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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22277
|
Making cake icing look professionally smooth
So you've got a nice, flat-topped cake after learning on Seasoned Advice how to eliminate doming and now you wish to ice it as perfectly smooth as you see it sometimes done commercially: no ridges with a even sheen.
Any secrets beyond patience and an artistic flair?
I already use a long, flat icing spatula.
Professionals ice on a turntable. Turntables for home use are affordable, and make icing much easier.
Your spatula should reach to about the centre of the cake when held steady and comfortable. As @rfusca suggests, heating it for buttercream is a good idea. You can also wet it for other icings, to make it glide smoothly.
For the icing process itself, start with the top of the cake. Apply a generous amount of icing; you will be thinning it out with the spatula, not smearing it right and left to get an even thickness. Hold the spatula to an angle to the cake, tip at the centre, and rotate the turntable. Let excess icing drop to the side of the cake. When you have done the top, smear icing thick on the side, hold the spatula vertically, the edge at 45° to the cake side surface, and again turn the turntable. When you have finished, you will have raised icing on the edge of the cake. To finish the cake, smooth these edges.
To do this, you need enough icing. "The professional chef" recommends 340 g (12 oz) for a 20 cm (8 in) cake and 454 g (1 lb) for a 25 cm (10 in) cake.
This all assumes buttercream icing or other spreadable icings such as ones based on whipped cream or creme fraiche. It is somewhat tougher for semi-liquid glazes such as ganache.
semi-liquid glazes can be an advantage, as they're like self-leveling compound; you pour it on, and tilt the cake so it's coated and drips down the sides. Or see How to get glacé icing right on a cake?
Depends on how liquid the "semi-liquid" is, and also if you have enough to pour over the whole cake and let it drip on the sides. If you get aluvial patterns from dripping it sparingly, or from using a thick ganache, and tilting isn't enough to make it smooth, you have to start levelling it with the spatula, which doesn't look as good.
There actually are a few tricks that haven't been mentioned, other than years of practice:
First, you need to start off with a crumb-free cake. That is, you don't want any loose crumbs from poking through the icing, ruining the coat. After stacking, I first brush it off with a pastry brush, then I apply a 'crumb coat', a thin layer of icing that's let to set up, locking in any remaining loose crumbs.
If you're not going to do a crumb coat, you want to put all of the icing on top of the cake that you're going to use, and slowly work it down. You tend to use more icing in this procedure, so that you're not scraping too close to the cake, and use a looser icing on the final coat.
For the final coat, you really need to use a turntable -- when doing the sides, you hold the spatula still, while turning the cake. It's also useful for the top, so that the height's the same on all sides.
Now, for the trick -- there's a time when some icings will develop just a bit of a crust on top. (I don't know if this happens for ones made with butter; I use shortening to get stark white) It won't be sticky, but the icing below's not fully firm. When you're in this limited window, you can place a sheet of waxed paper on the cake, and rub lightly to smooth out spatula marks or any other imperfections.
Your typical problem spots are right at the bottom edge where it meets the platter, and the top corner ... so you cover those up with a rope or other border. (another place where the turntable helps)
If you're talking about buttercream or such icing - warm your spatula just a bit so that the icing melts just slightly as icing spatula hits it. I keep a bowl of hot water for this purpose beside the cake while icing.
This + practice... lots of practice.
I don't wish to detract from the answers offered already, but for a smooth professional finish what I think you may be looking for a product called Fondant
Fondant is an extremely versatile product that can be used in a
variety of ways.
It can be rolled out and draped over a cake to give it a smooth clean
finished look. The cake to the right has a full layer of white
fondant as the base, and is accented with the stripes of red fondant
to give it an old fashioned candy look.
Fondant can also be poured over a cake as a liquid to give it a
pristine, clean, and professional finish.
One source of fondant can be found at "The Wilton Web Site". (link provide is an example of fondant, not an endorsement of the product) However, if you have a local cake decoration shop you can probably get it there.
I would make my fondant at home if I needed any. However, it tastes very different from icing, so it changes the cake a lot.
When OP asked for a 'smooth' finish fondant is what comes to mind. Personally I prefer icing on a cake.
I'm going to assume that you've never actually used fondant -- as you'd know that it is not a saving grace, and that you have to do a lot of work to get the cake underneath smooth, with an even layer of icing, or the cake will have a strange lumpy look to it.
@Joe, I don't think I said it was a "Saving Grace", I know from experience that it is "easier" to get (what OP asked for) a 'professional smooth' appearance with fondant than with traditional icing.
i've actually heard that you can use a hair dryer set low to do this, too.
Top tier professional bakers do a few things, some mentioned here but some not. Here is the run down:
Most top tier bakers are using Italian buttercream. It's more stable than American buttercream and IMHO tastes way better. Otherwise use American buttercream. Make sure the buttercream is just soft enough to spread but if it's too goopy or spongy you'll end up with endless air
bubbles
Always apply a thin crumb coat to your cake. Then the fridge or freeze until the crumb coat is firm. If it's not firm, there is no use in applying it. So be patient. Takes 20 min in a typical freezer, 1 hour-ish in the fridge.
While on the turntable, use an offset spatula to apply first on the top and then on the sides, per the instruction of others. The key here is to press firmly (but don't smash) the buttercream during this application. Otherwise you're back to the air bubble problem.
Using your spatula to smooth the side can be crazy hard. Use rectangular shaped metal smoother. Wilton makes one. The right angle and bottom help you keep the scraper parallel to the side of the cake.
When trying to smooth do one full rotation of the table using your opposite hand by placing your free hand just behind the smoother and turning the table by pulling it around towards you, away from the smoother (if you're holding the smoother in your right hand this would be a counter clockwise rotation.
Again per others, smooth the top by starting at the edge and then pushing the frosting away from you towards the center. But never pull it towards you. Also don't push down. Just start right in front of the edge and in one motion sweep it towards the other side stopping BEFORE you hit the far edge.
Some people use hot water to heat up the spatula or smoother as they work. It's not really necessary if your buttercream is the right temp, but it can be helpful in the beginning. Just be sure to dip the spatula in the hot water and then wipe it dry before proceeding.
Sometime as you work, the buttercream will start to warm. If you notice it getting goopy just stop what you're doing and put in the fridge to cool for a few minutes.
if you take the wilton cake decorating classes they tell you that after you ice it put it in the fridge for 5 minutes and then pull it out and take parchment paper to smooth it.But you have to get the icing as smooth as possible then put it in the fridge uncovered. Then you take the parchment paper and set it on top of the cake and gently press down to smooth it. It is very similar to the paper towel version but if you use a paper towel there is risk of paper towel pieces getting stuck in it.
You need the 'shop towel' type of paper towels, which are much more durable. The result is a matte finish. If you use parchment or waved paper, you'll end up with a glossier finish. And thanks, when I took a Wilton class ~12 years ago, they didn't mention putting it in the fridge for a few minutes.
Use a paper towel to smooth out icing. Trust me, google it!!!
For this to be a useful answer, you should explain in detail the technique. Asking the OP to google it isn't helpful.
I'm going to assume it's the same trick that I mentioned (although I used waxed paper). You can use paper towels, but not all of them will work. I was told to use the 'shop towels' sold for automotive work, not the kitchen paper towels, but that was almost a decade ago and it's possible that it's changed. And it ends up generally flat-ish, but with a slight texture. It might be better for afixing decorations on the sides of the cake, and it helps to make imperfections less noticable ... but for smoothest, use waxed paper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.331600
| 2012-03-15T06:01:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22277",
"authors": [
"BobbyJ",
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GeraltCZ",
"Jim J",
"Joe",
"Mahesha999",
"RajS",
"TechnoNewbie",
"Willian Monroe",
"alicethom31",
"frogie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68522",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22357
|
What is the fastest appliance/utensil to cream butter and sugar with?
I have:
but even with the whisk on the stand mixer, it seems to take for ages compared to when I was a kid and used a:
I'm using room temp butter and mix it for 10-20 seconds before starting to add the sugar. What's the preferred tool?
Information requested by @Ward:
Cake batter is what I'm creaming the butter and sugar for.
The 10-20 seconds I just do initially before adding the sugar to spread the butter around. Probably not needed. I could be going for up to 10 minutes after that with the sugar before I give up, unhappy with the fluffiness, concluding that I must have too high expectations. I also find the resulting cake too dense as well.
Update
Just tried using the paddle but at night when it's not so hot and had better results. I think using room temp butter before during the day saw the butter melt before it started to cream.
Kenwood/Kitchen Aid with the paddle attachment. Yes room temp butter.
I must admit I haven't tried the paddle. Will do.
Its all about the paddle. :)
As they say, I'd hate to beat up the cream without a paddle.
I myself don't have a Kitchen Aid. I start with a spatula and switch to the whisk after a minute or three.
You didn't mention having a spatula, but I think you do.
I really don't think that is the fastest method...
It is if you don't have a Kitchen Aid :) It's faster than.... let's say a fork.
Faster than a chopstick.
Faster than a toothpick
I've been using my:
extensively for creaming over the last couple days - buttercream icing (1 1/2 lbs of butter/shortening, 2lbs icing sugar) and a couple big batches of cake batter (1+lb butter, 1 1/2 lb sugar).
I guess one thing I do a bit differently is to beat the butter for longer before adding sugar, for at least a couple of minutes. Then I add the sugar slowly and work up to medium speed, stopping a couple times to scrape the bowl. I spent at least 10 minutes, more like 15 before I went on to add the dry and wet ingredients.
One of the nice things about the stand mixer is that you can leave it running for a while with minimal attention while you work on the next step.
The paddle you have there, is that more like my whisk attachment picture above or my paddle (Kenwood's 'K' paddle)?
Sorry, that's not what I used, that's just a pic I found on the Intenet of the same model and colour mixer that I have.
The Kitchen Aid mixer with the whisk attachment does a great job, the most important thing is room temp butter - not too soft though as it still needs some structure to get the volume. If you used caster sugar this could speed the process a little as well.
If speed is the main requirement, you can't get any faster than a Magic Bullet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.332339
| 2012-03-18T01:23:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22357",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Micah Kyne",
"Mien",
"Nancy",
"Rose",
"Sobachatina",
"Steven",
"Vahn",
"Vic",
"Vivek Ranjan",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"rfusca",
"ukrutt"
],
"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
}
|
78458
|
Can I use live yoghurt to kick-start fermentation?
I am making a type of fermented sausage from the Faroe Islands. The recipe says to keep them above 20 degrees (Celsius) for the first 12 hours, to make sure the lactobacilli multiply enough to initiate lactic acid fermentation.
Included in the sausage mix is 500ml of milk. Would replacing some of this with live yoghurt help to ensure a good colony of lactobacillus is present, thus reducing the risk of the fermentation not starting quickly enough?
And could I extend this to other lactic acid fermentation recipes e.g. sauerkraut?
Wow, quite esoteric. I don't recall many fermented meat Q's here. I hope someone can help.
@Paulb Obscurity is the spice of life ;)
Lactic bacteria are not particularly associated with milk. Sure, there are ones that like milk, but the things are everywhere, as explified by sauerkraut, which is a lactic fermentation and has no milk product anywhere near it (except for recipies by people that fail to "get that" concept - the strains that would do well in milk are not the same that would do well in cabbage.) So That's one thing. The bacteria predominant in yogurt are Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus - doubtful that these are the species you want to promote in sausage.
Actually you can use live yogurt as a starter to ferment yogurt, veggies. However, if you want to make sure to have a lot of Streptococci and Lactobacilli, you can use the probiotics (in dried form) to boost fermentation faster.
My advice would be to see if you cannot find a cheese hobby shop that will not sell you a strain of the bacteria and simply cut out the middleman. You can inoculate sausage with bacteria very much like you do with cheese so there really is any need to do the diary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.332622
| 2017-02-16T09:56:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78458",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Paulb",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113960
|
Stove-steamed rice gets burnt on bottom
I've followed one of those countless videos on YouTube about steam-cooking rice on stove, particularly this one: How to Cook Rice Perfectly Every Time | Stovetop Method | Easy Asian Cooking
But three out of three times rice on the bottom burnt.
Cooking procedure:
Put rice in a pot and rinse twice
Cover rice with 2-3 cm water
Hard boil until water surface hits rice
Reduce heat to minimum, cover the pot and wait 15 min
Turn off heat and wait 5 min
Remove cover, fluff the rice and wait 1-2 min
???
PROFIT
Some more details:
Rice that did not get stuck to the bottom was delicious
Rice that did get stuck was not black or even brown
While boiling excess water out (when I first put it on the stove) I had to mix it with a spoon because some rice kept sticking to the bottom
Reminder: What are comments?. In short, comments are temporary by design and don‘t post answers in comments. Answers in comments will be deleted.
I can see flaws in the method. Adding water by 'depth' is pretty inaccurate unless you use the exact same rice quantity in the exact same pan as the recipe author. Also, bringing it slowly to the boil like porridge is very inaccurate for your timings.
Let's try it a slightly different way. Use ratios & a flash-boil.
There's no absolutely ideal 'works for everybody' ratio as it depends on pan thickness, tightness of lid & stove heat. You'll end up between 1:1.5 and 1:1.75
Though this takes a lot of text to explain, it's actually really, really simple to do & once you have your ratios right for your kitchen, it will 'just work' every time.
Put the kettle on.
(This works best if you live in a 240v country, otherwise you might have to wait a few more minutes before you start 2;)
Using a small-ish saucepan with a tight-fitting lid & the heaviest base you have, pre-heat at full power as the kettle's coming to the boil. The idea of this is that the pan is hotter than the water as it goes in… but not on for so long it's glowing, or you can smell burning teflon;)
Add 1 cup of rice to the pan as it's heating (cup, mug, measuring jug, doesn't matter so long as you use the same measure for the water. That way we're working percentages/ratios not inches). Don't bother to pre-rinse unless your rice is particularly dusty. Supermarket rice really doesn't need it these days, & pre-rinsing will change the flash-boil reaction.
Add salt now if you want salt.
Add a cup and two-thirds (middle of your ratio spectrum) boiling water. The water & rice combo will immediately flash-boil almost out of the pan. Immediately drop the heat to minimum (assuming gas, or take the pan off the ring for a few seconds if electric or anything not instant)
Stir once with a spatula, just enough to know the rice didn't clump, which it shouldn't if the water flash-boils on contact.
Put the lid on. (First time, until you get used to this, keep an eye on it to make sure it's not going to boil over as the initial heat drops away)
Simmer for 15 mins, without lifting the lid to check.
Don't be tempted to lift the lid to see if it's done…
This is a Schrödinger/Heisenberg* method - see below;)
This depends on your pan thickness & how low your ring goes. You learn this through repetition; after that, time it.
While you're learning the timing, then you'll have to just lift it slightly & briefly every minute from 12 or so. Once you've got the ratios for your pan/stove combo you don't do this.
Whilst you're learning at the lid lift stage, you're listening for a 'crackling' sound. That's the indicator your very last bit of water is evaporating off the pan base.
Switch off the gas (or for electric switch off & move the pan to a cold ring)
Leave 15 mins more. Don't lift the lid at all.
We don't need Schrödinger for this bit - the cat is alive;)
'Fluff with a fork' as they always say - or if you got it just right, a quick once-round with a spatula will do it. it won't have stuck.
Profit… or adjust your water ratio/timing/heat for next time.
A lot of this is learning your specific pan/stove. If your ring is hot or your pan is thin, you have to adjust your water ratio up slightly, so you arrive at the 15 minute mark as it crackles. This can mean you end up with a ratio somewhere between 1:1.5 & 1:1.75 If you err, err on the side of dryer.
Glass-lidded pans can take a lot of your early guesswork out of it, as you can see what's going on.
*Schrödinger's cat is a famous thought experiment. You don't know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box.
We're additionally hampered in this by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that by the mere act of observing an experiment, you change the result.
Hence, you cannot know if it is done until you lift the lid… but by lifting the lid to see if it's done, you change the time it will take & the amount of water required for it to be done.
Thanks, this is state of art answer! Will mark accepted once I try it.
Welcome. Do note it may take a few attempts as you learn your ratios. After that you do it without thinking.
I'm fortunate to have saucepans with glass lids which rather cuts through the Schrödinger issues. I use a 1:2 ratio and turn off the heat once I can see that the surface of the rice has 'holes' caused by escaping steam. You can also give it a quick shake side-to-side to pre-emptively dislodge any rice which was considering sticking as you take it off the heat.
Cooking by depth can be quite reliable for typical amounts of rice. It's no less accurate than using fixed ratios of water to rice, as the formula varies by the amount of rice being cooked (as part of it's absorbed by the rice, while you have a certain amount that evaporates ... which is a function of the vessel (surface area, how tightly the lid seals, etc.))
@Joe - it obviously wasn't working for the OP. Depending on pan size the difference between 2 & 3cm of water could be a pint. Additionally judging water depth from above is always harder because of refraction foreshortening the appearance of depth. My method requires some adjustment until the desired consistency is achieved. After that it's by rote. No further guesswork required. I find the method scales quite well. By the time I need a larger pan, the difference is covered by the lerger area as well as volume. I've never tried to scale to 50 portions, but then, I doubt I'll ever need to.
I use a relatively heavy bottomed pot. This method is simple and less fuss than most, and my rice does not stick to the pan:
put 1 something (I have a particular mug I always use) of rice into the pan.
put the pan on the stove and turn the ring on high
add 2 somethings of tap water
put the lid on
do something else in the kitchen like making whatever you intend to serve with the rice
when the rice boils (which you may notice by it boiling over, in which case take the lid off) turn it to min
after a minute if you took the lid off you can put it back on
in about 15 minutes the rice will be perfect. You can check by looking to see if there is still water down at the bottom of the pan. Yes, checking will let out some steam, but it's ok, even if you check twice or three times, and soon you won't need to
I was taught to let it sit off the heat and various more complicated things, but I just don't and my rice comes out fine.
Note that the something unit in this case is volume, not weight. That would give different results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.332807
| 2021-01-26T07:14:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113960",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"beardeadclown",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114076
|
Color bleeding when piping
I'm trying to mix color in whipped cream for decorations, but it always bleeds the color down to my white cake coat foundation. Can somebody help?
Make sure your cake fondant isn't too runny.
It might be a good idea to let the fondant on the cake set for a few hours before topping on the whipped cream, in order to harden the foundation to prevent colors from bleeding in.
Here is a thread of comments that focuses on the issue with bleeding colors from whipped cream: Keep Colors From Bleeding?
I only used whipped cream for both cake coats and decorations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.333515
| 2021-02-02T22:39:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114076",
"authors": [
"Duyen La",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68499
|
What is the difference between quick cook and traditional steel cut oats?
I've noticed a grocery store sells both Quick Cook steel cut oats and Traditional steel cut oats. Quick Cook take only 5-7 minutes to cook on the stove, while traditional require 25-30 minutes. Traditional also require more liquid, but I assume this is due to evaporation during the longer cook time.
The question Difference between old fashioned and quick oats? appears to be talking about rolled oats, but my main takeaway is that the quick rolled oats are processed into smaller flakes.
On the other hand, I'm aware that minute rice cooks faster than normal rice because minute rice has been precooked and dehydrated.
Are quick cook steel cut oats just cut smaller, or is there also some other difference?
Bob's Red Mill makes quick cook steel cut oats. According to them, they're just cut smaller.
Quick Cooking Steel Cut Oats are simply whole oat groats that have been cut into neat little pieces on a specialized rotary granulator mill. We use high protein, whole grain oats that have been lightly toasted to create our hearty steel cut oats. Also known as Irish oats or pinhead oats, steel cut oats create a chewy, full-bodied hot cereal. Our Quick Cooking Steel Cut Oats are cut a little smaller than our Regular Steel Cut Oats, making them ready in a scant 5 to 7 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.333596
| 2016-04-23T16:11:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68499",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42067
|
Tea-flavored concentration from a teabag
I was wondering if there was a way to make a concentrated flavoring from a teabag. This probably isn't the best choice, but we have teabags readily available in our office breakroom, and I would like to occasionally add flavor to other hot or cold beverages.
Specifically, I sometimes make hot chocolate using steamed milk, and would like to make mint hot chocolate. Alternatively, I'd like to make some concentrated chai from a chai tea bag and add it to steamed milk.
Not what you're asking, but have you tried just dropping the teabag into the other hot liquid? For mint teabags, I suspect they'd brew just fine in Hot Chocolate to add a minty kick, and Starbucks makes a chai latte where they brew the chai and then add steamed milk after.
@Yamikuronue I think that does answer the question - the OP has focused on making concentrate, but that's not the only way to solve the problem they actually have. (See XY problems.)
When I make iced tea at home, I put 5-6 tea bags in a small pot with about 2 cups of water and let it simmer for a while (usually about 30-45 minutes). Then I put the concentrate into a 2 quart container and add water. Sometimes (if I've simmered it too long) it's a little too strong and I'll have to add more water. Maybe you could try doing that? It seems like you could even simmer it longer, making it even more concentrated. Then just bring the concentrate to work and add it as needed.
This may be an XY Problem: have you tried just dropping the teabag into the other hot liquid? For mint teabags, I suspect they'd brew just fine in Hot Chocolate to add a minty kick, and Starbucks makes a chai latte where they brew the chai and then add steamed milk after.
‘Hot’ probably isn't hot enough; black tea really needs boiling water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.333725
| 2014-02-16T23:51:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42067",
"authors": [
"Bharath Jinda",
"Cascabel",
"Crankycyclops",
"Shihab Shahriar Khan",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Yamikuronue",
"evn",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99667"
],
"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
}
|
79038
|
How can I remove sticky residue from a pot I boiled salsify in?
Yesterday I made black salsify. I got the salsify fresh and peeled it myself. Knowing what a hassle that is, I rinced and scrubbed it, put on disposable gloves and peeled in my sink, which afterwards I scrubbed down with a cleaning agent. I put the salsify in water with vinegar to avoid discoloration.
I peeled the salsify very thin, however. There were a few small spots of black peel left here and there, but since I was cooking for myself I didn't mind if it looked less than perfect. However, this might have left a bit of the sap on there and after cooking them, it has settled in my stainless steel pot on the sides, at where the water level was. The residue is sticky and extremely resilient.
I've tried scrubbing with a brush and detergent to no avail. After that I put in a mixture of water and vinegar hoping that would soak it loose, but without much success. Just now I took a scrubbing sponge to it with some kitchen cleaner, but no dice. I guess with continued use it might eventually start disappearing, but it's unsightly and probably not too hygienic. Any advice on what could successfully remove this rubbery substance?
If the diluted vinegar helped at all, maybe try soaking it in straight vinegar?
You say you've soaked it, have you tried boiling it?
The diluted vinegar did not do much. Yesterday I used the pot again to poach some fish in boiling water, which seems to have made things a little bit better. Maybe repeated boiling or boiling with some vinegar will sort things out.
Maybe an oily cleaner will penetrate the leftover goo. You can try cooking oil, peanut butter or something like Goo Gone.
I agree with @DebbieM. the sticky bit is latex and rubbing it with oil (e.g., olive) should start to soften it, Then rub it with straight washing up liquid and, if needed, a bit of baking soda.
@DebbieM. is on the mark. Rubbing it with colza oil removed the residue very easily. Could you post it as an answer so I can accept it?
When trying to remove gummy, rubbery substances often something oily will penetrate and soften the goo so that it maybe cleaned as usual. Things to try, cooking oil, peanut butter or something like Goo Gone or WD-40.
Try some isopropyl rubbing alcohol!
That could work too. I used oil as suggested by Debbie M., but I'll keep this in mind next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.333917
| 2017-03-10T20:05:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79038",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Doug",
"G_H",
"Giorgio",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55199"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79460
|
Blender part in dishwasher, poisonous?
I washed a part that should not be washed in the washing machine. Now the metal part is no longer shiny and gives off an oily substance. How dangerous can this be? In terms of toxins and to the other things in the dishwasher? I did a quick wash without soap after I found out.
Edit:
Awaiting answer from tech support, they might have to ask the factory. I think its strange that the inside of the cog is covered in oil, if its from the part above. There is no visible oil on anything else, even on the plastic or the blades. I think it may be a coating on the cog, reacting to water and soap, may be completely wrong here.
Does that surface even come in contact with the food?
No, i will order a new part anyway, more concerned about the dishwasher and the plates cups etc washed together with it. I probably should have been more clear : )
It seems that oil has been driven out of the bearings.
For getting rid of oil contamination, soap is actually very useful. One or two empty runs should certainly get rid of what is left in the dishwasher itself, even if the oil is not food grade - otherwise, everyone running a dishwasher professionally would have to be worried about someone having eg touched a cup or plate with motor oil on his fingers.
Check if the bearing still runs decently; it might be best to take the bearing apart and re-grease it (this one looks like it is designed to be taken apart) - check whether you can find a repair manual and/or advice from the manufacturer on what grease should be used here.
If you use any non-approved type of grease, pay heightened attention when using the blender - any strange noises, smoke, slowing down... mean turn it off now.
I am unshure if its bearing oil, its equally oily inside the cog, the bearing oil should come from the other side, away from where the picture is taken, if i understand correctly. I think its a coating on the cog that should not come in contact with water, i dont know, the tech support sendt my case higher up, awaiting answer from them, may take time if the have to ask the factory.
Thanks for the answer, i will run it with the same dishes and soap one more time. Most people i have talked to seemed to think its no problem. The tech support also said they probably dont have anything that would be too poisonous in a blender, even if that part never would come in contact with the food. If its bearing oil, it certainly makes sense it would be as non-poisonous as possible. Thanks.
Make sure you relube it if you can, if their support can recommend a lube. A bearing suddenly seizing in a blender could end messy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.334388
| 2017-03-28T12:07:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79460",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55616",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"user55616"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24013
|
Why does my cake rise more in the center?
Possible Duplicate:
How do you make a cake lift equally and minimize doming?
I recently started baking and my cakes always seem to rise more in the center, creating a sort of bump. It has never come out flat, though otherwise the cake seems to taste fine.
This happens with regular cakes and vegan cakes with no eggs/milk. Am I not pouring the mixture correctly or is it something to do with my oven?
This causes a problem when I try to make layer cakes or some decorative frosting as the cake is convex rather than flat.
Interesting - so far I only encountered cakes that don't rise enough in the center because the form gets too hot so the edges of the cake bake much faster then the middle. So maybe it's the other way around for you because you have a heatspot in the middle of your oven. What forms do you use? What type of oven do you use? What settings on the oven do you use?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.334623
| 2012-05-25T22:54:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24013",
"authors": [
"3fold",
"Audrie McKenzie Daly",
"Patty Edwards",
"Sven",
"T Iona",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54505",
"rxw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24752
|
Why does making instant coffee in the microwave taste burnt?
First off, I did see this question about reheating the coffee in a microwave oven, but the answer merely suggested that stale coffee tastes bad irrespective of the microwave.
I make instant coffee a lot, and whenever I use the stove to boil my milk and add coffee, it turns out fine. But if I am lazy and use the microwave to boil the milk and then mix the coffee, more often than not, the coffee tastes burnt. So burnt that I've had to throw it away.
This isn't specific to one particular brand of instant coffee, I have tried 3 brands.
I've noticed that it seems less burnt if I put it in the microwave for lesser time, but I like my coffee piping hot in the morning and it doesn't turn out well.
So what is it about microwaving instant coffee that makes it taste so revoltingly burnt and what can I do to avoid it?
EDIT: I do microwave the milk in short bursts so as to avoid burning the milk. And also, if I just microwave the milk for the same amount of time, the milk doesn't taste burnt.
Have you tried boiling water instead? Milk has fat solids that could be burning.
@Yamikuronue: I haven't tried boiling water actually. I like my coffee milky and thick (being south indian :)), so I have always used milk.
Are you adding instant coffee to hot milk? or hot water & milk?
@CosCallis: Hot milk..
I don't think it's the coffee. I make Black Coffee in the microwave everyday, with instant coffee, and it never tastes burnt. Probably the milk.
It could be that the milk is getting so hot that it burns the coffee granules when you add them. Liquids can boil in the microwave without bubbling, because the inside surface of ceramics are often so smooth as to have few nucleation points. Try leaving the milk to cool for a minute before adding the coffee.
Excellent suggestion. To put it differently, liquids in the microwave can get above their boiling point whilst remaining liquid (i.e. they don't turn into gas, which is the bubbling) - so you have a hotter liquid than you can get from the stove. It would be interesting to know if leaving it to cool fixes the problem. Note - stirring it will help cool it down, but if it is superheated it can explode out of the cup when you do this which would be very dangerous to your face.
Indeed. I cringe when I see people making tea by boiling water in the microwave then chucking in a teabag - superheated water, meet millions of non-dissolving nucleation points!
