names cannot be translated. Also my English is not the best :^}
Here is more information about «caldo de pollo la suiza»
http://www.knorr.com.mx/productos/detalle/635824/frasco-knorr-suiza-caldo-de-pollo
Kind regards!
I am finding lately that rice cooked with water rather than any broth is allowing the taste of the rice to come through. I prefer jasmine rice as my staple rice. The last two batches I made - one with chicken broth and one with water - settled it for me. The batch with chicken broth had none of the pleasant flavors associated with jasmine rice. Instead, all I could taste was chicken flavor (the broth was low sodium and fat-free, so no issues there).
If you are using more strongly-flavored rice, like wild rice, the flavor should not be overpowered by the broth. But still, if you are insisting on using quality ingredients (esp. the rice in a Mexican rice dish), you may want to avoid masking the natural flavor you would get otherwise.
I'm pretty sure that this recipe is already going to be covering up any natural rice flavor with other ingredients. This is good advice if you're making plain rice, but that's not what the OP is doing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.278278
| 2014-09-20T01:59:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47257",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cathy Tower",
"Idealdo Félix",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mary Brown",
"Matt O'Leary",
"Mmamothobi Mateane",
"R. May",
"Yvonne Twigley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58460",
"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
}
|
28454
|
What is the effect of adding alkaline or acidic substances to wheat flour?
What are the chemical reactions of adding alkaline substances to wheat flour dough and how does it change the properties and behavior? The same for acidic substances.
(Alkani substances)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali] are (basic)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(chemistry)], as opposite to (acid)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidity]. When you are asking "alkaline or acidic substances" are you meaning they are the same or different? I'm confused as the title only states "alkaline substances".
Good remark, I'm going to rewrite my my question thank you.
Thank you for taking it in considetation. No it's a very clear question and (I think) a very good one.
Ramen noodles get their specific characteristics from being treated with alkaline substances. The original geography of that noodle was one where the local water had a high pH (alkaline). So, in commercial applications we see them treating the noodles with strong base solutions (which freaks people out). Recipes to replicate that call for Kansui, or adding baked baking soda (baking it breaks it down from bicarbonate to just carbonate, which is more alkaline).
I can think of adding alkali or acid substances mainly as means of changing the ph of the dough. And adding can be understood as in the dough, or on its surface.
Alkali/basic additives or ingredients
Gluten only works if PH is between 3 and 11. Outside those values it loses its stength.
Before reaching PH>11 it will make flour have a higher absorption.
It's a way to relax the dough, as the technic used to stretch noodles as it has previously been cited in this question (see @TFD and @Chad's answers), and also in this question. To make that kind of noodles, you add the alkali to the flour, resulting it to be in the dough.
Another way basic substances are used in dough is giving them a bath in caustic soda, as Germans do with their Laugengebäck (the most known ones outside Germany probably are the Brezels/Pretzels). The lye makes them have their characteristic crust: brown, and hard and thin, like a good sausage.
Acidic additives or ingredients
Acids can also weaken the gluten, but in bread making is not so strange to add certain acids, or wanting an acidic dough.
One of the reasons on wanting an acidic final loaf is it will help increasing the shelf life, as it will act as a preservative.
Besides that, there is a very common acid used in doughs: Citric acid / Ascorbic acid / E-300. It helps the dough to rise more and faster, and be more manageable and have a crumb that resembles like cotton candy. You can read more on Ascorbic acid at the page of the Real Bread Campaign, and in this YouTube video you can see its effect in dough.
Another reason for wanting a low PH dough is to avoid starch degradation. Flours have enzymes (amylase) that end up degrading it. But that enzymatic activity is stopped with a PH<4.5. This is well known with 100% rye breads:
I know the question states wheat flour, but this example is clarifier. Rye flour has low gluten, and it has a somehow "low quality" (if compared with "normal" wheat flour). Some recipes call for strong high gluten wheat flour to retain gas bubbles from the leavening that won't get trapped by rye's gluten. But in 100% rye breads gas can also be trapped. That is why usually rye breads are made with sourdough, which has acetic and lactic acids. They give the dough the right PH, and the starches in rye will get gelatinized and catch the gasses in a similar (although less effective way) than gluten. Sometimes, instead of sourdough, yeasts and acid are added as ingredients.
That was an specific example with rye, but wheat flour also has starches, and they can also be gelatinized, giving a distinctive sourdough touch to to 100% wheat breads.
Acidic and basic at the same time
(Thanks @ChrisSteinbach for reminding me it)
When mixing an acid and a base, a chemical reaction happens, neutralizing both and releasing CO2 gas:
NaHCO3 + H+ → Na+ + CO2 + H2O
That gas is employed to leaven the dough, as in a chemical leavener. I.E. in Irish bread or typical cakes.
Stuff that is not acidic nor basic... yet
As a chemical leaveners improvement, one would like the reaction wouldn't start as soon as acid, base and water are mixed, but a bit later. This woud let some more time to work on the dough. Some salts have the characteristic of degrading at high temperatures into acid, helping (usually in the oven) for a second rise.
On the use of acid or acidic adjective: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/218696/acid-vs-acidic
Alkaline solutions are added to wheat noodle dough when it is too be pulled by hand. The alkaline substance will break down the gluten connections to make a more pliable dough
See What flour and technique do I need for hand pulled noodles?
A mixture of sodium bicarbonate (which is alkaline) and tartaric acid is commonly used as a chemical leavener in baking. If flour is mixed with small amounts of these substances, then carbon dioxide gas will form when water is added to the mixture creating small bubbles in the batter or dough. The mixture is typically cooked as soon as possible after the leavening agent is introduced so that the gas bubbles do not have time to escape and become baked-in.
Thanks You set me on a cool direction. I found this site build that on what you are saying. http://www.tammysrecipes.com/node/2814
Another way basic substances are used in dough is giving them a bath in "caustic soda", as Germans do with their Laugengebäck (the most known ones outside Germany probably are the Brezels/Pretzels).
It should be "Baked Baking soda" instead of "Caustic soda"
Caustic soda is poisonous.
+1 for mentioning that application. However, traditional recipes for Laugengebäck used and still use actual caustic soda (food grade, but that is still NaOH - never use chemicals made for non-food industrial use in food, period.), and the product is considered safe to eat. Amateurs are usually advised to either leave the caustic soda be or handle it with utmost caution.
Caustic soda is hazardous and corrosive and should be handled with care, but it is nevertheless used in food processing and in food preparations.
Alkali for the various German lye treated breads/rolls is very much for the promotion of browning to achieve that rich brown crust. Caramelisation in particular is accelerated in alkali conditions. As far as I know, these recipes have lye solution brushed on to the surface before baking.
Yeast thrives in a slightly acidic environment.
Quite some cookie/shortbread recipes (including commercial ones - oreo is a likely candidate, it isn't airy at all but has an akali added) contain baking soda or other alkalines but not a trace of acid - likely because a) a bit of the baking soda taste is strangely expected, b) because it helps browning. Leavening is unlikely the intention, since leavening is sometimes the last thing you want in dense shortbreads, given even the leavening from moisture content evaporating can turn shortbread fingers into shortbread sausage fingers...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.278611
| 2012-11-16T09:13:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28454",
"authors": [
"BobTheAverage",
"Brenda",
"Bron ",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jackie Epema",
"Just Joel",
"KMAX",
"Melara",
"Mr Purple",
"Peggy K",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65842",
"lank81",
"patrick",
"rackandboneman",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24366
|
Substituting mayonaise for vegetable oil
I know there's a recipe for Mayonaise cake that is super moist.
I am baking sugar free brownies that are a bit dry, box recipe. I'd like to use mayo instead of oil and see if it comes out moister. However I am not sure what the equivalent? I know in the cake mix the oil is double. Not sure if the brownie mix would be the same?
You are replacing pure fat with a mixture of fat, water, protein, a bit of carbohydrates and salt. I think you need to adjust for at least the water in your recipe as well.
I think there are a lot of sour-cream-included recipes that probably make for a better flavor match.
Note that basic mayonnaise normally is made from egg yolks, oil, mustard, citron juice, salt and pepper. This is means that the flavors in mayonnaise are a bit sour. This is normally compensated with sugar in the recipe, but you are using a non-sugar recipe.
I think the idea of adding mayonnaise for the texture is ok. However I experienced the effect of making a cake becoming more moist from some other ingredients from which i think they fit more properly in a brownie recipe. You could replace the amount of oil by the same amount of applesauce. Or add some additional applesauce to the recipe (2 tablespoons I would say)
The flavors of applesauce do not seem to change the flavor of a cake a lot in practice. And applesauce is used in a lot of recipes to bake low fat. So in stand of sugar free you now have low fat brownies. If you still want it to be sugar free you can use or make some sugar free applesauce of course.
If you don't want to use applesauce you good think of adding a couple of tablespoons of vanilla pudding to the recipe. Or even chocolate pudding, to give your brownies even more chocolate flavor.
Also replacing some of the water you use in the recipe by some more oil can work. The water while evaporate during the baking. However, the oil does not do that, and stays liquid at room temperature after baking. This causes an moisty effect.
Note that you will almost always add some more sugar/oil in the recipe if you only want to use 'instant' products. If you want to make non-sugar/low fat brownies this may not be what you want. So you could also think about undercooking your brownies a little. So shorten the cooking time a little bit, so you don't cook your brownies 'dry' but still a bit undercooked in the middle. This makes it very moist, and personally I think the 'undercookedness' of brownies it actually the best think about them.
I would keep the weight of the mayo the same as the weight of the oil using this conversion site: http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_volume_cooking.htm
The other nifty trick to chewy gooey moist brownies is to pre-cook a quarter to a third of the dry mix with the entire water amount. Cool a bit and add in the rest of the dry plus the mayo. This also reduces the baking time somewhat if dough goes in warm.
But this is not just a density adjustment since the composition is entirely different, one is just fat, the other a mixture of fat, protein, water etc. If mayonnaise were not premixed, you would not dream of adding all that water and eggs into the recipe against taking out the oil as a direct substitution
not with an angel cake or a torte or.... but brownies? They have wider parameters: drier moister chewier flaky doughy. It's worth experimenting: failures get eaten up
Understood, totally in favour of experimenting. Is it worth point that out in the answer to avoid readers going for a 1:1 conversion in all situations?
I am out of oil so am looking for a good substitute. So far all of them say the same thing: butter, melted, same amount as oil called for, margarine- same, applesauce-same, bananas-same. This info was specific to brownies. If you use applesauce or bananas, I read that you start with less water than is suggested and "gauge the consistency. Add more water as needed based on desired consistency, not to exceed original amount recommended.
I'm going to try butter. If I can find my way back here, I will let you know tomorrow how it worked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.279173
| 2012-06-11T17:43:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24366",
"authors": [
"EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine",
"Howard Stein",
"Jay",
"Nicolas Proxenos",
"Pat Sommer",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"sagatl",
"user110084",
"user6509663"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99744
|
How to tell if Koji rice is bad?
I have some store bought Cold Mountain brand Koji rice. On the container it says it keeps in the fridge for "6-12 months". I've had it for about 8 months, but can detect no change from when I bought it by either sight (still white and chalky), touch (perfectly dry), or smell (not sour, a little sweet).
That said, this is a fungus we're dealing with, so I want to be sure I can still use it.
How can I tell if Koji rice is still good to use?
Did you have a look at How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I think you've answered your own question. it's your kitchen, your body, your health, and your confidence. if you've lost confidence in an ingredient, toss it and buy new.
@jim - food safety isn't determined by my confidence and my senses are fallible. I'm not too familiar with koji, so I'm looking for a halfway objective test to decide whether I should be confident in using it.
@Halhex - I just did and neither of the linked sites (StillTasty and Food Keeper) or the answer itself answers this question.
Check for any signs of mold growth or discoloration. If the Koji rice appears moldy, discolored (other than its typical white color), or has visible patches of green, blue, or black, it is best to discard it.
Koji rice should be dry and have a powdery or chalky texture. If you notice any clumping, stickiness, or a significant change in texture, it may indicate moisture absorption or spoilage.
Koji rice typically has a pleasant, sweet, and slightly fermented aroma. If you detect any unpleasant or off-putting odors such as a strong sour smell or a moldy/musty scent, it is best to avoid using it.
Hope this helps
Thanks! Back when I asked this question, I indeed did not observe any of these red flags.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.279525
| 2019-06-26T04:24:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99744",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"Hugo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25625
|
how do you rest your steak after cooking
Possible Duplicate:
How to rest meat but not let it get too cold?
I have been over the last year perfecting the home cooked steak to my liking and have read with interest the questions and answers on cooking steak How do you properly cook a steak? and How do you cook a steak like those found in fine steakhouses?
But I find that when I rest it properly it gets too cold and the marbles fats cool too much becoming undesirable (in scotch fillet) . If I wrap it in foil and a cloth it seems to loose the nice crisp surface.
SO what is the best way to rest it?
thankyou TFD that post didn't come up when I seached :-)
just curious, what did you search for? It is never obvious, and I sometimes think we need a set of search tags different for category tags?
Place the steaks on a wire cooling rack over a half sheet pan and cover with foil.
Additionally heat your plates in either a low oven or your dish washer on the plate warming setting which will help keep the steaks as warm as possible once plated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.279944
| 2012-08-13T02:32:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25625",
"authors": [
"Connie Durant",
"Ellie",
"J F",
"Krish",
"Shelley",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58753",
"user58752",
"vegetable puree"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116408
|
Would some dry herbs sprinkled on the surface prevent water from superheating in the microwave?
I know about the risks of superheating water in a microwave (and some countermeasures), but suppose that someone didn’t have any sort of wooden skewer, tooth pick, or something like that to act as a nucleation site.
Would some herbs sprinkled on the top of the water be sufficient to prevent superheating? Or would I still be in danger when removing the water from the microwave?
Microwave superheating is really not that big a deal, just give the water a minute to sit before you use it.
@GdD I was boiling water with a brand new container, and had some worry about whether it would seed any bubbles. Fortunately, mine did seem to have a couple spots that acted as nucleation sites, but I know that's not a guarantee for all new glassware.
Are you sprinkling them after you're done heating? If so, that should work, though you want to stand back.
@dandavis no, putting them in before heating. For exactly the reason you say that I may “want to stand back”, which is the situation I was trying to avoid by using some thyme as nucleation sites to promote boiling over superheating.
@fyrepenguin: yes, but if you add them before heating, they can soak up water and not do anything, whereas tossing them in basically forces tiny bubbles clinging on the granules to do their magic.
The problem with sprinking herbs on the top, would be that the container of water can be superheated at the bottom and not superheated at the top. (In fact, the top tends to be much cooler than the bottom, because of evaporation.)
Wouldn’t convection do a good job of equalizing the temperatures there? If there’s an imbalance, the cooler water should sink.
Sure, over time. But the bottom is being continuously heated and the top is being continuously cooled. The system never comes to equilibrium.
OP needs something that sinks. In labs we usually use glass or ceramic beads to prevent super tumultuous ebullition, might be worth a shot with pie weights
@JulianaKarasawaSouza yeah, I know there are a bunch of options, but as I said, currently unavailable. Was curious how much my idea would actually help
@fyrepenguin if we're improvising, I'd go for denser things, like a few beans or other legume
@JulianaKarasawaSouza interesting point. I went with an herb that I'd already be using in the dish I was making; do you think that a few beans/legumes would unduly flavor the water?
@fyrepenguin if you add just a few of them to keep the water from superheating for the duration of microwaving, no, I don't think so. Quantity is too small and cooking time is too short
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.280091
| 2021-07-13T09:26:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116408",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Sneftel",
"dandavis",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73256
|
When milk is cultured (eg kefir), what changes occur in terms of lactose, glucose and galactose levels?
When milk is cultured (eg kefir), what changes occur in terms of lactose, glucose and galactose levels?
What happens to these sugars, and why?
In general, the process of fermentation is a conversion of sugars to alcohol and carbon dioxide. Lactose being a disaccharide composed of glucose and galactose is somewhat harder for the culture to digest, so as fermentation progresses, the levels of all three sugars will fall but lactose will fall at a slower rate than galactose or glucose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.280427
| 2016-08-19T10:38:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73256",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113617
|
Does it have a significance that some coffee beans are shiny and others are dull?
Some espresso beans have a deep "luxurious" luster while beans from other packages seem dull. Although I have only anecdotal evidence it seems that my usual brand, Altomayo espresso roast, often has the luster while some others don't (always).
Is that from a difference in the beans, or the roasting, or is it just coincidence?
For example, my last package of Lavazza qualita rossa seemed duller. I notice that the Lavazza is a mix of Arabica with Robusta while the Altomayo is pure Arabica but I think some pure Arabica also looked dull in the past. The packaging is very similar, and all samples come in kilogram airtight foil bags.
The luster clearly makes the beans look classier; is it a sign of quality?
Is there any difference in how they're packed? I'm wondering if they could rub together and roughen each other if loose in a bag on tin, while a vacuum would hold them rigidly.
@ChrisH No, all samples come in very similar bags.
Differences in the roasting/packing process could abrade the outside differently without changing the inside and therefore the overall quality - but I don't know enough to more than hint at that
This is just a guess, but it might be the oiliness of the original bean, or the amount of that that comes to the surface in a darker roast. My preferred Segafredo is a mid-dark roast with a gentle lustre. I've seen almost jet-black roasts (which I hate) that are truly shiny, & light beans such as Peaberry (obviously not for espresso) which are pale & absolutely matte-finish.
@moscafj Possibly. The beans didn't look outright oily to me. Is that the (only) reason they (can) have a luster?
@Peter-ReinstateMonica in my experience, this is how roasted coffee beans are described...shiny/oily vs. dull...along a continuum. It's really based on the roast. I think the question is a duplicate, but others can weigh in.
Wow! I'm gonna claim the guessing prize for today ;)
Rather than duplicate, shouldn't this be migrated to Coffee.SE?
@FuzzyChef Wow. There is Coffee.SE!? (But no Tea.SE! That's like Vim but not emacs? cats but not dogs? Is the universe not supposed to be beautifully symmetric? Instead it's heavily leaning towards coffee. Ah well. Probably because of all the coders.) Please turf it to coffee.SE, yes.
Yes: https://coffee.stackexchange.com/ I'd search there first, though, it's very likely that your question has already been answered.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.280505
| 2021-01-06T08:02:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113617",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79036
|
I've put too much onion on my macaroni salad and it overwhelms other ingredients. Is there a way to tame down the onion taste?
I made the mistake of putting all of the chopped onion in my macaroni salad before testing it. Now the onion taste overwhelms all the other ingredients. Any easy way to tame down the onion taste?
Leave it over night eat it tomorrow some of the flavor will have "matured" and be less pungent. Also additional cheese and mustard may help balance the flavours.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67858/how-do-i-tone-down-onion-sharpness-already-in-the-chicken-salad
If it goes well with the other ingredients of your salad, you can add some mint of fresh parsley, it will balance a bit the strong onion taste.
A simple solution that works for me when I put too much of an ingredient is to scale up all the other ingredients to that same factor.
For instance, if you've used twice as much onion as you've meant to, you can double all the other ingredients for an end result with the original proportions you had in mind.
Of course, you end up with twice as much food as planned, but to me that is often better than attempting to otherwise fix the flavor and risk making matters worse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.280730
| 2017-03-10T18:25:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79036",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816"
],
"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
}
|
18005
|
Non-alcoholic substitute for brandy?