My suspicion is that the milk is burning. You should microwave it in small bursts, stirring after each one (because microwaves heat unevenly).
I do microwave it in short bursts. 2. When I heat only milk this way, for the same amount of time, the milk doesn't taste any different. It doesn't taste burnt. So why does the addition of instant coffee make it worse?
@DhariniChandrasekaran With that information, I suspect my initial suspicion was wrong. I'm not a coffee drinker, but I have experienced things going wonky when microwaved, so I figured I'd start there. Hope someone else has a better idea!
@DhariniChandrasekaran: If you left details out of your original question, then you should edit it to be complete.
At what power level do you use your microwave? If it is the milk that burns, setting your microwave to, say, 200 Watt and tripling the duration can heat it more evenly. When I heat something like a few slices of cheese in the microwave, I always set it to 100 Watt, because at 900 Watt there will be boiling patches of fat in the cheese within 10 seconds. At 100 Watt for 20 seconds, however, it gets warmed up evenly to room temperature (starting from fridge temperature).
Milk does not get burnt when microwaved, if the milk is still very fluid. Impossible to get burnt.
It is the coffee beans that can be possibly burnt by microwave.
Food gets heated or cooked by the micro-wave radiation inducing resonant vibration in the molecules of materials. When molecules vibrate they get hot.
The most susceptible radicals in molecules of our food are the -OH radicals.
Water being H2O, i.e. H-O-H, is almost the target of microwave inventor/manufacturers to induce that vibration.
However, oils also have that significant -OH radical. Oils have a significantly higher boiling point than water. Some oils can sustain up to 450 deg F without their -OH radicals breaking down. Hence, microwave oven manufacturers caution you against deep-frying in a microwave oven. You could possibly cause a fire.
There are other radicals that are also susceptible to being vibrated by microwave. For example polymer bonds in melamine-ware.
Coffee beans have oils. Imagine subjecting your coffee beans to 450 deg F. And if the -OH bonds do break down, the oil is burnt. If not the high temperature would be roasting the kernel material.
Even if you placed the beans into the milk to microwave it, the water in the milk will be unable to permeate the beans as deep as the microwave could. Therefore, you could be roasting the internals of the beans at high temperatures without being able to be cooled down by the surrounding water.
Not being a coffee connoisseur, I request that you explore soaking the coffee beans in hot milk or water for a couple of hours to soften the kernel of the bean and allow water to permeate into the bean before microwaving the beans with the milk. Alternative, microwaving the beans+milk at 10% power until the beans softens enough to absorb water.
'Tis instant coffee per the original question--no whole beans, just the dehydrated coffee granules, I would imagine.
"dehydrated" coffee granules. How far can water permeate into a 2mm coffee granule before the microwave penetrates its core to hot spot its temperature to 400 deg F? Let's say that 20% of the granules could hot-spot - is that sufficient to give the concoction a burnt taste? Hot-spots is a persistent problem in microwave cooking. Water/steam convection is a mitigating agent that distributes heat away from hot-spots. Keywords: dehydrated, oils, hot-spots.
The standing wave patterns in microwaves are on the scale of 3-4 inches, since that is the wavelength of the particular microwaves used in home style ovens.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.334761
| 2012-06-29T15:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24752",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cos Callis",
"Cynthia",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gman",
"Gothram",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Yamikuronue",
"elssar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"larasmith",
"standgale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24616
|
What makes bourbon a decent substitute for vanilla?
In the accepted answer to this question, it was said that bourbon can make a half-decent substitute for vanilla. I fail to understand how because the primary flavor component is vanillin and as far as i know, there is no vanillin in bourbon.
What characteristics of bourbon are analogous to vanilla? Is the similarity due to the alcohol content of vanilla extracts? Or is there another reason?
Bourbon, by legal definition is aged in a fresh oak barrel. The oak heartwood naturally contains aromatic compounds including (you guessed it) vanillin—the primary flavor component of vanilla itself.
But beyond the already-present aromatics, the wood is further treated to produce even more flavor. About 20% of the oak's mass is made of lignins. When exposed to temperatures of 750° F the lignin breaks down to more aromatics including, once again, vanillin. Your bourbon barrel is charred in an open gas burner for 15—45 seconds, making these flavors ready for extraction into your bourbon. The alcohol will then be able to further break down some of the solid mass and dissolve the aromatics.
So bourbon is a good vanilla substitute because of the relatively high portion of vanillin that it contains
That is cool, I didn't even think about things like external factors like where it is stored!
@DhariniChandrasekaran: Where it is stored is what makes it bourbon.
@baka: I drink very rarely, so have no idea :)
@baka - that, and the grains used to make the mash have to be at least 51% corn.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.335254
| 2012-06-21T20:37:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24616",
"authors": [
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"PoloHoleSet",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11395
|
What's an easy to use juicer that juices oranges as well as other fruit?
I would like to buy a juicer for making fruit juice, including orange juice.
But the juicers that I've seen fall into one of two categories:
Work for all fruits, but you have to peel oranges.
Work only for oranges without peeling (just juice half an orange at a time).
Ideally the juicer should be electric rather than manual (easier) (new requirement)
Is there any combined juicer for these two functions?
Ideal other features are easy to wash (dishwasher), gets a good amount of juice out of each fruit and long product lifetime.
(Backup info on question: Can I ask a recommendation question?)
Update: thank you for the answers so far. Based on that, I've added the electric requirement.
How much juice do you make at once? I just use a hand reamer (not that exact model, though, but it is wood), but I'm normally not doing more than a half dozen fruit at a time.
@Joe - I'd prefer an electric one (see above edits). Enough for a drink for several people, daily.
I like the OXO good grips citrus juicer. It has a reamer for fruit the size of orange which flips over for smaller fruit such as lemons. I think it beats a wooden hand reamer because it holds the juice and filters out seeds. No peeling is necessary. It's manual, but I think that is easy.
The problem you are presenting is that "all fruit" that can be juiced covers a lot of ground. Nearly all fruit has some parts that need to be discarded, but it varies by fruit. As you noted, for oranges (and grapefruit, and lemons, and tangerines) it is the peel. For apples and pears, it is the peel and the core. For apricots and peaches, the pit. And there are some basic differences in juices. Do you want pulp, or do you not want pulp?
Assuming that the "all fruit" is more important than the "not peeling" I'm going to recommend either a Vitamix (or other hard-core blender style) if you are OK with pulp, and the spin extraction style if you do not want pulp.
I have had a Vitamix for years and years (good durability) and you can clean them by half filling the container with water and a bit of soap and just run it (easy to clean). You need to do the basic peeling of citrus, although it is fine to leave some of the pith, and you only remove the seeds/core of the apple or the pit of the peach. The skin just becomes part of the juice. The juice is closer to a nectar in thickness and is thick, rich and delicious. But it is pulpy. I consider that a good thing, but you may not.
The juice extractor requires the same first steps as the Vitamix (although some will allow you to leave the apple core and seeds) but uses a grinder and then centrifuge method to force the juice through a sieve and into the waiting receptacle. You get a pretty clear juice, but are left with a heck of a clean-up, and a bunch of pulp to compost or feed to your chickens.
Basically, you have two types of fruit for juicing: Those with a rind (lemon, orange, grapefruit) and those without (strawberries, grapes, apples, etc).
Non-rind fruits: Wash and use a vitamix (blender). Turn it into juice and pulp. If you don't want the pulp, pass it through a sieve or chinois.
For citrus, the best juicer I've used are the manual press type juicers. They are easy to clean, easy to use and don't produce any bitter taste. They can be a little large though.
The electric juicers are popular, but you can't easily wash all of it, they are easy to burn out (any water in the motor will destroy them), they're expensive, and most importantly, the harder you press, the more bitter taste of extract (from the pith).
In a pinch, use a fork.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.335421
| 2011-01-23T20:48:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11395",
"authors": [
"Akshit Zaveri",
"Bb miller",
"Joe",
"Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE",
"Sar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user3347710"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114791
|
Measurement of water
I've been making chicken soup for decades, but today I'm in a little bind. I have two large enough chicken thighs with bone in. How much water and broth should I use?
I'm unclear. If you have been making soup for decades, what has changed to make this an issue for you?
While I agree that the question is unclear, there is perhaps a clear answer to this from either of the directions that I can see.
If you are intending on making the thighs into stock -, add your other ingredients (veges, herbs etc), if any and cover with water.
If making soup from these and adding stock + water to cook the thighs so that they are eaten as part of the dish as a whole - then again, cover them with liquid. How much of each component you use is up to you, but I would suggest all liquid stock for this scenario. If you have a more concentrated stock, then dilute to taste with water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.335759
| 2021-03-14T22:43:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114791",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114863
|
Sauce thickener for large batch
I'm making a large batch of sauce. After trying tapioca flour, it's quite difficult to handle for such a large batch.
Is there anything that can substitute? Is there such a thing as a fluid thickener?
Welcome to the site! There's a few more details needed, like how much sauce and what type. Do you need a heat-activated thickener, or something that works cold? Also, what are the problems you're having with your current method?
The method I was taught doesn't care about the absolute amounts: First add small amount of the sauce/soup/whatever you want to thicken to the 'powder type' thickener and stir, adding more sauce until it's a very thick liquid without clumps. Only then pour the liquefied thickener with sauce into the 'bulk' of sauce. A very modest amount of stirring will distribute and dissolve smoothly and once it heats up and starts absorbing more water the thickening process will begin for good.
If a lot of the thickener stuck to the bowl in which you were mixing it with sauce, transfer more sauce from the pot to the bowl and dissolve whatever stuck to the walls, then pour back into the pot.
While there are many thickeners, none is easier to apply than tapioca starch. Other starches work the same as tapioca, with minimal differences in the final texture. All other thickeners are harder/more tedious to use, and none is as universally suited to different applications as starch is.
There are no liquid thickeners, that would make no sense - thickeners by definition swell up when coming in contact with water. Compounds that are liquid at room temperature don't swell up when mixed with water, and any mixture of a solid with a liquid will already be swelled, not being able to thicken your sauce further.
wouldn't a roux be considered a liquid thickener?
@willk Hmm, interesting question. It is usually a paste at room temperature, unless you make it with liquid fat and a high fat:flour ratio. Even if you count it nominally as a liquid thickener, it doesn't help here - it is a form of starch that is more difficult (lump prone) than taking straight starch and making a slurry. Also, it isn't commercially available, the OP would have to make it first, adding complexity.
A lot of thickeners only start "working" once heated / cooked. They are hardly ever stored as liquids due to storage issues (shelf life, drying out) but you do mix them with a liquid before pouring them into the dish you want thickened.
@SF. sure, depending on how you define "liquid thickener", you can argue that some thickeners can be counted as such. In this answer, I am silently using a definition which I assumed the OP is hoping for - buy a liquid off the shelf, dump in a vat of sauce, turn on a stirrer, come after X minutes to find a perfectly thickened batch of sauce. Such a thing doesn't exist, to my knowledge.
I often with use Guar gum or sometimes Xanthan gum to thicken sauces. If the sauce is to be served warm or hot, I will go with the Xanthan gum, but I've found them to work similarly enough in most cases.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.335967
| 2021-03-18T02:29:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114863",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"SF.",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114917
|
Which machine/ product would be best for melting then maintaining sugar mixture at constant temperature?
I use a sugar and glucose syrup mixture and use it to form candies in demonstrations in front of people. When I use it it is between 80 and 90°C. This mixture is prepared ahead and then transferred to a rice cooker until hardened.
Whenever I need it, it takes about 1.5 hours to melt it back completely (rice cooker has to reach 100°C several times) and then I have to wait until it cools down around 80 - 90°C. Around one or two hours later I have to launch it again as it cools down to 70°C (the normal maintaining temperature of a rice cooker). Then I launch it again to heat it up, it gets up quickly to 100°C, and then I have to wait again until it cools down to 80 - 90°C to use it. And the cycle goes again and again.
The fluctuation of 30°C is too big so I am trying to find a different type of container that would allow me to melt down the hardened sugar mixture, then maintain it between 80 and 90°C.
As it is used for demonstrations, I need something that won't take too much space (I had a sort of electric/induction burner with temperature control, with a pot on top, but it takes some space and is too loud)
What I was thinking: Electric soup kettle, I believe the product is similar to a rice cooker, but for some there is a temperature controller (I was thinking of this one https://www.bartscher.com/en/Products/Snack/Soup-pots/Soup-kettle-54L/p/100062, you can find technical details on "downloads"). The only thing is that it is clearly said to be used for soup to be heated up, so would it change so much?
If you have any suggestions, you are very welcome to say so ! :)
That soup kettle would be a right pain to calibrate - that dial might be power (in the form of duty cycle) or temperature (but how closely couple to the contents) and the temperature fluctuations for a given setpoint may be rather large, especially if there isn't much in there. You need something that's known to control temperature, and fairly precisely.
If you need to maintain a certain temperature over time, this is the domain of sous vide cookers. They are typically made for proteins, so if you cannot find one that goes to 90 C, you can use a homemade setup instead (controller + drop-in heater + small pump). It will serve you much better than any purpose-made device, unless you can find something exactly for your use case. If you go with sous vide, don't immerse the heater or pump into the syrup, use a second container (a simple pot will work).
I would be somewhat worried about the long holding though. This is simmering temperature, and you will be losing moisture all the time, changing the ratios in your recipe. Also, I assume you are not making standard hard candy, as the temperature is too low for that. If you have other ingredients, they may not take well to being kept heated constantly, for example if you are making gummy candy, gelatin will not work well (or at all) after being kept for several hours at 90 C.
A decent lid, designed to drip condensation back in (as on some enamel roasters with dimpled lids) would help with the evaporation. And/or run the whole thing on scales and top up
A lot of circulators will go over 90°C, but they're not designed to be immersed in syrup, so you'd need an inner container. I've repaired one that went to 95°C; Anova seem to go to 92°C. You might do it with one of the slow-cooker-as-sous-vide kits - no pump, but a controller and probe that toggles the mains to a slow cooker (a dumb one, not a fancy clever one)
@chrish oh yes, certainly, with an inner container. Anything thick enough to make candy with will be a problem for naked immersion. I personally have the parts-combination setup and I'm happy with it, although maybe the commercial ones are even more precise.
I might have a try. As for the ingredients it is only sugar and glucose syrup, so there won't be any problem keeping it running for hours, apart from the mixture slowly caramelizing. But in that case, wouldn't electrir soup kettle be similar ? It goes up to 95°C too, so what would be the difference with a sous vide cooker ? cf. https://www.bartscher.com/en/Products/Snack/Soup-pots/Soup-kettle-54L/p/100062
@kokoto A sous vide controller is made for one thing only: Hold the exact temperature you set, in very narrow limits. Other appliances are made for their own purpose, and it may turn out that they either treat the knob setting as a vague suggestion and actually keep a temperature far away from it, or that they use some specialized algorithm with complicated heating patterns such that most of the time, you are far away from the desired temperature, even if over enough time, the mathematical average corresponds to the setting. Or maybe the heating algorithm assumes 5 l soup, and ...
... if you put in 500 ml of sugar+glucose, the resulting temperature has nothing to do with the 90 C you wanted. There are many ways repurposing can go wrong, and when it does, with such a single-purpose appliance, you usually don't have any fine control allowing you to set it up in a way that works for you. With either sous vide or the lab heater somebody else suggested, you will always be able to set it to the temperature you actually need.
@kokoto out of curiosity, what kind of candy are you making where 90 C is the optimal temperature and it only consists of sugar and glucose? Does it have a name? I would like to learn more about it, I am accustomed to the kind of candy that is made at temperatures well above 100 C.
Ok thank you so much for all your information :).It is called Amezaiku, that's a japanese candy you sculpt using bare hands and cissors, and you can manipulate it only between 80 to 90°C :)
Best? That would be The Control Freak. However, the downside is that it is fairly expensive.
Dang. Now I have another “I don’t need it, but I want one” on my list.
@Stephie I'm with you...just can't justify the cost.
Way over my budget unfortunately
@kokoto fair point, but you did ask for the "best" solution.
You are absolutely right :)
If your amount of syrup is not more than a few liters, you could get a laboratory hot plate (disclaimer: this was just the first link that appeared to me) with temperature control. They exist with temperature feelers, and many support magnetic stirring, too.
(I had this idea because I remember a school experiment where we created fructose-glucose syrup from sugar in exactly such a device, by letting it stir for a couple of hours with a small amount of some organic acid.)
If you're going down that route, you need one with a dipping thermometer - the temperature of the plate has little to do with the temperature of the solution on top of it. But then your dipping thermometer should be food-safe (must be if doing this commercially), as do your stirrer beads. Beads are normally PTFE-coated, and the thermometer is normally stainless steel so it's possible, but they're not normally specified for food use. I've got a setup like that in work (not at all food-related)
I'm not a chemist, but yeah, that's what I meant with the "temperature feeler".
It might be difficult to heat up 4-5liters of the sugar mixture on a hot plate I believe, Wouldn't it take even more time ? Also, in a rice cooker, even though the heating comes from below as well, the mixture is surrounded by a sort of thermos/thermic material whereas if I put my mixture on a hot plate it would be in a classic heating container, hence the heat will go away more easily ( sorry if my english explanation is not so clear) ?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.336255
| 2021-03-22T15:18:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114917",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92017",
"kokoto",
"moscafj",
"phipsgabler",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114941
|
Substitutes for beer... in beer cheese soup
Sounds odd I know, but some preservatives in beer can be an allergen... I found a beer cheese soup that I really really enjoyed. My question is, are there non-beer substitutes for "dark" beer that might do well in a spicy beer cheese soup like the one linked below. I'm curious if anyone has found a sub that still gives off the same dark beer flavor in the end result?
Simply Altered Eats: Beer Cheese and Chicken Soup
Does preservative-free homebrewed beer count?
Often people are allergic to hops and mistake it for sulfite or other preservative allergies. I can't drink super-hoppy stuff even though I love it, gives me headaches.
Would a yeast extract (such as marmite/vegemite) or malt extract work?
@Tetsujin : unless testing has improved since I went through it, if it's a food intolerance and not a full blown allergy it can be difficult to pin down without some sort of major elimination diet, like FODMAP.
@Stuart F: I like the thought path you are on as this is a general question about potential non-beer substitutes. In general, it’s hard to tell if someone else has an allergy or sensitivity so I wondered if there was a way to accommodate others in this area. How would you go about using yeast extract or malt extract in such a recipe?
@StuartF's idea is good if preservatives (sulphites presumably) really are the issue
Note: This is a suggested experiment, rather than a tried-and-tested solution
From the comments, yeast and malt extracts were suggested. I'd go further and say both, as neither will replicate beer flavour alone.
Both are rather variable. Some experimenting will be required.
In case you go too far with either of them, I suggest you have spare ingredients on hand to allow dilution (leftover soup should freeze well, to avoid waste)
I suspect that too much yeast extract will be worse than too much malt extract, so use caution on that. Yeast extract (referring to Marmite/Vegemite or own brand equivalents) is used in some vegetarian recipes as a source of umami; it's useful in savoury dishes but can get overpowering. It also has salt, so you might need to reduce the salt in your recipe.
I'd guess at a starting point of 2 tbsp of the liquid malt extract I've used and 1 tsp of yeast extract plus 0.5l (1 pint) of water for 1 pint of beer. That balance could be way off, but luckily both are highly processed and won't change much in cooking so you can add more to taste (as you can with salt).
A little acid wouldn't hurt (ideally lactic acid), maybe 1/2-1tsp of malt vinegar in that same substitute pint.
A way-out idea I'd be tempted to try (as I've got it on hand) is replacing the flour with dried sourdough starter, to bring in some yeast flavours and acid
Luckily that recipe doesn't call for a particularly bitter beer, as that's harder to get right. I wouldn't worry about bittering agents. You could though: hop extracts are rather strong (used at a few ml per gallon of beer, though they're available. If you wanted to try them you'd need to dilute the extract first then add, otherwise you might find one drop too little, two drops too much.
Well that turned into more than I thought - it was going to be a comment, as it's suggestions for experimenting rather than a proven substitution.
These sound like really good leads for sure. I will have to experiment as you’d say. Appreciate the ideas!
I am going to add this idea here under your "experiment" heading because that is what this is.. Blackstrap molasses seems to me to have some similar flavor notes as dark beer. You could make a blackstrap and warm water solution to taste then add yeast as though you were proofing it. The yeast will add its own flavor and reduce the sweetness even more. After an hour or so use the solution as your dark beer substitute.
@Willk, good point, and easier to find than malt extract. I think without doing something it would be too sweet,but your approach might well deal with that
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.336835
| 2021-03-24T03:27:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114941",
"authors": [
"AHAH",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Stuart F",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92051",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67277
|
Effect of the type of oil on a vinaigrette's texture?
When I prepare vinaigrette, I always use the same basic technique: first the vinegar (or another acid liquid like lemon juice), some salt, a spoonful of Dijon mustard and then I add oil little by little (not as carefully as with mayonnaise – in that case I use an electric whisk – but not all at once), whisking or even simply mixing it with a spoon or fork.
Usually, that's enough to obtain a nice emulsion but in some cases the oil and vinegar never seem to mix properly and the texture isn't right. It's merely anecdotal but I have the feeling that the type of oil I use is the key factor here. Olive, walnut or pumpkin seed oil all seem to work very well, sunflower oil not so much.
My question is: Is it really the case? Does the type of oil have a well documented effect on how easy it is to get a good emulsion? And if that's the case, is there some “neutral” oil I could use instead of sunflower oil if I want to avoid the strong flavour of olive or walnut oil?
for oil flavor, look at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21747/which-oils-are-considered-flavorless
Interesting question. I use a similar recipe but I just dump it all in a bowl and stir with a fork... no fancy drizzling. I always use olive oil, though... and a combination of balsamic and white wine vinegars. (1 tbsp oil, 2 tbsp vinegar, 1 tbsp dijon, salt & pepper to taste). I don't have much issue with separating, particularly if I mix it up right before I toss it into the salad.
I would suspect yes, because oils don't flow the same way, they have different spread numbers, etc. So it is likely that they also break up and coalesce with different ease. But I'd like to hear about it from somebody with real knowledge, not my conjectures. Nice question!
Add egg yolk or lecithin to your mixture and whisk it again.
Here is some theory:
To make an emulsion (consistent, not separating oil–water mixture), we rely on emulsifiers – long organic molecules that on one end bind with water, and another with oil. They play role of a glue that does not let molecules of water and oil separate.
The most common emulsifier is a lecithin – compound found in egg yolks.
There is a more complete list of them I found on this website:
Emulsifiers in food
That sounds a lot like a mayonnaise and I am already using mustard. But, again, I am not asking for advice or alternative ideas, but a simple question: Does the type of oil matter?
It should not matter very much which liquid oil you use, from chemistry perspective – all of them don't mix with water without emulsifiers. But from perspective of taste they matter a lot. I use oils as spices.
Just found this: Apparently there is "a variety of chemicals in the mucilage surrounding the mustard seed hull that act as emulsifiers". If you have variable results, I would experiment with temperature of your mixture (was mustard in the fridge?) and order of adding ingredients.
Yes, I know all this and that's why I use mustard. We can chat about this and other things all night long, that's not my question. Either the type of oil does or does not matter and I was hoping someone would know that for fact.
Its the ingredients in the premixed mustard which is promoting the emulsification of the oil; have you changed the brand of Mustard you use? Try increasing the amount you use, or as already suggested use some egg yoke.
Yeah, sure!
Vegetable or canola (a.k.a. rapeseed) oil is used in dressings all the time! If you're having trouble getting the dressing to come together, I recommend tossing in an egg yolk to help the emulsification along.
If a raw egg yolk freaks you out you can add a teaspoon of mayo to every 3 tablespoons of oil.
If someone has an egg allergy, replace the mayo with mustard (Dijon works best, IMO).
The standard ratios I use are 1 tablespoon of acid (vinegar) to every 3 tablespoons of oil. I don't worry about slowly adding the oil it, because a brisk whisking with enough emulsifying agent always gets the result I'm looking for.
To actually answer your question: I've never noticed a textural difference in my dressings based on the kind of oil I use. HOWEVER, it's possible that how much whisking you're performing is altering the mouthfeel by pumping different amounts of air into the dressing.
The recipe already includes mustard...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.337191
| 2016-03-09T19:13:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67277",
"authors": [
"Beth Gallagher",
"Brandi Mills",
"Catija",
"D M",
"Denise Williams",
"Edward Laird",
"Lex Podgorny",
"Max",
"Relaxed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74963
|
how to clean my enameled cast iron pot I burned soup dry in
A week ago, I left soup simmering in my new Staub cast-iron pot (http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/2507416/) for too long, and all the liquid evaporated and what was left burned on the bottom. I've scrubbed and soaked in hot water overnight for a week but there are still black, charred remains stuck to the bottom (see photo).
My questions:
Based on the photo, can you tell what is on the bottom? Is it burned food, or the enamel, or "seasoning" (I've never seasoned it myself...), or rust, or something else?
How do I clean and restore my precious pot to full health?
Do you have a self-cleaning oven?
I don't have a self-cleaning oven unfortunately :(
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7127/how-to-clean-a-burnt-cast-iron-pot?rq=1
If you're sure it is food burned on to the pot, and not the seasoning itself being scorched - I would just cook with it. If it's not coming off with a scrub and soak, it's not coming off into the food, at least not easily - and even if it did, it doesn't look like much and it's likely sterilized by the repeated cleaning. Over time it will either wear off slowly, or else be buried under layers of re-seasoning.
You are right, the pot being enameled does make a difference, so it's not a duplicate. Reopened.
You've got some good advice already. I would add, try Barkeeper's friend and scrub the pan with the green abrasive side a scrub sponge (like Vileda).
Thank you for the suggestion! I just did this and it completely fixed my pot. I have rarely felt such satisfaction, relief, and gratitude using a product.
As this is an enameled pot, there is a difference to "standard" cast iron. First, if you really damaged the enamel, you cannot restore it. You can continue using it, but you'll have to deal with rust. From the picture, I cannot tell if that's the case - some spots are rust-colored, but they could be organic residue burnt onto the enamel.
Second, in trying to clean it, you cannot use the typical cast-iron methods for renewing, which are intended to strip the seasoning so you can rebuild it. So no self-cleaning ovens, no lye baths, etc. You have to treat it like stubborn dirt on semi-delicate surface.
The enamel can take some amount of rough physical treatment, but it has easier time withstanding chemical methods. So I'd try soaking it for a few hours with an organic acid, for example liquid citric acid. Alternatively, soak in dissolved dishwasher powder, that's quite aggressive as detergents go (but not a tab since the finisher in it will counteract the detergent). The Americans here are probably going to suggest Barkeeper's friend, I have no personal experience with it.
A short boil after the soaking can sometimes be quite good. You can use your acid solution (it should be on the bottom only, so no danger from spilling over anyway) or fill some clean water. Then let it boil vigorously for a couple of minutes. The water bubbles tend to be effective in dislodging softened pieces of char.
You can scrub after the soaking, it will work better than without the soak. I wouldn't go as far as taking steel wool to enamel, but the plastic net equivalents should be OK. The rough side of a dish sponge is also OK. The use of abrasive cleaners like Cif is somewhat questionable, you might try them in a low concentration if you don't succeed with other methods.
It is possible that you have either naked spots which have rusted over, or that your dirt is so baked-on that it doesn't fall even with quite a bit of elbow grease. I'm not sure how to tell you to recognize the difference if the char happens to be reddish-brown - I guess I would call rust harder and scratchier than char. If you try cleaning it once and don't succeed, it is still worth it to try it with 3-4 more soaking cycles, with maybe 15 to 20 minutes of scrubbing every cycle (if you see some progress being done during that). These types of burn-on are very difficult to clean.
Thank you very much for your detailed suggestions, including the one that ended up solving my problem (Barkeepers). Your answer is the most detailed and the most helpful for problems like these, I think, but I accepted the one explicitly mentioning Barkeepers and the green side of the sponge because that's what solved my particular problem. But thank you very much for being so clear about the difference between enamel and non-enamel cast iron and for spelling out a variety of methods.
Take a lemon and pour it's juice on the pot, mix detergent in hot water and rub it with sand paper, this might help you cleaning the pot 80 or 90 percent, but as it looks that pot has also rust on it, so washing it for 3-4 times might clean it completely.
This technique helped me to clean my frying pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.337594
| 2016-10-24T03:50:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74963",
"authors": [
"Big Dogg",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51422",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96041
|
Can I use cream cheese in a sauce?