I have a cake that calls for 4 Tablespoons of brandy. I don't have any brandy in the house, nor any kind of liquor at all (besides maybe red wine vinegar which doesn't help much). Is there anything I can substitute, or should I just skip? (I think I've skipped the brandy sometimes before when making this recipe and it came out fine.)
Skip it - your only option might be to boil off some of the alcohol from the brandy, but if you don't have any you're going to struggle finding anything that will taste remotely like it.
As rumtscho suggests in a comment below, 4 tablespoons is not an insignificant amount. The issue is that the alcohol in the brandy will not react with the flour to create gluten the way water does. Therefore, if you replace the brandy with any liquid that is largely water, you are going to end up with a slightly tougher/chewier cake.
People seem to have taken this question as a statement that I specifically don't have alcohol and don't want alcohol in the recipe. This is not the case. I just happened not to have any alcohol on hand when I was baking the cake. (And as a follow-up, I ended up skipping the brandy entirely and the cake was delicious :) )
It depends what the recipe is, but I've successfully replaced brandy with orange juice or apple juice in the past. It's not a direct replacement for the flavour, of course, but gives a similar strength of flavour, if you see what I mean.
+1 for not just skipping it. The brandy would affect not only the taste, but also the consistency of the batter. At 4 tbsp, it is important to replace the liquid with something else.
I would probably make a simple syrup and heat it and then steep some chopped raisins or dates in it for an hour or two, and then use some liquid from that instead of the brandy. That way you're adding some flavor, but without the alcohol. Much like the other suggestions, it won't be exactly the same as adding brandy or other liquor, though.
I don't think there is a recipe that will give you trouble if you just skip the liquor.
As for substitutes, I would says add a bit of brandy extract, you can find small bottles in the supermarket. You can add other liquor extracts (rum etc.) if you don't like the taste of brandy. But be careful to adjust the amount. I think 1 Tbsp of extract will me more than enough in your recipe here.
I don't wish to detract from those saying "skip it", except that I would draw attention to the fact that if you choose to "skip it" there is a price to pay, you loose the flavor that brandy provides. This does not mean that your product will be 'bad' just 'different'.
As for those advancing the idea of Vanilla, In the US Vanilla Extract is a MINIMUM of 35% alcohol (or 70 proof). The flavor change may indeed be fine, but it is not an alcohol free decision to switch from brandy to vanilla extract.
The actual process of baking removes much (but not all) of the alcohol from the final product. Then there is apportionment to consider. 4 Tbl is 2 shots, or roughly the amount of alcohol in 2 beers, before reduction. If you start with 4 Tbl and bake for one hour you are down to 1/2 of one beer, apportioned over 8 to 10 servings. Each consumer will receive the approximate amount of alcohol as the consumption from looking at a bottle of beer (ok, 1/16 of a beer...)
Now I appreciate that you may well have important reasons to maintain a standard of "no alcohol" and I would not attempt to dissuade you from those values. If, however, something like vanilla extract is an acceptable cooking ingredient then too should small amounts of other alcohols be acceptable when treated as an ingredient.
That said, if you wish to substitute for brandy then your best choice is whiskey.
Brandy is a distilled wine (fermented grape mash) which has been aged in oak barrels.
Whiskey is distilled from a fermented grain mash and then aged in oak barrels.
In each case the oak is the primary source of flavor (while distillation and quality of the mash contribute to the 'smoothness' the flavor is OAK)
Depending on the recipe, you might be able to substitute additional vanilla extract to give more flavor. I wouldn't recommend doing a whole 4 tablespoons as vanilla is much more concentrated than actual brandy, but maybe 1-2 teaspoons vanilla + some water or apple juice to end up with the right overall amount of liquid? If cake recipe uses milk already, use vanilla + milk.
I have made this substitution successfully with something that's similar to the current answers, but gives a richer taste.
The best, but time-consuming option
Make a small amount of caramel*, maybe a single tablespoon per 100 ml of brandy-to-replace. You'll have to use a small vessel, maybe a muffin cup, if that little sugar is spread in a normal-sized pot, it will go from pale to burning almost instantly. When it caramelizes, add clear apple juice in the needed amount, take from the heat, and wait until it is properly dissolved. When it cools down a bit, add some drops artificial brandy flavoring (check if it is alcohol free if that's a concern for you) and then top up to replace the juice that evaporated when hitting the hot caramel.
The easier option with less complex flavor
Add brandy essence to apple juice.
This also works for other alcohol types such as rum, if you have the proper essence. Also, many recipes are very tolerant to having the alcohol type "replaced", for example I have used this technique with rum essence in a recipe which called for brandy.
* Here I mean to caramelize sugar without adding butter or dairy - I know people do that, but in my terminology the result would be called caramel sauce, toffee, or something else. When I say caramel, I mean sugar heated until it's brown.
Rehydrate some raisins in hot water or tea for same minutes, grind, sieve and add to the recipe in the same quantity.
You could consider peach or apricot juice. May convince people you used peach brandy. Date or prune juice is also an option.
Get a tiny sample bottle of Brandy. The alcohol is going to evaporate as the cake bakes, anyway. Or buy Brandy extract in the baking isle of the grocery store.
Replacing 4 tbsp of brandy with a similar amount of brandy extract is not a great substitution suggestion. The extract is concentrated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.280868
| 2011-09-26T07:32:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18005",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"clueless",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"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
}
|
82061
|
How should I store chilli for freezing and later defrosting?
I usually make too much chilli so I want to freeze it and defrost it later to eat. Right now I am just using unbranded plastic containers to hold the chilli when it's frozen. I'm assuming it's unsafe to microwave these as they might melt, so I'll take out the frozen chilli and microwave it in a bowl. However is there a better way than this? What containers are best for freezing food in, and can any just be put in the microwave safely when it's time to defrost?
I recently took some chili out of my freezer. I stored it in a regular plastic box. I took it out in the morning and set it in the refigerator to let it thaw a little (so I can get it out of the box). Then, in the evening, I just put it into a pot and stirred once in a while. Taste and consistency were almost as if it were freshly cooked. I assume if you microwave it instead, it might thaw unevenly and you'd have to take it out and stir it quite often.
That sounds like an answer Ian.
Try Google "freezer and microwave container" lot of hits
If you do this often, consider a vacuum sealer such as https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0044XDA3S
For meat/veg in sauce recipes I anyways freeze in boxes, and often defrost in the microwave. I tend to buy boxes that are meant for microwave use but don't fuss about this (larger quantities work well in ice cream tubs).
If you know in advance that you're going to eat it, you can defrost in the fridge. If not, aim to defrost quite slowly in the microwave and transfer to something else (e.g. Pyrex) before it gets hot. A larger container is good because it gives you room to stir, and that's a good idea when defrosting. Even the best plastic microwave containers can get very stained with hot oily tomatoes, and with others you might worry about leaching
To prevent freezer burn, fill the container as much as you can without making a mess. Cover the (hopefully cooled) chili with plastic cling wrap and try to remove as much air from the space between the cooled chili and the plastic. Place the lid that fits your container and trap the excess plastic wrap in the lid. Place in the freezer.
To thaw and heat, place the container in your sink and run cool water over it. when the chili begins to break up and isn't a solid chink of structural soup, heat it in a pan on to medium heat stirring occasionally.
Heat to your liking and enjoy.
Filling it too full can make freezer burn worse by popping the lid off as the liquid part expands.
If you have a deep/chest freezer, that helps to minimize freezer burn because it doesn't go through the slight thaw cycles that normal freezers do to stay "frost-free." I keep most of it there, then move it to the fridge when I need it, or maybe keep one container that I'm going to use soon in the regular fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.281320
| 2017-05-28T22:18:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82061",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ian",
"Neil Meyer",
"Paulb",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55819",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82353
|
Need Help Identifying Characteristics of Vinegar in a Carolina BBQ Sauce
A year ago I made my first Carolina-style BBQ sauce (specifically a Piedmont-style sauce). It was perfect, exactly what I was looking for in every way. I've never been able to replicate it.
The first batch was made with whatever red-cider vinegar we had in the cupboard; I didn't take notice of the brand, but I believe it was a supermarket generic brand, possibly either Giant or Harris-Teeter. The second batch I made was very, very harsh, and through trial and error I determined that it was the brand of vinegar that I used (Heinz red cider vinegar). The next batch was made with red wine vinegar and it was much better, but still not as good as the first batch (I still have a tiny bit of the first batch left). My latest batch is even better still, using the Giant-brand red cider vinegar -- but it's still not as good as that first batch.
I don't have words for why the first batch is better, other than "less harsh". Logically I know that vinegars can vary tremendously, and if I use a store brand, that will likely vary even more from batch to batch than a name brand; how can I make something that consistently excels if I can't define what I'm looking for?
My husband jokingly told me to find someone with a mass spectrometer, but I'm seriously considering it. Is there a better way? How do I go about figuring out what is different about that first batch? My supply is rapidly dwindling, just a few tablespoons, now.
Supermarket vinegars range in concentration, typically 5% by weight, but I have seen as low as 3% and as high as 9%. Vinegars are more complex than just pH though, like all fermentation products. Traces of higher alcohols, other acids and aldehydes, let alone flavour./aroma producing molecules can make a huge difference, good and bad. You are much better off with an HPLC than a mass-spec if you really want to go that far.
The way that brands of the same kind of vinegar can vary is often water content, i.e. the concentration of acid in the vinegar. Some will be more concentrated and therefore more acidic than others, when you switch to a vinegar that is more concentrated than another your result is more acidic and therefore harsh. There's no real standard or rule that I know of when it comes to vinegar strength, and it's not on the labelling, so it's hard to know what you're getting. In general I've found store brands to be weaker than more expensive brands, so I think you're getting inconsistent results because of inconsistent acidity in the vinegars you buy.
If you are going to get a consistent result you need to develop a method which will compensate for the inconsistency, there's more than one possibility that comes to mind:
Be scientific and use PH strips to measure the acid content of the vinegar you are using. Measure the acidity of the vinegar you've had the best success with and then add water to a stronger vinegar in order to make the PH match. You could also get an expensive electric tester for this but PH strips are cheap (a hundred for less than $10), reliable and accurate
Use your sense of taste. If you are using a stronger vinegar you'll need less of it, so start with a lower amount, say half, then add small amounts until it has the flavor you want. The consideration with this method is that adding less vinegar means less liquid overall, giving you a thicker sauce. You'll probably want to add a bit of water to compensate for that, but when you do it will dilute the flavors, including the acidity
The scientific method's main benefit is that it gives you the most consistency, you'll get the right acid balance every time without guesswork. One's sense of taste can change significantly depending on many factors, for instance if you have a cold, what you've eaten recently, even mood, so if absolute consistency is what you want then a bit of chemistry is the way to go.
Cheap pH meters are fiddly, need too many recalibrations. Far better off with strips. With a bright light, it is amazing how you can tell even subtle colour differences. Taste sensitivity is not consistent from day to day or even moment to moment, made worse by how badly we remember exact tastes and flavours.
I purchased a narrow-band pH strip (0-6 as opposed to 0-12) and tested the acidity of both batches and they came up identical, so that's not my issue...
It's good you were able to eliminate that as a factor @JoeCasadonte, now you can look at other aspects.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.281562
| 2017-06-12T23:43:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82353",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe Casadonte",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
16389
|
How can I maximize ginger extraction?
I want to make ginger drinks (bourbon, hot tea, ginger ale). In all cases, I want to create a ginger syrup that I can then add to bourbon, hot water, soda water to get my desired drink. I have tried the following methods:
Slice ginger thinly, put in boiling water for 1 hour
Chop ginger very finely, bring water to boil, cover, steep one hour
Chop ginger very finely, bring water to simmer for one hour
Puree ginger and small amount of water in vita mix
In all cases, I've found that I need to remove the leftover ginger, as it would just settle out of a drink. I've tried it with varying amounts of sugar (from none to 1:2 sugar:water). What I'm left with is a pretty good product, but the ginger has a lot of flavor left in it. In fact, I can use it again with the same process and still get a good result.
I would like to get a very strong product with minimal life left in the ginger, so that I can minimize the amount of ginger I use. I'd also like the syrup / extract to be as strong as possible to minimize the amount I add to my drink. To top it off, I would prefer the process not be to laborious or time consuming.
How can I maximize the extraction of ginger flavor in to a liquid?
To increase flavor extraction (and this applies to ALL flavors, not just ginger):
Simmer for a prolonged period (more time to extract flavor).
Puree or finely mince the ginger, then strain it out with a fine chinois or cheesecloth. Smaller pieces allow water to more easily penetrate, and allows flavor compounds to be extracted more quickly
Stir frequently; this greatly reduces the time you need to cook the ginger, by ensuring flavor compounds reach an equilibrium throughout the mixture, rather than being concentrated at the surface of the ginger pieces.
Cook the same ginger multiple times with fresh water each time. This will extract more flavor than doing one batch cooked 3x as long, and also more than cooking the same ginger with 3x as much water. Each batch will be less flavorful, of course, but after 3-5 batches, you should have most of the flavor out.
Reduce the ginger water after extraction to concentrate the flavor. This will be especially helpful when combined with multiple batches.
Add alcohol to the water, as many flavor compounds are oils, and thus more soluble in alcohol than water. This is excellent to combine with reduction, as the alcohol is easily evaporated.
All of these approaches are based both practice and the chemistry behind extractions, which is what you are doing here.
This probably warrants an experiment, but is the a differene between simmering the same ginger three times for an hour each and simmering once for three hours?
It doesn't need an experiment, because I already know the answer: yes. It comes out of solvent chemistry; multiple extractions are more effective than a single larger extraction, especially with substances having a limited solubility in the solvent you're extracting into (say, extracting flavor oils into water). For the math & science behind it, examine the link here: http://people.rit.edu/lprsch/scha312ext_a.html
I really should post a layman's explanation of how liquid-liquid and solution-equilibrium chemistry apply to cooking. Trying to decide if it's worth the effort to write & post a couple pages on the subject or not; especially since I hated that part of my inorganic and analytical chemistry courses.
One property of ginger though is that the spiciness is cut about in half when you cook it, so while this would extract more flavor it might actually extract less heat from the ginger than if you keep the ginger fresh. Maybe juice it first when it's fresh to get spice and then boil what's left to get flavor?
Do you want the flavor of raw ginger, or cooked ginger flavor?
Ginger contains several not very water soluble flavors, some of which are converted by cooking into different not very water soluble flavors.
To maximize flavor, you want the ginger mashed as finely as you can make it. That increases the surface to volume ratio of the stuff which in turn maximizes extraction.
Whether you cook or not, consider adding some alcohol, vodka should work, say 20-50% by volume to the mash, or the mash after it is cooked and cooled, and letting things steep overnight. The alcohol should increase the efficiency of extraction of the not very water soluble flavor oils. Filter afterwards of course, a coffee filter and a collander will work for that if you're not in a hurry, perhaps with a cheese cloth step to catch most of the bigger chunks.
I think that trying some room-temp preparation and cold extraction techniques to preserve and incorporate the tasty volatile compounds/organic acids/etc into a suspension/emulsion concentrate will serve you well.
This is done by harnessing the power of the "salting-out" effect to help create a more potent water-loving-compound-extraction, followed by a more lipophilic treatment to round up the rest of the flavor compounds, finished with a stabilizer/emulsifier for shelf life and rancidity control.
I am suggesting a suspension/emulsion because, only some of the ginger's flavor compounds are water-loving and we want to be able to spread them all out fairly evenly in the end product. You will either wind up with something like a salad dressing emulsion that separates, but will reincorporate if shaken, or a thick gel suspension for dilution. To design this emulsion, let's take a different approach to some of the steps that BobMcGee outlined.
Here's what I was thinking:
First, freeze your ginger. Once the root is frozen, peel it(yes, a regular vegetable peeler works, BE CAREFUL THOUGH!), and then grate using a fine microplane grater. You will end up with a pulpy-ginger-mash with very few long ginger "hairs".
Freezing the ginger helps disrupt the cell walls of the rhizome(water in the cells expanding upon freezing), and will slow down native enzymes inside the ginger. Also, grating frozen ginger(for me) seems to go faster than grating raw ones, and there are fewer of the hairs to deal with when you're finished grating. This helps me get the very smallest ginger pieces possible, since I don't have a vitamix. :-(
Combine lengthening extraction time with reducing ginger water by allowing excess water to evaporate in the fridge or on your kitchen counter-top rather than heating. Some of the flavor molecules in ginger will change when exposed to temperatures greater than 50F, thus changing the flavor. Not that warmed ginger isn't also good, but not heating the solution leaves flavor options for you to explore later, rather than being stuck with only cooked ginger flavor. You are realistically going to need to do at least one water extraction and one oil/alcohol/fat extraction to get the majority of the ginger flavors. Increasing the holding time for both extractions is key, so be lazy...let them sit at least overnight. Below is a process I use.
Two-phase extraction example:
Water extraction
20g of frozen ginger, peeled then grated into a pulpy-mash
100mL water
2g CaCl dissolved in water
These are combined in a glass jar with a cheesecloth top that is placed in the refrigerator(at least overnight).
(You can either use invertase to cleave the sucrose in the ginger into glucose and fructose thereby utilizing the salting-out effect, or use calcium chloride to help drive the volatile compounds out into the aqueous phase. If you use invertase, allow the water and ginger solution to sit on the counter, not in the fridge)
When you're ready for the oil extraction, filter and reserve the aqueous ginger solution in a separate container, you will need it later.
Alcohol/Oil Extraction
Ginger-mass leftover from the previous step
100mL 40 proof alcohol (you could use a higher proof, but I use the lower proof because there is a little water left in the ginger mass from the previous step) Personal preference is to use mescal(mezcal?) or a bit of nice brandy/congac.
The alcohol and ginger slurry I allow to sit in the fridge covered with cheesecloth for a while...at least overnight. I tend to forget about this for a week and then find it again when I'm rearranging the fridge. The longer I let the alcohol and water evaporate, the more fiery it becomes.
I blend the two constituents with an immersion blender, cover with cheesecloth and then let the solution sit overnight in the fridge. I have in the past used a neutral oil(canola & grapeseed), but I needed to let it sit in the fridge for more than a week to get more flavor out of the root.
Here's where the concentrate/emulsion making occurs:
I use xanthan gum and lecithin to get the right concentrate consistency, and to slow release of the volatile compounds. I also like xanthan because it is a thermoreversible gel if memory serves right. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866759/ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf048111v http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814607009624
Add some xanthan gum to aqueous solution(in these proportions I used 2.3g) This will help prevent the loss of the volatile compounds to the air as it is stored. The result is a bubbly light-yellow goo. Slowly incorporate the oil/alcohol solution with 1/4 tsp of lecithin(again, I use the immersion blender to do this) then finish with salt (punches up the flavor). To control rancidity I would either add alpha-tocopherol(vitamin E) or turmeric to take care of free radicals that may occur during longer-term storage.
All said and done, this is a slower process because it requires evaporation at cold temperatures. This method does however allow you to make a "concentrate" or extraction without adding sugar, or using heat...if that matters. I do it this way because it allows me to be lazy,(I leave this in the fridge covered with cheesecloth for more than a week getting rid of the water sometimes.) and it means I don't have to worry about cleaning up melted sugar from a saucepan later!