I made a white sauce with butter flour and milk, intending to add cheddar for a cheese sauce. Then I realized I'd run out the day before. Could I have used Philadelphia cream cheese instead? I'm in the UK if it makes any difference.
I frequently use Cream Cheese in situations like this, but I would generally go for one of the Garlic and Herb or Chive flavoured ones (If using Philadelphia itself.) Alternatively, Lidl and Aldi do, to my taste, much superior Cream Cheeses ...
Yes, you can. The taste will be obviously different, but I don't expect any consequence that would make it unpalatable to the average person. You would be better off if you start with softened cream cheese, but if all you have now is fridge-cold cream cheese, that should work too.
I would disagree with the "tasteless" part. For me, even pure bechamel has a taste, and a Mornay with cream cheese has more taste than bechamel. Maybe even more than of made with bad cheddar. The hearing behavior is a good point, for me cream cheese (Philadelphia style, not turro like styles) melts well, but I can easily imagine that the are brands which don't, and at some point we had a question where somebody asserted that Philadelphia itself has very different textures on different continents.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.337986
| 2019-01-30T11:00:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96041",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75227
|
Help with rubbery roti/chapatti
I have been trying to master the roti for about a year now, and I've only made perfectly soft roti a handful of times. Otherwise they come out rubbery.
The problem is NOT the dough.
I make the dough with atta, water and about a teaspoon of oil. But my mother-in-law uses the same dough and achieves perfectly soft roti every-time. She has watched me making roti and can not spot the problem.
After I roll out the roti (not too thick, not too thin, but not always in a perfect circle), I place it on a preheated tawa on high gas. I wait until bubbles come up on one side and then I flip it. Once brown spots start to appear, I flip it onto the gas. Usually they bloat, but even the bloated ones come out rubbery. I then place them in a box with paper to keep them warm.
Another thing is that these rubbery roti give stomach aches, which might mean they're undercooked. But when I cook them longer on the tawa, they get crispy and hard.
I've tried the style of dabbing the roti with a cloth (no significant change, only slightly softer), I've tried putting less flour when rolling (slightly softer but almost impossible to roll). I've tried making only small roti, and then making bigger roti. Nothing has worked.
Any feedback would be appreciated. I'm at my wits end trying to figure out what's wrong.
EDIT: My mother-in-law and I suspect it has to do with the cooking on the tawa, primarily because when I roll but she cooks it, it turns out fine. She can't tell what I'm doing wrong though then I'm flipping it.
My roti ends up slightly brownish, while hers are more white. I'm guessing that means its undercooked, but when I cook it longer it tends to get crunchy and hard.
Flips: 1st when there are bubbles and the sides start to turn up. 2nd when there are medium-brown dark spots on the roti. 3. I let it bloat for a few seconds both side on the open flame.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2181/how-do-i-make-soft-chapattis
Thank you for the link. I've read through this several times in the last few weeks, but unfortunately none of the answers have solved my problem.
Same flour? Same water temperature?
I use whole wheat atta (6 cups), water (to touch) and no salt, just a bit of oil. But again, it's NOT the dough. We make enough to store for 1-2 days and my mother-in-law uses it to make roti. Her roti come out soft while mine are still rubbery.
I'm a fan of using BOILING water to mix the dough, this will keep the gluten in check and give you roti that will keep for a day or two without turning too tough. That's why I asked about water temperature...
If you are using the same dough then the issue lies in your preparation of the dough. There are too many variables to this, I would approach this systematically, eliminating variables as you go by watching your mother in law and measuring how she does things. Specifically I would look for:
Maybe your roti is too thick or too thin, measure the weight of the dough she uses for a single roti and how big she rolls it out, then replicate that yourself
under-cooking or over-cooking, see how hot she makes her pan and how long she cooks the roti
After cooking what do you do with the roti? Does your mother in law seal it in a container and keep the steam in?
I suspect your roti is too thick, and/or maybe you are cooking it too long at too low a temperature. If it's too thick it needs a longer cooking time and you either have one that's undercooked or one that's rubbery. If your pan is too cool then your roti won't cook quickly enough to trap the air in, letting it deflate and get rubbery. Try rolling them thinner and getting the pan hotter.
Thank you for your tips. I haven't found the answer yet, but I'm experimenting with size. My mother-in-law's so experienced that thin-thickness doesn't matter as much. But I noticed that if I make mine a bit thicker it's softer. I just have to make sure it's fully cooked. I'll keep trying and post if it comes out well next time.
Otherwise I don't think it could be the tawa. I always keep it on high heat. We both seal it in a container with paper inside.
I appreciate that this is a pretty old question now, but I have had a similar experience myself with hit and miss rotis in the past. For me, the key has proved to be resting them before and after cooking.
I find that if I roll out the rotis and then leave them for 5-10 minutes before placing on the tawa then they bubble more readily and seem to cook more evenly than if I just add them to the tawa straight away after rolling. I would guess this is probably because it allows the gluten in the atta to relax but I don't honestly know; I just know it helps.
Similarly, once cooked, I leave them to rest on a plate and put another plate on top. This helps retain some of the moisture as the rotis cool and therefore retains their softness. Doing this can even re-soften any rotis that may have overcooked and gone crusty.
My mother-in-law and I suspect it has to do with the cooking on the tawa, primarily because when I roll but she cooks it, it turns out fine. She can't tell what I'm doing wrong though then I'm flipping it.
My roti ends up slightly brownish, while hers are more white. I'm guessing that means its undercooked, but when I cook it longer it tends to get crunchy and hard."
Sounds like you might have the gas up higher, cooking the outside too fast & getting it brown before the centre is cooked
In the [similar question about chapatti], there are a couple of low-ranked answers that mention resting the dough.
When I've worked with pizza dough and similar, I know that if you work it too much, it'll contract significantly when you're stretching / rolling it out. If you notice this happening, I'd cover the dough (you can just put a large bowl over the ball of dough) and wait at least 15 minutes, then try again.
Also, as you mentioned that it seems undercooked in the middle, but gets darker on the outside, I'd turn down the heat. (if it's even possible, I know there are are electric griddles that aren't as adjustable ... of course, this can also be just the brand of flour that results in a darker dough and would be noticeable in the ball of dough)
...
I'd also propose a few tests, if your mother-in-law is willing:
You mix up the dough with your ingredients, you set up your tawa, you roll them out ... but she cooks them. If you're cooking at her place, and you use tap water, you need to bottle up your tap water to bring. (or bottled water, if you get it from different sources).
If it's a large-ish batch you can alternate who rolls them out, and stack them up separately to compare between the two rollers. (note that you don't want to do one person then the other, as that would mean you're also varying the resting time)
If you're making an even larger batch, heat up her tawa as you're working, and about half way through, have her switch to her tawa, and stack those up separately to see if there's a difference. (note that if these are stove-top tawas, and not electric self-contained units, you haven't eliminated the stove -- if relying on the 'cook at mark 3', that might be a different temperature at each place)
If these tests don't let you figure out where the difference is, repeat them all (possibly at a later time) but you're the one you're the one doing the cooking.
If still not enough, repeat them all, but use her ingredients.
Hopefully from all of those, you'll figure out what's different. The only issues it wouldn't tease out is the different heat source, and the place at which it is cooked (is one cooler, or more humid?)
Thank you for the long comment! We've tried the first option, and it turns out fine when she cooks it. So it must have to do with frying time. But we use the same stove, burner, tawa and dough, regardless. So it must only be the cooking time/heat.
@Elsie : it might be worth having her watch you closely as you cook ... she might be able to pick up on something subtle that you're doing differently. You can also try watching her. As she likely just does it by habit after years of cooking, you can ask her to talk as she's doing it, explaining what she's doing and why. (if she peeks at the bottom, mention what indicator she's looking for, etc)
I find that there are so many variables in cooking that replicating a recipe "exactly" can be very hard. Here are a few pointers:
Are you using the exact same brand of atta flour? There are a lot of variance in the characteristics of different brands of atta.
The storage of roti after you make it can also produce different result. If you use a storage that lets steam pass, roti will turn hard faster, compared to a airtight container that traps steam and turns the roti soft.
Maybe try to use the same storage pot as your M.I.L?
This reason is unlikely but known to happen---something similar to placebo effect. Any food cooked by a super-trusted person (like the mom of the family) will automatically be considered superior, even if they are no better than a comparable food prepared by another person. Maybe you can do a blind taste test? But definitely if all of you are ok with it.
+1 for reason number 3. Mom's everything is always the best.
Are you flipping it many times? Because I read just now that flipping it too many times makes it lose it's moisture and makes it hard. Also rolling it too thin. I am also stuck at this. Hopefully we will figure out soon
Welcome to the site. Please visit the [help] and take a [tour]. The help pages have some information on what makes a good answer. This answer should be a comment rather than an answer and will probably be deleted. You don't have enough reputation to comment yet but if you take the tour you will gain some reputation, that I think gives you enough reputation to comment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.338133
| 2016-11-03T08:38:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75227",
"authors": [
"Elsie",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80962
|
Garlic brown spots, safe to eat the rest of the bulb?
The spots are bruises that bacteria have infected right? There is a slight discolouration into the "meat" of the garlic. Ok to eat the rest? With a bit of discolouration? Without?
If there were mold visible, should i have thrown the whole ting then? And if it were a cloved garlic, should i judge the cloves individually or the bulb as a whole?
Edit: Similar question to Raised brown spots on garlic but they dont ask there if u can/should eat the rest of the bulb or clove.
Similar to this question, although the spots may be different. Personally, I just cut the spots off and use the rest. One of the other answers does reference a source for doing that.
Yes you can eat it. It is the same as a potato. You get brown spots on your potato you just cut the brown out. This is the same for garlic. If it is molded I would through it all out. I have eaten garlic and potatoes that have had brown spots for years. I'm still alive and kicking. I hope this helps.
Personal answer, please do not take as in any way authoritative or backing safety: I cut them off and use as long as not moldy. I personally have allergies that I won't risk mold spores, but know others who even some mold does not stop them. I find that a small amount cut off of otherwise sound cloves often results in a stronger flavor, but I personally like a strong garlic flavor. Fortunately, so does rest of the house, to garlic breath is fair game. If the garlic has also started to sprout, then I get a bitter flavor, so I may be a bit more prone to discard.
Garlic is often listed as a possible source of botulism, but these cautions are normally in regards to preserved garlic, especially in oil which provided the air free environment botulism needs. Fresh garlic, it would seem would not be such a concern, but I do not have authoritative sources to back that opinion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.339029
| 2017-04-16T15:18:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80962",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79464
|
Can I eat chicken that was cooked, frozen, and thawed in the microwave yesterday?
I roasted a chicken then took the meat off the bone and froze it in little freezer bags. Yesterday evening I thawed some of the chicken in the microwave, expecting to eat it straight away, but didn't eat all of it. I put the leftover chicken in the fridge yesterday evening, after it cooled. Do you think it is ok to eat today? And if so, would I need to heat it up before eating it, or could I eat it straight from the fridge? Thank you!
As the duplicate says, you have a couple hours in the danger zone before it's unsafe - that includes the initial cooling time after roasting, and the time it spent over 40F/4C when you thawed it. If that was all pretty fast you're okay; if it adds up to too long, there's risk.
I certainly wouldn't risk it. The conventional wisdom with things like frozen cooked foods is to eat them within 24 hours of defrosting. If you defrosted it in the fridge you might have a little leeway (but it would still be a risk) but as you defrosted and reheated it in the microwave the likelihood is that eating will make you ill.
Definitely don't reheat it again, you should only ever reheat things once (though I'm less certain of this as many recipes call for cooking and reheating things a number I'd times) as the various heating and coolings increases the risk of dangerous bacteria growth.
Something that many people aren't aware of is it's not the bacteria or fungi (mold) themselves that cause food poisoning but the toxins made by the microorganisms. Of course, if you eat something that's contaminated with bacteria or fungi that can multiply and grow inside our bodies, it will make us sick. But the real danger is the by-products made by these microorganisms - endo and exotoxins from bacteria and mycotoxins from fungi.
Some (many?) of these toxins will be destroyed by heat; still how many of us want to reheat our food to the high temperatures needed for that long? It might now be safe to eat but how good would it taste? An example is the 10 minutes of boiling temperatures for foods such as home canned beans to sufficiently break down the toxin made by Clostridium botulinum.
Not all toxins are destroyed this way either. Reheating might kill the pathogens but you could still be affected by their toxins. So even after killing all possible harmful microorganisms, a person can still get ill. You might be fine eating it but why take a chance?
This is all true, but you haven't very directly said how you think it applies to this particular situation.
Technically, true. I'd hope a person could understand by inference that possible food poisoning can come from improperly stored food even if reheated.
Right, you're explaining why it'd be bad if it were improperly stored, but you're not explaining how you can tell whether this was proper or improper. I suspect you're saying that reheating once is okay and twice isn't, but it's not too clear where you're saying to draw the line (while the hours in the danger zone in the duplicates is a pretty clear standard).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.339208
| 2017-03-28T13:25:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79464",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79623
|
How do I prevent sugar from burning/sticking on cast iron grill?
I've got a Lodge reversible cast iron grill/griddle (this model). The griddle side works great, and I've had no problems with food sticking or burning. But I've had less luck with the grill side. Specifically, any time I grill meats that have been marinated in a sugary marinade, the sugar burns and sticks to the grill.
Is that to be expected? Is there some kind of technique to grilling foods with sugar on cast iron I should be using?
I encountered this problem making Bulgogi. I found that the surface should be well oiled/greased, and as much marinade drained from the meat as is possible. Baking soda and vinegar did a bangup job cleaning off the residue - my griddle was fine, but you may need to re-season.
Yes, this is expected. The cast iron turns the sugar into caramel, which is one of the stickiest substances which you will ever encounter in a kitchen, and then on to charcoal.
I don't know why you marinate your meat in sugar, but if you do, you have to either not grill it, or live with the mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.339470
| 2017-04-04T00:37:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79623",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34218
|
Donvier Ice Cream Maker - why stirring only every 2 minutes?
This weekend I picked up a hand-cranked ice cream maker for a very low price. However some of the instructions don't make much sense. For this maker, they say to crank the handcrank 2-3 times every 2-3 minutes, for a total of 20-30 minutes.
However, every ice cream maker I have ever used requires you to constantly crank the handle to help keep ice crystals from forming. Likewise, all of the electric makers will spin a beater arm nonstop through the process. Why is does this ice cream maker say to only stir sporadically? Does stirring more cause an issue with this ice cream maker?
The ice cream maker is the same design as this one, but about 20 years old:
http://www.amazon.com/Donvier-837409W-1-Quart-Cream-Maker/dp/B00006484E/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
This is what the beater arm/dasher looks like.
I had an electric ice cream maker and it was the most useless appliance I ever had, the motor would heat up and melt the ice. I believe you'd need some extremely powerful freezer for it to work - or as in this case, switch it on every 2 minutes. Not an issue with a hand crank though.
I have had that icecream maker for decades. I never had a problem with ice crystals following their directives. Since you don't need to churn it continuously, they tell you there's no need to. The mix needs some time in contact with the walls to get cold.
If you have kids, it will get stirred more often than the instructions say. But that tends to work out ok too. It's pretty forgiving all around.
Especially when working with non-traditional mixes (eg dairy free), that resting against the wall actually causes problems :)
I can think of two reasons they suggest cranking intermittently:
They figure its too much effort to crank it constantly, and if they asked you to do that you'd give up and return the machine to the store.
It's possible to over-churn ice cream, and basically produce butter.
I'd guess #1 is more likely, by far. You can crank it more often, especially if you're getting ice crystals.
To avoid #2 happening, its best to start with an as cold as possible ice cream base (e.g., you want it to be just about to freeze, before it goes into the machine). One way to do this is to freeze a small portion of it, and refrigerate the rest. Before churning, mix the two together, and stir gently until the frozen portion melts. Then dump the mixture in to the ice cream maker, and start churning. (If you start this cold, you ought to be able to churn constantly. At least until you get tired.)
I remember the "freeze a portion, fridge a portion" from an episode of Good Eats! :) My major concern was that as I cranked the handle, after the first turn or two, it ended up with almost no resistance (quite a bit different from the drum we had when I was a kid), so I was worried that it could prevent ANY crystal formation. I'm not too worried about over-beating, we're making frozen yogurt so additional overrun is a good thing I think.
We did sometimes get butter on the beater (not this model) so yes, you want to turn, not churn. Didn't mean no ice cream, but it did mean that some of the fat came out as butter, rather than being butterfat in the ice cream.
TOO close to "about to freeze" can give you grief - that can actually seize it before the churn has any chance to churn it!
I have used a Donvier ice cream maker for over 25 years now. I have sold these used for about 10 years. They work great. I have discovered that if you crank all the time it takes much longer to make the ice cream. If you crank it a few times every 5 to even 10 minutes it works quicker. Crank it a little more often at the start and also turn the crank backward a few times as well. I have not had a problem with ice crystals.
I have found that the Cuisinart electric maker works very well as well and it turns all the time and automatically stops when it is done.
The more air you stir in the more crystals. This is more like Gelato.
Churning more does gradually introduce air, but it makes the ice crystals smaller, so you don't even notice they're there. (I guess that does mean there are more of them, but that's kind of beside the point.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.339589
| 2013-05-20T19:57:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34218",
"authors": [
"79633",
"Ayesha Omer",
"Betohaku",
"Cascabel",
"Dinesh J",
"Ecnerwal",
"Madison Nimmons",
"Matthew",
"Popo",
"SF.",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19962
|
How to preserve home made orange juice
Possible Duplicate:
How to keep fresh-squeezed fruit juice?
I love orange juice and I make it using blender. Yesterday I made juice of around 50 oranges. At the end of the day I still had around 2 litres of it left in an aluminium (my guess) container. Container was not air tight. I didn't put it in the fridge because temperature is around freezing point in my city these days.
In the morning when I opened the container I saw a an orange foam layer above the real juice. When I tasted the juice it was too bitter in taste. I had to throw it away at the end :(
My questions
How can I preserve home made orange juice?
How can avoid foam over orange juice?
Are you interested in only preserving as much flavor as possible, or are you drinking fresh OJ for the nutritional benefits of fresh squeezed juice? If the latter, I suspect the best preservative method is in the oranges. IOW, only squeeze as much as you're going to drink immediately.
Refrigerate for a few days, freeze for longer; that's pretty much always the answer for liquids.
Also, orange juice is acidic, and acids in general should avoid aluminum containers. Stainless steel (if you need metal), glass, or various platics would be better options.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.339964
| 2011-12-25T07:45:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19962",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AbdulBasit",
"Diti",
"Flimzy",
"Marguerite Moriarty",
"amanda faber",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"luckynumber3.com",
"peizhao"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54068
|
What is the maximum internal temperature of baked goods?
Obviously this will vary depending on the size/shape and ingredients used. But how hot does it get inside, say, a loaf of bread? A cake? How wide is the variation? What ingredients (or factors other than shape/size and cooking temp/time) might affect this, and in what direction?
Edit: to clarify, I mean "maximum temperature during normal cooking."
@Jolenealaska I mean how hot does it get during normal cooking. Obviously maximum possible is the temperature of the oven.
It's interesting that in another question that the question seems to conflict with my answer below, but the answer doesn't. At any rate, @rumtscho gets much more into it here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39410/what-happens-with-bread-at-94%CB%9Ac-201%CB%9Af-or-is-temperature-a-reliable-indicato?rq=1
Jolenealaska's answer provides the basics -- internal temperatures over boiling inside baked goods just don't tend to happen under normal conditions. The reason is because most doughs and batters contain a lot of water. The final baked goods generally still retain a lot of that water, too. When the dough is hot and in the oven, however, that water will be heated and will gradually evaporate from the dough.
Assuming you get to close to 212F/100C, at normal atmospheric pressure, water will actually be "boiling" out of the dough. For the external surface of baked goods, that moisture can leave rapidly enough that the surface rises to higher temperatures (forming a crust). But internally, the moisture keeps boiling out, maintaining a temperature below or at boiling. Unless you have a weird situation where you are somehow cooking your baked goods under pressure, water will continue evaporating out of the batter/dough at 212F/100C until the dough/batter has pretty much turned into a dry cracker internally. That's the only way you'll ever achieve an internal temperature much over 212F/100C: to bake things until they are basically dried out inside (which is not a desirable feature in most baked goods).
As for the maximum useful temperature, that depends on the baked good and the ingredients. I have to disagree with Jolene slightly here and say I have a number of bread recipes that recommend an internal temperature of 205F or so. Temperatures over 200F are only generally for lean crusty bread doughs (like baguettes or something), which often start with a fairly moist dough. The high internal temperature means that more moisture has been removed, which will keep the crust more firm and, well, "crustier."
The more enriched your bread dough, generally the lower the desired final temperature. Basically, above 175F or so, the gluten coagulation is complete and the dough structure is formed. So, bread can be "done" anywhere from 175F to about 210F. If you have a very rich sandwich loaf or brioche or something, you might find that a temp of 180-190F is sufficient. Large loaves may also need different temperature handling than small buns, for example, since residual heat will continue the baking process outside the oven longer in larger loaves, but it also takes longer for moisture to migrate out of the center of a large loaf.
As for other baked goods, similar advice applies. Cakes and quickbreads are generally done once you get to around 190-195F, though the ingredients will really affect this. A "drier" style cake without lots of "stuff" in the batter (e.g., pound cake) might go to 205F or even 210F before it's "done" according to normal criteria, while a quickbread made with loads of fruit might "get stuck" in the range around 190-195F for a long time because there's just so much moisture. (And it's basically done there anyway.) For cakes or other baked goods which are meant to be excessively moist (with a fudge interior or something), 175F might be sufficient, since again that's roughly the temperature when baked goods get a final "set" structure. (Of course, there are also things like "lava" cakes where the interior is not actually fully cooked; in that case, internal temp should be determined by food safety criteria sufficient to cook the eggs, which might be a little lower.) And again, shape and size are often important for these numbers, because residual heat will lead to further stabilizing of the structure in large things after they come out of the oven. So, a particular cake might be "done" at 195F, but making cupcakes with the same batter might require 200 or 205F to get the same texture.
It's hard to specify a generic all-purpose desirable maximum temperature, because various changes continue to happen to baked goods after the structure gets set at 175F or so. Between 175F and 195F, the starches continue to gelatinize and some enzyme activity will continue. Above 195F, it's mostly about drying things out to the desired final texture.
Thanks, this made it click. Of course it won't get hotter than boiling until all the water is boiled off.
While the gluten coagulation is complete at low temperatures, the problem is that the starch does not gelatinize until you reach fairly high temperatures (I'll have to look up the exact temperature when I'm at home). So I find that cakes and brioches should also be taken to higher temperatures.
@rumtscho - you're right, which I mentioned in my last couple sentences. Between about 175F and 195F you get increasing starch gelatinization, so you just need to bake until the desired texture. I also believe time and size are significant factors, though -- I've taken dinner rolls out of the oven at 180F and had them taste fine, but loaves made with the same dough will be "doughy" unless baked until 190F, presumably because it takes longer for moisture to migrate out of a big loaf. So sometimes the higher temp may be as much about time to dry out as it is about temp.
You would never want to bake anything past the boiling point of water. Bread gets close. It depends on the recipe just how close, but I've never seen any recipe that looks for an internal temperature of over 200F (93C). Bread is generally "done" at 190F (88C). At temperatures at or above the boiling point of water, you're getting into candy making territory, way beyond anything called "baking".
Thanks. Why don't you want to "boil" baked goods? What about something like a popover or that relies on rapid steam expansion?
A popover would be "right at the cusp" I think, for a brief moment in time. I'll look at a couple of things and clarify in a bit. But it seems to me that you start by dropping the batter into oil that is way hotter than boiling water, but the batter itself never gets that hot. I think that is why it "puffs", but stays moist.
@Jolenealaska is correct. Water technically does not need to be at its boiling point to produce "steam." Even water at room temperature is slowly converted to a gas through evaporation. The more energy you pump into it the faster this conversion occurs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.340117
| 2015-01-28T01:22:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54068",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Breanna Parra",
"Dan Poulin",
"David Contreras",
"Elizabeth Bundrick",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Wolf",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Tracey Pyke",
"Zayr Beslaneev",
"chad g88",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"shadowtalker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114982
|
Poured fondant that stays liquid
I need help regarding poured fondant - to be precise, I would like to have it more on the liquid side.
I plan to use it as a chocolate bar filling, that is why I am asking :)
The recipe I use in general:
6 cups confectioners' sugar, 1/4 cup water, 1 tablespoon light corn syrup.
I melt them over low heat until completely blended, and then usually let it cool down and glaze cakes.
Can this recipe be modified so it stays somewhat liquid?
Maybe like a creme egg filling?
I recommend you add some form of fat into your recipe. Fat is what gives foods a smooth creamy texture. Some ideas to use are butter and coconut oil.
Cream would work well too, a la ganache.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.340736
| 2021-03-26T18:42:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114982",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115031
|
Is yoghurt mixed with milk safe?
I have always been told that you shouldn't drink milk and eat yoghurt together. So today in the kitchen channel when they made a smoothie with milk and yoghurt I was shocked. Since I couldn't find information online, I ask here: is it safe to drink milk and yoghurt together?
What on earth gave you the impression that mixing together any two safe food products would produce something 'unsafe'? Most especially two that are so similar.
@Tetsujin because yoghurt is made from milk by fermentation, it could spoil the milk or something. I have always been told that from my parents. I don't see why there could not be cases where two safe products produce something unsafe, or at least unpleasant. There are some places on internet that claim that for example milk with banana is unhealthy, but it's hard to find reliable sources.
I am thinking of the grade school lunchroom proctor reply to the kids who did not like the different foods on their plate touching. "It all mixes in your stomach".
Note that we will not allow discussion of health claims - there are so many philosophies (or beliefs or folklore) on which foods should or should not be mixed, eaten together or avoided altogether. Asking about food safety on a scientific basis is perfectly fine. For more information check the tag info for “food-safety”.
There are no two food items that become unsafe to consume on mixing. Even the worst edge cases I could think of are unsafe to handle, but not less safe to consume than the original - for example, don't pour vinegar into the lye used for brushing pretzels. There are a lot of cases where the mixing of two products in a given category of shelf-life can push the mixture into a category of much shorter shelf life - for example, if you mix sugar and water (both are shelf-stable individually), you get a syrup that needs refrigeration. But milk is already in the shortest category.
@rumtscho There’s one famous exception, though: The common ink cap (Coprinopsis atramentaria) is poisonous when combined with alcohol.
@Stephie I might add lots of similar interactions to such a list, but all of these are marginal because, for example, one of the substances is a medication. E.g. grapefruits interact poorly with statins, alcohol interacts poorly with many medications. And quinine and grapefruit carries some (very mild) risk for people with known heart problems. (The overall point remains the same: combining two "safe" foods will not create something that is "unsafe").
Yes, that’s perfectly safe.
If your yogurt has live yogurt bacteria (so not pasteurized after fermentation), some of that bacteria would turn the fresh milk into yogurt if given enough time - but we are talking about hours in a rather warm environment, not in a smoothie that is mixed and then consumed rather quickly or stored in the fridge.
The milk is just to thin the smoothie without watering it down or the yogurt to add a bit of acidity without curdling the milk.
@AnswerMyQuestion Just commenting to say that, in case it isn't clear: Yoghurt bacteria will not ferment in your stomach despite it being warm. The conditions in the stomach are too acidic and the retention time is not long enough to result in any significant bacterial activity. However, live bacteria (assuming your yoghurt is live culture, not Pasteurized) do make it through the stomach to the lower intestine and are useful for good gut health.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.340844
| 2021-03-30T18:15:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115031",
"authors": [
"Carla is my name",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Willk",
"Xander Henderson",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93172",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115179
|
How do I use Carnauba or Beeswax for Candy?
I am trying to make gummies and I want to use either Carnauba wax or bees wax to make a coating, anyone got any idea WHAT Carnauba or bees wax to use and how to apply it? I know they use a tumbler but do I use Carnauba granules? Mix it with oil? What?
For gummies in an industrial setting, these come pre-blended to simplify application and process.
In a kitchen or commercial setting, carnauba is usually applied as a finely ground powder because of the high melting temp. For some applications like beeswax, cocoa butter, etc. a heated panner is common for the application of the hard shell.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.341377
| 2021-04-08T18:57:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115179",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79717
|
Making hashbrowns with butter?
I'm wondering if anyone has had success with hash browns by the way of butter.
I've read certain sources claim that it's OK to use butter, some suggest only using it with oil, but I detest the flavor I receive when preparing with any oil.
Is it possible at all?
P.S. - I'm referring to this.