Wow! :) Just for us, mere mortals: CaCl is... salty. Right? Maybe it's just me, but it was not clear to me from the description how is it then removed from the end-product. (Sorry, I had my last chemistry classes 25 years ago.)
What about juicing the ginger? That method is also espoused, e.g., for making ginger beer. I've done it before and it works quite well. You could also try infusing the ginger in the spirit by letting chunks of ginger soak inside the bottle for a week or two. Finally, if your budget is limitless, you could also try using a rotary evaporator to make a ginger extract.
Edit: If you don't have a lever juicer (like the one shown in the first link), another method that I've used before is to grate the ginger into a cheesecloth (or even a paper kitchen towel will work) and squeeze; you'll get about a teaspoon of juice per inch of ginger root. I often use that to add ginger flavor to dashi stock, which works quite well.
If only my budget was limitless! I don't really want to infuse as I'd like one liquid that I could use in many drinks. If I put it in bourbon, then it's not so good for morning tea (at least if you have to get to work).
In that case, I think juicing would be a good option. I just edited my answer with another option for juicing.
Juicing it and then freezing the result in small cubes (using standard ice cube templates) always worked very well for me.
How about trying a pressure cooker. I've tried it once and the flavor was great but I also added sugar and was too sweet. So next time, which is today, I'm going to with-hold the sugar and sweeten it later. I'm using 2 cups of minced ginger to eight cups of water. I can always reduce the mix later if need be, but I doubt I will have to. I'm also adding the zest of to lemons. JB
Slice ginger thinly
Soak overnight at room temp by just covering it with grain alcohol:water (1:1) or vodka/water 1:1
Drain and use the liquid
There are lots of good ideas about extraction here. Generally, in processing terms, there is always a compromise between how watery your extract is and how depleted the pulp is. There is a further question which can be important: a more completely extraction may not be the most desirable, brewing coffee and tea has this problem. The "optimal" for the compromise is always a multi-step process, use small amounts of solvent (water, alcohol, etc) in each step, mix well, then squeeze as much liquid out of the pulp as possible, repeat. Better still, you want to mimic counter-current cascading extraction, start with fresh ginger and a previous extract rather than pure solvent water/alcohol. Then use water thereafter.
One method I am surprised that has not been mentioned is "cavitation", putting the ginger mash and water/alcohol into a soda siphon, pressure it up with a couple of gas (nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide) canisters, shake it violently every so often and keep it cold, and after an hour or so, release the gas by pressing the siphon trigger (careful that it may spit foam). Those who swear by this method argue that you get good extraction without much waiting or effort. I have not been able to confirm its efficacy versus other methods and remain somewhat doubtful. It would be interesting to do some measurements with an HPLC to show how advantageous this really is.
Cheap concentration trick:
There is a slow trick you can use to concentrate your extract (before you put any sugar into it) - cheap freeze drying. Put your final extract into an ice tray, leave in in the freezer for a few weeks and watch the cubes shrink. Water sublimates from the cubes over time leaving behind the same amount of extract in less water. Once it has shrunk (you have to decide how far is enough), thaw the cubes and sweeten with sugar.
Played with ginger pulp today (from making ginger ale). Frustrated by the slowness of a strainer, ditched it and went for a 2-cup cafetiere instead. Worked really well. After the first press, I filled it to about half way and used the plunger to agitate the mix before pressing the second time. The pulp occupied about a third of the jug after pressing.
Cut up ginger into thin slices and steam for 30 mins. Then air dry the ginger. This process concentrates the ginger and also slightly changes the ginger to a different form which will warm the body more than simple fresh ginger extract.
To use, put some of the dry ginger in water and boil them together ( do not put the ginger into boiling water ) Boil for about 5 mins.
I'm doing ginger extraction experiment right now with soxhlet apparatus,I'm using 50% ethanol as a solvent.
I hope I will get a best result with this concentration.
atmospheric or partial vacuum? Why did you pick 50%?
Here's what I did:
I used the juicer first, and filled an ice-cube tray so I can use one cube (small) per tea.
I collected the rest of the fibre/pulp left in the juicer parts together in a jar and poured hot water in it - twice.
I never got so much concentrated ginger from that root! It was a big root, which would have provided me about 16 cups of ginger tea. I made 21 ice cube shots and 1 litre of concentrated ginger tea (enough for at least another 8 strong cups)!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.281939
| 2011-07-25T15:45:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16389",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Boo Spanyer Cassiopeia",
"D. Vente",
"Dave",
"ESultanik",
"Hennes",
"Jon",
"Mittelstand Anzeiger spam",
"Raymond Arcand",
"Sky Dee",
"Spammer",
"Sz.",
"TURKEY VISA ONLINE spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99333",
"pjreddie",
"rcgldr",
"user110084",
"yossarian"
],
"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
}
|
114283
|
Can gelatin change color of butterfly pea tea?
I can't find the answer for this question anywhere on the internet. My friend and I made butterfly pea jelly with gelatin and we used the same recipe. Mine came out fine with blue color of butterfly pea flowers but my friend's changed its color to dark purple after adding gelatin.
My friend lives in Asia and me in Europe, so I think our source of ingredients (gelatin, water, flowers) is different. Plus, our method is slightly different. My friend heated the tea to melt gelatin while I stired gelatin over hot water to melt it and then mixed it up with the tea.
My friend is pretty sure it was because of gelatin because she didn't have this problem when trying with agar agar. Although I know butterfly pea tea is very sensitive to pH, I just can't find a good explanation for this. Is it really because of gelatin?
From the Gelatin Manufacturer's Institute of America "Gelatin Handbook": https://nitta-gelatin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/GMIA_Gelatin-Handbook.pdf
Gelatin in solution is amphoteric, capable of acting either as an acid or as a base. In acidic solutions gelatin is positively charged and migrates as a cation in an electric field. In alkaline solutions gelatin is negatively charged and migrates as an anion. The pH of the intermediate point, where the net charge is zero and no movement occurs, is known as the Isoelectric Point (IEP) (28). Type A gelatin has a broad isoelectric range between pH 7 and 9. Type B has a narrower isoelectric range between pH 4.7 and 5.4 (29-32)
Emphasis mine.
So it does not seem impossible that your various brands of gelatin were produced by different processes and that one would be more acidic than the other. If you had a Type A gelatin and your friend a low-pH Type B, that would explain what you were seeing.
I do not think your method of heating had any effect.
Thank you very much for your answer. I'm wondering if one type of gelatin is better than the other?
According to the same document, both types of gelatin can be produced to the same range of bloom strengths. I'm not sure what else you might mean by "better".
TIL about butterfly pea tea
In general, different ingredients (even same ingredients from different part of the world) will result in slightly different end product.
As far as I understand, the ph of the water will change the colour of the resulting tea from blue to purple; you should experiment by adding a little bit of acid (lemon juice) to change the acidity of the water.
See https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/what-is-butterfly-pea-flower-tea-hint-it-changes-color
This doesn't sound like an explanation. The water's effect was already visible when brewing (a blue tea) and the color changed when gelatine was added. Presumably, the friend uses water from the same source to both brew tea and soak gelatine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.283214
| 2021-02-14T00:30:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114283",
"authors": [
"Alex Reinking",
"Sean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83760",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107381
|
What is this yellow and white mass inside my red cabbage?
My wife cut a head of red cabbage in half and found this yellow and white organic mass inside it. We never saw anything like it before. Can anyone tell me what it is? Would it have been safe to eat? Could we have just cut off this portion of it and used the rest? We ended up playing it safe and throwing the whole head away.
Those just look like yellow leaves from the photo. What texture are they?
@FuzzyChef My wife took out some of it. It came out as pellet shaped pieces. I added another photo when she took some of it out. I didn't handle it too much so I can't say what the texture was like.
@FuzzyChef However I can say they seemed to be separate from the other leaves of the cabbage. So I am not sure if they are part of the leaves.
I am intrigued by this. If you still have it, please examine it further. From the photos it looks like a genetic defect causing differently pigmented leaves to grow inside.
@myklbykl Unfortunately we threw it out and took the trash out today so I don't have it anymore. Here is a google photos album link with all the photos I took (2 of the photos are already included in my question): https://photos.app.goo.gl/Wvz4RZBmiruZNA1u7
I'd guess then that it's some kind of parasitic weed that was growing on the cabbage. I've never seen anything like it. You might try Gardening SE.
These are immature flower shoots from the cabbage. Over time these would develop into a shoot that projects out the top of the "head" of the cabbage bearing the flowers.
These are not purple as they are largely stem (check the stems/major veins on the leaves - they are mostly white too). The flowers of the cabbage are yellow - but these aren't the yellow bits you are seeing - those are the bracts; the same as the "leaves" you get around a broccoli floret.
If you can, please tell us if it is edible. And if it is - is it tasty?
@Mołot I'd be very surprised if they weren't perfectly safe to eat, but they're probably a bit rubbery.
Thanks, I actually thought it might be a flower developing but couldn't find anything like it in a Google Image search. I also thought it might be some kind of parasitic plant or something.
@Mołot - yes you can eat them. You probably have eaten them before and not noticed that they were there. They taste just like the cabbage stalks/veins on the leaves. They can be a bit more peppery later in development. Remember that cauliflower and broccoli as well as a number of other variants are the edible flowers of Brassica oleracea varieties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.283462
| 2020-04-08T00:12:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107381",
"authors": [
"Cave Johnson",
"FuzzyChef",
"Mołot",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"leftaroundabout",
"myklbykl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84089
|
Coconut milk tastes bland
I have been attempting to use coconut milk in both a curry and a rice recipe. I am aiming for a rich and smooth texture, but it keeps coming out bland and watery. Are there any particular methods of using coconut milk that I should be aware of? Does heating it for too long or too hot break down the flavor?
I used the following brand of coconut milk.
In the most recent recipe I used 2 chicken breasts, cubes. 2 tablespoons of coconut oil. 2 tablespoons of green curry paste, 2 cups of eggplant diced, 1 sliced red pepper, 1 tablespoon of grated ginger, 1.5 tablespoons of fish sauce, 2 tablespoons of sugar.
In a stock pot I heated the oil and added the curry paste, then the chicken. Then I added the entire can of coconut milk. Allowed it to reach boiling and then reduced to a simmer. I added the vegetables in and continued simmer for 40 minutes. I then added the fish sauce and sugar and served it.
First off, that probably isn't the best brand of coconut milk. I've never been that impressed, and Cook's Illustrated's review agrees, saying it was "too 'liquid-y' and 'thin'". They like Aroy-D, Roland, Goya and Chaokoh better as of May 2017.
But on top of that, you probably got a lot of water from the eggplant. It's mostly water, and it releases plenty of it as cooking breaks down the structure.
I might try stir-frying the eggplant first, or roasting if you prefer, then adding it to the curry at the end. That way the liquid will be pretty much just coconut milk.
If it still seems too watery, you could do the same for other ingredients. Chicken breasts can release some water, and peppers too, but nowhere near what you get from eggplant. This does let you make sure they're cooked exactly as much as you want, so you might like it regardless of the watery issue.
You can also always just add more curry paste. Often the ratios suggested on storebought curry paste yield a less flavorful curry than what you probably get in restaurants.
To answer your side questions: long cooking is fine, and you don't have to do anything special to coconut milk to make it work.
@blockhead No, if an answer is helpful, you should probably upvote it; it's perfectly reasonable to only accept an answer once you feel the question's been up long enough to see what everyone has to say and you pick out the one you really like.
@Jefromi Also, if possible, it's good to try the answer you like the most and accept it if it works. Even better would be to try multiple and accept the one that works the best.
Coconut milk is wrung from grated and soaked coconut meat; it's not the liquid inside the coconut (nowadays marketed as "coconut water").
Coconut milks differ in the amount of water added. More water correlates with less richness. If the milk is overly watered down, e.g., in 'light' coconut milks, the manufacturer may compensate for the thin texture by adding stabilizers, thickeners, or emulsifiers. I avoid watery milks, not only because there's less coconut there, but also because the texture feels wrong, even with -- or because of -- additives (which can also affect the flavor). It's still possible to buy coconut milks that contain just coconut and water. My personal favorite is Aroy-D.
One quick and dirty way to compare the richness in different brands of (unsweetened) coconut milk is to calculate the calories per ounce (not per serving).
The richest possible coconut milk is called coconut cream which should have no added water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.283714
| 2017-09-02T13:13:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84089",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32922
|
How to know whether a coconut is ripe or rancid before buying
Buying the shrink-wrapped coconuts (in shell) at the store is similar to playing Russian Roulette. All this trouble of getting the water out and breaking the shell only to find out the coconut is rancid (and sometimes unripe).
Sometimes you can see dark spots on the outside of the shell which seem to indicate mould on the inside of the shell, but there seems to be plenty of rancid ones that don't show any spots.
Here's what they generally look like:
Are there definitive signs of rancidity (and ripeness) one can detect at the store before the 'autopsy'?
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29862/how-do-you-determine-whether-a-coconut-is-young-or-not-by-knocking-on-it
Regarding the similar question. Here, I'm looking for an answer on the rancidity in particular, as there seem to be plenty 'young' coconuts that are rancid and pass the test in the other question's answer.
I am aware that this is not a duplicate, else I would have closed the question
Why are they shrink wrapped? Coconuts already have very strong natural packaging!
can you get away with unwrapping at store with intent to purchase and have a feel of the eyes and a sniff? I have bothered my green grocer with weirder requests...
@PatSommer prefer not to, however if you have a reliable way with feeling the eyes and sniffing, please do post. It's a start.
@TFD think figured why shrink-wrapped. So you can smash break them and contain the shrapnel.
When coconuts are smacked they just crack with a dull thud, the inner flesh is soft and absorbes vibrations
Best to always unwrap plastic packaging in store and leave there, then you don;t have to deal with the unessential waste product, and eventual the store will work out people don't like plastic wrappers
From a coconut grocer:
Not only the coconut should sound nearly full of water (slosh test), it should feel (oddly) heavy given the fact that they are supposed to be hollow.
Also the extra weight suggests more meat in the fruit as well.
If the eyes of the coconut feel dry and slightly soft, its a good coconut. If they look/feel damp/mouldy then the coconut has gone bad.. You may have issues with this though as the coconuts you buy are covered. Any cracks in the shell is also a good sign that the coconut flesh is mouldy.
the trouble is that I've recently picked a few young/coconut complying to all of the above 'fresh' indicators and they were rancid. I've also picked some less 'sloshy' presumably older ones that had little but very tasty water and were just heavenly.
looks like the soft-eye is a consistent sign for a mouldy coconut. The water content less so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.284018
| 2013-03-22T13:41:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32922",
"authors": [
"1234567890",
"Edward Gaskell",
"Gulam",
"JoAnne",
"Madolero",
"MandoMando",
"Pat Sommer",
"RollingCompass",
"TFD",
"ThaRobster",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78535",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3573
|
An alternative to Baileys?
In this video of triple chocolate pudding recipe, a shot of Baileys is added to whipped cream. Other than Baileys, what can I add to the cream?
do you want something non-alcoholic? Or is some other alcoholic beverage acceptable?
Are you after an alternative for any parrticualr reason. Almost any liquor can be added to cream dending on your favourite.
If you're looking for alcoholic alternatives then you could use O'Mara's or some other brand (see Wikipedia for a good list). A light coffee liquer could also serve as a workable alternative.
On the non-alcoholic side, Irish Cream flavored coffee creamers would work well.
Coffee syrups like Monin's or Torani's also have Irish Cream flavors. I personally like Monin syrups because they're all natural.
If the alcohol isn't a problem, you could mix some Irish Whiskey with cream and sugar to approximate Bailey's.
Pretty much any flavored liquid. Grand Marnier, bourbon, vanilla vodka, mint syrup, cherry liquer. Non-alcohol coffee syrups might be an easy flavoring option. Most cafes/starbucks sell them.
Anything. It's just a flavoring agent. If you're alcohol averse, I'd try some mint syrup (if you use mint extract, you'll still be getting some alcohol).
I have found a more delicious option which is far less expensive than Baileys:
Ryan's Irish Cream Liqueur
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.284312
| 2010-07-28T15:15:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3573",
"authors": [
"Edward Thomson",
"Ian Turner",
"Kathryn",
"Massimo",
"Mehdi",
"Ryan Miller",
"Sam Holder",
"Samrat",
"Toyoto",
"Troy Bacon",
"exclaimer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9789",
"nybbles",
"user712092",
"zellio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55949
|
In order to mix the cocoa powder in water/milk, is it a good idea to put the cocoa powder in the milk while heating it?
The answers here Dissolving cocoa powder in milk tell us to manually dissolve the Cocoa powder in the liquid.
Will it not be a good idea to put the Cocoa powder in the liquid while heating it so that it gets dissolved automatically? Why?
No, it is not a good idea at all. It will be worse, not better. What you are missing here is that cocoa powder does not dissolve at all, never, it just disperses in water (or milk). So there is no reason why methods for dissolving stuff would work with cocoa powder. You will need to use a method created for colloid-producing powders like cocoa powder, which is mostly starch with fat.
This is why the answers to the other question recommend the slurry method. When you are dispersing an absorptive powder like starch, you always run a risk of clumping, and the slurry is designed to work around that problem. But starch also thickens much more under heat, so if you were to not just forego the slurry, but simply drop the cocoa powder into hot water, this would be the worst choice possible, leading to instant unbreakable clumps. The slurry method wouldn't work with hot water either, you'll get clumps before you have created the slurry.
So, the short answer is: if you try it, it won't "dissolve automatically", it will produce an ugly undrinkable mixture of clumps.
@TheIndependentAquarius For what it's worth, adding cocoa powder to milk before heating can still be worth it, to help get the flavors mingled, especially if you're adding other things as well. But yes, it definitely doesn't do the mixing for you.
Jefromi's addition is correct. Once you have finished with the dispersion in a cold liquid, the drink will taste better if you heat it to boiling once and then let it cool to the desired temperature, even if your intention was to drink cold chocolate or a frapee.
So, according to this explanation, it is actually better to make the slurry with cold ingredients? Interesting, usually the slurry is suggested hot. I knew that it also works with cold liquids, but I wondered...
@hmijail I've never seen it suggested with hot, and from a theoretical point of view, it makes no sense - it will clump.
@rumtscho, probably you are right, but you can check yourself the question linked by the OP: almost everyone mentions warm or even hot liquids. Only one commenter explicitly says cold - and does so as a kinda-protest against others' insistence on heat! Myself, I'm sold on the cold way :)
Add liquid to powder and not the other way round, an ideally (not so practical in a home kitchen), mist the liquid into the powder.
@rumtscho is right in stating that there is no dissolving, only dispersion. Many fine powders clump, even some highly soluble and hydrophilic substances behave that way (polysaccharides like agar for example). The mechanisms are quite different, but surface tension of the liquid is always a factor, the finer the powder, the bigger role it plays in resisting wetting.
You are making a colloid. For effective dispersion, you need high shear. With enough shear force, liquid temperature becomes a non-issue for most combinations. So an electric hand blending will overcome the problem of clumping very quickly.
Alternatively, even with near boiling water or milk, if you add a small amount at a time and form a thick paste first with a fork or a stick, you will find that a low moisture paste (say 25-35% w/w) is not only fairly painless to make, but also painless to thin down with more liquid. Incremental wetting and incremental expansion of the liquid phase is much less energy intensive.
With a hot liquid, left with clumps standing in it, the reduced surface tension will usually allow some of the clumps to break down given time.
Add liquid to powder and not the other way round, regardless of whether you are using a blender or making a paste by hand. Hot or cold liquid should not make that much of a difference.
And this technique also works for gravy and bechamel to avoid lumps.
Adding to @rumtscho's answer, which is mainly about the effects of heat to the starch in cocoa powder, that cocoa fat is well known to have a melting point around body temperature. From my own experience, having clumps of cocoa powder in cold milk that is being heated - after some time i.e. at some temperature you can see the clumps breaking up, which doesn't seem to happen in cold milk. Which might be the reason for so much people to assume instinctively that hot milk or water is better than cold.
So from my point of view, the milk should be around or just above body temperature in order to ease the dispersion of the fat but not to have the negaive effects of clumping the starch as described by @rumtscho.
To answer the question: Yes it will be a good idea, but take care not to make it too hot. And do not just put everything into the pot but take the time and make the slurry.
I am more inclined to see the effect of temperature as surface tension reduction rather than a direct result of fats melting. Much of the fat is already taken out as cocoa butter leaving the solids as powder which has around 12-15% w/w. I am not sure how much of that is free.
You can mix it into a small amount of very hot water, then when it's well mixed add the milk. I do this very frequently. Don't add the water to the cocao, or use milk to start with. Stir with the handle of a table knife, or some sort of swizzle stick.
Can you explain your answer a bit? Why water, then milk? Why not milk to start with? Why handle of a knife?
We always did it this way at home: Mix the cocoa powder thoroughly with some sugar and then add warm milk stirring constantly.
You'd better not, the milk is easy to boil while heating. Just dissolve the cocoa powder in hot water or milk then stir is okay.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.284494
| 2015-03-22T14:39:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55949",
"authors": [
"Air Conditioner Repair",
"Ashleigh Coe",
"Cascabel",
"Debra Ralston",
"Joe",
"Kitchen Remodeling",
"Mamta Bukanam",
"Robert",
"Zack Ray",
"hmijail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"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
}
|
13792
|
How long should I cook pasta sauce?
I recently made pasta sauce, and every couple of minutes decided to add something more... More tomatoes, more pepper, more garlic...
After that I let it sit on a small flame for a bit more.
As a result, the sauce set in the pot for a fairly long time (45 min at least).
I asked my roommate if it's ok to leave it this long, and he said that the longer I leave it, the better it will come out.
Is this true? Is patience a key ingredient to a perfect sauce?
(P.S, it really did come out great...)
a quick cooked pasta sauce is as good as a long cooked pasta sauce; different things, both are good.
Yes, with any kind of 'stewing' sauce, the flavour improves the longer you cook it (provided it's a slow, gentle process). The longer you leave it, the more chance the flavours have to 'marry'. I have a recipe for a pasta sauce that calls for 6 hours of slow simmering!
You may also have noticed in the past that left over pasta sauce that you eat the next day is really good, for the same reason as above. Any stew, in fact, like bolognese, casserole, chilli, bourgignon etc, is really delicious when left overnight and reheated.
You're right! The same sauce tasted twice as good the following day, while I expected it to be much less good...
BTW, can I have that recipe?
You're also substantially reducing the quantities of the least flavorful component of any sauce: water. Less water makes the remaining flavors stronger.
It depends on the sauce and the result you want.
Tomato based sauces without meat can be really good when just cooked and no more. This way you get a fresh summery flavor that makes the most of good tomatoes with maybe just basil and garlic to give a fuller flavor. This also applies where any vegetables want to stay chunky.
Cream, or white sauces don't need to cook long either and a pesto doesn't need cooking at all!
A Ragu, or other meat sauce, however will almost certainly benefit from a longer cooking period depending on how hungry you are.
By the way Corsican beef is incredible if you have patience to cook it long enough. I'd recommend serving it with a really good quality large tube pasta. Too many people spend ages on the sauce and use cheap pasta!
I agree with everyone that cooking longer is sometimes best, but with one caveat - make sure there is enough liquid to support the amount of cooking time. When a sauce simmers water is boiled off, so if your original sauce is already thick, cooking it longer will just create a really thick tomato paste. If you're finding that the sauce is thickening too quickly, try adding some stock (veggie, chicken, beef). Since a stock already contains concentrated flavors, this won't dilute the work you've already put into creating a flavorful sauce.
Also you'll want to keep in mind that some ingredients should still be added last: cheese, cream, fresh herbs.
Is it ok to add water, when needed, at any point? Or is it best to try and determine how much water will be needed from the start?
You could add water if you'd like, but keep in mind that it will dilute your flavor. I'm sure there's an equation for the amount of water lost per hour of boiling, but probably on the physics site?
I also suspect that some of the flavor is being lost as it boils off, thus the nice smelling kitchen/house, although how much lost flavor is hard for me guess. One note on adding stocks instead of water: keep in mind the additional salt, as you don't want to have too salty of a sauce.
There are two different ways of cooking a tomato sauce. Both produce very different results and are apt for different dishes.
Cook for a long time (an hour or more) on low heat (just bubbling). The contents of the pan thicken mostly by evaporation. The result is a smooth, dense sauce. This is what you use for ragu type sauces.
Cook for about twenty minutes on high heat. (Beware of really hot tomato splatters!) The result is a somewhat grainy texture that appears suddenly: you go and stir the pan and suddenly it has become denser. This is used for the "light" and "summery" sauces.
If you eat a tomato sauce, it's easy to tell by sight and taste which of these methods was employed. I presume, but I'm not sure, that the difference is due to some additional chemical reaction becoming available at high temperature that somehow binds the water to the starch(?) of the tomato.
This is something we found out by accident. My dad used to be a policeman, and one evening we were having pasta. For some job-related reason he was more than one hour late. That evening the sauce was the best one we'd ever had. After that, we never ever went back to cooking it for less than one hour.
But it probably depends on the ingredients as well, this was a tomato-based sauce containing lots of minced meat, some salami and ham, as well as vegetables.
EDIT
I now have another source on this. While being on holiday I found an old cookery book (published 1959) containing italian recipes. The two pasta sauces in it, one purely tomato based, the other one containing tomatoes and one pound of meat, both said simmer for one and a half hour. So it seems to be quite common to cook it for a rather long period of time.
I regularly cook my pasta sauce over low heat (around 150°F) for 3 hours or more. I see two main advantages:
Meat: The low temperature keeps the meat from getting dry, and the long cooking time melts away the connective tissue so to make it tender.
Flavor: Some flavors benefit from the long cooking. You will extract more flavor from the meat and spices to take the whole sauce to a new level.
Plus, evaporation, even if it's covered, will thicken the sauce and will intensify the flavors (less water = less "watered down")
My mother use to cook her sauce for 2 to 3 days albiet not 24/7 and I still think it's better than any other sauce I've ever had. I suggest trying them and seeing what you prefer and think tastes better as that's what counts.
I have experimented a lot with ragu/bolognese type sauces in the past and observed a few small things i would like to add here
1) the longer you cook it, the more tender the ground meet gets (with ground meat from low quality cuts the tenderization only starts at about 2h)
2) but if you cook it more than about 1.5h, most of the different and sometimes subtle nice tastes start to disappear: tomato aroma, the carrot, the onions, the garlic, even the herbs. it all mingles together into some sort of unified taste.
now it of course depends what you prefer personally, but i really like it, if i can taste all of these things individually. so my way of doing it, is to buy some fairly "good" cuts of beef, pork and a little bacon and then i grind them at home. double grinding also helps to tenderize the meat in case there is still any collagen/connective tissue. And then i simmer it for 1h. for me that makes the best sauce. but tastes are different, so i think its best to just let people know what effects exist and let them choose for themselves.
It depends on your ingredients how long you simmer the sauce. A meat ragu needs time for the meats to cook and the connective tissues to beak down. That is how you get the tasty little meat bits and not hard dry hunks.. Time. You simmer out the excess moisture until the sauce is at the right consistany. If you are too thick and the meat isn't ready, add more water. It's all about how the sauce feels. Starting with fresh tomato will take longer than crushed annex when making said ragu.
Fresh, quick sauces are a whole other ball game.
To start off, use a large 16-18 quart pot for the sauce.
Add raw sausage from your favorite establishment in links. Make homemade meatballs separate in a pan with extra virgin olive oil, with your basic lean meat, eggs, grated imported cheese, seasoned Italian bread crumbs, diced fine onions, salt, pepper, garlic, basil, oregano, Italian seasoning, parsley.
I get the sauce going on a super low setting on the burner, takes roughly an hour to heat the entire kettle slowly.
Sausage is placed in the pot, then add sauce as desired. I prefer 3 cans of crushed tomatoes, 3 cans of tomato passata and 2 cans of tomato puree for my batch. Add a bay leaf too. The sausage cooks with the sauce and becomes superb, add your seasonings such as basil, oregano, salt, pepper, crushed red pepper flakes, garlic, onion. On the side meatballs are cooked enough to hold together without falling apart and then gently placed into kettle.
Old style sauce with another yet wonderful secrete a chunk or slices of pepperoni for flavor. Note: sugar helps with the acid and flavor, if sugar is in your diet add some.
When you make sauce, it's a concoction of taste exploding into a masterpiece! However, "never leave unattended"! As soon as you get caught sleeping, your big batch will burn and you might as well throw out because you have to keep stirring every 10-15 minutes. Yes, it's hard work but so worth it. I cook the sauce for hours, cover, then turn heat off and let it cool.
The day after, it is ready to heat and serve! Puglisi!
great tips from all. I make a Ravioli sauce (my grandmas from Genoa) She simmers for 9 hours. She never said covered or uncovered. Her recipe is tomato based with short beef ribs and pork neck bones. It makes sense to keep covered to minimize loss of moisture and flavor. I will try that. Best Regards, Joe D
I chop one fairly good size onion and 3-4 good size garlic cloves, chopped fine, simmer in olive oil... I then add 2 cans of crushed and two cans of whole (I chop them up a little in the can before adding) and my spices (Basil, oregano,some McCormick Italian seasoning, a teaspoon of sugar, salt and pepper.. I bring this all to a boil, slowly stirring as it cooks.. Then I cover, low heat for 2-3 hours, then turn off.. All the time the pot is covered.. Then 3-4 hours later I bring it back to a simmer, no cover, add my meatballs, simmer until it thickens(about 2 hours)... And everyone raves about my sauce! (Oh.. a dash of port wine.. I learned that from the cooking scene in "The Godfather!!).
The longer the better but you need to get the temperature right. It just needs to gently bubble, not boil. The longer you cook it the thicker the sauce so for thinner, long cooked sauce, consider adding no more than about a half a cup of water after about two hours of cooking. Then cook for another hour. After that, turn heat of and let sauce return to room temperature own its own while covered and on the stove top. I just did this last night since I am cooking for our New Years Eve party and this is the best sauce I have ever made. I grew up in an Italian family and worked in an Italian Restuarant. While I am no expert, I have found the longer you slow cook your sauce, the better the flavor. I also agree with a previous post.....no tomatoe paste. That stuff is nasty. I use whole peeled can tomatoes. I blend the tomatoes in a blender to get my own desired thickness. I also use a can of crushed tomatoes. I add a finely diced green pepper as well. Happy cooking....the more you experiment with ingredients and time cooking, the better you will get. By the way, when tomatoes are in season, always add fresh tomatoes to your sauce. I like romano tomatoes for sauces.
I'm sorry but these answers are full of unsafe and technically flawed advice. First it's illegal for a restaurant to leave anything unrefrigerated for more then 2 hours per USDA food safety laws. USDA says anything left unrefrigerated over 2 hours should be thrown away.
It's also unwise not to bring any type of refrigerated sauce to a boil unless you want botulism to contaminate it. Even boiling a sauce that's been left out will season it with millions of dead bacteria. Especially a sauce with meat in it. This is why meat stocks don't last more then a day in the refrigerator.
As far as what's the best way to cook a sauce, it depends on what you're using it for. The best thing to do is follow the recipe and more importantly in my opinion make sure you are getting your recipes form seasoned, well schooled chefs. Especially when you are making something new to you. Then experiment but try to research and use sound technique. For example, if using Italian sausage links when you simmer them for hours you only end up with overcooked sausages. Save that for traditional stew meats preferably on the bone with connective tissue that needs to be broken down.
Good luck and happy cooking!
The longer you cook sauce the more the aroma fills the room and the less there is in your pot.
The reason you guys overcook or should I say overboil the sauce is because you add water in large amounts. Many amateurs add tomato paste (did you ever taste that straight from the can?). You absolutely do not marry flavors when the heat is on.
My grandmother used to say, you need to rest the sauce when cooked and reheat as desired, but never reboil. As the sauce cools it not only marries flavors, but thickens considerably.
If you want to preserve the fresh flavor, add little or no water, keep it covered so precious aromas are contained, and then if you want to seethe the meats, remove some sauce into another pan with the meat and boil your brains out.
The first pot will be ready and you will enjoy two flavors when you serve, similar to the difference when you have a strawberry sunday as opposed to putting all ingredients in a blender and making strawberry ice cream (not the flavor here but the concept of two flavors as opposed to one).
You may then store any leftovers in one pan and when reheated, not reboiled, enjoy another flavor marriage.
I have found that tomatoes are not always sweet since they are not all picked at their peak for obvious reasons, but the addition of asti spumante or a very similar, but much cheaper, wine called Canei will do you fine. For those who don't do booze, add it early and all the alcohol will evaporate. Remember the flavor of a tomato is basically citric acid. Enhance it, do not neutralize it.
NEVER brown your garlic or onions as the thin membrane on each will never digest in your stomach. Instead, sautee till mushy and they will disappear in the mix. The first part of flavor is aroma (remember when you have a cold you cant smell or taste very well?), so preserve the aromatics as though they were golden.
No more than 30 minutes is best.
No matter whether you're making a fresh sauce or a slow cooked/stewed sauce? Why?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.285035
| 2011-04-06T09:16:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13792",
"authors": [
"Alison S",
"Brian Cato",
"Cascabel",
"Cecilia LLuberes",
"Clay Harrington",
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Emil Proynov",
"FembuizDirectory",
"Jason C",
"Jessica Lloyd",
"Kelamc",
"Marc Dingena",
"Max",
"Michael Cole",
"Nick",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sandi Vega",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Stephie",
"Tom Jordan",
"aleb",
"anonymous",
"chamoisee",
"hizki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98396",
"orszaczky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82301
|
What situations are pressure cookers not appropriate
I have now pretty much replaced all my long slow cooking dishes (chilli, stews etc) from either cast iron in an oven or stove top to pressure cooking due to the time saving.
Are there any these sorts of recipe where you should not use a pressure cooker?
Type of pressure cooker also matters -- http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=2561.html
By raising pressure, you get water to boil at a much higher temperature and thus speed up most of the physical and chemical reactions involved in cooking. Elevated pressure can play a smaller role too.
With higher temperatures, you can get faster caramelisation for instance which may not be desirable in some foods, dull and/or dark colours and bitterness are two properties that come to mind (bright green pea soup gets dull for example) With lower pressure rating cookers (below 15psi or 1 bar), there is less risk of runaway browning.
Another issue is with foods that either need fairly precise cooking or are prone to get overcooked. There is no easy way to open the lid to monitor or halt cooking abruptly. Related to this is the inability to stir and a very real risk of food getting stuck and then burnt even when there is still plenty of liquid (as it just happened to me moments ago). Heat control cannot always be casual.
Whatever you put into it, should either have a high water content (70% or so) or you need to maintain a certain amount of free water for it to work. I find that often I needed to use extra water and drain it off after cooking; that may not always be desirable. Making pet food for example can be awkward as you do not really want to get rid of the free liquid which has plenty of nutrition in it. You can work around it by putting your food in an elevated container and pressure steam it although you still tend to get free liquid from condensates in the container.
One important group is anything where you do NOT want boiling (as in, water is vaporized regardless of temperature) to happen at all - eg because there are whole ingredients that would burst, overexpand or disintegrate.
Obviously, any really thick stew that is best handled in a nonstick pot (unless your PC is nonstick), or anything that could unexpectedly foam into the pressure vent, is also unsuitable...
Dishes containing alcohol or very volatile aromas might also behave differently.
Something else that should not attempted is to pressure fry food e.g. only add oil and meat, then bring up to pressure. Pressure fryers have more safety features than a conventional pressure cooker, doing so in a regular domestic PC is highly dangerous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.286541
| 2017-06-10T09:29:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82301",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18566
|
why add a shot of vodka to a cream sauce?
I don't understand what reason there would be to add vodka to a cream-based pasta sauce.
Vodka is allegedly tasteless, and the alcohol burns off. So why?
Is it to make the recipe 'nouveau' or something?
Because it gives the cook a pretext to take a swig? :)
First, the alcohol doesn't burn off. We had a table about the percentage of alcohol left after a period of cooking, and especially in something cooked as short as a pasta sauce, there is a substantial amount left. For the longer discussion, see Cooking away alcohol.
Second, alcohol is a great solvent. It can leach aromatics from spices and herbs which wouldn't come out with water only. There is a good reason why extracts and essences are made with alcohol. While a really good extract needs a long time, even the short cooking time will be enough for alcohol to make a difference.
Third, it can stabilize your sauce. Cream is an emulsion of fat in water, and not terribly stable, especially if some acid is present. Alcohol dissolves both fat and water, so it will stop the cream from eventual separating.
Fourth, maybe you happened to find a not so great recipe. Vodka will help with the first three points, but it is seldom a good choice for cooking, because there is almost always another alcohol which will accomplish the same and introduce a good flavor which harmonizes with the remaining ingredients. For pasta sauces this tends to be a good brandy, but it depends on what else you have in the sauce. And because even vodka will leave a taste of alcohol in the end, it is hard to argue that it can be used where the taste should be kept unchanged.
I would assume the OP has a vodka sauce in mind, so it's not just a subpar recipe.
I guess some of this might explain why I've seen some tomato sauce recipes (not tomato-cream sauces) calling for a bit of red wine to be added - or is the red wine really added primarily for its flavour?
I've used octal alchol in lithium bromide air conditioning chillers to break surface tension of water within the unit, improving the transfer of heat, therefore I understand the second explanation.
Still wouldn't attempt an octanol tomato sauce :) It seems some reagent merchants do have food grade (probably doesn't mean "edible"!!!) octanol though... no hopes on the lithium bromide :)
Vodka brings out some flavors from the tomatoes that can't be release with water or fat. It acts as a solvent to bring a different profile to the dish. Vodka is recommended because it usually add less other flavor than other alcohol products. If you don't want to add any other flavor, use a pure alcohol product like Everclear - or moonshine.
Vodka may have a flavour. In America and Europe, mass produced vodka is highly filtered so as to remove any impurities that might flavour it. This is ideal if you are going to use the vodka in a cocktail or such where the flavours are unwanted.
However, in traditional vodka areas of Eastern Europe and Russia, the drink is made without filtering. Thus the vodka from these regions will impart a flavour when added to your sauce. Is it possible that the recipe you are following had an Eastern European origin?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.286782
| 2011-10-25T22:13:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18566",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Guido Hendriks",
"Matt Ball",
"Mild Bill",
"aitía",
"coincoin",
"developernaren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1230
|
Is it safe to eat moldy cheese if you slice off the edges?