I prefer buttered hashbrowns myself. I've had the best luck with unsalted butter and by cooking them on medium to medium low heat so they won't burn or over brown quickly.
If you are making hashbrowns from scratch make sure you remove all the excess moisture as this will further aid in golden brown color instead of burning.
I don't make hash browns (I know -GASP- how can I call myself a cook). At the higher frying temperatures that give a nice browned crust, butter burns. But clarified butter or ghee can be heated much higher without burning - comparable to most oils. After all, it's not actual butterfat that's burning but the solid milk components. It will still have the butter flavour you want.
Indian cooks usually make their own ghee but it can also be bought in stores. But clarifying your own butter is ridiculously simple so I'm including a link explaining how. How To Make Clarified Butter
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.341461
| 2017-04-07T19:20:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79717",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75437
|
Do I need a specific pot to cook Japanese-style rice?
So, I've been rather curious lately as to what I'll be needing in order to prepare/cook some Japanese-style rice. I wanted to say sushi rice, but I believe it's prepared a bit differently—or rather, it contains a different set of ingredients (depending).
Anyway, I have a regular medium-sized pot that comes with a very flimsy metallic lid. There's almost no weight to it. Out of curiosity, I tried out a method/tutorial I found online. This person used a similar pot, but the lid was glass. I initially boiled the rice, later covering it up to let it steam, and had to stop after about 2-3 min due to the bubbles forming from the pot. I prepared everything to a T and didn't really get to eat it as I couldn't even cook it.
So, from my understanding, there's like a minimum wait time when boiling, and then you pretty much just leave the lid on for a certain amount of time for it to cook.
While I could just as easily purchase a rice-cooker, I'd like to master this method first.
Am I doing something wrong or is there typically a specific pot you'd need to use in order to do this?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT:
Link to resource. It's not the exact one I viewed before, but the setup is the same and the process as well as the tools used is very similar. Coincidentally, I also used Nishiki short-grained rice when I did mine.
Can you more accurately explain the method you are attempting? Perhaps include a link to it?
@Catija Yes, I'll provide a link in my OP. I'll make a quick edit.
Now that I think about it, I might not have lowered the heat when my rice started boiling. So, when I put on the lid, the bubbles where just a given...even still, would anyone recommend I use a specific pot for this?
In my experience, rice can be cooked in any pot. I cook quite a lot of Japanese style dishes, and as far as I can tell the rice is cooked in the same way as any other.
For myself, I've done it in good "induction-able" steel pots, as well as huge (navy galley) aluminium pots, and a couple of low-quality stainless steel things too. They're all fine.
Normally, as soon as the pot is at/near boiling, turn the heat down to a low setting and leave it in the pot until it's ready. Then take it off the heat, but leave it covered (don't peek) for another five minutes.
Generally, once you've added the water, you put the lid on. You only start the timer when it's boiled and you turn it down, though. That's probably why a glass lid is better, so you can see the boiling. It's not critical to the process, though.
+1, "not being able to cook with lid due to bubbles" is a sure sign that the stove is too hot, it has nothing to do with lid material.
If you have a lid that's not heavy, and not tight-fitting, you'll know when it's up to a good boil (without having to see through it) when it starts ratting around some. (although, I usually that one for cooking pasta ... it might not be a fast enough notification for rice).
THANK you... I have always have been shaky with my rice-result... "keep the lid on" was so basic, I simply forgot it could be an issue....
Rice can be made in any pot, like Carmi said. The only thing I would add is that once the rice comes to a boil bring it down to simmer and leave the lid ajar so that it doesn't spill over. And then once the rice has absorbed most of the water you can close the lid and let it sit there on low heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.341585
| 2016-11-13T02:23:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75437",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Layna",
"ThatRandomGuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51890",
"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
}
|
81072
|
What do I need to do to use my current recipe for thin-crust pizza?
When I make pizza dough, I use a variation on Bobby Flay's recipe - instead of 3.5 - 4 cups of bread flour I use 2 cups of bread flour, 3/4 cup AP, and 3/4 cup white wheat, with maybe a touch more AP if the dough is too wet. I also use AP when kneading. This makes 2 ~14" pizzas for me, which means a fairly thick crust - especially at the edges, which can get 1" or higher after cooking.
I make 14" pizzas largely because that's the size stone I have, but also because I can't get the dough to stretch much more without tearing. If I want to make slightly larger / thinner pizzas, do I need to modify the recipe? Is there a difference between thin-crust recipes and thick-crust recipes (and deep-dish)? Or is it a matter of technique before / while shaping the dough? Could I use this to make a truly thin crust pizza, or would I need an entirely different recipe?
Edit: The suggested duplicate is similar, but in my case the dough is able to be shaped exactly how the recipe indicates - yielding 2 ~14" pizzas. I do not have problems working it to get the yield specified by the recipe, but am instead interested in using this same recipe to make more and/or bigger (thinner) pizzas.
I think you might get a variety of answers here, as people develop and maintain strong preferences about their pizzas. From my own experience, I typically make Neapolitan style, thin crust, hand formed pizza. I have successfully put the same dough in a sheet pan, pressed out by hand, and created a thick crust pizza. Of course there is more dough (it is thicker) in the sheet pan. I also let it rise again while in the pan, before topping and baking. See also: question 10261 (type the number in the search bar)....and 10273...I think we may have to close because your answers are elsewhere.
Possible duplicate of Tips To Make Pizza Dough Workable
I don't agree this is a duplicate of the workable dough question. The answers will have similar information but the question seems very different to me.
@moscafj edited to highlight differences with suggested duplicate
If you aren't using all bread flour you will have less gluten, which will give you a lower limit of how stretchy your dough can be. You need to develop all the gluten you can.
Tl;Dr Yes, let it rest
It is going to be difficult to give you a perfectly canonical answer to this question because, as moscafj commented, there is a lot of variation in pizza recipes.
Dough Recipes
Thin crust pizza dough, such as the popular Neapolitan style, is typically made with high protein dough. Your recipe, before your modifications, called for 100% bread flour and would definitely fall in this category. If there isn't enough protein thin crusts will not have the structure to stay together when sliced.
Thick crust dough can get away with a little less protein because they have more space for structure. The less protein the more the crust will be bready instead of chewy.
There are, of course, many other variables that make the difference between thin and thick, for example; thin crusts are often baked at higher temps. In general a good pizza dough recipe can be used for either.
Your recipe, including your modifications, is very similar to the recipe I use and I have had good success with both thin and thicker (I never go thicker than .5") pizzas.
Getting it thin
With all bread dough- especially high protein doughs- as you work the dough the gluten gets very tight. All bread recipes have resting periods for the dough to relax before it is shaped.
If you are using that much bread flour, you should be able to get your dough so thin that light will shine through.
If you can't get there because the dough isn't smooth and just comes apart then you don't have good gluten development.
See one of the many questions here on that subject.
If you can't because the dough is too stiff then you might be working in too much flour and you should learn to work with wetter dough.
If you can't because the proteins are too tight and snap back then let the dough rest a little longer.
If there isn't enough protein thin crusts will not have the structure to stay together when sliced. - I disagree here. Many European countries don't have flours with different protein content, and happily make thin pizza crusts with AP-equivalent flour. It works well enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.341881
| 2017-04-19T17:40:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81072",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51905",
"mmathis",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99472
|
Are hard anodized aluminum pans oven-safe?
I have a full metal "hard anodized aluminum" pan which I'd like to use in the oven. I heard non-stick pans in the oven are unsafe.
This pan comes with: no "oven-safe" label, a metal handle on the pan, a glass lid with a plastic handle on it. Because of the glass lid with plastic handle, I assume it's not designed to go into an oven.
Can I still safely use this pan in the oven?
Welcome to SA! For us to answer your question though, we're going to need the specific manufacturer and model of your pan, and maybe a link to their website.
Whatever stands on a stove flame should be oven safe, isn't? Not lid included, though.
@FuzzyChef I'm not new to SA. To maintain with community standards, I've decided to keep this question generic. Thank you for your concern.
@Alchimista Not every pan is safe in the oven! Non-stick pans (teflon?) are dangerous in an oven. See the answers to this question
Xunie: the bot thinks you're new.
Xunie: in that case: we still need more information to answer your question. What kind of plastic? Also, nonstick cookware is fine in the oven below 200C.
There is no plastic. Read the question carefully. I said the pan was "fully metallic".
Xunue you asked for a anodized aluminum not for Teflon.
"with a plastic handle on it"
The lid has a plastic handle, not the pan!
An anodized finish is chemically stable. It does not decompose. It is nontoxic. High heat levels will not damage the anodized finish. Anodized surfaces are heat-resistant to the melting point of aluminium (1,221°F).
Source: http://www.yourcookwarehelper.com/cookware-college/healthy-cookware-safe-cookware/is-anodized-aluminum-cookware-considered-safe-cookware/
The issue you will have is if the rest of the pan is safe, such as the handle.
more information on this can be found here.
https://foodal.com/kitchen/pots-pots-skillets-guides-reviews/bare-aluminum-and-nonstick-cookware/choosing-the-best/
Worth mentioning that any aluminum pans passed down through a family should be researched prior to using. I remember my father throwing away the only pan he would make fudge in because our local news featured a story about aluminum being unsafe for cooking. Newer pans would not have this issue. However, if you brought home Grandpa's Dutch Oven... double check with the manufacturer to make sure it's safe.
How Toxic is Aluminum Cookware
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.342211
| 2019-06-09T17:40:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99472",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"FuzzyChef",
"Xunie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"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
}
|
82467
|
What is the toothed side of the blade on a Fantastique veg cutter used for?
In India I picked up an Anjali vegetable and fruit cutting board, pictured below. Its blade is two-sided: straight on one end, very roughly serrated on the other.
What is the toothed side used for? In this demonstration video from the manufacturer they never show it being used. It does show a pineapple with some fancy decoration, so if this happens to be the use, please explain precisely how to achieve that.
Off topic: Saw the video. For me the whole contraption looks like an excellent away to get rid of some excess fingers.
Only a guess -- you might be able to use that side to tenderize meat like what's sold as 'cube steak' in the US, but it might take considerable effort, as the blade can't move, and you'd have to keep moving the meat. And that's not likely their intention, as it's called a 'vegetable and fruit' cutting board.
Do you have a higher resolution image?
@Mołot I've added a better image.
Well, I could give an answer that proffers some conjecture on how that side is not like a saw, nor meant to cut anything in any similar manner. If you wouldn't mind guesswork and supposition, that is.
@can-ned_food No thanks, I've seen many conjectures already. So far the most compelling idea is it could act as a coconut scraper: http://www.jdproductsindia.co.in/coconut-scraper.html I'm looking for someone who has actually seen this toothed blade used in practice.
Isn't it just for chopping shapes? Like cubed melon/pineapple/cucumber etc?
The video has gone offline. Have another link?
Either for rough chops on veg/herbs, or maybe decorating with icing/chocolate design?
Regardless, this seems like a poorly thought out tool?
Can you please explain exactly how I should to use this to roughly chop veg/herbs? Also is this a guess or have you seen it done?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.342433
| 2017-06-18T03:45:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82467",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"James",
"Jeff G",
"Joe",
"Mołot",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"can-ned_food",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115674
|
Can uncooked rice be stored in the freezer or refrigerator?
I just bought some Carolina Plantation Gold rice in a sack. It says to store it in the freezer or the refrigerator. Can this be right?
See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15830/whats-the-best-way-to-store-rice-long-term
Are you asking if it's okay to store it in the fridge or freezer or if some rices have to be stored that way? Your title and question body conflict.
First, in general freezing is possibly the best method for storing grains long-term if you're not going to use them up within a few months. So it's never a bad idea to freeze dried wheat, rice, buckwheat, etc. if you have the space. Certain grains, like wheat germ, contain oils that oxidize quickly and have to be stored cold or they go rancid in a few weeks.
This is also the issue with Carolina Gold Rice, according to Anson Mills:
With regard to your fresh cold milled to order hand pound emulation Carolina Gold Rice... because we choose to emulate how rice was prepared from scratch paddy rice a la minute for cookery before the industrial revolution, we hull/mill so that we just nick the outer bran of each kernel leaving the inner bran layer and germ intact... this form can oxidize and/or spoil stored at room temperature even though we vac pack on CO2 envelope at -10 F. to protect this rice for shipment at ambient temperatures for about 2 weeks only. We mill this way for flavor..
So, the rice bran is still attached to the rice, and contains easily oxidized oils, which means it will lose flavor or even develop off flavors within a few weeks at room temperature. Tip: freeze it in the quantities you'd usually cook it in, makes it easier to take some out for use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.342614
| 2021-05-16T00:43:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115674",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115751
|
Making a gelatin-based and non-sticky "salmon"
I am trying to make sweet sushis that look like standard (savory) ones.
Most of them I can make easily (using black-coloured pancakes as nori sheets, grapefruit as salmon, kiwis as avocado, and s.o.).
But I am stuck when I try to simulate a slice of salmon around the rice.
Something like that
I read a hint from a (french) recipe : using a mixture of gelatin and fruits purée, spread over a silicon sheet.
Unfortunately, I have tried it many ways, but kept encountering the same pb : it's sticky and nearly impossible to remove from the silicon without tearing it miserably.
My question is not about how to simulate the salmon slice (I will find other ideas), but about how I can (or IF I can!) make such a gelatin-based slice that I can easily remove from the silicon (or whatever tool you may suggest)
Any idea/hint?
have you tried edible rice paper?
I can't read French fluently (or quickly), so I missed any specifics there.
It looks like you probably already cooked your fruit puree? If not, you should. Various fruits contain enzymes that will actively break down the gelatin protein and prevent it from setting properly. This would typically leave a bitter taste. But this might not be your problem.
The other thing you can try is simply using more gelatin powder. 2.25 teaspoons will set about 2 cups of liquid to a fairly soft consistency. You can increase the amount of gelatin to get a firmer, non-sticky gelatin sheet.
I will occasionally make gelatin "noodles" for dessert by 1) hydrating roughly 1/4 cup of unflavored gelatin with 1/2 cup of water, 2) and melting the lump of gelatin in 2 cups of whatever flavored/sweetened liquid I like. I let it set in a non-stick baking dish, or just a Pyrex dish, and generally gave no issue removing the sheet from the pan or slicing it into noodles. The edges might stick, but generally once the seal is broken, the gelatin can be slowly, gently pulled off the bottom of the pan. It will stretch a bit without breaking.
That works out to nearly 4 times the amount of required gelatin. I haven't experimented with reducing that amount since it serves my purposes, but there is plenty of room to do so. The texture of this gelatin is very firm, but it will still melt in your mouth, if more slowly, and is not rubbery or chewy. It also is not the least bit sticky.
sorry for my late answer (I had to try a few times to find the good match). Yes, the more the better : that was a good solution. And I did not cook my fruits puree, but I will try that too, because you sound like you have a good point here
Idea 1:
Sprinkle confectioners sugar on silicone sheet before putting down jelly. Confectioners sugar is sugar and corn starch and it will limit adherence. It will not be weird in a dessert.
Idea 2:
Do not use silicone sheet. Use a nonstick frying pan. Do all the rest as instructed recipe (in refrigerator etc). Teflon is more unsticky than silicone.
Idea 3:
Abandon gelatin/fruit salmon and make fake salmon slices out of marzipan.
@Wilk first idea does not work unfortunately : the gelatin "absobs" the sugar. I would need so much of it that it would not look like salmon anymore. About teflon : that does not prevent the gelatin to tear apart. Eventually, the idea is mainly to understand whether I can do stg with gelatin, regardless of its actual purpose. I agree that I can fake salmon slices with other tricks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.342776
| 2021-05-21T15:07:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115751",
"authors": [
"Marvin",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94023"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115831
|
What is the benefit of adding vegetable oil to cheese cake dough?
I recently baked a cheese cake and decided to leave out the oil in the recipe. I expected it to be drier than the one with oil added to the dough but found that this seems not to be the case.
In what component (the crust or the cheesecake batter) were you supposed to add the vegetable oil? How much oil was it?
The cheesecake batter; overall one was supposed to add 150 ml of oil.
Can you share the recipe/link ? i quickly looked at some recipes and they don't have oil in them.
Welcome to SA! In order to make it possible for folks to help you, you should share the recipe you're using.
Hey, without additional detail about the recipe used, we'll have to close this question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.343085
| 2021-05-26T13:02:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115831",
"authors": [
"Felix",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94089",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83239
|
Does the "Game of Thrones" browned butter pie crust technique make any sense?
In yesterday's Game of Thrones episode ("Stormborn"), Arya Stark compliments the young character Hot Pie's most recent pie. He replies
The secret is browning the butter before making the dough. Most people don't do that 'cause it takes up too much time.
For context, this is a double-crust meat pie. Game of Thrones is set in a world that is technologically similar to our European Middle Ages.
I've always heard that one of the most important elements of making a flaky pie crust is keeping the fat as cold as possible right up until the pie goes into the oven. Is there any technique for pie dough that includes browned butter that would make a great crust?
Notes: I thought at first that the browned butter must be an ingredient in the filling, but the reference to dough makes me doubt this. Also, Game of Thrones has had recipe advice in the past that sounded crazy but is actually based in real culinary practices, namely, Hot Pie's Cherry Crumble topped with ground cherry pits. Finally, in looking around for an answer, I came across this technique for making crust with a mixture of flour/fat paste + more flour, which sounds promising but doesn't mention anything about browned butter.
Added: This isn't part of the question, but I was originally interested in what makes such a technique work compared to a cold butter crust.
It could be browned (for flavor) and then chilled (as needed for pastry.) Would certainly take time, that way.
Any kind of crust that doesn't use cold fat could be made with brown butter easily. You can make crust by melting butter (with water and oil) then adding flour, and it's flaky - though not exactly the same texture as you get with cold fat. So just do that, except brown the butter first.
Or you could brown the butter, cool it til solid, and make a crust with a more normal recipe. I don't know if I've seen a pie crust calling for that, but I've seen it in cookies. I doubt it'd be exactly the same texture as with unmodified cold butter, because you lose some of the fat crystal structure in the butter, but it'd probably still be fine, and it'd taste like brown butter, which I assume is the goal.
Thanks for the recipe links! Do you think this kind of crust would work for a classic double-crust meat pie?
Yeah, seems fine to me. I think it's more a question of what kind of crust you personally like; unless you go really off the rails, any crust is going to be able to hold the filling and they'll all taste like the butter you put in them.
@1006a traditional British pork pies are made with a hot water crust. This involves melting lard in hot water and mixing with flour and egg to make the dough. The result is a denser crust than a normal flaky pastry, crisp but still tender. You could use browned butter instead of lard, I imagine. http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/hotwaterpastry_1279
If savoury
I imagine the type of pastry used here would be a hot water style. Something I usually use for pork pies as it is free standing, easy to work with and compliments the meat better in my opinion.
Here's a recipe from around those time, I'd guess that Game of Thrones have take a little creative freedom here when suggesting the browning of butter, however I see no reason why it would not work.
Source [The Good Huswifes Handmaide for the Kitchen, Stuart Peachey
(ed.)] To make Paste, and to raise Coffins. Take fine flower, and lay
it on a boord, and take a certaine of yolkes of Egges as your
quantitie of flower is, then take a certaine of Butter and water, and
boil them together, but ye must take heed ye put not too many yolks of
Egges, for if you doe, it will make it drie and not pleasant in
eating: and yee must take heed ye put not in too much Butter for if
you doe, it will make it so fine and short that you cannot raise. And
this paste is good to raise all manner of Coffins: Likewise if ye bake
Venison, bake it in the paste above named. (England, c. 1588)
[emphasis added]
http://medievalcookery.com/notes/piecrust.html
If sweet
This one is new to me, however it certainly calls for browning the butter so could well be related.
It seems as though this recipe is generally used for sweet applications rather than savoury.
You are but half an hour from a perfect tart crust—no kneading, no
chilling, no rolling. All praise Paule Caillat, a Parisian
cooking-school teacher who learned the technique from her husband's
grandmother. It calls for heating butter and vegetable oil in a bowl
in the oven, then adding flour, which froths exuberantly. Seconds
later it's ready to be pressed into tins and baked.
Recipe is here;
http://www.saveur.com/article/recipes/brown-butter-tart-with-blackberries
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.343319
| 2017-07-25T02:28:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83239",
"authors": [
"1006a",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51941"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75477
|
cake smells bad of egg, is dense and rubbery
This was the first time bake a cake (basic sponge cake) with an electric beater. The final result was that the cake was smelling very bad of eggs, it was was very dense and rubbery.
I dont see this kind of cake in bakery, there the cakes are fluffy, soft and dontsmell of eggs. what is that they use in bakery. or what could have gone wrong in making my cake.
This is the link which I followed to make the cake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF7BlcIGNyo&t=96s
I did exactly as shown in the video.
I put:
3 eggs,
1 cup flour,
1 cup all purpose flour,
1/2 tea spoon baking powder,
few drops vanilla essence,
1 cup sugar,
1 table spoon butter,
few drops of milk.
I made the batter this way:
I separated the egg yolks and egg whites, and whipped the egg whites untill it became like foam an it aside .Then I started beating the egg yolks with vanilla essence,butter, milk and sugar in batches and set aside. I mixed baking powder in the flour. Then I mixed then egg yolks in the egg whites. Then I mixed flour in the batter.
I preheated the oven at 160 degree for 1 minute. Then for 20 minutes I baked the caked at 200C.
Please help! :(
Without knowing the recipe you followed and the method, it is difficult for us to advise you. Please add this info by editing your question and explain if you followed the directions exactly or not. If not, explain what you did differently.
Pls improve further, describe HOW you built your batter from these.
Would you like to merge your accounts?
For any specific answer, the recipe and if possible pictures would help, but I will try a general idea which comes to mind. If your cake smells like eggs, it is eggs. To me this would mean inadequate aeration of the eggs and mixing with the dry ingredients. A dense, flat, rubbery cake again would be an indication of the same. If it is also wet, under cooking may compound it.
The sponge I make calls for yolk and whites to be separated. Yolks are then beaten to a ribbon state and whites to at least soft peak. Yolks are used to make a batter and the whites are then very gently folded in. This aerates the eggs enough that as long as there is not a delay before baking it is almost impossible for the cake to not rise and be soft from the expanding of air trapped in the egg. Not having this air in the eggs would result in baked eggs with a bit of flour added.
ETA: I would suggest online "Joy of Baking", look up their videos on sponge cakes. You do not need follow their recipe if you have one you would rather, but they tend to do a good job showing the proper level to beat the eggs for a ribbon and folding in egg whites without collapsing the foam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.343751
| 2016-11-14T11:48:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75477",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114894
|
What blender is required to create an emulsion?
Let's consider for specificity an emulsion prepared with the use of a protein possessing emulsifying properties as an emulsifying agent. Domestically most commonly prepared protein-based emulsion is mayonnaise.
Recently Cook's Illustrated has complicated matters by reporting that at least one of the blenders they tested using a tachometer has the blade rotating at a speed, which does not correspond to the specified by the manufacturer. It looks like these findings were not replicated by other teams. Defects are not uncommon in production of household appliances, but if it is not a problem to measure temperature within an electric oven using a thermometer, measuring speed of rotation is not as easy since a tachometer also has to be tested for accuracy of performance. Yet the speed of rotation is a critical determinant of emulsification efficiency. What also is of interest is that manufacturers like KitchenAid (probably the second most highly rated brand after Vitamix) do not specify the speed of rotation of their blenders’ blade, so a blender suitable as an emulsification device can be five times less expensive than renowned for high speed alternatives if it meets minimum speed and power requirements.
So I would like to know whether anyone here has experience of using different blenders for emulsification and does not mind to share it with others.
It's possible to create an emulsion like mayonnaise using a hand whisk, so I doubt you're going to find a particularly satisfying answer if you are expecting a certain minimum velocity or specific type of blender.
From what I can read from the link, they all work equally good in all their tests; pick one within your budget
The body of this question and the headline don't quite line up. The answer to the heading question is "no" (as @dbmag9 mentions), but the body of the main question seems to assume "yes" and dives into a different direction around blender speed & selecting a blender.
@AMtwo But my point was also that, since you can make an emulsion using a hand whisk, blender speed and type are not going to be that critical.
An emulsion, like mayonnaise, can be made with a fork, a hand whisk, an electric whisk, a stick blender, or a traditional blender with a jar. I've made mayo, at some point or another, with just about all of these. For home use, the hand whisk is often the most convenient if you are handy with the technique. However, I find a stick blender to be the best option, for speed and easy cleanup. One caveat is that the container you are making the mayo in should be just slightly larger than the blade end of the stick blender. For me, a cocktail shaker is perfect.
If you are aiming for best results you might be interested in having a look on devices that are sold as Turbo-Mixers or Homogenizers. They are similar to usual immersion blenders but equipped with a special head to create higher shearing power and used where regularly large quantities of emulsions are prepared like in ice cream making. The downside is the price tag of this tool, starting at around 250 $ for a home sized model.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.344014
| 2021-03-20T09:39:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114894",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Max",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45463
|
Does stainless steel affect garlic flavors in food?
They say that washing your hands with a piece of stainless steel can help remove the smell of garlic and onions from your hands. There are even a number of stainless steel "soap" products on the market that are just chunks of metal meant to be used for this purpose. Opinions about whether this actually works or not seem to be mixed (see How do you remove garlic smells from your fingers?).
If there's any truth to this idea, that would suggest that using stainless steel pans, bowls, utensils, and serving dishes could also diminish or otherwise affect the flavor of foods containing garlic or onions. Is there any evidence of this? Stainless steel is generally considered to be non-reactive, but should one consider using materials other than stainless steel when cooking with garlic?
Personally, I use stainless pans all the time and haven't noticed any impact. Then again, maybe that's just because I use stainless all the time.
Wow, I had never thought of it like that. I've never put much stock into the "soap", but +1 for making me think.
These claims seem mostly nonsense to me. Scattered reports say that they work OK if the odour is still on the surface of your skin and not in the pores, which is consistent with it being dissolved or suspended in the natural oils on your skin - easily washed off with soap, or rubbed on to any other smooth surface (like glass). If there really was any chemical reaction, these stainless steel "soaps" would corrode after a few months or years.
It sounds like a good Mythbusters subject to me. My instincts say it's complete BS though.
There has been scientific research on how different metal spoons change the flavours of food. But I doubt if metals provide any cleaning action?
Maybe not BS. Try this. Chop some garlic. Smell your fingers. Chop some garlic, rinse your stainless knife under running water and CAREFULLY wipe your fingers on the side of the blade as you do...smell your fingers.
So, just to be clear, the question isn't so much about whether stainless steel can help remove garlic smells from your hands, but rather whether cooking foods containing garlic in stainless steel has any impact on flavor. And, of course, I'm looking for evidence-based answers or pointers to research rather than opinions or guesses.
Just because it's unreactive doesn't mean it isn't going to alter the highly-reactive chemicals in garlic. Platinum is less-reactive than stainless-steel, yet it is used as a catalyst for a wide-variety of things. (I.e. catalytic converters in cars.)
Drawing from some of the linked resources, it seems that one of the main theories about how those stainless steel "soaps" work is by interacting with sulfur compounds present in onions and garlic (together part of the genus allium) which are responsible for their strong pungency and odor. There appears to be little actual evidence for these claims, and I wasn't able to find much better either.
That said, I'm going to surmise that this effect really wouldn't apply with stainless steel cookware, precisely because you're cooking. Those sulfur compounds are volatile, and they tend to break down pretty quickly as you cook. This is why the flavor profile of alliums changes so drastically even after a very brief sweat - they become much sweeter and much less sharp - because those sulfur compounds are being broken down and driven off. Heck, onions will lose a lot of their harsh pungency just after being chopped. Dice an onion and you'll likely tear up (due to the action of syn-propanethial-S-oxide gas) but come back to that same onion 3-4 minutes later and you'll experience much less irritation. The compounds are generally unstable, especially when exposed to enzymes present in the onion.
So, cooking alliums in general removes or destroys the same pungency that causes the unpleasant odors. Even if stainless steel interacts with the compounds responsible for that pungency in some special way, it's only doing what heat does anyway, and using stainless cookware is unlikely to cause any sort of perceivable difference.
The only time this might be a factor in the flavor of a finished dish is if you want to retain a very strong, pungent flavor, for example with raw spring onions in a salad or something. In that case, it may be possible (though again, evidence is mixed) that a stainless steel bowl attracts some of those sulfur compounds in a way that a plastic or wood bowl does not. But that's only a concern where you have contact between the alliums and the bowl, and many people find that pungent "bite" a bit overwhelming in any more than tiny concentrations, so you may actually be doing yourself a favor and providing some minute safeguard against over-pungency by using stainless. In my opinion, this isn't likely to be a major concern for anyone.