Whenever my cheese gets too old and has a bit of blue/white mold on the side, I'm not sure whether I should throw it completely out or not. Is it safe to eat if I cut off the edge? Should I cut a bit off of all the sides just to be safe?
I'm particularly interested in the answer for cheddar cheese, but answers about other cheese are welcome.
This is probably on-topic (see discussion here). Std. disclaimers apply: if you get sick or ruin the flavor of a romantic dinner causing your SO to leave you, blame yourself for taking advice found on the 'Net...
Thanks for the note. I didn't realize it could be considered off-topic since "Food" is in the site title and this is related to whether or not I'll use it while cooking.
and @knives, I agree. The ban on health questions is more about general food healthiness and less about how to get around food storage issues. I'd vote to close if the question said "make me fat" instead of "make me sick".
Authoritative source: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/fact_sheets/Molds_On_Food/index.asp
I think it would depend on the cheese.
For a reasonably hard cheese, like cheddar, I have done it, and never gotten sick (your results may vary).
If it's pre-grated, then I would not touch it anymore.
For a softer cheese, like a brie, I would not risk it.
Regarding #3 - that is, ignoring the fact that the outside of brie is by definition mouldy... :-)
@ceejayoz - Very true... but what type of mold? The molds that they use to flavor certain cheeses are naturally edible, as well as smelly, whereas the ones that might develop later on aren't necessarily the same type.
Certainly. Just being cheeky. :-)
A friend has told me that white mould on white-mould-covered cheese is identical to the other outside mould, based on his experiments. My conclusion is that you can treat brie-like cheese like cheddar in this regard.
This Mayo Clinic article recommends discarding soft cheeses: "Soft cheeses, such as cottage cheese, cream cheese and ricotta cheese, with mold should be discarded. The same goes for any kind of cheese that's shredded, crumbled or sliced."
Agreed. I've chopped of mould / fungus from Gauda cheese and had it without any health issues (I did search online whether it was safe to do so, and most said it is ok unless the cheese is soft or creamy).
As Nick said, I wouldn't recommend it for soft cheese... the process of cutting off the mold can push some nasty bacteria into the inside.
I've also never got sick from doing this. Now if you're talking about some piece of cheese that has questionable provenance (been in your student accommodation fridge for 6 months)... well that may be different :)
+1 for the comment about pushing bacteria into the soft cheese. also, I'm not talking about cheese that's so old it looks like it has a head of hair. :) just stuff that's starting to get blue spots or similar mold signs
Mold is not "bacteria"; it's mold. A bacterial infestation on a piece of cheese is probably possible, but I don't think I've ever seen it.
@Pointy Bacteria can reach dangerous levels without becoming so dense as to form a visible colony on a surface. Bacteria are everywhere and they're busily colonising all sorts of places in the world along with all the microorganisms. Even plants can catch bacterial infections!
@Jonathan I'm sure you're right - I'm not sure why I bothered to add that comment, because I really know next to nothing about the microbial world in general :-)
@Jonathan - yes, that's true that bacteria can reach high levels without visible signs, but that doesn't mean that pushing mold back into cheese transforms the mold into bacteria. Mold is mold. Pointy's point that it is mold and not bacteria is a pretty good one. Not that there can't also be bacteria present, but that would be somewhat independent on what happens to bits of mold.
Solid blocks of cheese, such as cheddar, will only have the mold on the exterior so cutting it off should be fine. For soft cheeses such as Brie all you need to do is cut far enough back that you're not cutting through the mold itself. Brie is more likely to develop an ammoniated smell before the mold gets too extreme and if this is the case cutting the mold isn't going to help, the cheese has continued to deteriorate on the inside already, simply throw it out.
The part about Brie cheese is incorrect - by the time mold is visible on the surface of a soft cheese, the entire piece of cheese is likely contaminated throughout the inside as well. Bacteria can grow along with the mold as well.
It may not be uniformly dangerous, based on the comments here it seems that some people are able to handle it, but it's not a risk I would personally take :)
Wait - you arn't supposed to eat brie once it smells of ammonia? Thats literally my favorite kind of brie.
Hard cheese, yes, I'm still here.
Soft cheese, no, it travels through the interior of the cheese too quickly.
Also, if it smells odd after cutting the mould off, I'll throw the whole lot away. I don't like to be in doubt about whether my food's going to make me sick or not.
As has been mentioned some types of cheese are deliberately infected with mold as part of the maturation process (for example Blue Stilton) and are perfectly safe to eat. Eating other types of cheese which have had mold growing on it is a bad idea. This type of mold produces toxins which spread throughout the cheese. Cutting off the mold will make no difference. I was told this by a food scientist.
i buy blue cheese and let it mold.
its the same type of mold that is already on it.
I also let my brie mold a bit (until it smells) and then eat it.
Gives a STRONG pungent flavor.
Never tried it with other cheeses like provolone but I figure if I haven't gotten sick after eating blue cheese with extra mold on it or some molded brie.... then I should be fine.
Eat the mold if you want, I do, and have never been sick from it. Some cheeses such as blue cheese come moldy. I don't eat cheese if it smells like ammonia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.287094
| 2010-07-16T21:13:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1230",
"authors": [
"Andy Mikula",
"Chris Becke",
"Dan Dascalescu",
"Jonathan",
"Marcin",
"Mike Scott",
"Mike Sherov",
"Mohanavel",
"Nick",
"Pointy",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Shog9",
"Thijs Wouters",
"alunharford",
"ceejayoz",
"derobert",
"gak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"mouche",
"oneat",
"sfxedit",
"sleepyjames"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
403
|
How can I keep pasta from sticking to itself?
Whenever I boil pasta (specifically spaghetti), it always sticks to itself before I'm ready to use it. What can I do to avoid this without it becoming mushy (which happens if I keep it in the water)?
Of course, if I happen to have the sauce done by the time the pasta is ready and am ready to serve it, I can immediately add the sauce and it's a moot point. But I inevitably screw up the timing and have the pasta sitting there cooling, and then it becomes impossible to separate...
@hobodave, not sure it's a duplicate of that question as this is specifically aimed at adding oil to the water to prevent it from sticking, not just how to prevent it from sticking, by whatever means. Not sure I'm that into it as a question though...
yea, just think it's close enough. this question is answered in that one.
This is really hard to choose an answer. I am one of the few Americans who do understand al dente, so my particular problem was actually solved by getting higher quality pasta. It turns out it really makes a difference! But, in the interest of spreading the knowledge of how long to properly cook pasta, I will accept @tunnuz's answer as it is probably the correct solution for most people.
Italian here :) I know that the oil is a well known trick everywhere ... but Italy. The main problem about pasta is that people just tend to cook it too much. The cooking time for pasta should be between 8 and 12 minutes, above this number it will be sticky. Spaghetti is the quickest kind of pasta to get ready, so just cook it around 8-9 minutes and it won't stick.
Angelhair (Capellini d'Angelo) is even quicker, for the matter :)
Yes. The average American is pretty clueless about cooking pasta properly. Most don't know what al dente means either. Yes, I'm American, but neither of those apply to me :)
A decent rule of thumb is to start tasting two minutes before the smaller number on the box, and taste every minute until it's a little more toothsome than you prefer. By the time you get the pot off the stove and the pasta into the drainer, it'll be just right!
This is the best answer. Indeed, the pasta should not even get to the point where you need to add oil - it naturally should not stick (as long as it is fresh).
With a little practice, you can tell when pasta is done by stirring it with a wood spoon. (Not so much with ravioli or tortellini.) Nothing beats the taste test, though.
I agree with @Neil. Stir often and also taste. I like to stir my pasta occasionally and I can tell when it's close to getting done, at which point I start tasting :)
Don't add oil, it's unnecessary and just adds fat to your pasta.
A better solution is to fix your timing issues by cooking the pasta later. Put the water on to boil before your sauce is done, but don't actually put the pasta in until the sauce is ready to go. Then, lower the heat on the sauce to keep it warm as the pasta cooks (which is only about 8 to 12 minutes, depending on the thickness and cut).
I also add a small amount of sauce to the pasta before serving it, which helps keep things loose once I've plated.
Additionally, as with most things, price makes a difference. Getting higher quality pasta will have an effect on the stickiness of the end product.
The pasta does not wait. +1
Just follow these recommendations (Italian here):
Choose a well-known brand of Pasta.
Use a big pot with a lot of water, this is really important.
Stir pasta for a couple of minutes after pouring it in the hot water.
DO NOT put lemon juice please.
DO NOT put oil please.
Cook it with the proper timing (ex: 8 minutes for spaghetti).
Don't go blindly, use your tooth to feel the "al dente" thing.
Drain your pasta.
Please, DO NOT put your pasta under hot water.
Don't drain your pasta dry, but leave a little bit of hot water when you drain it.
Add virgin oil or sauces (not mandatory but I recommend it).
Add Parmesan (not mandatory but I recommend it, not for all kind of sauces though).
Pasta is ready and looks pretty yummy.
Bonus advice:
If you need to add sauces that need to be warmed, you could cook your pasta "al dente" and finish its cooking with your sauces inside a big pan.
+1 for the Big Pot advice. Simple but often overlooked.
+1 for Dont' drain your pasta dry, but leave a little little bit of hot water when you drain it. This works.
There's a great article here about why the big pot thing is a myth: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html
Wait... isn't parmesan going to suck water, and make it sticky? Also, virgin oil is oil too! That's cheating.
You really don't need oil to keep your pasta from sticking.
The water that you used to cook in has a lot of starch in it from the pasta. When you go to drain your pasta, you can reserve a small bit of the water you cooked your pasta in. When the time comes to serve, simply pour and stir the reserved water over the sitting pasta. Not only does this help prevent stickiness, but it also warms your pasta again after sitting for 5-6 minutes, or however long you wait to serve your meal.
Yes, it's the starch. The canteen i used to work "washed out" the starch using plain water from the pasta and they didn't stick at all. After drying and cooling them in a cooling room over night, they could be warmed up the day after and served to hundreds of guests.
After draining it, mix in a little oil, that should prevent it from sticking.
This is what I do and it works great
I'd recommend always using olive oil for this.
Olive oil is definitely good, as long as the flavor works with your dish (and its normally what I'd use). Any oil should work, and some like canola will avoid adding much any flavor (other than fat, of course)
A small chunk of butter can do the trick as well.
Oil is not really the correct thing to prevent sticking pasta! Read the other comments about starch
Oil will make your sauce not stick.
twist the bunch of spaghetti slightly before putting it into the boiling the water. This way they will fall apart and do not stick together.
Also stir the pasta in the first two minutes of cooking (see).
To explain this answer -- if you have strand pasta, and you put it in as a bundle, you risk it all clumping together as it cooks. This is especially a problem for wider ribbons, like fettuccine. If you grab the bundle and give it a twist both hands in opposite directions, it will splay out, so there's not so much contact between strands. You can also hold the bundle from the middle, turn it so the pasta is horizontal (or close to horizontal, if a narrow pot), then slowly let it slip out while turning your hand, so the strands aren't all pointing the same way as they fall into the pot.
If my spaghetti has been sitting in the colander (usually in the sink) and has begun to stick, I just turn the hot tap on a bit and stir it up. Seems to unstick it easily enough.
Cooks Illustrated ran an article on this a long time ago. Their trick, which I used regularly with great success for fresh pasta is to use lots of water. For a pound of pasta they used four quarts of water. They also added salt to the water, but no oil. Oil changes nothing but the flavor. Stir during cooking also to help prevent any sticking.
If you are working with fresh pasta that has been coated with flour while making it to prevent the fresh pasta from sticking to itself, make sure to rinse your pasta after cooking while in the colander to prevent it from becoming a gluey mass.
I usually add just a tablespoon of my sauce to the pasta.
Agreed -- you want the sauce waiting for the pasta, not the other way around if at all possible. You can also pull the pasta early and finish it in the sauce.
One more thought: if you are making your own fresh pasta, be fairly generous in the amount of flour you toss it in while it is waiting around before you boil it. This will dry out the surface a bit and reduce sticking when you add it to the pot. Shake off most of the excess flour before adding it to the pot.
+1 for the generous flour comment. I also learned to rinse fresh pasta that has been floured like this quickly after cooking to remove any floury water residue.
If you have to add oil, either your pasta is not good enough or you are cooking for too long. Use Barilla if you can.
A good explanation from Barilla's website
Do not add oil to the water.
Olive oil does nothing for the taste of pasta. Barilla uses premium ingredients to guarantee the pasta's superior quality and performance. When poor-quality wheat is used, the pasta releases too much starch and sticks together causing the need for oil. This is not the case with Barilla® pasta.
I don't know for certain if this is right or wrong, but I'm a little wary of trusting a specific brand's website; could you cite another source?
My actual source was an Italian colleague. I asked a similar question and he explained me the superiority of good pasta. When asked for specific brands he mentioned a few but the only available one for my country was Barilla. I'm using it since then and I'm very happy with it. So, if someone is complaining about sticking I'm pretty sure they are not using good quality pasta.
The problem of adding oil is that you want your pasta to absorb the sauce so that each mouthful has the full flavor. Adding oil coats the pasta with the oil and prevents the sauce from being absorbed. In addition to the previous answer of using quality pasta, I would recommend adding a ladle of the sauce to the pasta as soon as possible, then stirring to coat as much pasta as possible. You can also try reserving a cup or two of the pasta water when you drain it and adding it to the pasta when you see it's starting to clump.
Here are some of the notes I took at college about cooking pasta. I use these techniques in the workplace quiet often. It applies to dehydrated and fresh pasta.
Use 10Ltr of water to every 1kg pasta
Water should be boiling furiously before pasta is added
Water should be salted but not oiled
Place pasta in water all at once spread evenly
Water will drop in temperature to below boiling so keep agitating the pasta until it boils again
When pasta is cooked strain and quickly wash with water to remove starches
Spread out pasta on a large flat tray and lightly coat with vegetable oil
Place tray in cool room to dry.
At home you can skip the last two steps if you are serving immediately. The really important point here is that sticking pasta is caused by:
Not enough water or
Water not hot enough
And that you add the oil after the pasta has been cooked to stop it sticking. Adding oil to the cooking water has no desirable effect.
If you want good results, you have to toss the pasta with oil or sauce very soon after you take it out of the water. I'd only use oil if oil and parm is your sauce (a little butter is good too), as oil will prevent your sauce from sticking to the pasta.
You could rinse the starch off, but you'll be sacrificing flavor and the sauce might not stick (I'm not sure). Chef Hubert Keller did this on Top Chef Masters (with cold water, in a shower), but he was in a rather unique situation. I wouldn't recommend it if you can avoid it.
If you're having timing issues, wait till the sauce is done before you drop the pasta. You should be able to hold the sauce at low temperatures for a while (cheese sauces can be tricky, if they get too hot, they break). Mario Batali recommends pulling the pasta 1-2 minutes early and finish cooking it in the sauce.
In looking at this question again, it's specifically about dealing with the pasta being done before the sauce is.
The easiest technique is just to pull the pasta a minute or two before it's fully cooked, and then finish it the last few minutes in with the sauce, which will help to re-warm it, too.
If the sauce is already done, and you've fully cooked the pasta, but need to hold them both for a while, you can also just toss a little bit of sauce in with the pasta to help to lubricate it. It doesn't take a whole lot, just enough to coat the strands lightly, not so much that you'd leave it dripping in sauce.
Cooked pasta has a layer of sticky starch on it, when it cools down, it will make it stick to whatever is adjacent to it. If it's pasta, the pasta will stick together. If you add oil, the pasta will not stick to itself, but on the other hand, you'll get a bunch of oil on the pasta, not very nice!
The proper way is to add your sauce to the pasta immediately, making the sauce stick to the pasta. This serves two purposes:
The pasta doesn't stick to itself.
You get yummy sauce sticking on the pasta, otherwise, the sauce and the pasta will become "separate".
My answer will be slightly off-topic, as the question is "how to prevent the phenomenon" rather than "how to fix it", but in my experience the best course of action is to add a little bit of water and drain just before serving if you want your pastas to not be a sticky mess. It just works perfectly, whereas with all preventive tricks you will still experience some mild stickiness.
By adding water, mixing and draining before using the pastas, what happens is that you once again dissolve the starch that was gluing everything. If you leave it to dry it will stick again, but serve immediately (or add sauce) and the starch won't have time to do its sticky business.
I think this certainly answers the question, in saying "don't worry if it sticks, just add a little water".
To keep pasta from sticking, stir it for the first couple minutes of cooking. The sticking is due to the starch that is released during the first stages. Adding oil will make it impossible for your sauce to stick to the pasta.
A couple References:
Fine Cooking article
Serious Eats article (under "A Sticky Situation").
According to this answer you could add a little lemon juice to the water to make the pasta less starchy, and so less stickier
Adding oil to the water may help prevent foaming, but not much else. It doesn't prevent the pasta from sticking. See this article on cooking pasta (linked in answers to a few other questions already):
The Food Lab: A New Way to Cook Pasta?
The best advice I have is to not overcook it. I used to overcook my pasta way past al dente. If the pasta doesn't have a slight chew to it when you strain it, you've cooked it too long. The pasta turns mushy once its past al dente causing it to stick to itself.
I would also add that over the last year or so I've started to cook pasta with just enough water to cover the pasta itself (not the vast amounts I always see being used) - after stirring it initially on a lowered flame, slow boil, the sticking together problem has disappeared....
Larger amounts of water help keep starch away from the pasta, which reduces its stickiness. Additionally, adding pasta into a large pot of boiling water keeps the temperature from dropping, something that can make pasta go mushy.
@Tim Sullivan, see http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html
Mod parent up! Actually, this technique for cooking pasta, sometimes called the "risotto technique", actually does work. Here are some references:
http://lifehacker.com/5547141/cook-pasta-like-risotto-for-faster-one+pot-meals
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html
@Brendan Long: That article very specifically says "except for long pasta", like spaghetti, which was the type of pasta indicated in the original question.
Harold McGee covers cooking spaghetti the small amount of water thing in a NY Times article. He tries starting it in cold water and hot water and describes how to keep it from sticking. He reports that the pasta isn't stickier than usual and says "And no matter how starchy the cooking water is, the solid noodle surfaces themselves are starchier, and will be sticky until they’re lubricated by sauce or oil". (Bastianich and Hazan also weigh in.) The article is definitely worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/dining/25curi.html?pagewanted=all
To avoid the problem of a too cooked pasta, add some drops of lemon juice in the water. Any food acid would have the effect to avoid the pasta absorbs too much water, and gets a glue-like aspect.
You may add a little oil (olive) to the boiling water, and just keep stirring the spaghetti while it boils. Oil will stick to the pasta while boiling and keep it from sticking, but the most important thing is the stirring.
I believe that the oil in the water thing has been shown to not actually work. Oil in the drained pasta does work though.
Oil in the water helps to stop the pot from boiling over, but doesn't actually do anything to the pasta.
I used to do the same thing a few years ago. I was taught by someone with more skill than me that it is pointless to add oil to the water. Sure enough, I don't use oil now and I cannot tell the difference. Stirring the pasta (especially in the first couple of minutes of cooking) is what keeps it from sticking together.
On a side note: I have read that cooking beyond al dente and rinsing the pasta afterwards both contribute to nutrient loss. I was taught to stir a tiny amount to butter into the pasta immediately after straining to keep it from sticking and to lock in the nutrients.