This is a great question and I also gave a plus one for it.
Using stainless cookware exclusively I've not had any problems with flavor, especially garlic, being affected. I also use my stainless steel table knives to remove the odor from my hands and that method works perfectly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.344313
| 2014-07-10T14:26:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45463",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caleb",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marina M Mantle",
"NeuralNetNomad",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"john3103",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33571
|
Do I need to bake my pre-made pie crust?
The objective was to quickly put together a banoffee pie without going through making the pie crust. But this store bought Graham cracker pie crust comes with some confusing instructions a t the back.This is the product with a picture. It says:
Ready to use.
For a golden crust, bake at 350 F for 5-7 minutes.
And then it goes on to outline some simple recipes for pies. What I understand from this is that there are two option, and I need to bake it only if I want the crust to develop a certain golden color. If I am strapped for time or any other reason I choose not to, I can use as is.
Is my interpretation correct or is it necessary that I bake it and let it cool before assembling my pie?
The pie crust is ready to use. There is nothing in a graham cracker crust that requires baking, although a little toasting gives some color and deeper flavor.
If you are putting in a filling that will not be baked (a refrigerator pie), you might choose to "blind bake" (bake without filling) the crust for a few minutes to give it more color and flavor, but it is not required.
If your filling will require baking, there is little reason to bake the crust separately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.344728
| 2013-04-17T19:46:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33571",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
31926
|
What kind of cookies can be shaped?
I was wondering what to look for in a cookie recipe if I want to cut it out into shapes using a cookie cutter.
Some cookies tend to spread out much more than others and so would not retain any semblance of the original shape. I did look at this question, but that only mentions that cookies with more fat in them will result in a more spread out cookie. What kinds of cookie dough does it makes sense to try and shape and can any cookie recipe be modified to make it more structured?
I don't have any particular suggestions, but using general tips on keeping cookies from spreading (e.g. cold dough, replace butter with shortening) might be enough to let you use any kind of cookie for shaping. Here's some more tips: http://www.davidlebovitz.com/2006/12/why-do-cookies-spread/
Cookies for shaping are usually rolled cookies.
Common categories would include:
Sugar cookies (as Mien mentioned)
Gingerbread
Linzer cookie dough
Look for recipes where you use a rolling pin. These are already formulated for minimal spread.
Adapting other cookie recipes for use with cookie cutters will be trickier, and probably not worth the effort, in my opinion.
Shortbread cookies can often be shaped, particularly if you use a cookie press.
I think the term you're looking for is sugar cookies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.344855
| 2013-02-15T00:52:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31926",
"authors": [
"Ann c",
"Jenn Eggebroten",
"Martin Arnold",
"Rissa",
"Ryland Cline",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73508",
"janeylicious",
"troodon",
"user73388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21805
|
Can these settings bake a cake?
I've tried baking so many times with this kind of oven settings but they never work. The exterior of the cake looks fine, but when cut opened, they look as if they were never cooked.
The oven doesn't come with bottom heat. I used fan settings (right top) and then turn it on to the top heat fan setting (right bottom) for the last 10mins to brown the cake.
I really don't understand at all - are you setting a temp on the oven..or?
Cake recipes normally specify a temperature, as rfusca implied. Can your oven not do that? Beyond that, the general principle is "bake it until it's done" - most recipes say something about testing it by poking a toothpick or knife into the center. If the center is uncooked, well, it needs to be cooked longer.
It looks to me like you need to set it to the next symbol up anti-clockwise, which should be a conventional fan oven. You should have no problem baking with that setting at 180ºC/435ºF.
You're baking using a convection fan. This generally won't work unless the cake recipe is calibrated for it; you'll end up with a cake which is brown on the outside and raw in the middle (as you did). It's remotely possible that a combination of lowering the temperature and convection would be successful, but I don't have a formula for you.
Suggestions:
If the issue with top heat is that the cake is burning on top before the bottom is done, I would suggest placing a rack above the one the cake sits on, and a cookie sheet on that rack. This will protect the top of the cake from the radiant heat of the element, causing it to cook only from reflected heat off the sides of the oven. This may, however, increase cooking times somewhat so make sure to check cake doneness with a skewer.
Or: Add a baking stone on the rack holding the cake as well (under it), and preheat the stone for 30 min before baking the cake. This will give it some heat from the bottom.
Or: both of the above.
Or: get a new oven. They make fairly nice countertop ovens now which have a bottom baking element.
I assume you mean convection fan?
Yes, it would be hard to bake anything using even the most die-hard fan of conventions. :)
Hah! Of course, I did mean convection fan. But the mistake is funny enough that I think I'll leave it in place.
The usual advice for conventional to convection is to reduce the temperature by about 15C to 20C (depending on the source), and check it earlier (it should be done in about the same time, but start checking maybe 25% earlier).
Ok, got another flag on the misspelling, so I removed it.
try seperating your cake into each layer. instead of one large cake, bake three (1/3) layers so they bake quickly and evenly, and avoid using the fan if you can. 320F is a good cake baking temp [depending on type of cake]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.345012
| 2012-02-28T03:46:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21805",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Casey Kuball",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FuzzyChef",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jeff M",
"ODU90DBA",
"Vijay Ramesh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"isanae",
"kailin",
"rfusca",
"topwik"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76418
|
How do professional bakers handle rotating trays while mass producing cookies/muffins/cakes/etc.?
A widely-suggested tip is that one should (swap and) rotate their baking tray(s) half-way through a bake (to promote even cooking).
I was wondering how professional bakeries (read: not factories, actual bakeries) handle this operation when mass producing things like muffins, cookies, etc.? I'm under the impression a real bakery won't be using 1, but maybe 4+ trays of goods in one particular bake. That seems like a lot of tray (swapping and) rotating...
Or am I missing something?
Swapping and rotating baking trays is recommended in order to account for differences in temperature inside residential ovens. Typically, the top of the oven is significantly hotter than the bottom. This is less of a concern with modern ovens, particularly those with fans to circulate the air (commonly called "convection ovens").
Professional bakeries will use a professional oven that evenly distributes the heat and/or automatically rotates the trays, thus not requiring manual swapping or rotation of the trays.
What kind of oven does a professional use that does this? Are their ovens just very high quality convection ovens?
something like that http://www.baxtermfg.com/Products/Commercial-Ovens/Deck-Oven/
Residential ovens can fluctuate +/- 25°F and only average the temperature you set them to. Professional ovens are typically accurate to +/- 5°F or better. Part of the reason is because professional ovens use PID controllers to control the temperature, which are much more accurate (and expensive) than simple thermostats.
I know for a fact that some ovens incorporate hooks onto you hang a cart full of trays. The hook then slowly rotates while the goods are cooked.
A number of professional ovens include rack rotation, for instance: http://www.baxtermfg.com/Products/Commercial-Ovens/Rotating-Rack-Oven/ - so the assertion that "Professional bakeries will use a professional oven that evenly distributes the heat, thus not requiring swapping or rotating the trays." Is simply false. Sure, some professional bakeries use ovens that don't require rotating racks, but not all, and this is therefore a misleading answer, suggesting that all professional bakers choose ovens that require no rotation.
@AdamDavis Sorry, I meant to say "thus not requiring manually swapping or rotating the trays." I'll edit my answer to remove the ambiguity.
You say "the increasingly common convection feature (which uses a fan to circulate the air around the oven to get more even cooking)." Convection is the spreading of heat without a fan, due to hot air rising to the top of the oven, cooling and falling back to the bottom. You seem to be referring to fan ovens, not convection ovens.
@DavidRicherby "Convection oven" is a common term used for "fan-assisted ovens." I'll edit my answer to be clear about that.
@ESultanik Oh. I hadn't realised the world was broken. Well, not in that way, anyway. *sigh*
It's worth noting that "Convection ovens" (those with a fan) do bake things differently than non-fan ovens; cooking times tend to decrease, and the extra hot-air circulation causes things to dry out quicker.
@ESultanik: curiously enough, where I'm from (the top half of the UK, at least while it's still attached), I'd say that "fan-assisted oven" is more common than the technically more correct "convection oven". We tend to prefer the more descriptive or literal wording, over a technical term, as it's easier for people to picture when discussing it. This may be a cultural difference with other regions.
You are missing one variable: the oven!
By swapping, you are compensating variations in the heat-distribution and airflow in a normal kitchen-oven.
A professional bakery-oven will heat every tray evenly without swaps.
The widely suggested tip is practical for home ovens because they do not have consistent heat over the cooking volume.
"real" bakeries use professional tools (oven, mixers...)
Experience.
Good stable recipes.
Experience.
Good stable ovens that produce consistent heat all over the cooking volume.
Experience.
That is pretty much it.
There is no one perfect oven that will cook every recipe perfectly. However, professional ovens are usually flexible enough that you can bake most things with minimal reconfiguration or through settings changes. So the biggest difference is simply that the oven is better than most home ovens, but even if you had such an oven you would need to understand how to use it, and that would change based on the recipe and your desired outcome.
A widely-suggested tip is that one should (swap and) rotate their baking tray(s) half-way through a bake (to promote even cooking).
This is largely due to older non convection home ovens having very uneven heating. If you rotate your trays during baking then they will bake more evenly if your oven has this type of issue.
If you have a nicer oven and learn how to use the convection feature then this may not be necessary to obtain good results. Even with a good oven, though, rotation can improve results, and as such even professionals will rotate their products during baking.
I was wondering how professional bakeries (read: not factories, actual bakeries) handle this operation when mass producing things like muffins, cookies, etc.?
They will use an oven that either doesn't require rotating for their recipe, or that rotates the items automatically. As you've identified this would be time consuming without specialized ovens to handle this for you. Opening an oven for several minutes to rotate 10-20 trays would probably do more harm than good to the final product, so once your production exceeds 5-10 trays at a time, you should consider moving to an oven that makes it quick, or does it automatically for you.
I'm under the impression a real bakery won't be using 1, but maybe 4+ trays of goods in one particular bake. That seems like a lot of tray (swapping and) rotating...
A professional bakery that isn't using a conveyor system will often use standard baking racks which have the ability to hold many trays, and the larger ovens accept a tall rack on wheels.
If the oven supports automatic rotation and the baker turns it on then it rotates the entire rack during baking. If not, and the rack requires rotation, it's a simple matter of opening the door, pulling the whole rack out, rotating it, and pushing it back in. Turning several trays at once isn't a problem with this type of baking rack.
Here's an example of a smaller oven with a rotating tray holder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9UOh5lCE_0
Here's an example of a larger oven that accepts an entire rolling rack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlodrB9IdAw
Ahh ... the walk-in-ovens move the racks around so you don't have to go into it. I had wondered how they did it. (I've taken stuff to bake in a walk-in autoclaves (we were using the smaller ones that would fit a car; there was a bigger one that would fit a semi (used for airplane wings)). Maybe it was the higher temps (450°F) or the higher pressure, but they had to run fans for about 30 minutes before we were allowed to go into retrieve things. (they said you could pass out from lack of oxygen). They weren't concerned about over-cooking, as we were curing epoxy resin.
@Joe Interesting. Epoxy curing doesn't consume oxygen, but it does offgass. Perhaps what they were concerned about was the byproducts of curing causing breathing problems. Still, 450F is pretty high heat to hang around in for any length of time, so cooling is perhaps as strong a reason as offgassing to prevent employee entry after curing.
And if it's not the byproducts, they might've displaced the oxygen. I don't think it was an issue with temperature affecting people, as they had to wait an hour or two for it to cool off enough before they'd open it up (and then start the fans going). And in thinking back to it (as it was 20 years ago), I don't remember there being any sort of breathing apparatus or rescue gear for if they had to go and retrieve someone who went in too early.
@joe True, and it may merely have been a precaution - perhaps they didn't want to do the studies to figure out the outgassing of all the parts placed in the oven, and it smelled funny, so they made a simple rule and fans. In this way they don't have to determine whether there's a real problem, they dodge any possible problems and move on with work.
Larger-scale bakeries use continuous "assembly-line" process, including baking and cooling. The ovens are designed and tweaked for even heating throughout the process flow. There are dozens of interesting videos on YouTube showing assembly-line production of confections and baked goods.
Can you share any links?
For really large scale, see The world's largest mince pie factory - in pictures -- the Guardian. But this is a conveyot oven
@ChrisH Yes, but once we get too large, it starts becoming a factory more than a bakery ... completely different processes than a corner bakery that might try to have 30+ different things ready each morning. A large factory might specialize in only one thing, and is custom built just for making it. Smaller factories might run a given type of cookie for 4 hrs, switch over to another one, run that for 4 hrs, etc. ... while other lines are making muffins, bread, or some other type of cookie.
@StevieP here are a couple of YouTube videos. Who knew that they use dry ice to chill the Oreo cookie dough? https://youtu.be/-i1oMwNgH2Q
https://youtu.be/4DBTRzIUNGc https://youtu.be/tkY1Z8kyHfQ
@Joe, that's why it's a comment on an answer about large scales
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.345308
| 2016-12-13T13:07:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76418",
"authors": [
"Adam Davis",
"Casey Kuball",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Richard Crowley",
"StevieP",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"acidnbass",
"flith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84482
|
What constitutes the majority of meat?
Looking at 100g chicken breast for example, I see that ~30g is protein and ~4 is fat. What is the rest of the 100g piece made of? Is that all connective tissues? Fiber? Something else?
connective tissues are mostly protein.
It depends, we recently discovered in Brazil that some of the meat is actually cardboard, rotten meat from unknown animals, etc.
Water is in there, too.
It's essentially just water.
You can directly see this in the full USDA nutrition facts (link is for "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted"). Per 100g, there is 65.26g of water, 31.02g protein, 3.57g fat, accounting for 99.85g. The rest is probably just trace nutrients and rounding errors.
You'll see the same kind of thing for other meats. Details vary by cut, but for example here's beef chuck eye steak (64.48g water, 18.86g protein, 16.35g fat), pork loin chops (69.7g water, 20.71g protein, 9.03g fat), and Atlantic salmon (64.89g water, 20.42g protein, 13.42g fat).
"trace nutrients and rounding errors" You just made my day.
FWIW, 65% water by weight is about the same as humans (this Wikipedia page has 65% average in one study; 50% or 60% (female/male) in another).
@TripeHound That's why it "tastes like chicken"... ;)
@bwDraco: Rounding errors are yummy!
Might be worth putting numbers for other kinds of meat... beef is more like 15% fat I think?
@Mehrdad Depends very much on the type/cut. You can get ground beef anywhere 5% to 30% fairly easily. Added a few, but I think the point here is more that however much fat/protein there is, the remainder is pretty much just water.
Remember that, after all, cells are pretty much fatty bags filled with water and stuffed dissolved, linked to each other with proteins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.346144
| 2017-09-18T17:35:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84482",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Cascabel",
"Davidmh",
"Red Banana",
"TripeHound",
"bwDraco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7358",
"psmears",
"roetnig",
"user2617804",
"user541686"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115996
|
High Altitude Rye Bread
New bread maker here.
I've been playing around with some various breads over the least year and have had some pretty decent success with white breads, seed breads light rye and even Paczki. Not only am I challenged by not having much knowledge of bread making (I'm basically just following directions), but my bigger challenge is that I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains at 9,300 ft, which obviously the recipe doesn't give me adjustments for.
I've found a nice conversion website that outlines the various ingredients to adjust based on elevation and thus far the conversions have done me well with the mentioned breads.
I tried for the first time a rye bread, made with rye and whole wheat flours only. The bread came out quite gooey. From what I can tell, it seems that I may have added too much liquid. However, I add more liquid due to the elevation, so now I'm not entirely sure where the problem may be. In any case, from what I'm reading, it seems that this type of bread is pretty sensitive, so perhaps this is beyond my ability to figure out alone.
The specific bread in question in a Lithuanian Dark Rye bread. My girlfriend is Lithuanian and she brags so much about THEIR bread, so I'm trying to impress her with my awesomeness. She's not yet impressed after my first attempt.
What's more, the recipe I'm using as the starter seems to be for 2 pretty large loafs, so I cut that in half, and then I added a few little things to it that seemed like a good idea (that I found in other rye bread recipes), and then adjusted yeast and water for the elevation.
Also of note, the bread seemed like it needed salt, so I'll also be uping the salt from the recipe, I don't know if that's related to any of the problems but thought I should mention it.
The texture and rise of the bread came out perfect.
Another note: I adjusted the process to work with a bread machine. This loaf is way too big to cook in a bread machine, but I am using the bread machine for mixing and rising (until it rises too far). I like the bread machine since it does the mixing but also because it provides some warmth since I don't usually have a very warm house at these elevations.
I ended up using a bread pan to cook the loaf, but I'd really prefer to bake it as a round simply for aesthetic reasons. But this dough was too runny to hold a round shape for long so I used a pan.
Sponge
1 3/4 Cups Water
2 cups dark rye flour
1 tsp Active Dry Yeast (reduced for elevation)
1 tablespoons caraway seeds
Dough
1 cups scalded milk , cooled to 110 degF
1 tbs butter
1 tbs sugar
1/2 tsp Salt
1/2 cup extra water (for altitude)
1/4 cup dill pickle juice (my addiction, this is also some extra liquid for altitude)
1 tbs molasses (my addition)
1 1/4 cups whole wheat flour
1 large egg white (beaten)
Make the Sponge
In a bread machine, combine water, rye flour, yeast and caraway seeds. Run machine on dough cycle
Let stand overnight
Make the Dough
Mix butter, sugar and salt into scalded mix while it cools
Pour milk mixture into bread machine with the sponge
Add pickle juice, molasses and extra water
Add the flour
Run machine on dough cycle
Allow to rise as much as possible in bread machine
Transfer to oiled bowl
Allow to double in size
Fold down and form in bread pad
Cook
Pre-heat oven to 450
Coat bread with egg whites
Cook bread at 450 for 15 minutes, and then reduce to 350
Cook until an internal temperature of 180
When done, allow to cool at least 1 hr
Salt inhibits yeast. So increasing it may be a good idea depending on what problems you’re having. I’d also recommend trying to avoid things that ‘seem like a good idea’ from other recipes if you’re trying to make a specific atyle of bread for someone. If nothing else, you’ve added two acidic ingredients (pickle brine and molasses) which will likely affect gluten development, browning, and yeast activity
Welcome to the site! I'm not sure what your question actually is, it seems you have figured things out by yourself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.346326
| 2021-06-09T21:13:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115996",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
116041
|
Can I freeze pre-cooked chicken?
I am looking for a way to precook chicken and preserve it for later use. The idea being that I precook the chicken (1 hour at 150 C) then freeze it, then when I need it, defrost and pop onto the flame grill, then baste and season. Secondary cooking/grilling will be around 10 minutes.
Issue would be freezer burn. So can I use a brine, or oil or something to stop freezer burn (if I can even do the rest of this)?
You can freeze cooked chicken. Freezer burn is dehydration...moisture loss in the freezer. Your best protection is good packaging. If you can vacuum seal your packages, that will be your best defense.
You can do this, safely.
So long as it's cooked to safe temperature all the way through & then sealed in a bag/box you should be able to avoid freezer burn; which is moisture evaporating off the food due to the atmosphere in a freezer being technically 'dry'.
My worry would be overcooking at the reheat, not as a safety issue, just one of texture.
Legs & thighs tend to be better at surviving a long or double cook. Breast can get a bit stringy, dry & chewy. Skin on survives better than skinless for this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.346642
| 2021-06-11T20:24:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116041",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65791
|
Guidelines for cooking Desert Truffels?
I have gotten my hands on a number of fresh blackish Desert Truffles, which are apparently quite different from the European ones. To quote:
Desert truffles have nothing to do with their European cousins in
terms of taste, texture and aroma. Kemeh is more like dense mushrooms
rather than the truffles you know.
I'm looking for some guidelines on how to cook with them not for recipes, as this is the first time I'll be using them. I'm looking for guidelines that will emphasize their flavor such as "use and grate fresh" or perhaps "cook with the peels as well".
For those wondering what they look like after scrubbing off the sand:
Hello nbubis, I know that feeling of having a new ingredient in your kitchen. But the problem is, we cannot give you guidance which recipe to choose. Also, there are no single guidance on "how to cook them" if you don't have a preparation in mind. Once you have chosen a recipe to try, if its instructions are not sufficient, you can come here with concrete questions. But they have to be about solving a problem you are having, not a "I don't have a goal" situation.
@rumtscho - If you know from experience that I can use it for everything just like a regular mushroom, please say so. However, I've read that for other types of truffle it is suggested to only / grate / lightly sauté / not overcook etc. I'm looking for similar guidelines. Does that make more sense?
@rumtscho - Edited the question to fit the guidelines. Care to re-open?
thanks for editing, I reopened The other part was indeed the one going mostly against the rules. I don't know if the guidelines you are looking for exist in that form, but if they do, I hope you will get them now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.346781
| 2016-01-24T18:37:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65791",
"authors": [
"Jessica Sanfelippo",
"Khoo Keng Suen",
"Kim and Tim C",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"Nestadu",
"News Reader",
"Scott Miller",
"Shawn Patterson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"iFix New York",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124914
|
Vanilla extract with pure alcohol
Nearly every recipe for making vanilla extract suggests the use of Vodka, or an alternative alcoholic beverage with a high alcohol content (typically 35%+), such as Rum or Bourbon. However, the various recipes typically default to Vodka for its more neutral taste. Essentially, the recipes simply instruct to leave opened vanilla pods in the alcoholic beverage for at least several months. The high alcohol percentage is required for the vanilla flavour to diffuse over time.
This made me wonder why I cannot find a single recipe that simply recommends the use of pure food grade ethanol, like that used to make Limoncello or other fruit- or herb-based liquors. It is typically cheaper, does not add additional flavour, and its high alcohol percentage (typically 95%+) (Rectified spirit) should suggest a better diffusion of flavours, or not? What am I missing?
Do note that commercial vanilla extract is extracted under pressure, so the homemade version can never be more than around 1/3 as potent.
It's worth noting that you are very unlikely to find pure alcohol. Alcohol/water mixtures form an Azeotrope. Getting past about 95 or 96% alcohol (by weight) is very difficult (and often involves using other compounds)
@Flydog57 and if you do manage to get anhydrous alcohol and leave the container open you'll be back to 95% in no time.
I can see two possibilities.
One is that vodka and the like are highly available. You can buy them in almost any country, and in most places just in a supermarket. They're even fairly likely to be on the shelf at home - I made vanilla extract using rum that I'd had for ages, when the covid home-baking boom meant vanilla extract sold out in my local supermarkets.
Pure high-proof alcohol is only cheaper if you're going to use it all in flambéeing, making extracts, etc. - you're not going to drink up the leftovers. At least here in the UK, spirits are taxed by the amount of ethanol you're buying. So a bottle of 80% ABV would attract twice as much tax as a the same size bottle of 40%. That means the pure stuff is going to look very expensive, which will go some way towards explaining its limited availability - and specialist retailers aren't cheap.
But there's reason another too. We use true vanilla extract because it's a more complex flavour than its main component vanillin. Vanillin is far more soluble in alcohol than in water, but the other compounds that contribute to a natural vanilla flavour may not all be. In that case you'd actually want a decent amount of water to extract these other compounds.
After all, even industrially, when pure ethanol is a readily-available ingredient, a water-ethanol mix is used for the extraction (see, for example, this patent), rather than extracting into ethanol and then diluting for sale.
The first argument might be a territorial issue. For me personally, I can buy 96% alcohol from the supermarket across the street @ €20/1L (e.g. see https://www.carrefour.it/s/carrefour-IT/p/torriani-alcool-buongusto-96%C2%B0-100-cl/8001500010409.html?). It is approximately double the price of the cheapest Vodka per liter, but per liter of alcohol it is actually still cheaper. As such, if you would dilute with water to get <50%, the pure alcohol is cheaper. The second argument is interesting, I will look further into it in the hope to find a desired (range of) alcohol percentage.
@JJMDriessen Yes, in many places, 190+-proof alcohol is either difficult and expensive to procure, or outright illegal.
@JJMDriessen It's very hard to find in the UK. I've also failed to find it in a big supermarket in France (when I wanted to bring some home for similar experiments). I could order food grade 95% extraction alcohol for a similar price to what you pay, plus delivery (which probably isn't cheap - it isn't on other flammable liquids).
From my understanding of chemistry it would seem very odd if some substance is soluble well in water but not in alcohol. Chemically alcohol is a universal solvant where both water soluble and fat soluble substances can disolve.
@quarague Agreed. And food grade ethanol would always be mixed with ~5% water, because it's impractical to purify it past that point.
@quarague one tangentially related thing is that pure alcohol is a worse disinfectant than a 50%-70% solution (the remaining being water). Not sure it’s relevant in this case, but it could be (if the alcohol + water is breaking down the cell walls to help extract the compounds, for example). Either way, it’s a case that stuck out to me as going against intuition that “more active ingredient, more effective”
@fyrepenguin : I think that’s because it evaporates too quickly before it’s had a chance to kill germs. But I guess evaporative loss might be an issue if you don’t seal the bottle well, especially if it takes vanilla flavor with it
@fyrepenguin IIRC, you are close with the cell walls. It was something about the alcohol will not pass through the cell wall if it is too pure.
@Joe, no, it's not evaporation. The same holds for isopropyl alcohol, and that doesn't evaporate really fast (neither does ethanol, but I've never handled pure ethanol)
@quarague when you say "alcohol", I was assuming you meant pure ethanol. But everyday NaCl is a counterexample being 3 orders of magnitude less soluble in ethanol than in water. Sucrose (table sugar) is also weakly soluble in ethanol compared to water. So are you referring to alcoholic drinks when you say "alcohol"?
@quarague The solubility of most things is dependent on the degree of polarity of the solvent. Water is strongly polar compared to most alcohols, so things that are hydrophilic (such as most metal halides) tend to dissolve better in water than alcohols, and this effect can be strong enough to make things functionally insoluble in alcohols. Ethanol is considered a universal solvent because it can dissolve most things, not because it’s particularly good at dissolving most things.
No need to spring for some 151 if some garbage vodka in a plastic bottle will suffice.
@AustinHemmelgarn That is a good explanation, thanks. I remembered the universal solvent/ can dissolve everything part but that is not the entire story.
In summary, it seems that the sole reason for not finding quasi-pure (95%+) food grade alcohol in recipes is really just related to expense or lack of availability in most places, but that its use is fine if not better than vodka, albeit diluted. After all, it is meant exactly for making homemade spirits and liquors. Following the discussion, I found indeed that for fruity/herbal liquors a dilution with water to achieve 40-60% alcohol content is recommended to capture the widest range of both water soluble and alcohol soluble constituents.
@Mazura here, "151" is far more commonly Lidl's (budget supermarket) own brand cleaning product range, which made your comment mean something completely different!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.346991
| 2023-08-08T11:21:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124914",
"authors": [
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"Chris H",
"Flydog57",
"FuzzyChef",
"JJM Driessen",
"JimmyJames",
"Joe",
"Mazura",
"Sneftel",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84865",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116385
|
Wild Sourdough Starter Never gets more than 1/3 bigger - Am I doing something wrong?
I made a wild sourdough starter back in July of last year. Did some baking with it, but it has never doubled in size the way that I see described in articles online.
I initially started it with all-purpose flour and aired-out tap water, but I've moved it to Bread Flour and Spring water. At best, I'll see it increase in volume by roughly 1/3.
I keep the Sourdough Starter in a pair of Ball Wide-Mouth pint jars, and feed the starter twice per day. The method I've been following for the past month has been:
Stir the sourdough starter thoroughly.
Pour 2 oz (56g) by weight from the old jar to the new jar.
Add 2 oz of spring water by weight to the new jar. Stir thoroughly.
Add 2 oz of Gold Medal bread flour by weight. Stir thoroughly.
Mark time and initial level on new jar.
Cover with two coffee filters, and screw the lid rim on to hold them there, and allow for outgassing.
Lay the lid insert on top to reduce drying.
Wash the old jar to get it ready for use as the new jar in the next feeding
Temperatures in the apartment are typically about 75-80°F by day, 80-85 by night. Starter typically peaks in 8-12 hours,
These images were taken a few weeks ago, after about 8 hours after feeding, when the starter was peaking. The black line is the original level after mixing, and the blue line is at about the peak. As I said, I've never seen my starter increase in volume by more than a third.
Why isn't my starter doubling or tripling? Am I doing something wrong? Could I remedy this?
Feeding twice a day is way too much. Twice a week is more appropriate.
@PeteBecker Huh. Every set of instructions I've come across online has recommended feedings at least once a day when the starter is kept at room temperature. (Twice a day if it peaks in less than 12 hours). Does feeding it less often result in more prolific outgassing when food is available?
When I’ve done it I’ve fed once or twice a day for two or three days to get it started, then every three or four days or whenever it’s used.
Your starter is at 100% hydration. It's a thick liquid, not a springy dough. As bubbles of carbon dioxide form, they're free to combine into larger bubbles, rise to the surface, and pop. So the volume isn't going to increase much. The peak volume will additionally be significantly impacted by the temperature and the type of flour. And a starter not growing in volume is not strong evidence that bread dough made with it will not grow in volume.
If you want to check on starter activity, look for bubbles at and near the surface. But really, the best way to maintain a starter is to have a regular feeding schedule and somewhat consistent conditions. Then it isn't so much a matter of measurement, as it is one of being confident in your process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.347520
| 2021-07-11T17:13:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116385",
"authors": [
"Pete Becker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94438",
"notovny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116419
|
Too tomatoey gravy?
I saw this video. He is cooking Paneer Tikka Masala. He used 6-7 tomatoes to make gravy for the curry. My question is that, when I cook and add so many tomatoes its taste is too tomatoey. Am I missing something?
Paneer Tikka Masala Restaurant Style | पनीर टिक्का मसाला | Chef Sanjyot Keer
Also I'm making paneer Tikka masala which needs to spicy. Is adding sugar to neutralize the taste of the tomatos good? (I've read somewhere adding sugar can neutralize the sour taste in the gravy) Is it the right approach?
Tell me in depth how can I deal with this situation. Almost every time I cook I face this.
Welcome to the site! I don't understand your question, how would you know what something tastes like from watching a video?
How is adding sugar or neutralizing the taste of the tomatoes going to help you make it spicy?
Welcome to SA! In order for folks to help you, you need to more clearly explain what you are doing and what you hope to accomplish. Also, you need to limit your questions to asking one question, not multiple related questions bundled together.
You also need to post a transcript of the recipe, for those of us who can't be bothered watching a 7 minute video to extract information we could comprehend inside 30 seconds when written. Also, if the video is ever taken down, the question no longer has any relevance.
@Tetsujin Updated please check.
@FuzzyChef updates please check
@GdD Updated the question.
You still didn't post the recipe, nor is there any way we can guess how "tomatoey" the one on youtube tastes.
This isn't answerable, if you don't like the taste of tomatoes then add less or choose a different recipe. We can't tell you what your tastes are.
It simply means that your definition of how much tomatoes are appropriate and the YouTube cook’s definition is, well, different. There’s no absolute value for flavor. Use less, if you want less. Caveat: tomatoes are the main ingredient in this recipe. You’ll end up with less gravy unless you amp up the other vegetables.
Prayas: answer posted.
The video recipe uses a lot of tomatoes, and the resulting curry appears to be heavily tomato-flavored. The quick paneer butter masala I make myself is very tomato-flavored, on purpose, because my sweetie likes it that way.
So if you want a paneer curry that's "less tomatoey", my suggestion is to use a different recipe, one with fewer tomatoes in it, and more onions and peppers. Adding sugar won't help, unless the specific flavor you're trying to change is the acidity.
You probably use different kind of tomatoes; his looks small and relatively "dry".
Sugar can help remove/reduce the acidity in tomato sauces; but that's just it, it won't change the "tomatoey" of the sauce.
Make sure you cook the tomato mixture for a while to reduce the liquid so that the resulting sauce is not too liquid and that every ingredients are well cooked before blending.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.348010
| 2021-07-14T08:20:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116419",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Kat",
"Prayas Lashkari",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119476
|
Could oat flour be the cause of gritty texture in chic chip cookies?
I use the creaming method with electric mixer. I bought oat flour (did not make it). I’ve tried adding egg yolk and sifting. I don’t want anyone to tell that I’m not using regular flour by the texture. I use room temperature butter. I put in frig more than hour sometimes overnight. Bake 350, 10 minutes in convection oven. Is there anything I can do to make cookie soft in middle? Today bought Ultra Fine Sugar. I have not tried it yet.
Are you giving the oat flour a chance to hydrate before baking?
No, I don’t know what hydrate is?
@Alison „Hydrate“ means „soak up liquid, get wet“.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.348369
| 2022-01-12T01:44:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119476",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97301"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114923
|
Should I marinade brisket for smoking overnight, or only do a dry rub?
I normally grill flank steaks in a marinade w/ citrus juices, soy sauce, garlic and chipotle overnight...
I want to get into smoking brisket and wanted people response about taking a brisket and marinading in such a similar marinade overnight before I pat dry and then smoke or am I making a BIG mistake and should just do a dry rub 2 hours prior to smoking?
Marination is a surface treatment. So, you are not getting any added benefit by marinating over night. The only thing that generally penetrates is salt, which might happen, depending on the quantity of soy sauce you are using. So...probably doesn't matter too much.
If you want to "get into smoking brisket", I would recommend a traditional approach. Brisket is challenging enough as it is. Master the traditional approach, then deviate if you want to mix things up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.348456
| 2021-03-22T19:16:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114923",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109553
|
Carb, fat and protein changes in vegetable fermentation, specifically a ballpark reduction arc in carbohydrates
I have been fermenting vegetables, kimchi for the most part, for a few years and am familiar with the general arc of the process, as well as observing how active my ferment is.
Yesterday, I started a half gallon of sauerkraut, a half gallon of white kimchi, and a couple pints of fermented beets. Today, I am working up nutritional values for each in support of a Keto eating plan. I've had no trouble working up the raw calories, fat, net carbs and protein for each recipe. Yet I know that fermenting will change the carbohydrates and perhaps other values.
I am aware there is no one-size-fits-all for this calculation, rather the opposite, it seems the number of variables is too broad to pin down any kind of equation. Case in point, I have three ferments going, all burning at a different pace. That said, I'm looking for any kind of rough approximation based on experience.
Two facts seem certain. One, that the fermented product will have a lower carbohydrate value than the cumulative raw ingredients. And two, the resulting carbohydrates will never reach zero. That leaves the rate of burn. Based on your experience, what would you expect the carbohydrate burn to be in a highly active ferment for something like Napa Cabbage, Red Cabbage, or Beets?
Less important, but of keen interest, should I expect the other values (cals, fat, or protein) to change as the result of fermentation?
Hi, and welcome to SA! Have a look at the tour and help center when you get a chance. Just so you're aware, questions on health effects of food are generally off-topic. That is not to say your question (which I think is interesting) is, though.
I agree this is on-topic as it is about chemical changes to food as part of a cooking process and not about benefits.
@LSchoon you may want to look at the nutrient composition tag. I know this is weird, because it is an exemption from an exemption :) but we basically allow questions on how a named nutrient changes during cooking. The separation line is: If the question requires the answers to make judgements on what is healthy (e.g. the question is "which good things disappear during fermentation" and by answering "X disappears", the answerer has implicitly declared X to be a healthy substance) it is off topic. If the OP has set a measurable goal for their food composition, and the reason for that was...
... their personal health belief, we take the question - because we don't have to tell them what is healthy, just how to achieve a certain objective state of their food which they happen to believe is healthy. We do prune discussion on whether the belief is founded or not, though, and just focus on the literal question.
@rumtscho I think you may have misunderstood my (perhaps poorly worded) comment. I did not mean to suggest this question should be closed as being about health, but was trying to make the same point as you in reaction to some close votes having appeared on this question.
@LSchoon oh, thanks! I indeed misread your comment - I thought you were saying that the question is off topic, but interesting. I'll leave the comment exchange here, if you don't mind, because it is a fine point of which other users are also frequently not aware.
@rumtscho No problem!
Thank you @LSchoon, I appreciate your greeting and your advice. Would it be appropriate to offer my own solution in the form of an "answer" and solicit the community for confirmation/feedback concerning the proposed solution?
@BuffaloRabor Answering your own question is encouraged! An answer should be an answer, though: if it is a follow-up question, you should ask that as a separate question. If it is an 'update' to the current question, you can always edit your question.
on the "Less important, but of keen interest" question:
let's talk carbs instead of cals here. cals are potential chemical energy stored in carbohydrates, fats, proteins, etc. in vegetable fermentation, the fat and protein content is not a significant contributor to potential calories, so i'll confine this to carbohydrates
microbial fermenters' (effective, not comprehensive or quantitative) ...
most who do this don't track a carb burn rate, but they definitely notice when the jars quit bubbling. CO2 output rate is directly proportional to carb burn rate, but those are very difficult to measure without specialized equipment
there are two ways that fermenting usually stops, when fermenters
run out of food (mostly carbs)
byproducts (here, lactic acid) are concentrated enough to halt reproduction
so if the jar's quit bubbling, it's important to understand that it might not be down to near zero carbs
inputs are
carbs
minuscule amounts of protein and trace minerals
outputs are
more fermenters
carbon dioxide, which is not retained by most canners
lactic acid
compounds that lend funk to flavor and aroma
note that fermenters consist mostly of: water, lipids (structural and energy storage), and protein (structural and information storage)
to answer the keen interest ...
net change in carbs? yes. down
net change in protein? yes. up, but not by much
net change in fat/lipids? yes. up, but not by much
@pleasepassthechese is it safe to say calories are consumed "in proportion" to the consumption of net carbohydrates during fermentation?
yes, it's safe to say that
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.348557
| 2020-07-09T01:39:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109553",
"authors": [
"Buffalo Rabor",
"GdD",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85546",
"pleasePassTheCheese",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104971
|
Is it better to freeze crepe batter or cooked crepes?
I sometimes make crepe pancakes with the following recipe: 200g of flour, 350ml of milk, 2 eggs and a table spoon of vegetable oil.
I was wondering whether it was better to store the crepe batter in the freezer and cook some when I want it, or to cook the crepes then store them in the freezer.
Which way will last longer and which way will ensure that the crepes are fresh when I eat them?
I can't comment on which will last longer or be better but we always made extra pancakes and/or waffles and froze them as you can re-heat them in seconds. Just be sure to put wax paper or something like that between the pancakes as they will stick together.
I've put pancakes in a refrigerator before, but not in a freezer. Do they even taste decent after freezing them? Or is them tasting awful the reason you ask this question?
@Mast I've not tried freezing them yet, but I have refrigerated them. That's why I was asking about the best way to store the pancakes.
Freezing batter doesn't save any time. You have to thaw it carefully or you'll cook it, by the time you've done that you could make a fresh batch.
Are you talking about American style pancakes or crepe pancakes @LucaNeri?
@GdD Crepe pancakes or as I call them, English pancakes.
@AndyT Well, apparently everyone who answered was also confused as well, seeing as the top/accepted answer was referring to something with leavening, which English pancakes/crepes do not have, and the other answer specifically mentioned that they only had experience with crêpes, rather than pancakes (American). It may be technically correct, but there was a mismatch between what the OP intended to ask and what was being answered. It may have been better to specify the question as "English pancakes/crêpess", but I think the change will (and has) lead to better answers to the actual question.
@AndyT The only word that was edited in the question was pancake, which was replaced with crêpe and crêpe is a more accurate word to use when describing an English pancake than pancake, which suggests an American pancake.
completely agree with @AndyT . It is - no offense - risible on a cooking site to go with "American English".
@AndyT What about crêpe, like you just mentioned? By the way, I am English as well. Crêpe isn't American dialect, it is just a different type of pancake (French pancake).
@GdD for a proper waffle/pancake batter, don't you have to leave it resting for at least 1-2h in the fridge before cooking it? (not sure, that's why maybe it is faster the frozen ones although quality will be much worse, obviously)
@M.K: no, one does not leave (e.g.) buttermilk pancake batter to rest before cooking, as that would be counterproductive.
I never leave a pancake or waffle batter more than a few minutes before using it @M.K. As soon as it's mixed the leavening agents start to react, the longer you leave it the more lift you lose. With crepe batter you don't have that issue as there is no leavening agent.
@AndyT The edit was not meant to 'Americanize' anything. It was simply meant to clarify the question. Please remember that, like all SE sites, we have a 'be nice' policy.
It might help to clarify what type of flour is being used, I assume it's what the Americans call "all-purpose flour" and the British "plain flour", i.e. without any raising agent.
As an English person, I should note there is a difference between an English pancake and a French crepe. The basic ingredients and the lack of baking powder are the same; but English pancakes are smaller, tend to have more egg in the mix, often don't have sugar in the batter, and are cooked hotter for less time. The result is that English pancakes are generally still a bit less cooked on the inside and don't have much structural integrity, whereas a French crepe is traditionally folded in quarters as a container for whatever filling you choose. You couldn't do that with an English pancake.
Related question -- does anybody know for how long pancake batter can be safely kept in a jug in the fridge, chilled not frozen?
It is a compromise either way. Neither will be as good as freshly made, but both methods will work. As far as frozen batter, you will either need to plan ahead, or be willing to wait for it to thaw. If you go this route, I would suggest zip style freezer bags, and freeze flat, so that it will thaw more quickly. Also, some of the leavening power will be reduced. So, if you enjoy fluffy pancakes, you might not be able to achieve that. On the other hand, frozen pancakes are fine too. However, you also lose some quality here as well. The issue is reheating...unless you have a combi-oven, where you can use steam to bring them back to life. In terms of length of storage, as long as they well packaged, the shelf life is about the same.
Is this answer still valid now that the question has changed?
Given the change in the question, I would suggest that much of my answer is still valid. The issues are convenience and quality. It is still a compromise. Of course, the leavening issue is dealt with, but I would suggest the rest is still appropriate.
I recommend putting them in the toaster for a minute at medium temperature. You will be amazed how good those are !
@RegularNormalDayGuy - OP said crepe, so I don't think toaster will work! Although I agree with you as far as "American" pancakes go
If your recipe is as given, you're making a crêpe, or something akin to it (as it's not risen). That's important here, I feel, as crêpes freeze much better than risen pancakes. The lack of a risen texture means one less thing to go wrong in the freezer.
We freeze both kinds of pancakes for our children, and have had great success particularly with the crêpe variety by following a few simple rules:
Freeze as soon as they are not steaming anymore (so they are not too dried out)
Wrap each pancake individually in plastic wrap
Put those wrapped pancakes in a larger freezer zip top bag
Then, we remove one at a time as we use them and toast them in a toaster oven (or any similar oven will work; not sure about a vertical-style toaster, if they'll keep together well enough or not, as I don't have one).
If you do it this way, crêpes seem to keep about six to eight months, and american (risen) pancakes seem to keep about three months, before the texture of the risen pancakes becomes too chewy and unappetizing (from drying out, I assume?). Crêpes might even last longer, I'm just unwilling to go beyond that for anything in the freezer that's not specifically designed for it.
Good method. All that plastic wrap makes it quite wasteful unfortunately, would paper or alu foil also work?
As long as the paper was coated I think it would be okay, but not quite as good. I agree the plastic wrap is wasteful, but I haven't really found a better solution - I'm not convinced coated paper is substantially better environmentally, and I definitely don't think foil is better environmentally (as it's costly energy-wise to make). The wrap is tight to the pancake, which is very hard to replicate in any reusable or non-plastic option unfortunately... paper wouldn't keep in the moisture as well I don't think.
It's not necessary to wrap each crepe (or pancake) individually. Instead, what you need to do is to freeze them separately, e.g. on a sheet pan, and then stack them and wrap them after they are frozen. As long as you keep them solidly frozen, it will be easy to remove just the desired quantity for thawing/reheating.
Are we talking about pancakes or crepes here? I’ve never eaten pancakes, but crepes only taste good when fresh. Even letting them sit for a few minutes and then re-heating them is bad. So I’d freeze the batter. If you only want to store the batter for a short time then refrigeration works fine. Letting it sit in the fridge for a few hours actually improves the end result.
I think we can leave it as an answer in the sense that the answerer seems to state an opinion on the whole family of crepes, pancakes, etc, saying that it is derived from an experience with crepes only. If others don't agree with the opinion, or doubt the admissibility of the generailzation, that's a reason for downvoting, not for deleting.
@GdD to be frank when reading the question my eyes saw "pancakes" but my French brain read "crêpes". It is not until this answer that I realized that this is about US style pancakes.
The question could have been clearer @WoJ.
@GdD it is not even that - the question consistently referred to "pancakes", it is more than the one's culture brings in a biais, such as in this case with me seeing the wide flat thing and not the fluffy smaller one.
I stand corrected @JoeM!
Looking up that english pancakes are similar albeit slightly thicker than french crepes and do not have leavening. I have successfully frozen crepes. You don't have to put plastic or paper between every crepe, but then you have to be patient on the thaw so that you can separate them.
Otherwise, yes you need to keep separate, OR freeze singularly and then stack them up frozen.
We usually will thaw, use a filling and roll and fry in butter to get back the fresh taste and texture as much as possible.
Generally it takes so little time to make crepe style batter, we just make them from fresh now-a-days.
I had to really sit & think about this for a while. When we make food fresh, from scratch, (as opposed to something with enough preservatives to save it for 50 years, eek) like this, as many others mentioned, they are better fresh, and I don't know that either choice will give you a perfectly "fresh" crepe later.
I bake a lot and have never saved batter, but have frozen baked goods and had them still taste pretty good. I am somewhat concerned about saving anything with raw eggs in it.
I think freezing your finished crepes, or making fewer,will give the best and possibly healthier result!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.348975
| 2020-01-26T22:06:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104971",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Daemon Beast",
"Fattie",
"Gamora",
"GdD",
"Graham",
"Joe M",
"M.K",
"Marti",
"Mast",
"RegularNormalDayGuy",
"Steve Chambers",
"Stuart F",
"WoJ",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80815",
"leftaroundabout",
"moscafj",
"nigel222",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91089
|
Is there a decent way to rehydrate and sauté dried chili peppers?
I saw the answer at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/23560/49643, which makes me think it won't be great. My goals are (in this order):
Retain flavor
Obtain good enough texture for sautéing
Retain heat (capsaicin)
Most of the time, I'll probably be putting said chilis on a burger. Just had a burger with fresh habaneros that I sautéed and really liked the flavor (though I admit it caused profuse sweating), but would like to go a little more spicy. Short of growing my own peppers (which I may do some), there isn't a great way to buy spicier peppers, such as chocolate or Red Savina habaneros or ghost peppers, etc.
For point 3, I was wondering if anyone has tried steaming peppers? I suppose it is possible the steam might carry away some of the capsaicin and other flavor chemicals. Doing this in an enclosed environment with a small amount of water might help though.
Consider buying them fresh whenever they are available, and freezing them - not as good texture as fresh, but certainly better than rehydrated... Also, chinense peppers like habanero, naga etc are rarely offered dried and whole. Or, pickle them sambal oelek style....
Frankly drying is not the way to go if you want to retain flavor and texture. When you dry fruit (chilis are fruits, not vegetables) you make a load of irreversible changes in texture and flavor. A chili is made of tiny cells filled with liquid, the drying process ruptures these so the water can escape. Rehydrating a dried chili doesn't make it plump up again, really you get more of a soggy mess.
Flavor-wise you'll lose some of that chili essence, the non heat flavor. Heat-wise you'll retain the spice, if anything it gets more concentrated.
You can steam peppers, it's a good way to cook them without losing flavor, and no the steam won't carry flavor away. It won't concentrate the chili flavor though or make them spicier somehow.
Growing your own really spicy chilis can be done, depending on the climate you may need a greenhouse.
If heat is your goal your best bet is to shop around for the spiciest peppers you can and then eat them raw rather than cooking them first, or turn them into a hot sauce. Include the seeds and the pith if you really want to feel it. If you can't find them fresh often then freeze them, they keep for years if they're sealed up properly, and although their texture isn't as good as fresh it's the closest you'll get.
I grow my own chillies and to keep them available year round I freeze some and dry some. Last night's stir fry had a couple of frozen chillies in (after being out of the freezer for 5 minutes they chop easily and are ready to add to the pan). The night before I used some dried chillies in a slow cooked 3 bean chilli. This demonstrates the different uses nicely.
I have added flakes of dried chilli to the oil when cooking a stir fry. That gives a nice chilli-oil base to the sauce but it's not like eating chillies. If I get a good crop this year I'll try pickling some, they would go nicely on a burger.
If you can really only get dried chillies, get the hottest you can and make relish/chutney from them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.349751
| 2018-07-17T00:57:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91089",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107229
|
What's the best way to cook very large chicken breast filets?
Thanks to coronavirus, a local restaurant supply company is offering home delivery, and I ordered a ten pound bag of boneless skinless chicken breasts. There were eight of them in there...EIGHT! For an average weight of 20 oz each!
I have kids who like their food white. My usual method for BSCBs of a reasonable size is a quick brine and bake, pound them a bit and steam in a covered skillet, or just boil 'em (I know, it's sad). Will these monsters turn out okay if I treat them this way?
Secondarily, if I were going to cook something with actual flavors, what would you recommend?
What is BSCB? And never order unnatural chicken from them again.
@Rob : I'm assuming "boneless skinless chicken breasts" spelled out elsewhere in the question. But it's the first time I've seen the acronym, too.
It really depends on what types of meals you plan to make with them.
If you would typically serve people a whole breast, then I'd cut each one down into more reasonable sizes (slice vaguely across the grain ... I usually start at the more bulbous end and slice diagonally through it so I end up with a chunk that's mostly from the thin end)
For the size you're starting with, you might want to cut each one into 4 to 6 pieces. If you're planning on pounding them, I might even go with 8 to 10 pieces.
Once they're a more reasonable size, you can then brine and bake them or pound them out, them like you normally would.
As you mention boiling them ... I would recommended poaching them instead. If you cut them up first, go with my original recommendation of an hour. If they went in whole, I might give it two hours. The technique that I mention is more like a slow cooker -- it's more forgiving and doesn't tend to overcook the outside before the middle is done (although, it can get fall-apart tender, and start breaking up as you try to fish them out with tongs.
I'm with Joe here @cryptoquip, just cut them down to more manageable sizes and cook them as you ordinarily would.
I use a local butcher that sells absolutely massive chicken breasts in a similar size to these. I always cut them down to cook them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.350018
| 2020-04-02T01:59:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107229",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"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
}
|
116665
|
What is this metal rod with attached razor blade? Found in Nana's Kitchen
Our Nana passed, and we found this in her kitchen. It appears to be well used. That is an ordinary razor blade it is holding. The screw forces the blade into a curve.
This appears to be a bread lame - a tool used to score the top of bread (mostly, but not entirely, for aesthetic reasons).
She did always slice a pattern in her bread. Seems obvious now that you told me what it is. Thank you.
It's not mostly aesthetic, cutting the top of the loaf before baking helps it to expand in the oven, without the slash bread can remain tight. Condolences @Bookaholic!
… or you get blowouts. Scoring controls the expansion of the loaf. That it can be done more or less artistically, is secondary. (But it looks super impressive if done well!)
Blowouts can look cool, they look like pillow lava.
What does this do that an ordinary knife doesn't? I understand the reason for cutting the top of the loaf, but not sure why a specialized tool is needed when any old knife would work just as well?
@DarrelHoffman It's sharper, and easy to keep it sharp by replacing the blade. Many kitchen knives are not particularly sharp, or at least don't stay sharp long, so they tend to drag the surface of the dough instead of scoring it cleanly. Note that the tool is for scoring raw dough, not baked bread.
I knew what it was but didn't know the name. Thanks @Rdd!
@DarrelHoffman apart from being very sharp (-> no dragging or tearing the skin of the loaf) the slight curve makes especially the very shallow cuts for e.g. baguette (-> gives good “ears”) easier. Yes, a very sharp paring knife is an option, but there’s a reason many bakers insist on having a lame. In a pinch, try bending a razor blade slightly and push a skewer or slim chopstick through the larger holes, then try out that makeshift lame for yourself. Costs just a few cents. Caveat: It may take you a few tries to get the hang of it, just cut swiftly and with confidence.
The curve adds a bunch of mechanical integrity and stiffness to the blade, which is pretty floppy when not bent
Maybe worth noting that lame is a French word meaning 'blade' and is pronounced 'lahm' to rhyme with palm, psalm, etc, as it says here
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.350234
| 2021-08-02T13:50:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116665",
"authors": [
"Bookaholic",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"GdD",
"Michael Harvey",
"Raydot",
"Scott Seidman",
"Stephie",
"Vaelus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89618"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43800
|
Brown spots on new stainless steel pot
I bought a stainless steel pot, soaked it in water and dishwashing detergent overnight.
When I went to dump the water, there was a brown ring around the top.
I then boiled water and a muddy appearance showed up on the bottom and sides.
Can you tell me why?
Could you include a picture?
Do you mean that you soaked it in automatic dishwasher detergent? That would probably always cause that and require more than normal rinsing to be normal again. It would also be massive overkill to clean a brand new stainless steel pot which shouldn't require more than a rinse before the first use unless it had stickers on it or something.
"Stainless" steel is an exaggeration at best. It will stain. Chances are you have some level of mineralization in your water (hard water), and that's what's causing the discoloration.
If it really bothers you you can use Bar Keepers friend or something similar to polish it, but it's unlikely that anything that doesn't come off with normal washing will come off in your food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.350574
| 2014-04-30T17:21:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43800",
"authors": [
"Carolyn Kromann Frame",
"Ed R",
"Jolenealaska",
"Numa ",
"Tahskajuha",
"countertop advisor",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119417
|
What meat can I substitute for lamb in Scotch Broth?
A traditional Scotch Broth calls for lamb. However, my partner does not like the strong smell, and lamb is not so easy to get a hold of anyway.
What meat can I substitute for lamb in Scotch Broth while still getting something approximating "what mother used to make"?
(I may also try a pure veggie option, but some meat seems to help it "stick to the ribs" on a cold day.)
Out of interest, where is it that "lamb is not so easy to get a hold of"? In the UK where I am, lamb is always available among the fresh meats.
I wouldn't say lamb is "very uncommon" here in my part of the USA (New England). My local supermarket will usually have a few cuts available. It's definitely less popular than beef or pork, but it's not as rare as (say) venison, goose, or bison.
@MawgsaysreinstateMonica if some culinary historians are to be believed it was terrible early 20th century mutton rations that put a whole nation of the meat.
@MichaelSeifert the fact that all the mediocre mutton and lamb that the Aussies and Kiwis cannot sell in Europe gets dumped in the US does not help its cause.
Just to be clear even in very Muslim areas of UK cites (which are usually quite small) local supermarkets will stock pork and lamb. The only exception would be a specifically hala butchers which wouldn't
@MawgsaysreinstateMonica what does Muslim predominance have to do with it? Lamb, unlike pork, may well be halal and is widely used in Muslim countries' cuisine.
Don't underestimate the comparative rarity of lamb in the US. Though a Brit, I lived for several years in the US, and once paced down the length of the meat chillers in my local supermarket to measure what length of shelf space was devoted to packaged cuts of each meat: over 20 feet for chicken, over 20 feet for beef, about four feet for pork, and less than twelve inches for lamb - and this in a fairly cosmopolitan bit of New England. Lamb is a very niche meat in much of the US.
@MadHatter I live just south of the Navajo Nation. The entire Navajo economy (at least, into the early 20th century) was built on sheep---lamb, mutton, and wool. Sheep are still immensely important to the Navajo economy. And even here, lamb is almost impossible to find (and when it can be found, it is imported from New Zealand, rather than produced locally). What a world. :/
I'm Scottish (and live in Scotland). Traditionally, Scotch broth was made using cheap cuts of mutton, often on-the-bone. I make this soup regularly in winter. It's real winter comfort food!
However, you can use any meat you want, or none.
Meats I've personally tried include: cheap cuts of lamb, beef, chicken, even ham. Leftovers are also a good option. A left over roast chicken carcass is as good as anything. In my opinion it's best if the meat is on the bone. It adds something extra special. On occasion I've also used supermarket cartons of meat stock, or even stock cubes. The absence of one ingredient (meat) would never stop me from making one of my favourite soups!
I've also made it completely vegan before by using vegetable stock cubes as the base for the soup. The rest of the ingredients are already vegan, basically root vegetables, onions, leeks, pearl barley, peas, pulses etc. Whatever you have available really.
At its core, the broth itself is really just a vegetable soup. The uniqueness of the flavour (the thing that makes it "Scotch" broth IMHO) comes from the use of pearl barley which is used to thicken up the soup. Without the pearl barley, it would just be a vegetable broth. The other ingredients are variable/optional.
What's "special" about the meat being still on the bone? What type of flavor or whatever does that specifically add? The only thing I can imagine it adding is... a bone.
@CodyGray I'm not entirely clear on the specifics, but it has more to do with texture than flavor, IIRC. If you cook things like chicken soup and you use meat on the bones, the meat will fall off after a while and the bone itself will be cooked too, and then marrow/cartilage releases (I think it was called) collagens, and it will give a more oily texture to what's otherwise just salty vegetable/meat water.