I think it has to do with the region.I made sauce and spaghetti last night and you could cut it like cake.I went back home to Texas last Oct and made spaghetti there, it was loose and not sticky.For me I say it is the altitude,humidity or who knows?
Update: I just tried something else that worked very well for me.I cooked a serving of spaghetti noodles for 2 that turned out just right.It came to me that our city water is so bad that we have our drinking water delivered every month so may be it is the water.So.I used bottled water to make a batch using a cheaper brand of pasta.It turned out beautifully,separate and not sticky at all.I let it cool down and it is still just right.I solved my sticky problem and hope it would work for anyone else that needs help.I guess it is the region in a way because we have good water where I am from in Texas.
Many home cooks use a pot far too small for the quantity of pasta they cook. You should cook the noodles so they can swim freely, at least 5 qts per pound of pasta. Also, overcooking noodles makes them sticky and then stick to each other after draining.
Just cook the pasta a couple minutes later. I can't think of a sauce that couldn't sit there for a couple of minutes while the pasta finishes, should you mess up the timing. Even reduced cream sauces, you can always add a little pasta water should the sauec over-thicken.
I am a 65 year old that has cooked more than 50 years and can tell you that region makes a big difference in if your spaghetti is sticky or not.I have tried all the tricks and use Barilla pasta but nothing makes a huge difference in Illinois.It has to do with the wheat used in making the pasta noodles.I do say Barilla is less sticky than others but a good boil to the water and stirring is the best answer to the sticky pasta issue. I never had this problem in Texas but it is a big issue here for me since I married an Italian who loves his pasta and red gravy.Just as making my famous buttermilk biscuits here.If using any other flour than the one I have trouble finding here my biscuits are no more than hard clods of dough.I say it is all in location.Just use salted boiling water to cook pasta and stir at start several times to lessen the stickiness.
Are you saying that the region the pasta was made or the region the pasta is cooked in makes a difference? Barilla's only US factories are in Iowa and New York, so Illinois and Texas shouldn't make a difference.
Believe it or not, this is what works for me:
Put the DRY pasta into a bowl with a trickle of olive oil and stir it in order to spread the oil.
Proceed to boil the pasta as usual (add it when the water is boiling).
The idea is that first the oil will prevent the pasta from sticking to itselt and by the time the hot water removes the oil coat from the pasta, it will be half boiled and will not stick anymore.
The upside is that you hardly have to stir it while it's boiling. In fact, I don't stir it at all. I leave it boiling in the kitchen and come back after 10 minutes to drain it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.287703
| 2010-07-10T04:36:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/403",
"authors": [
"Ben Schwehn",
"Beth Ward",
"Brendan Long",
"Camilo Martin",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Christofer Ohlsson",
"ClintWeathers",
"CmdrTallen",
"Dan",
"Danny T.",
"Dianne Scott",
"Edward Williams",
"Fczbkk",
"Frenchtown Lassie",
"GD BAT 95 spam",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Grace",
"Harlan",
"Harley",
"Irene",
"Jeffrey",
"Joe",
"Jonta",
"Lee",
"Marilyn B Wise",
"Michael Mior",
"Nathan DeWitt",
"Noldorin",
"Ofir",
"Pauleuh",
"Pops",
"Rae",
"Recep",
"Rinzwind",
"Sam Holder",
"Scott Ferguson",
"Soraya monterroso",
"SourDoh",
"Stacey Richards",
"Steve",
"Tim Sullivan",
"TinaB",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Tom",
"Tronix Technologies",
"bubu",
"cyberzed",
"derobert",
"djch",
"elektrizer",
"ethyreal",
"fin",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/917",
"jlbartos",
"justkt",
"lomaxx",
"mhaller",
"user778",
"vwiggins",
"wonk wonk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15058
|
Can nuts be frozen and for how long?
Can nuts be frozen in order to keep their flavour, and if so, for how long?
Yes, just put them in a freezer bag and squeeze out plenty of air from it before you tie it up. It doesn't matter if they're shelled/crushed etc. You can keep them for as long as anything else - some say 6 months, some say a year, some say indefinitely.
We keep all raw nuts in the freezer now. Discovering that my container of pecans is rancid is too heartbreaking to bear.
Another +1. We routinely get cashews, peanuts, walnuts, almonds, and pistachios (as well as sunflower and pumpkin seeds), and keep them all in the freezer. I've never noticed any of them going off, although they rarely last more than a couple of months before getting used.
We always freeze our pecans and raw peanuts. I was shelling pecans tonight that I put in the freezer 14 years ago. this is December 2018, No problem with flavor or color. Sounds crazy but they will last indefinitely. Bud H.
Forever is my determining. I have used nuts recently that were frozen for 20 years. Slight drying, packaging most likely the culprit.
I always freeze nuts of any kind, but I think they can get soft after awhile if they are frozen too long!I mean a long time, though...probably after a year they should be tossed...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.289609
| 2011-05-26T07:28:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15058",
"authors": [
"Chris Simmons",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85"
],
"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
}
|
108797
|
How to prepare tasty tea on induction cooktop?
I used to preapre tea on gas stove. For two, my measurements were, 2.5 tea spoon of Tata tea, 1 glass water, 5 spoons of sugar. The measurements arent that important as they are in relation to spoons I have. I used to keep it on gas for 8 min with least flame and it used to turn yummy. I came with this formula over long time of experimentation.Recently, I bought Prestige PIC 16.0 plus Induction Cooktop and since then for a week I am not able to prepare tea well. First of all, even on least temprature within couple of minutes the tea boils down quickly and starts spilling. So I guess tea and sugar doesnt get enough time to mix well and tea turns not so tasty. I am not able to figure it out how can I prepare tasty tea on this induction cooktop as I am alredy operating at least temprature, that is 65 degrees Celcius.
This is 1900 W cooktop. I am guessing if 1200 W cooktop would have given lower temprature. Is it so? Should I return this cooktop and try some other?
You can view control panel of this cook top here. So it has eight modes: pressure cooker, curry, dosa/chapati, idly, deep fry, heat milk, keep warm and saute. I guess each option is nothing much but different combination of temperature and timer. I usually put it on saute and reduce temperature to 65 degrees. Still it never worked. I also tried pausing heating for some minutes and starting it again while continuously stirring it. It improved but still not satisfactory.
I also observed induction heat comes waves. It boils tea for some seconds, then stops for some seconds and then again boils and then stops again. Is it normal? Is it the reason for not so great tea?
I am now doubtful if I can prepare good food on induction cooktop similar to gas stove. For example, my chapatis on gas stove looks like this. Now I am wondering whether I will able to prepare same on induction cooktop as it gets hot quickly. Is it possible?
What sort of pot are you using? Does it have a very heavy base, that will retain heat?
its steel pot..
yes but Does it have a very heavy base, that will retain heat?
if you were boiling your tea before (100ºC) and now you try to simmer it at 65 ºC you'll definitely not get the same result... Your problem doesn't seem to be the equipment, but the way you operate it. There are plenty of chefs that use induction cooktops with great results.
@Luciano I did not use to boil it fully. I used to keep it on stove with "lowest flame" and turn the stove off in 10 min max. Till that time, boiling used to just start with some bubbles appearing, not fully boiling with a lot of bubbles and spilling. But with induction at 65 degrees, it gets boiled fully and spill in just 3-4 minutes.
@ChrisH these are pots I tried till now.
I think that instructions like "I keep the kettle at temperature X for Y minutes" would be easily replicable than trying to reproduce the "lower heat" of the gas stove on the induction cooktop. The 65 degrees your induction cooktop says looks like a stage in the rising temperature curve and isn't kept for much as it starts boiling in short. This means that the X figure above should be measured with a thermometer in the kettle and not trusting that a knob on 65 takes everything on the burner at 65.
@DavidP not able to get u exactly. Are you suggesting anything to try out?
Also I checked many youtube videos (1,2) of preparing tea on induction oven. In those also, tea starts boiling in 3-4 minutes. So I guess this is typical with induction cooktops. But I also believe it should need more time to get mixed well. Also whatever is possible on gas stove should also be possible with induction cooktop ideally. So I am somewhat directionless about how can I imitate same taste with induction cooktop.
Just saying that to compare two appliances (your old gas and new induction cooktop) you need a third tool, namely a thermometer together with a stopwatch, as 65 degrees on one of the two cooktops does not mean much. How could the manufacturer claim that that intensity would keep a pot of unknown material full of food we don't know to 65 degrees, and in how much time? I also have problems in mantaining low temperatures for hours on my burner and what I do is using a cast iron pot (heat retention) and take it on and off the heat. This is annoying for a 4 hrs stew but for tea can be worth?
From what you are saying, my working hypothesis is that you are overheating your tea.
My first suggestion would be to forget all the modes of your cooktop (Pressure cook, etc.) and also the "degrees" scale. I have always found that a degree scale on an induction cooktop does more harm than good, since it has little relation to the actual temperature of your food. It is very obvious in your case: when a mixture of milk and water boils, it is at 100C, not at 65C.
So what you should do is to manually select the 120 W setting and try cooking with it. If it also requires you to select some mode from the lower row, then my guess would be that saute is indeed a good choice.
If using the lowest setting (the 120 W) doesn't work, there are two and a half other ways to make it cook slower. One is to make a larger amount of tea at once. The other is to place the pan farther away from the coil. A thin wooden chopping board might be enough for a test, but it might char with prolonged use, so if you are happy with that solution, you could try a pizza stone or a bathroom tile for permanent use. Don't use anything that can melt or catch fire, or anything that's made of metal. It is still best to combine that with using the 120 W setting - if you were to use something thick and a higher setting, you would be wasting energy.
The "half" way is to move the cooking vessel such that its bottom is only partially on the stove. It might not work at all, if the sensor notices that parts of the coil are uncovered, and if it works, it is inefficient and makes for badly cooked food. For me, it isn't worth doing it, but I am listing it here for completeness.
The observation that the heat comes in waves is perfectly normal, that's how induction stoves work (the technical term is "time modulation"). Without that, they would be much, much hotter (all the heat all the time) and the food would burn instantly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.289774
| 2020-06-02T10:04:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108797",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David P",
"Luciano",
"Mahesha999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75216
|
Is there a substitute for Dzira (Georgian Caraway) in Khinkali?
I have been looking up Khinkali recipes online and from my research it would seem that authentic Georgian Khinkali make use of a spice called dzira. Since it is sometimes referred to as "Georgian Caraway" I am wondering if I can substitute regular caraway for it?
I live in New York City, and I have never seen Dzira in any of the spice shops that I have visited.
Dzira.... Jeera :) ... so it likely is a type of CUMIN not caraway. A quick web search suggest it is not normal cumin either. Have you checked whether black cumin or ajwain could be a match?
Are you sure it is not just caraway? Lke rackandboneman, I suspected cumin first, then went searching, and the most interesting thing I found was this: A linguistic explanation of the word dzira in Georgian
@WillemvanRumpt Well after reading the article, it does seem to be likely. The problem for me is of course that I keep finding contradictory sources on the internet. However, an etymology blog does seem more trust-able than other sources. I suppose I could try to make a few dumplings with Caraway, a few with Cumin, and see which ones seem to remind me most of the ones that I have tried in high end restaurants.
I have exactly zero experience with Georgian cuisine, so can't help there, but indeed: Give it a go!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.290415
| 2016-11-02T21:53:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75216",
"authors": [
"FabulousGlobe",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50587",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89412
|
How to add richness to a vegan dough?
Usually whenever I bake I substitute milled flaxseeds + water for eggs, soy milk for milk, and margarine for butter. This isn't a problem when the sweet gets most of its flavor from other ingredients such as carrot cake, nut-based cakes, and pies. However whenever I try to make something which contains a large bread-like element, such as kolaches, the dish comes out tasting mediocre.
Is there any way I can make the dough taste richer using only vegan ingredients?
Please try to separate ain ideas into paragraphs for readability.
Olive oil! Or really, any oil you prefer. Vegan butters would probably work too, but I prefer a good quality olive oil. You can get ones that are pressed with other vegetables/herbs/fruit etc. for example olives pressed with lemon rinds makes for a stunning lemon olive oil.
Just sub out some oil for water/liquid.
Or try adding spices, seeds, something to give it more elements of flavour, perhaps a dash of nutritional yeast would trick the taste buds.
Vegan baking is so chemically different from baking with dairy products that it really isn't always possible to create the same product.
I've been practicing vegan scones recently and for them I have discovered I prefer canned coconut milk over soy (or anything in a carton). It's a little like using heavy cream instead of milk so it adds a lot of richness (i.e. fat) to the dough. I also get a lot of control over how much coconut cream vs water goes into the recipe since it's usually separated in the can. I haven't noticed a strong coconut flavor in the final product but your mileage may vary.
More on my vegan scone experiments here:
http://www.bradleycbuchanan.com/b/scone-practice/
http://www.bradleycbuchanan.com/b/scones-part-2/
Your experiments look really nice...and helpful, too :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.290571
| 2018-04-25T15:48:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89412",
"authors": [
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114786
|
Does pouring water on burning charcoal when grilling make the meat more smokey?
Does anyone know if pouring water during grilling on the charcoal, which makes the fire smokey, would actually make the taste of the meat being grilled more smokey?
No, as that isn’t creating smoke. It’s creating steam. A steamier cooking environment may actually inhibit desired grilling flavors as it could inhibit browning via the Maillard reaction.
So generally steaming a food prevents Maillard reaction?
Do not do this. You will rapidly cool and may even extinguish your fire. This will also cause ash and cooler, more astringent, elements of smoke to land on your food. The results will be very unpleasant.
If you want your meat more smokey, you just need to apply the appropriate techniques for smoking. Grilling imparts some smoke flavor, but that is generally not the primary intended outcome.
What techniques?
@FabioSpaghetti typing "smoking" into the search bar will yield many threads on the topic.
The "smokey" taste does not actually come from the charcoal - it is produced when the juices from your food drip onto the charcoal, turning into highly fragrant compounds that then waft up with the smoke and stick to your food.
So no, just adding water to the charcoal wouldn't help reproduce the "smokey" taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.290753
| 2021-03-14T18:39:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114786",
"authors": [
"FabioSpaghetti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55406",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116066
|
How to make store-bought kimchi more spicy?
Since my personal experimentation with fermentation tends to result in biological hazards and minor explosions, I tends to buy my fermented foods. I recently discovered a brand of store-bought jarred kimchi that tastes exactly right... the only problem is that it's not spicy at all. (It might actually have some spice, but I have a very high heat tolerance.)
How can I make my kimchi spicier, hopefully in an authentic fashion? Different varieties of pepper have different characteristics and flavors, and I'm trying to figure out the best technique and the variety/varieties which will give me heat without compromising on the flavor.
As an example or what I mean -- earlier today I was using the kimchi as a condiment and I mixed it with some sliced jalapenos. Jalapenos taste a lot like green bell pepper, so that was an unfortunate choice, and it wasn't very spicy at all.
As @Sneftel has said, kimchi generally isn't that spicy - In fact too much heat could be considered a negative, as it limits the flexibility of its usage. Also, while Korean food does tend to be red, historically it isn't that hot, due to the traditional (insofar as mid-late second millennium is traditional) main source of heat and the color (gochugaru) being at the mild end w.r.t peppers. A lot of the perceived Korean obsession with heat is actually quite recent AFAIK, with the breakout success of Samyang Fire Noodles really kicking it into high gear.
I'm not looking for it to set my mouth on fire -- I just expect there to be some heat. I'm working from my experience with real homemade kimchi that a friend (illicitly) brought back from a visit ... I think at in addition to the cabbage there were actual peppers being pickled as well, which gave everything a low-grade sort of heat.
I'd go for finely chopped red cayenne or bird's eye or similar. Supermarkets often don't properly distinguish between these & they are quite similar, but the bird's eye is generally smaller & smoother, the cayenne being more of a 'finger' chilli with an uneven skin.
Neither have a particularly strong flavour, but they do have a lot of heat.
At a push, cayenne powder, though the heat of powder doesn't come through so well in a cold dish. It should be fine enough, though, to not add any gritty feel to the kimchi.
I really wouldn't go with anything as distinctive as scotch bonnet or habanero, they'll really change the flavour profile of the kimchi.
Thanks, I'll try this. My local grocery store has "thai chilis" which I'm 95% certain are prik nu/bird's eye. (I've actually never seen a fresh cayenne.)
You can add hot pepper flakes.
Some advice on what brand from My Aunt’s Homemade Kimchi with a Vegan Kimchi Option:
We’re also pretty particular about the brand of Korean red pepper powder (or hot pepper flakes), gochugaru that we use. We recommend buying Wang Korean gochugaru.
Of course, gochugaru is only mildly spicy. A spicier substitute would be Gochujang, a traditional chili paste which in terms of spice level can range from mild to very hot.
Gochujang might throw off that perfect flavor that they think they’ve found (as there can be a little sweetness or other qualities in some of them), but it’s the approach that I would take. I’d probably add sambal before I tried using a dried pepper, unless I was going to let it sit for a while
Sambal is an interesting suggestion -- I actually do have sambal olek on hand. Do you want to add that as a separate answer @Joe?
If all you want is More Heat, just use finely minced habanero or scotch bonnet peppers. (Use appropriate practices for handling extremely spicy peppers.) After adding the peppers, stir well and let sit for a day or two to let the flavors disperse. While those peppers are not common in Korean cooking, their concentrated capsaicin makes their other flavor contributions relatively small.
Incidentally, though, authentic kimchi is generally not very spicy (particularly by the insane standards of Korean cuisine). You might consider, as an alternative, having it with spicier food, or adding more spiciness to the dish you’re using it in.
What spice there is in kimchi, is usually entirely gochugaru, a dried and finely flaked or powdered chili. But adding gochugaru at this late stage is not a good idea, since it won’t have as long to hydrate so it could give an unpleasant texture.
Similarly, you could just use some cayenne powder to add heat with very mild flavor.
At this point I'm looking for any heat. ;) I'm going to try Tetsujin's suggestion of bird's eye chillis first, but if that doesn't work out I'll try the habaneros. (I've never seen scotch bonnets in my local groceries.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.290907
| 2021-06-13T19:11:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116066",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90290",
"kitukwfyer",
"mantra"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49885
|
When sautéing vegetables, should I wait for the oil to heat up first?
When sautéing vegetables in oil – for example carrots, should I wait for the oil to heat up and then add the vegetables, or should I put the vegetables in cool oil and then heat everything up?
What differences will these two approaches yield?
In addition to the fact that some oils get quite a bit hotter than other, (so that hot with one oil isn't the same as hot with another), there is an in-between here that some cooks rank as a default option whenever inexperience prevails, namely warm oil. Regardless of which oil one is using, this can be achieved by applying an initial lower temperature to the sauté pan and then cranking up the heat once the vegetable(s) are in the pan and can be visually assessed for how they're performing.
Hot oil with vegetables high in water content risks splattering or worse (fire) when suddenly introduced. It is also easy to burn more delicate ingredients such as garlic (burn, in this case, meaning no more than browning). Meanwhile, ingredients porous in nature (such as mushrooms) added to cool oil are certain to absorb (and retain) more of it than you would perhaps hope for. Stated here, (The Reluctant Gourmet),
There really is no ideal temperature. It really depends on what you are sautéing and what you plan to do with the ingredients when you are done.