@Tinkeringbell - yup! Said it better than I could. Thanks.
@CodyGray: To add to Tinkeringbell's excellent explanation, the collagens released by bones are better known by the name "gelatin" in the context of food.
The marrow in the bone can also contribute to the flavor.
I would think that, as this is a dish of humble origins, it would have been made with whatever meat was available.
As such you could substitute pretty much any red meat. Beef or venison might suit as both are a traditional part of the Scottish scene. You could also go an older sheep meat such as hogget or mutton. These have quite strong flavours, and if your partner doesn't like the flavour of lamb, then they probably also won't like hogget or mutton.
More off the traditional route would be pork, goat or chicken - these would change the flavour substantially and the colour would also be quite different for chicken and pork.
More unusual but part of the Scottish scene meats might be things like pheasant or grouse - though these were more reserved for the rich land-owners that could afford to run a pheasant or grouse moor rather than the more common folk.
Alos rabbit or hare?
for hogget which I had to look up.
@Willk I love hogget. It is to lamb as veal is to prime beef. Hard to find though.
@MawgsaysreinstateMonica Very good thought. I should have thought of those.
You are not going to get the lamb taste without using lamb. There is a unique richness to the fat in lamb. The fat around the ribs especially is concentrated acid reflux. If your family is adverse to it it is probably just better to replace it with a more neutral tasting meat.
I'm a lamb producer and love the stuff, but it isn't everyone forte. Lamb has a stronger, earthy, grassy flavor to it. The closest substitute, which if processed properly would be milder, is venison. If your partner isn't into adventurous eating and needs something more tame, use beef.
Shin of Beef is a good alternative. We have an almost identical soup in Northern Ireland based on celery leaves and leeks.
Brown the steak, fill the pot with water and proceed as normal with your pulses and root veg. Once it has come to the boil, about one and a half hours should do it for an inch thick steak with a bone.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.350732
| 2022-01-06T07:22:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119417",
"authors": [
"Billy Kerr",
"Cody Gray",
"Graham",
"IMil",
"Ian Turton",
"MadHatter",
"Mawg",
"Michael Seifert",
"Neil Meyer",
"Tinkeringbell",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Willk",
"Xander Henderson",
"barbecue",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77254
|
How are bitter almonds detected or used?
Bitter almonds contain traces of hydrocyanic acid, which can be lethal to animals and humans. 7 to 10 unprocessed bitter almonds can be lethal to a human, according to “Encyclopedia Brittanica.”
The sale of raw bitter almonds is prohibited in some countries but it's quite often to find bitter almonds mixed with sweet ones.
My question is: How does food industry to detect the bitter ones?
If you just eat some almonds at home you are unlikely to swallow big quantities of poison because you would spit out the bitter ones.
But when the almonds are processed to make some raw preparation everything gets mixed and the presence of minimum quantities of bitter almonds would be perceptible, unpleasant and even dangerous. I guess they don't throw everything to the bin.
The toxicity of the poison is destroyed by heat and processing, usually by boiling or baking them. Thus my concern is about raw preparations.
How are bitter almonds detected? (*)
Or how is prussic acid removed without affecting the food?
How is their flavour used at Disaronno or Amaretto leaving out the poison?. I have friends that drunk a whole bottle in one night and are still alive.
(*) of course without performing a chemical analysis to each almond nor using spectrography nor having somebody tasting every almond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaretto
PD: Some spirits use apricot kernel instead, but the problem is the same.
My understanding is that Disaronno is made from apricot pits (stones), not from almonds at all.
But don't apricot pits (kernels) contain that same chemical?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaretto
I only have an answer for your first question: How does the food industry detect the bitter almonds? They don't need to.
According to Wikipedia, bitter almonds come from bitter almond trees, and "sweet" almonds from that variety, so if you plant only "sweet" almond trees in your orchard, you don't need to sort through your almonds rejecting the bitter ones.
This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond#Sweet_and_bitter_almonds
and matches my experience of seeing certain almond trees that remain loaded with almonds even as the squirrels are stripping all the other trees in the area. No wonder! Those almonds taste terrible; even the squirrels won't eat them.
I use to buy "sweet almonds" at the supermarket and the bags always contain some bitter ones. I don't think they mix them deliberately. I guess the "sweet" trees always contain a small proportion of bitter almonds.
@EikePierstorff do you think they use the same process for Amaretto or uncooked pastry such as turron or polvorones? Won't calcium hydroxide and iron sulfate affect the flavour or be poissonous itself?
There may need to be a distinction made between "almonds that are bitter" and "bitter almonds"
@skan: hmm, not what I have found at the supermarket here (Calif, US), or the almond trees here. By "bitter almonds", they don't mean the occasional spoiled or yucky rancid one. Rather these are so bitter, that you just spit it out almost involuntarily, and the literal "sting" of bitterness lingers on your tongue until you wash it out.
DiSaronno is as easy as reading the box the bottle comes in, or their website (perhaps not anymore - they seem to be back to "mysterious and secret" but that's what it used to admit to.) The flavor is produced from DiSaronno amaretti (which are apricot kernel and egg white and sugar, baked - i.e. heat processed) that the alcohol is filtered through to flavor it.
I gather (but have had great difficulty finding actual details) that things like almond/apricot kernel paste are heat-processed to render them safe as packaged. Without some bitter almond content (or almond extract, which I think is mostly from those), most "almond" flavored things are pretty bland if made only from sweet almonds.
Exhibits: The front and back (showing ingredients, including egg whites) of a bag of Amaretti Di Sarrono. The front and back (showing production method involving Amaretti) of an Amaretto Di Sarrono tin box for a bottle.
Source for the use of eggs? That would kind of conflict with http://www.barnivore.com/liquor/156/Disaronno ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.351257
| 2017-01-08T12:59:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77254",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Lorel C.",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"rackandboneman",
"skan"
],
"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
}
|
114998
|
Chinese dumplings vegetarian style - mushrooms raw or cooked?
I recently started making Chinese steamed dumplings (Jiaozi) with cabbage and beef mince. In this version I simply mix together all the ingredients for the filling (cabbage, onion, beef) when they're raw, fold the dumplings and steam them for a few minutes.
I've now seen recipes for vegetarian variants, e.g. with mushrooms, tofu and some other vegetables, plus the cabbage. For the mushrooms in particular some recipes suggest frying them in the pan before mixing them together with the rest of the filling. Is this always necessary and if not what are the pros and cons of cooked vs raw mushroom? Is it to drain some liquid first?
Is this always necessary and if not what are the pros and cons of cooked vs raw mushroom?
If you don't fry the mushrooms first, they will turn out rather watery and bland. So yes, you could say it's to drain some water first, though I don't really drain the water; I let the water evaporate.
+1 for cooking mushrooms until they dry up again. So many people serve them 'wet' or pour it off.
You can fry the mushrooms, but the more common thing to do is to just blanch them in boiling water. The other answer says that they'll be watery and bland, but the bigger problem IMO is that earthy flavor which can be taken away by the blanching. Of course, you want to add salt to the blanched mushrooms and press/squeeze them so that excess water comes out; then dispose of the salty water. (The same should be done to other ingredients with high water content, such as napa cabbage and carrots. It's not necessary for drier ingredients such as wood ear fungi.)
Also, if you can find dried shiitake mushrooms, they have a more complex flavor than the fresh ones, so you might want to mix some in. In Chinese cooking, dried shiitake mushrooms are often preferred to fresh ones. You will need to soak them in water (and then squeeze out the excess water), of course, but you won't need to salt them, or to blanch or fry them.
Mince salt squeeze
That's how Guo Ayi, our nanny, made them for us when we lived in Beijing.
The only cooked ingredient in fillings would be crispy rice.
Salting to wilt also done to some greens like mustard.
Black mushroom ie shitake variety give off less water and can be used 'straight' as long as no very wet other veg added (lots of onion). A bit of starch is ok too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.351598
| 2021-03-28T14:23:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114998",
"authors": [
"Pat Sommer",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115065
|
Egg yolk substitute for whole eggs in strata
Can I use egg yolks for all or part of whole eggs in strata?
what is strata ? can you share a recipe ?
Are you talking about stracciatella?
To those who haven't encountered it, strata is the correct term, and has nothing to do with a stracciatella. It is a type of baked good with filling. I see no need to close the question, any more than you would close if the OP had asked about a quiche instead of a strata.
Thanks for the spelling correction. Still wondering if using yolks in place of whole eggs will be problem with the structure. Recipe calls for 7eggs so wondering if I can use some of yolks left over from the meringue I am also making.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.351806
| 2021-04-01T18:10:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115065",
"authors": [
"Kathy Murphy Swetzoff",
"Max",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93211",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115110
|
Is it safe to use an enamel/cast iron Dutch oven with small cracks and worn enamel
I have a few-years old enamel/cast iron Dutch oven. I haven’t looked after it that well, and the inside is showing small cracks (crazing), and there is some grey discolouration which looks almost like the enamel is worn off in places. It isn’t chipped or visibly damaged, but looks worn.
Is this safe to continue using?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/108683/67
I see bare metal that is partially seasoned -perfectly fine
Crazing of enamel is also fine. Rule of thumb: if you can feel cracks with fingernail then that's too much a trap for pathogens.
An occasional soak in borax or vinegar to be 100%
I've been told that the modern non-stick surfaces (e.g., teflon) are not healthy at all if they become scratched. From your answer, it seems you're saying old-school enamel cast-iron dutch ovens do NOT suffer from the same health risks after being damaged. Yes?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.351897
| 2021-04-04T18:37:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115110",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Paperclip Bob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97883"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115182
|
Are there negative effects of freezing clarified stock?
I have clarified some chicken stock using the ice filtration method. Are there any negative effects to re-freezing this newly clarified stock (such as becoming cloudy again, losing flavor, etc.)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.351994
| 2021-04-09T13:22:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115182",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115193
|
Is tamari and soy sauce a 1:1 substitute?
I tried a bottle of San-J tamari for the first time today. It tasted salty and bitter. I found that adding a pinch of sugar with the tamari to smooth out the bitterness made it taste more similar to soy sauce. But, wanted to get your thoughts? Is tamari and soy sauce a 1:1 substitute?
Thoughts on what, precisely? Tamari is soy sauce, specifically one made without wheat. Simple comparison… https://sanchi.co.uk/blog-cs/shoyu-or-tamari-soy-sauce/
Is it possible you're used to sweetened soy sauce, such as is often served with dumplings? If you still have an older bottle of soy sauce that tastes normal to you, check the ingredients for sugar.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/56335/67
The answer is both yes, and at the same time no.
The problem is that there are a lot of types of soy sauce (see What are the differences between types of soy sauce? ), and many of them are not good substitutions for each other.
Depending on what type of soy sauce you're replacing, Tamari may be a good 1:1 substitution, or it may not be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.352041
| 2021-04-10T06:17:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115193",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115285
|
Why did my Zwilling Aluminium pan cookware surface corrode just after 1 month?
On March 3 2021, I bought this Zwilling 33 cm / 13 inch Aluminium deep saute pan with lid. Please review pictures below, inside my red circle. The coating on the surface appears to have corroded! Why? What went wrong?
I was careful not to scratch or corrode the coating! I used sponges to clean. I used plastic heat resistant Turners.
Welcome to SA! I moved the photos into the post for you.
What's your habit for getting the pan up to temperature? If you see bob1's answer below, and the comments underneath, we think it might be getting too hot, so knowing how you heat it up would be helpful
This is not corrosion, this is damage to the non-stick surface.
Overheating the pan can damage non-stick coatings. As these marks are in the centre of the pan I suspect that there are two possibilities:
The pan was heated too hot and damaged the coating
The "corrosion" is actually damage to a layer of polymerized oils/fats analogous to seasoning on a cast-iron pan.
From the photos, I'd think it's 1, not 2.
@koss 1 - yes, you can overheat, especially with non-stick pans. Plain metal can warp with overheating. 2. not generally, it might be possible to smooth it off with a light scour, but it will still be less non-stick. 3. It can be still used, but the more it is used, the more that surface will continue to degrade. I can't make any assertions on safety, but teflon (assuming its teflon) is quite inert, though I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the safety of ingesting these sorts of coatings.
@bob1 There's a paper on giving PTFE (teflon) as a food supplement to fill the stomach with something inert/calorie-free. It doesn't sound like a good idea to me - microplastic pollution anyone?
@koss it's easier on gas, with fairly thin-based pans, heated empty, as the heat source tends to be in points. Minimum heat should be fine for a few minutes, but preheating a non-stick pan hot before adding oil can do this. I tend to turn on a minimum flame, then get the oil, add it, and turn up the heat. That's habit from my enamelled pans that take ages to warm up and should be heated gently.
PTFE is harmless for ingesting, this has come up in other questions. However, the binder used to attach the PTFE onto the aluminum pan might not be.
The linked page for the pan says "Non-stick Duraslide® Granite coating" and "PTFE Free" - now, that of course doesn't tell us what is is, but it does tell us what it isn't. Another reference quotes, "(the "granite" refers to its durability, not its composition). It's also free of PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, a manmade chemical that is used to create some nonstick surfaces and Teflon; is safe to use with metal cooking utensils; and won't release any harmful fumes. " tbh, I'd ask Zwilling about it, as they're not letting on what it's made of or what temps it can stand.
most non-PTFE based coatings are silica/silicon based ceramics. they do in fact put flakes of granite into these types of coatings - I'm not sure what functional purpose it serves
also, I believe teflon (PTFE) coatings are applied after the aluminum/metal has been either sandblasted or caustic washed (e.g. with lye) to help the PTFE adhere. it's usually applied in several layers
@Tetsujin I actually think that the "granite" does refer to the composition. The non-PTFE nonstick coatings are ceramic, and one can make ceramic out of pretty much any rock (or mixture of rocks). Now, it is unclear whether granite is the main component in the ceramic or added in homeopathic doses, and probably rather irrelevant too, because in my experience, all these proprietary ceramics work pretty similarly. The picture doesn't look like damaged ceramic though, much more like damaged teflon, which confuses me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.352152
| 2021-04-16T02:06:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115285",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"CobaltHex",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"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
}
|
115513
|
Why is my cake sinking after baking with a soggy-like line in the middle?
I've lately been facing an issue with my cakes whereby they sink and have a soggy-like line near the bottom.
It's strange since I am using the same ingredients, same oven, same recipe however the cakes are turning out like this..
It's quite frustrating since these are commercial cakes and I can't sell such cakes to customers.
Have you checked the oven temperature with a thermometer?
Are you using the same baking ban as well? Maybe a bad batch of an ingredient, under the assumption you buy large quantities, as you said these are commercial cakes.
You said same oven & recipe, but did anything else change? Like the size of the pan, material and/or thickness of the pan, or the number of pans being baked at the same time? And it's worth getting a thermometer in there -- although it's rare, sensors, electronics, and/or heating elements can fail over time.
Those cakes are underbaked, that line at the bottom is a clear sign that the batter hadn't crystallized when it was removed from the oven, so it could not support the cake above. There's a few things that could be happening:
You changed the recipe or ingredients: if you've made a substitution or changed the recipe you should look at changing it back
You aren't baking them long enough: changes in the starting temperature of the batter can change the baking time. In the winter your kitchen may be colder so your batter may be colder, or maybe you're pulling ingredients straight from the fridge, if your batter is colder than you need to lengthen the baking time
Your oven is cooler: it's possible your oven thermostat is mis-reading and your oven is cooler, or maybe you're cramming the oven with many cakes and your oven can't keep to temperature. Also, maybe you're opening the oven door lots and losing heat. Try using an oven thermometer to check the temperature
I would suggest you start testing your cakes for doneness before taking them out, it's not uncommon for ovens to fluctuate so you can't assume that a cake is going to be done at an exact time. Use the poke test and/or an instant read thermometer to check them.
Too much leavener could cause an over-rise and collapse, causing that gummy, under-baked layer as well. A substitution or brand change on that front could be a culprit.
@AMtwo IIRC not adding enough leavener can also cause similar sorts of consistencies, as well. No air bubbles, no crumb, and you just get a slimy mess rather than a proper cake.
@GdD Wow, thank you for a very comprehensive answer, I'll look into each of these suggestions and act on them. But I firmly believe the oven has become faulty over time. The oven door doesn't close well. Probably cold air is seeping in
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.352467
| 2021-05-03T09:04:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115513",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Joe",
"John Doe",
"Timothy Ndichu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93712",
"nick012000",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104414
|
How to get cheese sauce to stick to meatballs
I want to serve meatballs that have been dipped in a melted white sauce or. fondue cheese... but would like to do it in a way that the cheese doesn't just slide off the meatballs but clings to it or begins to harden bit once it coats the meatball...any ideas suggestions?
thanks
Welcome to SA!
It's not clear from your question above ... do you want the cheese to harden once the meatballs are dipped, or you want it to stay soft?
Welcome @Coreen, I've changed your question title to reflect your actual question.
A very hot sauce that is thin and runny will thicken as it cools down. That's why one makes a sauce thinner in the pot than one wants it on the plate. A solution to your problem might be as simple as serving the sauce at a lower temperature. If you're serving the sauce on a heat source, lower it.
If you can't alter the serving temperature for some reason, an alternative is to increase the thickening agent, whatever it is. Increasing something like flour (starting with more roux) or cornstarch wouldn't affect the flavor. Or possibly a different thickener would be better for your recipe. Arrowroot might be a better alternative if it's an acidic environment, for example. There are lots of choices.
A thicker cheese sauce is easier to scorch, though, so that's something to look out for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.352813
| 2019-12-28T04:45:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104414",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"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
}
|
96613
|
Korean food that was wrapped in tin foil
I have a fond memory of a dish from awhile back however I do not know where I ate it at nor what it was. All I know is it was some Korean BBQ place near San Jose or Cupertino CA the kind where there is a large cooking surface in the bulk of the table and you cook everything yourself.
The most memorable thing served came out wrapped in tin foil and was placed on the cooking surface for some time. What came out was absolutely incredible although I don’t remember what it was. From what I can remember there were mushrooms, nuts and some sort of amazing juice/oil. It had incredible umami and slightly woody taste to it.
I have never seen this dish at any other Korean bbq place, does anyone the name of this dish?
Recipe requests are off-topic, so asking what dishes combine certain ingredients will almost certainly be closed. Asking what the dish you got was is on topic, I've edited your question accordingly, I hope that's okay with you. If someone can identify it you can search for a recipe.
I know there are a lot of Korean places in California, but if you went with someone, they might give you some clues to help you track down the restaurant, and from there, you can look up their menu. (unless it's seasonal, and then you might have to contact them)
There's a chance you might be able to pinpoint the restaurant you ate at by retracing your route (from that day) on Google Maps .... (just an idea)
This https://www.saveur.com/salmon-scallion-mushroom-foil-yaki-recipe ?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.352949
| 2019-02-28T09:54:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96613",
"authors": [
"Daniel E.",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73074"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68061
|
How do you fry a fat, uneven salmon filet?
I can nail a decent medium rare salmon filet. But today the salmon I have bought turned out to be really fat - like 2 inches in height. Its sides have very steep slopes so its bound to cook unevenly.
I can manage a 1 inch high salmon filet, but 2 inches seem both too much and too uneven. What do you do?
Bake it in the oven instead.
Start in a frying pan to sear the skin and put in a pre-heated oven for 15-20 minutes.
Be careful to get the fish out of the fridge for 10, 20 minutes before cooking it so that its temperature is not too cold so that it cooks more evenly.
Can't you slice the filet to make 2 1-in filet ?
You wouldn't have the skin on the second filet to keep it together if you cut them into 2 1 inch filets
yes, you are right.
@Max Usually best to edit your answer if someone points something like that out. (If the comments no longer make sense at that point, you can flag them as obsolete and we mods will clean them up for you.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.353108
| 2016-04-06T09:33:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68061",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108857
|
taking a tart out of a glass dish
I'm looking to make a tart like this or like this
but I don't have those tart pans that have the removable bottom, I've only got a glass dish.
I'm wanting to take the tart out of the dish and put it on a plate once it's done but I'm not sure how I'll be able to do that. Can I line the glass dish with some baking paper or something so I can pull it out of the dish once it's done, or something?
thanks
You can line a typical pie pan with parchment paper.
Cut a precise circle to cover the bottom, than a precise rectagle or trapezoid to fit the side. You can use a tiny bit of butter or shortening to stick the parchment paper to the pan and keep it in place.
Once it is cooked, you can work a knife then a spatula or two under the paper and lift it all out in one go.
This is the technique I use making a tartine or even when using a springform pan, because it makes keeping the dish intact relatively much easier.
If I need to lift something from a pan that doesn't have a loose bottom, I include longer strips of parchment under the layer i put on the base. You can hold the ends of those strips to lift the item clear of the pan, with less risk of damage then using a knife. Of course, with a very fragile tart there would still be a risk to its integrity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.353226
| 2020-06-05T01:59:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108857",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52073
|
Calculate baking time for bread
I have a standard long-raising bread I use to make and bake in a cassarole. During this holiday I wanted to bake a double-sized bread. However,I ended up only giving it 150% baking time, and not 200%.
Are the sources that can help you calculate how long approximately your bread needs to be baked given size, floor and water composition, etc. ?
Example-recipee:
400 g flour
300 ml water
1 small ball of yeast
Raise for 18 hours
Baked for 30 minutes in 250 celcius closed heated cassarole.
Baked 10 minutes without lid.
Double up:
800 g flour
600 ml water
2 small balls of yeast
Raise for 18 hours
Baked for **45 minutes** in 250 celcius closed heated cassarole
Baked for 10-15 minutes without lid.
When writing measurements for flour, I'd suggest writing it as 400 grammes flour, rather than 400 grams flour. "Gram Flour" is an ingredient all of its own, and I originally read your first line as 400gms of "Gram Flour".
Even better, just use the standard abbreviation: 400 g.
No, I cannot guess a time. What works is temperature. Bread is done at an internal temperature of 195F to 205F (90.5-96.1C).
The temperature for this particular recipie would be in the higher end of that range. I'd aim for 95°C, 205°F.
If you don't want to poke a hole with a thermometer, there's always the "soundcheck" (english name, anyone?): tap the underside of the bread directly from the oven. It should sound "hollow", a bit like a dry clay pot. But note: this only works within the first minute or so after taking it out and only for breads with a nice crust. OP's recipie should qualify.
I don't think there are such sources. The time depends on too many things, such as the shape of the bread loaf, the reflectivity of the bread pan, the ratio of conductive to radiative heat produced by your oven, to name just a few.
As with any other food, you bake it until it's baked, period. Time doesn't matter. If you have to organize a schedule and so need an approximation for your time plan, you need prior experience with how long this exact recipe took in your own kitchen.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.353359
| 2014-12-29T13:17:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52073",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Chris King",
"Mikael Kayser",
"Online Business Mentor LTD",
"Paulette Crabb",
"Racheet",
"Stephie",
"grace grace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"karen wilkinson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43144
|
In England, can I buy fresh fish directly off the boat?
In Trondheim, where I used to live before coming to England, sometimes I bought fish directly off the boat. The fish was fresh and cheaper than the supermarket. I am interested to know if it is possible to do the same in England. Is it common to buy fresh fish off the boat in England?
Note: I asked the same question in Expatriates.SE, but was advised to ask here instead.
It's certainly not common, because most people in England have a strong bias towards supermarket ready meals, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. What part of England are you in?
I live in Plymouth. I do see fishing boats at the harbour, but have never seen any fishermen nor fish on the boats.
For Plymouth specifically, there is a fish market right there on the harbour that sells retail as well as wholesale: http://www.suttonharbourfisheries.co.uk/buying-seafood
Ethically, you should not be able to buy fish directly off a boat in any country. Most seas are way overfished, and local governments should be implementing a quota system to control this. This does generally require centralised independent tallies
@TFD nonsense. The way things work boats tally up their catch and present the numbers, just like companies across the world present their income numbers to tax agencies. Occasionally there'll be spot inspections to test whether there's fraud going on of course.
@jwenting Tax agencies have till receipts and bank accounts to check, and work with accountants whom have their papers to lose. Fishermen not so...
People don't become fishermen in the UK to get rich. We simply don't eat enough variety of fish for them to sell it in person. The way they make the most money is wholesaling it for export to the rest of the EU.
That said, apart from possibly Yarmouth you are in one of the best areas in the country where you might get this service. Here's one based around Cornwall:
http://www.mouseholefish.com
They put posters up when they will be heading out.
For more suggestions you might consider a Facebook group or similar for your town?
To answer your question: at present it is not common to buy fish directly from the boat in England. However, you could try Plymouth Fish Market - where you can buy from Moby Nicks, or Rex Downs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.353571
| 2014-03-29T13:14:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43144",
"authors": [
"Carrie",
"Douglas Cook",
"Founder Thought spam",
"Gary Bradley",
"JS4137",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Vicky",
"adipro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75084
|
Which is the better substitute for tapioca: corn starch or potato starch?
Which is the better substitute for tapioca in Chinese/South East Asian dishes, e.g. for thickener of soups and for meatballs? Is it corn starch or potato starch? I am asking because both corn starch and potato starch are more readily available in general supermarkets, whereas tapioca is a bit harder to find.
It can also be labeled cassava.
As a note, if you can find tapioca pearls, you can grind them yourself.
Hi! Do you have a specific recipe in mind you could add as an example?
@Sue, added a bit more details in my question.
That looks great, thanks! It's an interesting question, and I'm looking forward to reading the answers you get. I hope something works well for you!
Both potato and corn starch would work equally well in the preparations you describe. When substituting flour, the proportions are equal, e.g., one tablespoon flour to replace the one tablespoon of tapioca. With cornstarch, it would be less: i.e, one tablespoon of cornstarch per two of tapioca. Were you to use pearl tapioca, it would be two of soaked pearl to the one of the quick-cooking version.
If it's available, it may be better to replace the instant tapioca with an equal amount of arrowroot starch. Both tapioca and arrowroot contain the same kind of starch, amylopectin, which differs from the amylose found in flour and cornstarch.
A good call .... especially because they both thicken at relatively lower temperatures than other starches. But if there's milk in what you're thickening ... everything I've read says milk+arrowroot is slimy.
Potato starch also creates a "stretchy" consistency in my experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.353795
| 2016-10-28T17:57:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75084",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"adipro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"triskit"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77260
|
How to tell when broccoli has gone bad?
I often get big jumbo bags of pre-cut Broccoli from Costco with a sell by date that is usually about a week out from my date of purchase. The florets seem perfectly fine on the sell by date, and I've cooked and eaten them as much as a week later.
What signs should I look for suggesting that it's time to throw the rest out?
If you find it in your fridge throw it out. Broccoli never really was good, therefore it is by definition bad :-)
As many people here have noted, these "sell by" and "best by" dates are not very consistent, accurate or well defined. If your broccoli looks fine and smells fine, chances are it's fine.
Signs of spoilage to look for are: sliminess on the surface, mushy areas in the broccoli flesh, small dark areas dotting the "canopy" or the tops of the florets, or furry moldy areas anywhere on the broccoli.
In addition, there was a recent question here I bought a bag of Brussels sprouts that looked fine but smelled exceptionally bad, even for sprouts where the vegetables looked great but smelled horrible. I have never experienced that myself, but certainly if your broccoli begins to stink, toss it.
If it starts to look limp and wilted but fine otherwise, it's still ok to cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.353956
| 2017-01-08T14:46:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77260",
"authors": [
"boatcoder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6965"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78350
|
Overmixed pate sucree
I overmixed my pate sucree and it is now very soft (see picture). Is there any way I could fix it?
Recipe:
1/2 cup/120g cold butter
1/2cuo + 1 tbsp/ 70g icing sugar
1/4cup/25g ground almonds
1 pinch of coarse sea salt
A few drops of vanilla extract
1 egg
1 2/3 cup / 200 g cake flour.
I realised afterwards that i had added 120g instead of 200g of flour. It looks more dough like now. However, when i tried to roll it out, the pie dough feels very soft after i roll it out and was pretty impossible to remove from the floured surface. I think it might really be overworked..
Maybe chill it in the fridge and see what happens.
Solution 1:
Use it as poundcake batter.
Judging by the photo, it looks a lot like perfect cake batter.
Solution 2:
Chill it well, work in the missing 80g flour, chill again.
Use as planned, accept that the pie crust might be a bit tougher than expected. Adding a pinch or two of baking powder to the flour can counteract it a bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.354075
| 2017-02-12T12:43:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78350",
"authors": [
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78472
|
substitute for chickpeas in "bean blondies"
I'm trying to make "chickpea blondies" However, my brothers won't eat them because chickpeas are estrogenic.