Since it's not therefore difficult to see that a rule of thumb toward how hot cannot be established, (though no saucier recommends cool, nor the wiki on Sautéing), decisions must be based on knowledge which is specific to the ingredient(s). If uncertain, go with in-between.
Cooking with oil is a step by step process since you have to take care of few things so that the balance in food is retained. Being an Indian, where we use different kinds of oil in our daily foods, let me tell you few things which you need to remember while handling oils:
Firstly, put the pan on fire and let it dry completely in case it was just washed so that the water droplets go off completely otherwise the oil will spill out and create a mess. In general, heating the pan first is always a good thing to do for various reasons.
Then pour in the oil and let it get warm. This enables the oil to become 'thin' and the oil becomes easy to digest. Also warm oil is good for the vegetables going in it because they get the correct temperature and helps them cook faster.
Now all you need to do is add your vegetables preferably with a little bit of tempering which enhances the taste and flavor. You could then stir fry, saute or do whatever you want to do with the oil!!
All the best!!
You might check out this thread which spends some time addressing the oil-then-heat vs. heat-then-oil dilemma:
Do you heat the pan first, then add oil? Or put the oil in and heat up with the pan?
Also, for the sautéing of vegetables, the oil should be hot before you add the vegetables to sear them and to induce the Maillard browning reaction. Heating the vegetables along with the oil can give you oily vegetables (the sear will prevent that).
For what it's worth, the word sauté comes from the French verb "sauter" which means "to jump" - it describes the way vegetables jump when introduced to the hot oil of the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.291282
| 2014-11-18T17:28:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49885",
"authors": [
"Jacqueline Houg",
"Janice Cantwell",
"Johnny Calvert",
"Layla Colgate",
"Michael Cade",
"Michelle MacDonald",
"Sarah Dilley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119267"
],
"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
}
|
114443
|
When jaggery / sugar syrup mix is rolled on to sheets, what kind of sheets would be most suitable - least sticky?
When jaggery / sugar syrup mix is rolled on to sheets, what kind of sheets would be most suitable - least sticky?
The recipe: Black Til Chikki
What kind of non sticky sheets and paper would be most suitable for making such dishes with sticky jaggery or sugar syrups?
I believe you can use any typical type of parchment paper, and to be safe, you can brush the sheet with oil before pouring on the syrup. As parchment paper is already meant to be non-stick, I don't see any problem with the regular kind.
If, by any means, your hardened syrup gets stuck onto the parchment paper, you can place the syrup parchment paper-side down on a warm damp towel for a few minutes, and it should loosen the parchment paper.
How is it different from Baking paper? I read some about it
Cling-film (US term Saran-wrap, I think)
Since they changed to formular for 'health' reasons in the 90s, basically it only just sticks to itself & barely notices any other substance exists. (Yes, I'm being a tad cynical;)
You just need it stretched out onto something flat & firm (baking tray, chopping board etc - wrap it underneath & try to make it stick to itself a bit - then whatever you put on top of it will be easy to release once it's set.
I'd do a small test with this first. Most plastic wrap I've used can't withstand much heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.291597
| 2021-02-22T18:22:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114443",
"authors": [
"Alex S",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114075
|
Is there a difference between boiling water and almost boiling water?
When cooking noodles (ramen or pasta), recipes often call for it to be thrown in boiling water.
I’m often impatient and can’t wait for the water to go from almost boiling (95C) to full boiling (100C) In some cases, it can be a couple of minutes to go to a full boil.
Aside from extra cooking time is there a difference between almost boiling and boiling viz a viz noodles?
What do you mean by “almost boiling”? What temperature?
Added temps. I’m assuming the extra time goes the extra few degrees is because of the phase change involved.
Just for kicks, you might find this interesting: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78226/what-is-the-lowest-temperture-i-can-use-to-cook-fresh-pasta
Also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92888/should-pasta-be-started-in-cold-or-boiling-water/92889 - it's not a complete duplicate since it's about cold vs hot and you're asking about hot vs slightly hotter, but the advice applies (as long as you ignore the answers that repeat traditional wisdom without examining it critically, sigh).
I'd query which we're talking about here, though of course from dried not fresh. 'chinese' (fermented) noodles, or 'italian' pasta. If you read the instructions on packs of each, they are treated quite differently. Noodles, drop in boiling water then either switch off or gentle simmer. Pasta, boil like the devil's after you.
There are two main differences, obviously: five degrees, and no boiling action.
As Cascabel mentioned in a comment, dried pasta will "cook" even in water that's well below boiling temperature. However, a rolling boil serves to constantly stir the contents of the pot, much more than convection in heating water would. Without that mechanical action, pasta is more prone to stick to itself and to the bottom of the pan. So stir a few times.
For fresh pasta, it's more important to use boiling water (and lots of it), because adding the pasta to the water will significantly cool the water below the point where the pasta can actually cook. The sticking concerns apply even more there: fresh pasta has more loose surface starch to cause sticking if you don't stir.
Incidentally, you mentioned in the comments that you assumed it was slow to bring water to a boil "because of the phase change involved". But there is no phase change involved below 100 degrees. In an uncovered pot, it takes a while to push water from a bare simmer to a rolling boil because the evaporation cools the water more quickly as the temperature increases. Covering the pot will significantly decrease the time to come to a full rolling boil (or to return to the boil once you've added the pasta).
From What's Cooking America:
Noodles added to water before it starts to boil gets a head start on mushiness. Noodles quickly begins to break down in tepid water as the starch dissolves. You need the intense heat of boiling water to "set" the outside of the noodles, which prevents the noodles from sticking together. That is why the fast boil is so important; the water temperature drops when you add the noodles, but if you have a fast boil, the water will still be hot enough for the noodles to cook properly.
Though the article specifically focuses on pasta rather than all noodles, the reason stated there is also the reason why we always wait for the water to boil before adding in any sort of noodles at my household.
This advice is specific to fresh noodles. If you're using dried noodles, like box pasta from the grocery store, then it's a different story.
@AMtwo Actually, this applies to fresh and dried noodles. The link I provided actually focuses on the dried version.
Unfortunately this isn't really true for dried pasta, despite it being incredibly commonly repeated. You can cook dried pasta starting in cold water, and it doesn't make it mushy at all. See for example https://www.seriouseats.com/2010/05/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boiling-tips-the-food-lab.html And while sticking together can be a problem with cold water for some pasta shapes especially if you don't stir, it's not generally an issue with the method. All that's for cold water; 95C is close enough to 100C that even those worries go away.
Practically speaking, if you left dried noodles in a pot, usually they will not fit until they are cooked. If it takes several minutes to bring the water to a boil, you may have uneven cooking of the noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.291735
| 2021-02-02T22:12:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114075",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"Cascabel",
"RoboKaren",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96782",
"imagineerThat",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114880
|
How do I age ginger?
For the past few months all I can find is young ginger from the grocers. I am in need of old ginger which I can't quite purchase.
I have tried to leave it out in the kitchen in an open basket (no sunlight) but it went all mouldy. When I did this, the average temperatures in my (Australian) city were a high of 30C and a low of 15C.
How can I age young ginger, so as to have 'old' ginger?
Ginger photo :
I'm not sure what you mean by old ginger. What are you trying to achieve?
I've never thought about it or looked into it, but I've always assumed that the difference between going ginger and mature ginger was purely growing time, not anything to do with aging or preparation. I'm keen to hear a knowledgeable answer, but if my blind assumption is right, the only way to get mature ginger from fresh ginger will be to sprout, plant, and grow ginger yourself.
I still don't get you, is there a flavor or texture difference?
you need to store it somewhere cooler. Like uncovered in the fridge.
@GdD -- Did some research & posted an answer. Mature ginger has a more pungent taste than fresh ginger.
What's the difference?
I did a little research, and this article does a good job at summarizing both the taste difference, and the growing difference.
Young ginger (or spring ginger) is harvested at the start of the growing season, before it has gotten as fibrous, and when the exterior skin is still thin & delicate. It also has a more mild flavor. Mature ginger (what the OP calls "old ginger" is simply grown longer and has a tougher skin, and more pungent taste.
Full text from the above article:
Fresh ginger is available both young and mature.
Spring ginger. Young ginger which is sometimes called spring ginger has a very thin skin that requires no peeling. The skin is edible. Young ginger is very tender and has a milder flavor than mature ginger. Young ginger is found in Asian markets in the springtime.
Mature ginger. Mature ginger is usually harvested in the fall and has a tough skin that must be carefully peeled to reach the flesh underneath. Mature ginger is more pungent than young ginger.
Just harvested ginger—whether young or mature–should have a fresh, spicy fragrance.
So what can you do?
Once it's harvested, there isn't really a way to "mature" it at home in your kitchen. That needs to happen when it's still in the garden. You could try simply using a "heavier hand" and use more ginger to compensate for the slightly more delicate flavor, though that still won't be the same thing as using mature ginger to begin with.
I shouldn't have assumed old would mean mature. Thank you for doing this. Answers succinctly.
You can buy dried ginger, which should be more or less the texture and flavour you're looking for - it comes in bags and is already chopped up. Otherwise, 'old' ginger is just old, shriveled up, desiccated, fibrous ginger that has lost all its fluid.
Unfortunately, trying to deliberately create it isn't easy because the fresher the ginger is when you buy it, the more fluid it contains, and it tends to go mouldy, as you discovered. You might have more luck leaving it somewhere cool with plenty of air flow, but it takes quite a while (months rather than weeks) to become completely fibrous.
Something akin to staying in the supermarket shelf for too long: lots of airflow, constantly moving (from people picking it up and tossing it back) until somebody buys it. Maybe hanging it somewhere?
i don't think this answers the question as mature doesn't necessarily mean dried.
I didn't say it was the same as old ginger, although the fact its dried means it's probably pretty close, since all that happens to ginger to make it old is it dries out.
I don’t think you can accelerate the aging process, unfortunately. Older ginger is much stronger than young fresh ginger. I just leave the ginger out in a bowl on my kitchen counter with my garlic cloves but I live in Alberta and we have a dry climate here.
Probably a long shot - but are you thinking about a preparation of dried ginger common across India ('sonth' in Hindi)? It is available in powder as well as root form, and is used as a spice. Here are some links:
https://www.tarladalal.com/glossary-dried-ginger-powder-sonth-454i
https://freshbitesdaily.com/ginger-powder/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.292108
| 2021-03-19T07:44:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114880",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"bamboo",
"happybuddha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
}
|
68207
|
Flat cookies when baking with milled grains
I've made whole wheat chocolate chip cookies from Good to the Grain many times with King Arthur Flour's whole wheat flour and they come out great. http://food52.com/blog/9497-kim-boyce-s-whole-wheat-chocolate-chip-cookies
When I mill hard red wheat and use it in the cookies (from finely milled to coarse) I get flat, barely edible cookies.
Anyone know why this happens and how I can fix it?
Edited to add:
With the King Author wheat flour I use a 3T cookie scoop and the cookies flatten slightly and then raise. They have a slight crunch to them.
Using the milled flour and the same cookie scoop they at least double in diameter, do not raise much, and are very flat. They are really hard to bite and can only be eaten when dunked in milk.
I wish I had pictures, but the times I tried making them I didn't think to take any.
I seem to recall something about aging freshly milled flour before use, but I'm not sure if that applies here.
I can try that later in the week and check back in here for any other suggestions too. Thanks.
What consistency do you want and what consistency are you getting? You say barely edible, could you edit to give more detail what's wrong?
@GdD done, hope that gives some insight.
Most 'whole wheat' flour is white flour w/ bran mixed back in ... so it's possible that there were other processes besides just grinding that happened when making their flour. I'd try aging at at the very least, as Ecnerwal hinted at.
I'm not certain about hard red wheat, but I know that red winter wheat tends to be higher in protein and lower in gluten than common commercial wheats. I suspect this might have some bearing on the strange behavior of the cookies.
TL;DR: For cookies, use soft white wheat (or try mixing in spelt). And be aware that you may need to tweak some quantities of things like oil, baking powder, and sugar when you use different flours.
There are several types of modern wheat readily available for milling. The basic divisions are
Red or white
Soft or hard
Winter or spring
Red means that the bran literally has a slightly redder color to it, but it is also a little tougher, with a slightly stronger flavor, and generally more noticeable in the finished product. Unless you're specifically going for that rustic wholemeal sort of effect, choose white wheat.
Soft and hard refer to how hard the berry is, but is also strongly correlated with how much gluten you get — soft meaning there's more starch and less protein, and hard being more protein and less starch. Basically, if you're baking bread you want hard; if you're baking cookies, muffins, cakes, etc., you want soft.
Spring wheat is (usually) planted in the spring and harvested before autumn. Winter wheat is (usually) planted later, so that it can't be harvested before winter; it goes dormant, and is harvested once it finishes growing in the spring. (In warmer places like parts of California, spring wheat actually grows during the warm winter, before the desperately hot summer arrives. It's still spring wheat, though, because of its genetic makeup.) Winter wheat tends to have slightly lower protein content, though the main driver is soft vs. hard.
Of course, in addition to the modern varieties, you'll also find ancient varieties like spelt, emmer, khorasan (a.k.a. kamut), and einkorn. These have slightly different flavor, and typically less gluten. The idea is that humans have bred wheat for millenia, starting from einkorn, to increase the gluten to provide more structure in their bread. But all that structure that's so important for bread is too much for more delicate baked goods like cakes, cookies, pancakes, etc. So you want to use one of the lower-gluten varieties for those. For example, you might try milling 50% soft white wheat and 50% spelt for those cookies, and I bet you'd get a great result.
All of these varieties still have bran, which is usually sifted out of all-purpose flour, pastry flour, cake flour, etc. When you use whole-grain flour (or mill it yourself and don't sift it), that bran tends to interrupt the formation of the gluten network, giving your baked goods a bit less structure — though maybe grittier, and possibly tougher or more bitter if you don't adjust your recipe.
That's not to mention rye, barley, and triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye), which are the other gluten-containing grains. And then there are completely different grains like oat, buckwheat, millet, sorghum, teff, amaranth... (King Arthur Flour has a nice guide for this group here.)
All of this is basically saying that — even just among basic wheat varieties — there's a wide world of grains out there to try in your baking. Whether you buy them as flour, or mill them yourself, you'll really improve your skills if you start branching out by using new grains in your baking. But not all grains can be substituted for others. You need to think more, and maybe adapt recipes. Adjusting hydration levels is the first and most obvious thing. But sometimes you'll find that it helps to do things like adding some extra baking powder or adjusting the quantity of sugar to get your cookies just right.
The reason is because red wheat lacks the structure, and as such so too would your cookies. This in turn would lead your cookies to spread flat, and since it's so thin, become hard. If you want to bake with milled hard red wheat, I would suggest mixing it with another flour that can structurally support your cookie. For example, wholemeal or plain flour.
I wish the person who down voted you added a comment as to why they did. Your answer is in line with my (Internet) research. I have a local farmer I bought the red from, but I think he has other varieties. Do you have a suggestion that would work well with cookies?
Sorry but I can't really given suggestions on this as I don't have much experience in using different flours. However, you could try experimenting swapping out some flours in a recipe for other flours. Substituting might work as there is some structure left to the support the cookie. Also, this could work (emphasis on could) but you can try adding in some xanthan gum. Xanthan gum is usually used in gluten-free baking because it can replicate the structure provided by gluten. So in theory, it could provide the structure your cookies lack.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.292482
| 2016-04-11T18:51:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68207",
"authors": [
"Ann Addicks",
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Hannah Song",
"Joe",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73374
|
Griddle pan vs. Large frypan?
I used to have a Lodge cast iron griddle that fit over 2 burners but the middle wouldn't get hot properly so I put it in the closet.
Instead I bought 2 separate stainless steel demeyere brand griddles with a shallow lip around it:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31QS7WXC5QL.jpg
The more I think about it, is there anything that these stainless griddles could do that I can't do with a 12-13 inch frypan.
I'm considering buying 2 frypans instead.
Can someone help me please?
A frying pan can also be used to make a pan sauce or otherwise reduce liquid, which may be difficult in a griddle with a very small lip like the one you linked.
Is this question about the merits of cast iron vs stainless or about the differences between a single unit griddle pan and a stainless steel frying pan
Lodge also makes a round, smooth griddle with a slight lip. I love it because it heats up faster than a pan and heats more evenly (not as much of a drop in temperature near the side walls), an it's easier to make full use of it as you can more easily get a spatula in there to flip things.
It's about the single unit griddle with small lip vs. getting a frypan. The Lodge cast iron was put in as backstory for my progression in cookware.
Handling flatbreads, pancakes, crepes, patties.... and other flatfood will be more awkward with a deeper pan, you will need to lift (and probably damage) the food more to get a tool underneath it.
Evaporation can be quicker with a very shallow or completely flat pan or griddle, due to less possibility of steam gathering up in the pan itself (compare to the pathological case of sauteing in a stockpot). But the pans you bought are already very shallow.
The visual impression of the actual cooking will be far more mundane if frypans are used (if that didn't matter in cooking, Teppanyaki would never ever have been invented).
Also, cooking a 14+ inch long piece of food whole will be difficult.
What if I the frypan had the same amount of cooking surface as the griddle? Then which is better?
Same amount of horizontal cooking surface or total inner surface?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.293090
| 2016-08-23T23:49:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73374",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jon Takagi",
"Neil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76622
|
How do I fix the issue with white film on utensils in dishwashers? Is it okay to use dishwashers if water hardness is 900 ppm?
I've purchased a Dishwasher from Bosch (SMS60L18IN). We were very satisfied with it's first wash when it gave us clean utensils without any problems. We put a 3 in 1 tablet then. Now, I use a special salt, detergent and Rinse aid... all from Finish.
From the 2nd wash onwards, it started giving white film on almost all utensils and food residues are not cleaned on some.
I tried all workarounds that I found online like changing detergent amounts and using the venegar trick.
The issue I was thinking and the company engineers suspecting is the water hardness which is around 900 (or 920) ppm. They changed the hardness level in the machine of to H7 (this is the max one for 8.9mmol/L hardness that the company specified) suggested me to run the machine for a few cycles to get rid of water residue from previous cycles.
I've already ran four cycles and the issue still persists. Is the water hardness the cause alone? Would be there other issues like the detergent or salt?
Following are the things that I observed:
The first wash was perfect. We haven't used sale here. Second and
third washes are a bit okay.
In the second wash. We put a 1.5 kg of specially recommended salt (it's brand is Finish)
Issue worsened from the fourth wash.
I realized that I haven't filled the salt resorvoir with water (the company recommends to fill it with water when you use the machine for the first time) and then filled it with a glass of water.
The company technicians said that is not a big issue as the machine will itself dilute the salt with water after 2 or 3 washes.
I ran the machine by pouring a cup of vinegar as suggested in some articles and I found that the white layer on the machines door was gone and utensils in the next wash are somewhat clean. Also, I tried changing detergent amounts, rinse raid quantity settings and switching hardness levels with each wash.
Tried changing the size of the load with each wash
Even if we purchase a budget softener like this, it may have low output rates and that gives new problems.
And an important thing is that we believe it's too noisy (it gives knocking sounds while rinsing) like a cloth washing machine. The company staff said it is normal or I guess it is not that loud when they are around:)
More details
Name of the detergent, salt and rinse-aid's brand is Finish
Am I still using all-in-one tables? No
The company staff recommended water softeners (of a different brand as they don't sell softeners). But I fear if it brings new issues like the change in flow rate (individual tap softeners have low flow rate, i.e., 2 litres per minute where as the dishwasher requires 6 litres per minutre). Ours is a rented house so I can't install a permanent or full house water softener.
Could anybody tell me if you find any other issues here other than the water hardness? Any suggestions or solutions are welcome.
Hello IamSJ and welcome! I edited out the question about if it's wise to spend money on maintenance and water softeners. Any answers to it would be solely opinion based, and could lead to your question being closed. As you are new here, it may benefit you to take our tour and visit our help center. The links are located at the top of the page under the help dropdown. Good luck!
900 ppm is a very high number (see Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_water#Hard.2Fsoft_classification). Can you list what workarounds you have tried?
I don't know where you live, but in Germany, it would be illegal for the municipality to supply water over 713 ppm, and the Internet says that the hardest that is actually supplied is at 425 (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/lieferung-nach-singapur-harter-test-fuer-buegeleisen-das-berliner-wasser/9077450.html) If 900 ppm is not an error, I would be surprised that a new dishwasher is the first place where you notice the hard water - you would have to descale stuff from water pots to the shower head at least weekly, and it would be impossible to do laundry without a ton of softener.
Trouble with water softeners is that you'll still have 900 ppm solids in your water. You won't see as much spotting because NaCl is more soluble than say CaSo4, but you'll be drinking salty water. With hardness that high, I'd go with a reverse osmosis unit. That'll actually reduce ppm.
@JohnFeltz I have updated the question.
Can you tell us what country you are in? Detergent formulas vary country-to-country due to environmental laws. Are you on well water or municipal water? Since you are in a rental home, have you asked the landlord about water hardness and whether previous renters had problems?
@rumtscho Our colony association is getting the water from the municipality now. It used to get water privately through water tanks until last month due to which I haven't find the hardness issue. Scaling issue is already there and I found issues with laundry very recently. -----
900 ppm is also beyond the supported range of this dishwasher's company. In their manual, the highest hardness setting supports 8.9 mmol/L. That makes me worry.
900 ppm is ridiculously hard water - that's 1/5 the dissolved solids of seawater.
Have you tried your 3-in-1 tablets combined with filling the salt dispenser and setting it to maximum hardness? Have you tried running a program with only a cold rinse (if you have one) and opening the door. Or interrupting it when the last rinse starts (you should be able to hear the water flowing in). See if it dries clear then. I could also be tempted to try adding citric acid to either the detergent or rinse aid, but (a) I have some, and (b) I like to experiment.
Most likely the problem is your water hardness. A few years ago, they removed phosphates from dishwater detergents. Since then, white films from calcium salts are a problem on glassware. Finish detergent (the little blocks with a red button) is excellent.
Try using white vinegar (or even CLR) to get rid of the film for a cycle or by hand. Use Finish detergent. Add some TSP (trisodium phosphate) with every load, which you can buy at a home improvement or paint store, and also use a rinse surfactant. Cross your fingers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.293549
| 2016-12-19T18:34:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76622",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"John Feltz",
"Netizen",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"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
}
|
73243
|
How can I make my Garlic Bread less soggy?
I want to make simple garlic bread pieces without getting them too soggy in the middle due to butter. Most of the restaurants near my area get this wrong - the bread pieces are soggy and yellow due to the butter they use and crunchy and tough on the crust. I want to try and making garlic bread but I want to avoid getting them soggy.
Restaurants are making garlic bread quickly and in bulk, that can effect their processes, and results. They are usually content to smear the garlic butter quickly, and mostly over the center, because it quickly covers most of the bread. It is forgiving enough, and spreads enough, that the garlic bread they make this way is still pretty good - but being a little more careful might be all you need to make it better for your tastes.
If you're worried about sogginess, use a thin layer of garlic butter to start with, and spread it evenly towards the edges of your bread. If you really want to be careful, scrape the garlic butter back off the very center of your bread. This way, you won't have an extra puddle of butter in the center, and your edges won't get hard and dry from having less.
Additionally, make sure your garlic bread is toasted fairly quickly and at a high enough temperature. If it is toasted at a much lower temperature or sits for a longer time afterwards, it is more likely to melt and puddle and soak the butter into the bread before it finishes toasting. All you really should need for your garlic bread is to warm the bread and toast the top a little. This can be done quickly, and the bread toasted and eaten while still warm and fresh, so it doesn't have time to get soggy.
If you're really wanting a drier garlic bread, you might consider lightly toasting the bread before you put the garlic butter on - and toasting again (or not) afterwards at your preference. This will draw some of the moisture out from the bread, and form a drier crust between the bread and butter, which should help keep it from getting too soggy.
Toast your bread in the oven under a broiler first to the desired color, then when you pull it out of the oven, baste the bread with a baster and melted garlic butter.
I love crunchy garlic bread and this is how I achieve it.
Easy -- don't use butter.
Put the sliced bread in the oven 'til it's toasted, then remove, and take a garlic clove and rub it over the sliced & toasted side.
The texture of the toasted bread should act like sandpaper, and slowly grate off bits of the garlic clove. As you get to the end of the clove, you might need to abandon it and get another whole clove to use.
Another alternative is to roast your garlic, and then use it as a spread on the toasted bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.294080
| 2016-08-18T20:58:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73243",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114919
|
Sage - how much can you eat fresh?
I have just bought a flowerpot of sage - Salvia officinalis.
I know that the leaves can be used for tea. But can they also be eaten fresh, as a snack or as part of the salad? Is there any limit on the amount of fresh Salvia leaves that is safe to eat per day?
I love adding sage to pasta. The easiest way I found is to put sage leaves in a small cup, add some butter on it and put it in the microwave, for maybe 30s. The leaves become very crispy and keep their strong taste. You can then break the leaves on pasta, and not much else is needed. Since 1 or 2 leaves per person are enough, I wouldn't like to eat a whole sage salat.
What we all have ignored so far: The assumption is that your pot was indeed sold as kitchen herb and not as decorative plant. With the latter, fertilizers and pesticides could be an issue.
Btw, the flowers are also edible.
Sage (Salvia officialis) is a staple herb in various cuisines. It pairs with veal in an Italian Saltimbocca or pork in the British sage and onions stuffing and is eaten even on its own, e.g. battered and fried. So yes, it’s clearly edible. However, personally I would not serve it as a salad leaf, it’s probably too pungent to be truly enjoyable, but taste is of course personal preference. There are recipes that use sage in vinaigrette, though.
As the flavor is quite intense and a little goes a long way, most consumers will never nibble on enough to get in the range where the thujone content matters (similar to the amygdalin in apple pips). But let’s do a rough estimation to get a ballpark number. The amount of oil that can be extracted from S. officinalis leaves is between 0.5 and 1 %. That oil can contain up to 50% thujone, so we can just use the 0.5% as thujone content of fresh leaves. Considering that the LD50(mice) of thujone is 45mg/kg and that 30mg/kg gives a 0% mortality, a healthy 75kg “average person” could probably eat 2g of thujone or 400g sage leaves and be fine - but it wouldn’t be a good idea nevertheless, taste-wise. Excessive, especially habitual/long term use is sometimes discouraged.
The EU has limited the amount of thujone from sage a food product may contain to 25mg/kg. That would equal 50g sage leaves in 1 kg prepared food.
Conclusion: Enjoy cooking with your sage, forget about the salad leaves idea.
————-
Further reading: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20727933/
No matter how good your cooking is: if there's 50g of sage in there per kilogram of food it'll be far too nasty for anyone to eat a relevant amount of it
@Hobbamok the percentage is obviously way higher for sage tempura (which are delicious), but the serving size is so small, it’s still harmless.
ohh, I've never seen that, sounds delicious indeed. But also looks like I won't be able to eat that much of it to begin with so we're still safe as you said. (I will try that however, thanks for your post and comment)
There are also (@Hobbamok) recipes for sage pesto. Most seem to measure the sage in cups, but where I've found weights they're no more than about 50g per serving. It's apparently metabolised quickly (in mice) so shouldn't accumulate, but anyway several servings per day for a couple of days would be needed to reach the total above.
@Hobbamok I used to love sage tempura as a child and would have certainly eaten loads of it if I could have gotten that much. Now I'm thinking I should really get me a flowerpot of sage too, to freshen up those old memories (and potentially get poisoned, apparently :D). ... wait, does that EU limit mean I couldn't buy sage tempura in a restaurant in the EU?
@Nobody probably, that would explain why I haven't ever seen it anywhere. Also: a) get you some sage! and b) then get your sage a big enough pot. I bought a bundle and replanted a single plant for my window still and it never grows. My mom (who took the other plant) has hers growing to insane sizes because her pot is twice the size. The ones in the garden are doing very well though, so if u can just drop them there. They need half a year to really take root but from then it's a quite hardy and fas growing plant. Survived this winter as well (I'm making Liquor from it hence I need a lot)
If you were a human-sized rat, it seems that in the worst case, 2 kg of leaves might be enough. That's a rather handwavy amount, of course.
To go into more depth: the presence of papers like "Toxicity of Salvia officinalis in a newborn and a child: an alarming report" means that dying from eating sage isn't common - apparently, two very young children having seizures after ingesting sage essential oil is news enough to get published as a cautionary case report. So it is unlikely that anybody has ever measured the exact amount needed for an adult human to die from sage poisoning.
What people have measured is the composition of the essential oil extracted from sage. A good example is "Composition of the essential oil of Salvia officinalis L. from various European countries", which makes a good comparison of samples - because of course, there is huge variation between plants of the same species.
If we make several assumptions, we can make a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
the only toxic compound we are interested in is thujone
the conversion ratio for fresh to dry sage is 3:1 by weight
the sage you eat produces as much essential oil as the highest-yield sage in the paper (the range was 2.2 to 24.8 ml per kg dried leaves)
the sage you eat has as much thujone as the highest-thujone sage in the sample (50% alpha and 13% beta thujone)
both alpha and beta thujone count equally
the LD50 dose for rats (192 mg/kg) is relevant for humans
your weight is 70 kg
then my calculation is that you would have to consume 13.44 g of thujone to reach the LD50, while a kilogram of fresh sage will have a bit over 6 grams of thujone.
This is of course a very inaccurate calculation, please do not rely on the exact numbers. But if should give you an idea of the rough range of dangerous amounts.
Lol, we were obviously thinking along the same lines! (Different numbers, but hey...)
@Stephie it seems you took the mouse LD50 from Wikipedia, while I used the rat LD50 from the paper - and yes, there is a 4x difference, and that's normal (and why I list the relevancy of the rat LD50 as unproven assumption). Else it lines up nicely - and your calculation of reaching the highest allowed dose is quite pertinent.
Jep. I was too lazy to go much father than Wikipedia - knowing that even with a whole lot of hand waving and rounding up the conclusion would still be “unless you start munching down a whole shrub, you’ll be fine”.
tl:dr: Any food will be absolutely disgusting long before the sage content becomes any dangerous
“If you were a human-sized rat” - that alone deserves an upvote!
given that a chopped sage weights approx 2g/Tbs, a kilo of sage would be almost 8 liters of chopped sage. I can't imagine anyone eating that volume and keeping it down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.294343
| 2021-03-22T16:18:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114919",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Eric Duminil",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hobbamok",
"Nobody",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113863
|
Eating dehydrated uncooked red potato
I sliced some red potatoes and put them, without any prior processing (no cooking, no frying etc.), in a dehydrator at 45 celsius. Several hours later, they came out crispy and tasty. However, when I tried the same thing with white potatoes, they were not tasty at all (as in this question: Dehydrator potato chips). Although my dried red potatoes are tasty, I fear that there might be an unhealthy substance in them. Is it safe to eat those uncooked dehydrated red potatoes?
Short answer: no, it is unlikely. There are some concerns with eating potatoes, but these apply to any form of consumption of them.
Longer answer:
Maybe. The main risk from potatoes (along with most garden plants) is ingestion of pesticides, fertilizers etc added to the garden where they were grown. So long as the with-holding periods are observed for these additives, and the tubers themselves washed sufficiently, these should not be a problem.
There are additional concerns:
Potatoes (and tomato, peppers (chili), eggplant/aubergine) are members of the Solanaceae, which is known as the "Nightshade" family. Nightshades all contain something known as Solanine, which is an glycoalkaloid toxin. Glycoalkaloids largely result in neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms, resulting in muscle cramps, vomiting, nausea, headaches, diarrhea at low levels, and can even cause death at high levels.
Solanine can be found in any part of the plant, including the tubers and is not reduced by boiling or dehydration, although temperatures over 170 C (~390 F; i.e. baking and deep-frying) can cause a reduction in the level. Most of the solanine is found in the skin, so peeling the potatoes removes a large majority of it. There is also a suggestion that green patches on the skin of a potato indicate higher levels of solanine, and places like the US National Library of Medicine recommend against eating green potatoes.
It seems that there is some variation in alkaloid levels in different potato varieties (May be paywalled), and they are higher in organiclly grown potatoes than non-organic.
Apparently you can test for solanine by placing a small piece of the raw skin in your mouth for a few seconds. An itchy feeling or bitter taste indicates high levels of solanine and related glycoalkaloids.
Having said all that, it seems that alkaloid poisoning is rare in the general population, though possibly misdiagnosed as food poisoning in many instances as symptoms are similar. Masses of potatoes are consumed in the western world, and given the low rate of alkaloid poisoning, I think you will largely be safe. Sources indicate that eating up to 5 g (0.18 oz) per kg (2.2 lb) of body weight per day of green potatoes does not cause acute illness. If, as your name indicates you might be, are a typical Israeli male of 85 kg (187 lb; which is also a pretty typical western body weight), this equates to 425 g (0.9 lb) of green potatoes per day.
TLDR: most likely safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.294917
| 2021-01-20T20:30:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113863",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114929
|
Can I mix food grade lye (sodium hydroxide) with water to make kansui?
I have food grade lye (sodium hydroxide) from pretzel making and I want to make chewy noodles, either ramen or Chinese noodles. Many of these recipes call for lye water or kansui.
I have found many resources about making your own kansui from baking soda (for example Can I substitute baking soda for kansui powder?), but none that start with lye.
I've found that kansui has a pH of about 12.6 and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) has a pH of 14. Using a pH calculator, I should get a pH of 12.6 with 0.04 moles of NaOH in 1 liter of solute (water). That's 1.5 grams per liter. (It has been a while since high school chemistry so please jump in here if I'm making a massive mistake)
Is this a valid approach to making lye water or kansui? What might I be overlooking?
Your calculations look about correct - however, remember that some of the OH- will be used up in the reaction when making the kansui, so at 0.04 mol/l you will probably deplete this quite rapidly, meaning that the pH will rise rapidly and not end up with the effect you want.
80% potassium carbonate, 20% sodium bicarbonate at some concentration https://omnivorescookbook.com/kansui is likely to behave very differently than your sodium hydroxide.
Kansui is probably strongly buffered, while your pH is
likely to wander. That sort of thing is liable to wreck recipes.
I'd find a good how-to online, and make the stuff right.
Also note that phosphate salts are often added to kansui in order to keep the solution stable (I guess mainly pH, but also in many ways).
@xuq There's your buffer right there. Likely pH 7 to 8.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.295151
| 2021-03-22T22:07:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114929",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74240
|
How do I reconstitute vacuum sealed Tibetan Barley Wine?
Last month I stayed in a homestay in Sichuan Province that was owned and run by a Tibetan family. At dinner they served an amazing barley wine made from Tibetan barley that they called "qingke" barley. Though it wasn't as syrupy, it tasted a lot like port or sherry, owing to how sweet it was, but the taste was slightly more earthy than fruity. Anyway, we were thrilled to learn that they made this themselves and also sold dehydrated packets of the Barley Wine in their restaurant that would be easy to make at home. At the restaurant we bought three packets. Each one weighs about 350 g and is vacuum sealed. The barley inside is wet and I assume it is already fermented. The shelf life, according to the owner, is three months, and we bought it only a month ago.
There were no written directions, but the owner explained quickly how to reconstitute the wine. She said that 5 minutes in 1 kilogram of water (1 liter), hot or cold, would do the trick. She didn't mention sugar, but I assumed that if it was not sweet that I could add it to taste.
We came back home and opened a packet and dumped it into 1 liter of cold water and waited five minutes. We tasted it and it tasted like... nothing. Like water with a hint of something glutinous and vaguely fermented added in. Couldn't taste alcohol and it was not sweet, either. We decided to drain the water and pour a liter of boiling water over the mixture, but after five minutes the result was nearly the same. We tried sweetening at the end but all it tasted like was sugar water, nowhere close to what we had at the restaurant.
I've looked online and I can't find any resources on how to make this work. Can anyone tell me how to reconstitute vacuum sealed packets of Tibetan Barley Wine? Related information and tips would be more than welcome.
Ah, perhaps this may be obvious, but did you try mixing thoroughly? or even blending the mix to the water? Even if it is re-hydrated in five minutes, the flavor might stay settled on the bottom if it isn't well mixed. Also, did you use fresh water or the same partially steeped water when you were trying the second time with boiling water?
@Megha we did try mixing, can't speak to thoroughness right now because it was a few weeks ago. But we certainly used the partially steeped water when we tried boiling and pouring over.
I'd bet that what you have is simply a variety of malt extract - I'd be very surprised if it was "fermented, then dried" - perhaps a translation issue. also - Do you really mean milligrams, or grams?
Yes, it is grams. Edited.
I wonder whether something was lost in translation, as @Echerwal points out and also suggests that your packet may be yeast.
From a Tibetan friend in the US, here's how he makes dru-chhaang, the barley wine.
Briefly wash the barley before putting it in a large pot and adding twice the volume of water as you have barley. Simmer until the water is absorbed, stirring frequently. Remove from the heat and let cool for 30-45 minutes.
Using a clean dish cloth (or plastic wrap)a, spread out the barley in a layer, and sprinkle evenly with distiller's yeast (also called wine yeast or phap). Mix gently with your hands. Put the mixture into a container with a lid. Wrap with a towel or cloth, and put in a warm, dark place. The barley will begin to ferment in several days, although it could take as long as 4-5 days. You'll know from the smell when fermentation has begun to take place, and the longer it goes, the stronger the wine.
When ready to use, make a well in the center of the mash, scoop out the liquid the settles into the well and strain it through a cloth into a clean container. Add enough water to the mash to cover, let sit for another day, and repeat the process of scooping out the liquid and straining (add to the first batch). You might be able to get a third round. Store in the frig, but remember that it's alive and will continue to ferment and can erupt in some containers (like plastic).
Thanks for the detailed answer. Just to clarify, the packet definitely contains cooked barley and I strongly suspect the yeast has already been added. I think that what I have is the mixture that you describe halfway through the fourth paragraph. If this is the case, then I am confused about how to go about making wine from this dehydrated mixture. Would I add a liter of water to a lidded container and then cover it, wrap with a cloth and wait for a few days, then strain it in the way you described?
@borrascador no idea, without direct experience with the packet. However, you might add very little water, like 8-12 ounces in a glass container, cover as you suggest (no lid), tuck in a dark, warm spot, and see what happens... and then let us all know, before and after drinking! My Tibetan friend's recipe comes from his mother, and how she does it here in the US.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.295303
| 2016-09-26T03:13:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74240",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Giorgio",
"Megha",
"borrascador",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50819"
],
"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.