In the recipe, you have to puree the chickpeas, add some peanut butter for strength and taste, and then bake it. So it needs to be relatively firm, sweet or nutty, and hold up in heat. . Is there some other sort of firm bean/food item that could be substituted for the chickpea? They don't have to be beans. I've seen avocados used in recipes like this, but one brother is allergic
Please don't say flour, because making actual brownies defeats the purpose. The fun of it comes from making an tasty imitation dessert out of unconventional non-dessert ingredients like *beans.
*excepting red beans
Lima beans might work, except for that nasty thick cover on them. I'd think Navy or Great northern would make a decent substitute.
And excepting black bean, black eyed peas, and some other beans
I've had great success with black bean brownies. Most recently I tried this recipe on recommendation from a friend and it turned out quite well! Very rich, great-textured brownies.
The batter is quite thick, though, so make sure your blender/food processor is up to the task!
I've also made good black bean brownies, but I'm trying to make something that could simulate the vanilla-y cake-y taste of a blondie. I guess black beans could do that, but the only draw back is the color.
My mistake - I didn't read the question text as carefully as I should have. I haven't any specific suggestions for blondies but I hope someone else is able offer a better answer.
my brothers won't eat them because chickpeas are estrogenic ...black beans may be considered estrogenic also. It depends on how fussy @kc_m's brothers are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.354490
| 2017-02-16T20:53:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78472",
"authors": [
"G. Bahr",
"GdD",
"Paulb",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54685",
"lll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115637
|
Why are stems common in packaged raisins but uncommon in breakfast cereals?
When I purchase raisins in the US, it is not uncommon that some of the raisins have bits of stem still attached to them. However, when I purchase breakfast cereals with raisins included, I seem to never encounter stems. Clearly there is a difference in how the raisins are processed. But what is that difference?
What about the processing for breakfast cereals make stems so uncommon, and why is that same process not considered for raisins sold alone? Is it the cost of some extra or different processing, or are perhaps all these raisins processed the same but then dividing into low- and high-confidence-no-stems pools, the latter used in breakfast cereals?
I suspect it'll simply be abundance based - most cereals only have a small handful of raisins in the whole box, so you need to eat a lot of boxes to see the the stems. The other thing that might affect it could be just the extra processing in the cereal - it knocks the stems off. These are just guesses though, so I'm not willing to make this an answer.
There might also be differences in quality assurance requirements. If you're eating raisins by hand, you can easily pull the stems off. If you're eating them with a spoon from a bowl full of cereal and milk, not so much.
I'm also just guessing, but if the cereals need stemless raisins and all the raisins are coming from the same vendor, it might stand to reason that if the vendor is kicking out stemless raisins for the cereals what's left over for the bags we buy on the shelf would have a higher (if only slightly higher) ratio of stemmed raisins to stemless raisins.
I've noticed a difference between raisin brands in the past. Given my habit of alternating weekly shops between the close/cheap supermarket and the well-stocked one I'd choose to buy them at the better shop, though I've had worse than even that cheaper shop.
From the better shop I find less than one stem in a generous handful of raisins (on my otherwise plain weekday Weetabix), but in the worst ones I've tried I've found a few every day. This all indicates that there's a possibility for variation from some point in the production process.
Given that variation, so long the worst ones aren't added to breakfast cereals, and given the dilution by other ingredients, I'd expect to find very few.
In addition, there's no guarantee you'll find every single one. On weetabix or porridge I've been known to spot a stem only to lose it when it sinks, but then not to find it when eating. In something like granola with its range of textures and harder components I would be more likely to miss an occasional stem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.354655
| 2021-05-12T23:10:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115637",
"authors": [
"JBH",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93882",
"nick012000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115945
|
Pre pan-fry marinaded meat before oven roasting?
Probably the question's wording is not correct but here is what I wanted to ask:
I heard it several times that to avoid drying out the meat in the oven, it is advised to pan fry it to create a crust. Is it true for marinaded meat as well? I'm using livestock (pork, beef etc.), not poultry.
Or it better to sous vide with the marinade and then create the crust?
The concept that a "crust" on meat is protection for moisture loss is a myth. So, searing meat before roasting or braising is not a step to prevent drying. You may, however, want to sear to develop color and flavor. Depending on your recipe, this can be an important step.
When using sous vide, you have three options. A sear before the sous vide step, which can be especially helpful if you intend to do a very long, low temperature cook, as this removes any surface bacteria that might "bloom". Second, a sear after the sous vide step is almost always indicated, as that final crust formation is often desirable. Finally, a sear before the sous vide AND a sear after the sous vide. This allows you to more quickly achieve the final crust, reducing the potential to over-cook the protein you just carefully cooked at to a precise temperature.
Thank you. Still, if this is not the way to prevent drying, what is?
@zeller Not overcooking?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.354891
| 2021-06-05T09:19:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115945",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94216",
"zeller"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43331
|
How do I tell if my pasta is molto al dente?
I cooked pasta tonight for my families dinner, and cooked it "al dente" then cooked it in the sauce. Surprise surprise it was overdone. So I looked it up and apparently it needs to be "molto al dente". So now I'm just wondering how will I be able to tell if my pasta is "molto al dente" and what is the definition of "molto al dente"?
taste, taste again; and try again; and if possible take notes for the next time.
If the packet suggests 12 minutes, start tasting at 10 minutes. When it's nearly done but still a little chewy, then you can drain it and add it to the sauce.
Since pasta keeps cooking even after you strain it, by its own heat, you also need to take into account the time it sits in the dish waiting to be eaten. That's the reason why it must be eaten right away. Pasta can't wait! :)
How to see if your pasta is "al dente":
If your pasta cooks about in 10 minutes (for example), when you put pasta into the boiling water take one pasta after 8 minute (about 20% before the time of cook), bite it and observe the pasta: the external is more yellow than the internal that is white. When the internal white disappears the pasta has cooked "normale", when the internal white is small the pasta is "al dente".
Greetings from Italy
Everybody know cooking, not everybody speak english very well
Generally on the pasta bag is indicated the cooking time for "al dente" and "normale". It depends on the type of pasta, since different types need different cooking times.
"al dente" means that the pasta should feel quite hard under yout teeth.
For instance, for spaghetti with 12 minutes normal cooking time, "al dente" means about 10 min, "molto al dente" is around 8-9 min.
So, just as a rule of thumb, take the normal cooking time indicated on the box, and consider about 20% less for "al dente", and 30% for "molto al dente".
Or to think of it another way, if you are aiming for "al dente" at the end and it says that will be 10 minutes, you need to factor in the 2 minutes (or whatever) it will be in the sauce into the cooking time, so you would only need to cook for 8 minutes initially.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.355033
| 2014-04-07T09:56:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43331",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Anya",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Max",
"Pino Pinto",
"RosePumpkin",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4770",
"kaylamcfly",
"ozmartian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11152
|
Why do different pasta shapes taste different?
I've noticed that even when I buy two different pasta shapes of the same brand (and so presumably the exact same recipe), they still taste subtly different, to the point that I consistently prefer the tastes of certain shapes of pasta. Is there any basis for this, or am I experiencing some form of synesthesia?
It will be slight variations in the recepies, slight variations in how you cookied it or it will be your mind playing tricks. Shape will not affect the taste of pasta. One shape however may be thicker than others, and if not cooked taking that into account, you may have a different taste, but cooked to the same level, no difference.
That's an excellent theory. Pasta is/are just three ingredients: flour, egg and salt. Go figure. However, I hate macaroni and that's just one shape, while I do like all other kinds of pasta. Oh, well.
@GUI Junkie: Most dried pasta is just flour, egg-based pasta is less common, unless fresh.
Even if you cook them to the same level, I realize that in a thin pasta will be evenly cooked throughout, while a thick pasta will be more cooked on the surface and less in the interior. Maybe this has an effect.
Right you are @Orbling, but one has to maintain some illusions.
Different forms of pasta are going to have different surface-to-mass ratios, which will affect how the pasta cooks; the cross-section may affect how much starch gets rubbed off as the pasta boils. (I can only assume that more's going to stay in a spiral or a tube than will on something that can rub up against other pasta)
But I'm going to assume that you're not eating the pasta plain ... and the different shapes will hold sauce differently, and that can be quite significant.
The other thing that Tom Gullen mentioned is variation in cooking -- I personally avoid capellini (aka angel hair), because I've had it overcooked so many times ... overcooked pasta is disgusting, in my opinion.
The surface area is the key. I often prefer penne to smooth noodles for optimal sauce adhesion. Farfalle is problematic to cook evenly, but also better in this regard.
@zanlok : not all penne is rough; it depends on what material the dies are made from. (harder materials last longer, but makes for smoother pasta). There's also specifically penne rigate which has ridges cut into it.
point taken. I've always ended up with rigate, apparently. I thought smooth was called something else like ziti, though that's a squared edge. Checking up now, wikipedia says it's penne lisce or mostaccioli when it's smooth.
I suspect it's largely a difference in how the sauce holds to the pasta. There's a reason certain shapes are traditional for certain types of sauce...
@DrRandy : thickness matters, too ... if you ever get a chance, try pici ... it takes much longer to cook than most other pastas because it's so thick, and has a significantly different character than other pastaas.
Taste is a factor of not only teste buds on tongue and roof of mouth but also of sight, smell, and Texture or feel which is influened directly by shape.
This answer got flagged twice as "not an answer". I actually see it as an answer, but it is so short, it seems others have not recognized it as such, and so it doesn't have much value for the readers. Maybe you could elaborate?
We prefer to say "aroma" not "smell" though :)
Pasta tastes the same and is the same no matter what shape it is. As someone stated above it can depend on how thick the pasta is and how long you cook it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.355266
| 2011-01-17T22:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11152",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"DrRandy",
"Jill Hrabosky",
"Joe",
"Orbling",
"Ryan C. Thompson",
"Seattle Exterminators",
"ferris bueller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"psxls",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
55672
|
Maintaining Sourdough Starter - Are potato flakes/water necessary?
I just got some sourdough starter going with the Oregon Trail, and it seems to be doing quite well. However, the guide calls for using potato flakes or potato water to feed it- having neither, I hoped for the best and used some arrowroot powder instead. I'm not sure what the purpose of the potato stuff is- is it just food? I figured it might be primarily for providing starch, in which case the arrowroot should be fine.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53842/adding-things-to-sourdough-starter-culture
Hi! As you already said yourself, what you have are two independent questions. Putting them into the same "thread" makes the information very hard to find - the title is necessarily too broad to indicate what the questions are about, the answers will mix solutions to two different problems, and so on. Also, it is hard to vote when a question has independent parts which would merit separate voting. It is not so good for you either - you are losing half of your potential votes. It would be very good if you could split it - delete the part about the vibration, and open a new question about it.
You're right, that makes a lot more sense.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1124/34529
I've only ever used white flour and water, nothing else. I mix mine with equal weights of both to get a 100% hydration starter.
Nothing else is at all necessary.
I feed sourdough starter with strong white bread flour mixed with water to make a sloppy dough. This is a common method in the UK and it seems to work well.
I've never used anything other than good old bread flour or all-purpose flour. I've had a lot of success with Peter Reinhart's system of doubling the weight of your starter with equal parts flour and water. In other words, if your starter weighs 4 ounces, feed your starter with 2 ounces flour and 2 ounces water. Hope this helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.355695
| 2015-03-13T19:42:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55672",
"authors": [
"Cecil Shelton",
"Didgeridrew",
"Ken White",
"Lisa Wagler",
"Mark Ross",
"Nathalie Auguiste",
"Pooja Agarwal",
"R.J. Jones",
"RICK",
"Vickie Ebbers",
"William Cook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44115
|
Rolling out after or before the leavening process?
Assuming that you want to create home made pizza and bread, it's better to create the final shape when you create your dough or after the leavening ?
I think that part of the problem is the fact that the average oven can't generate the same temperatures that the industrial ones are able to produce or the ones specifically designed for the pizza; so I'm thinking that maybe a leavening process after the creation of the shape can possibly give more porous to the final product making it easier to cook thanks to the porous and the air inside them that conducts heat .
Or I should go for creating the shape just after the leavening and use something to revive the product during the final steps just before putting it in the oven ?
I'm using sourdough starter by the way.
By 'leavening' you likely mean 'raising' or 'resting', where you let the dough sit, and it puffs up some. (if you let it double, it's raising, if you just let it relax a little so it's not so tough to work, it's resting). Leavening are the ingredients that allow it to rise.
In making bread or pizza dough, there is no step called "leavening."
While there is some variation in method, depending on whether a preferment is used, in general, the active culture (whether it is sourdough starter, commercial yeast, or a combination) is added very early in the development of the dough.
The dough is then kneaded to develop gluten structure, and proofed to allow flavor to develop. This is normally described as allowing it to rest until it is doubled in bulk.
Then, it is "punched down", deflating most of the rise that happened during the proofing stage, and shaped into its final shape, and possibly placed into a mold or form. It then rises again to a greater or lesser extent before baking begins.
There is no before or after the leavening.
could you add some numbers for the timeframe between the shaping and the baking ? How much time should I leave it "rising again".
There is tremendous variability. Please consult your specific recipes.
I don't have any, I just made my sourdough starter that doubles my dough, I would like to get the final part right, I'm using wheat flour . There must be some percentage or balance to get right.
There are countless recipes on the web which you can google for sourdough based bread products, such as this one for pizza dough: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/sourdough-pizza-crust-recipe
@user2485710 if you are going by "ready" rather than time (which is better anyway), you just wait for doubled volume after each step. So, first kneading, wait for double. Punch down, wait for double. Shape, wait for double.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.355895
| 2014-05-14T06:35:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44115",
"authors": [
"AZONLINE PLLC",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Viral Web Media",
"cc11",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"smeep",
"user2485710"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90064
|
How should I adjust the time and/or temperature when baking a pound cake in loaf pans
When splitting pound cake batter into two loaf pans instead of using a tube pan, how would you adjust your baking time and temperature?
I wouldn’t change much if anything.
The main factor for baking is volume and the area of the cross-section, or, in other words, how long does it take for the oven heat to reach the center parts of the batter and bake them. Under that premise, you could say a bundt pan is like a curved loaf pan, thanks to the chimney in the middle. But: The material of the pans will also be a factor in baking time, even if you are using the same shape, so a tiny bit of experimentation is called for here
So the recommendation is to treat your tried-and-tested recipe like a new one: Set your timer for about five to ten minutes less than you normally would, check the cake for doneness (thermometer or skewer that comes out clean) and if needed, continue baking until the cake is done. Tip: note the baking time for all pans that you used, this will be helpful next time.
Assuming that you are baking the pound cake at a relatively low temperature (160-175 C or 325-350 F), a few minutes deviation won’t cause it to burn.
Agree with the answer above re volume. I substituted a loaf pan for a Bundt pan to bake a wet, Italian lemon Ciambellone, 2/3 cup oil, 1/2 cup milk, 4 eggs, vanilla, Tbl Lemoncello liquor. Recipe called for 40-50 min at 350. In a loaf pan, it went 20 min longer until toothpick check for done. Thicker cross section cake took longer to bake.
I've done just the opposite. The recipe directions called for baking a cake to be baked in a loaf pan and I switched to a tube pan with very little, if any noticable time change needed
As all cake recipes bake times are approximate, I always check doneness with a skewer/cake tester as the specified time nears completion
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.356130
| 2018-05-30T02:18:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90064",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122052
|
How to crack a bucket of walnuts quickly without compromising the taste?
I read that you can accelerate the process of cracking walnuts by freezing them — the shells either crack all by themselves or are otherwise so brittle that they can be opened with one hand. However, this somehow ruins the edible parts too. Walnuts, thus extracted, are suitable only for cooking and roasting.
Is there a way to crack many walnuts simultaneously, without compromising the taste and texture? OK to compromise aesthetics of the product.
Find the right tool your best bet.
I have best luck with key type plus a nut pick.
Or the spring type:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IEzK8MVGa0s
For speed, hammer works great too and with some practice actually yields more than walnutbutter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.356302
| 2022-10-21T12:32:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122052",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107857
|
Why is DIY yogurt not as stable as sourdough starter?
I have a sourdough starter which is now close to 15 years old. It has survived everything - including long pauses where it stood in the fridge for over a month or longer. It is incredibly stable and very hard to kill (at least I was not successful so far). Presumably you can also make a backup by drying it completely and storing it long-term (I have made such a backup, but have not had to use it yet).
Sometimes I also like to make yogurt by sterilizing milk at 90-95°C, then cooling to 45°C, adding existing yogurt, and keeping it at 45°C for about 6 hours.
This always works very well for the first 3-4 generations (starting with storebought natural joghurt). The first generations are extremely nice, just like the original.
But after some generations, it inevitably does not continue to work as well. The next generation will not become as thick, and will be more of a soup; clumps of yogurt mixed with the clear watery substance you get in these processes (sorry, don't know the word in English - is that whey?). I'm quite careful to keep the whole process as identical as possible.
Do you know the reason for that, or if it is possible to get a long-term, stable yogurt running?
personal anecdote: I revived a dried sourdough backup after 4 years in a cupboard, and it's still going.
First, we are talking about different microorganisms when comparing sourdough to yogurt. Generally, a sourdough starter is populated by numerous strains of yeast and bacteria, while store bought yogurt contains a small number of isolated strains of bacteria. However, there is no reason that you can't maintain a yogurt culture that lives on. According to the linked article, the isolated strains in store bought yogurt are generally only viable for a couple of generations. You might look into heirloom starter cultures, as they suggest. That way you can develop a yogurt starter that is as viable as your sourdough starter.
Evidently there must be a way - as the yoghurt companies are managing to keep their starters going somehow.
@Tim clearly there is a way to keep a starter going at home. That is what my answer describes. Yogurt companies have labs that isolate strains of desired bacteria for their product. They regenerate these strains so that their product remains consistent.
@moscafj, I have gotten a "heirloom" starter back then, and am propagating that weekly without fail. So that works. The answer is old and accepted, but if you find more info on why that is, that would be interesting (the question was more about the "why" then the "how")...
@AnoE I believe it is because the commercial starters are isolated, to single (or just a couple of) strains for product consistency. Heirloom starters are likely comprised of multiple strains of bacteria, which survive and evolve over time.
One trick I use for yogurt starter is freezing yogurt in an ice cube tray. Every time I make a new batch, a cube goes in. When I run out of starter cubes, I freeze some more from the current batch. I've been making 3 quarts of yogurt weekly for several years and haven't noticed any changes in the resulting yogurt over the many generations of starter.
Thank you! That's a good point. Sourdough starter holds well if simply cooled (not frozen), but good to know that yogurt starter survives freezing.
This is really interesting. Thanks for submitting the idea. Do I understand correctly that one (frozen) yogurt cube is enough to culture 3 quarts of milk?
Yes, one cube is plenty. Sometimes I cut the cubes into roughly 1 cm^3 fragments. I've actually had a couple batches where I totally forgot to add the starter, but it made perfectly good yogurt anyway (taking somewhat longer)--I think this was due to residual bacteria on the thermometer I use. The bacteria population can grow exponentially at the beginning, so a little starter goes a long way.
That's really interesting about residual bacteria being enough to make yogurt! Because of the long incubation needed, was the yogurt more tangy than usual?
This is very cool!
Two questions: what did you use in the beginning? A store bought yougurt?
Also, how do you de-freeze yur cubes without giving it enough time to spoil?
I didn't notice any difference in the taste depending on the amount of starter used. The original starter was taken from store-bought yogurt (don't remember what brand, but it would have said "contains active cultures" on the container). I just drop the cubes straight into the hot milk when it's near the incubation temperature and don't do anything to thaw them first.
Interesting about residual bacteria being enough to culture a batch! Would you say that the smaller the amount you put in (with the residual bacteria example being the extreme) the longer it takes and the tangier it gets? I would like to try the ice cubes but prefer a mild yogurt.
It depends on the culture you use. The problems you describe do happen with cultures from store bought yogurts. My family has a yogurt culture which we've been using for decades and it still produces great yogurt every time. It came from overseas decades ago. I got mine from my dad. If you have friends from south Asia or the middle east, ask them if they have a good yogurt culture from the old country.
Thank you for your answer, @NikD! What you describe is what I have witnessed past then (meanwhile I have gotten a "heirloom" starter which reproduces generation after generation with no issue at all). The question was why that is (not so much how to circumvent it, although I'm grateful for the hints and they are surely helpful for others as well)... can you expand on the reasons behind it?
Sorry, don't really know the answer to why. But based on my limited knowledge I would guess that there are other microbes in the yogurt which are able to outcompete the desired one, over time. Is it something the yogurt companies are intentionally adding? Or is there some special process required to ensure that the desired culture dominates? I don't know the answers to those either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.356414
| 2020-04-24T12:00:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107857",
"authors": [
"Andreas Grapentin",
"AnoE",
"Arlo",
"NikD",
"Tim",
"Vulcan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91734",
"josinalvo",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57659
|
What is the best way to infuse garlic flavor in the bland brown rice?
I have got fresh garlic cloves. I want the brown rice to have a garlic flavor.
Please mention the garlic quantity needed for the 5 table spoons of uncooked brown rice.
What is the best way to infuse garlic flavor in the bland brown rice?
Garlic flavors are soluble in oil, simply chopping up garlic and putting it in with the rice will not distribute the flavor well. I would recommend you chop the garlic finely and then infuse into a tablespoon of oil or butter by putting the pan on very low heat for a few minutes. Then add the rice and stir to coat the grains with the infused oil before adding water and cooking as normal.
How much garlic to use depends on how strong your garlic is and how garlic-y you want it to taste. 5 tbsp of rice isn't much, for a medium garlic flavor using average strength garlic a whole small clove or half a large is probably enough. With the garlic I grow I'd add a few slices from a clove at most.
Another option would be to cook the rice and then stir in the garlic infused oil afterwards, The benefits to this option are that you can drain the rice after cooking without all the flavor going down the drain.
Would making a paste of garlic before adding it to oil be better than chopping?
In addition to above, please explain this again: "a whole small clove of half a large": What does "half a large" mean here?
Sorry @TheIndependentAquarius, that should have said a whole small clove or half a large. It was a typo, I'm still waiting for the caffeine to kick in.
and about my first comment? I hope you saw it.
Using a paste is fine, it will burn easily though so be sure to infuse on a low heat. IMO chopping it fine or simply smashing it with the flat of a knife and then roughly chopping is less work and gives the same result.
Yes, the pilaf technique is what you need here. I would just mince the garlic like @GdD says, a paste will burn easily.
The low heat that he mentions will prevent the garlic from burning, while still permitting the oil-soluble flavours to permeate the fat.
The technique that GdD mentions (infuse oil, then use that in the rice), is the technique used in Sinangag (Filipino garlic fried rice), but the rice is cooked first, then fried lightly in the garlic infused oil.
Because you still have the garlic in with the rice, and it hasn't undergone long, slow cooking like you would have from cooking the rice (even longer w/ brown rice), the garlic bits still retain much of the fresh garlic flavor, although the flavor still permeates through the rice.
A quick survey of recipes yields the following ratios (skipping those that don't give any measurements for the rice or garlic at all):
a head of garlic for 5-6 cups cooked rice
3 cloves garlic to '1 large serving bowl of cooked rice'
12 cloves of garlic to 4 cups cooked rice
9 cloves garlic to 4 cups cooked rice (plus 4 green onions)
5 cloves garlic to 3 cups cooked rice
2 cloves garlic to 750g cooked rice (4 cups?)
6 cloves garlic to 3 cups cooked rice
14 cloves garlic to 4 cups cooked rice (plus one scallion, vinegar and chile flakes)
3 TB minced garlic to 5 cups cooked rice
3 TB minced garlic to 6 cups cooked rice
1.5 TB minced garlic to 4 cups cooked rice
3 cloves garlic to 3 cups cooked rice
6 cloves garlic to 3 cups cooked rice
You'll likely need to experiment with it to find where you like it -- but be warned some recipes for Sinangag are very, very garlicy. (as I'm guessing the ones with 3+ cloves per cup of rice are ... it's possible that the vinegar might temper it, though). I also like the freshness that you get from mixing in green onion at the end, but I don't know what you're doing with this so if that would be appropriate.
If we assume a 'large serving bowl' is 2 cups, 1 head is 10 cloves, and a clove is 1 tsp minced, then the ratio in cloves per cup) are : 2, 1.5, 3, 2.25, 1.67, 0.5, 2, 3.5, 1.8, 1.5, 1.125, 1, 2 ... so 8 of the 13 are between 1.5 to 2.25 cloves of garlic per cup of cooked rice.
... and rice (white rice, at least), cooks up about 3:1 by volume, so 5TB uncooked would be just shy of a cup of rice cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.356868
| 2015-05-21T07:32:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57659",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Carl Thompson",
"Chris Macksey",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Melissa",
"Paula Phone",
"Renee Park",
"Sheila Ladd",
"Tc Wells",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ozgrozer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125548
|
Why are my mashed potatoes getting too sticky after mashing?
I've been encountering a perplexing issue with my mashed potatoes, and I'm seeking advice from the experienced cooking community. After boiling and mashing the potatoes, they seem to spoil remarkably quickly, often within just two hours of preparation. Here's a breakdown of my usual process:
I boil the potatoes (with the skin on) in a pressure cooker for three whistles.
After boiling, I let them cool slightly (like maybe 10 mins) and then peel and mash them while they're still somewhat hot, as I find it easier to mash them at this stage.
The problem is that within 2 hours they start becoming very sticky. If you pick up a lump and try to break it apart with your fingers you can see the sticky lines popping out between them. So they're definitely ruined.
I don't think I'm doing anything wrong in my cooking method. I don't see any reason that could lead to rapid spoilage. But if I keep them out for 2 hours I can see that they become somewhat sticky (as you can make out if you tear apart a piece with your fingers.
I'd like to understand why this might be happening and how I can prevent it. Has anyone faced this before and overcome it?
What are you adding to them?
What makes you think they’re “spoiled”?
How long is "three whistles"? As someone who's never owned a pressure cooker, that means nothing to me. I also can't really figure out why you'd a) boil potatoes with the skin on then peel with the extra waiting time & mess of trying to peel something soft, or b) why you'd need a pressure cooker for something that only needs boiling for 10 minutes anyway. It gives me the impression you're probably over-cooking them.
The internet has made me aware that it's a common timing(?) method for pressure cookers in India (at least), but not to the point that I understand how it works or translates to other methods of controlling a pressure cooker.
@Tetsujin In my country the 3 whistles is considered the right duration to boil potatotes. It's around 7 minutes with the water starting at room temperature.
@Sneftel The problem is that within 2 hours they start becoming very sticky. If you pick up a lump and try to break it apart with your fingers you can see the sticky lines popping out between them. So they're definitely ruined.
So, next time peel them first, so you can mash them straight away. You'll also have a better test for 'doneness' - if they're underdone a fork won't split them, if they're over they'll start to collapse into the water. That will let you adjust your timings for next time.
@Tetsujin I didn't know that there is such a thing as overdone potatoes. They break into 2 usually when I pressure cook them.
Yes, they'll almost completely 'dissolve' into the water - see the first pict at https://www.thegeneticchef.com/how-to-fix-over-boiled-potatoes/ although I've seen them worse than that. [& ignore the 'fixed' picture at the end. I wouldn't dream of serving lumpy glue like that ;))
I'm confused why you're using a pressure cooker, which is generally used to speed up long slow processes, on a really short process, and then leaving the cooked product unused for hours. Why not boil the potatoes closer to the time you want them?
What you are describing isn't spoiling, what you are describing is not the product of bacterial growth that would cause food to go bad. If it had gone bad you'd have nasty smells and flavors, you are having an issue with consistency, not spoilage.
The most likely cause of your problem is that you are overcooking the potatoes. Overcooking will cause the potatoes to break down too much, giving you a gluey texture which you will notice more when your mashed potatoes are cooler.
I'm not a fan of cooking potatoes in a pressure cooker because you can't check them as you cook. For mashed potatoes you want them to be done enough to easily split apart when you stick a fork in, but where you still need to work at it a bit to mash them. Reduce the cooking time, and if you want to use a pressure cooker use a timer rather than whistles, as the time between whistles varies by brand and other conditions. Or, use a regular pan with lid to cook them.
Other suggestions I have would be to peel the potatoes before you cook them, and to cut them into smaller pieces. With large chunks the outside will overcook and dissolve before the inside is done, smaller chunks will cook more evenly and give you a more consistent result.
I prefer cutting slabs to dicing it… you have more consistent cooking times (no corners and such), with less work. There are also some recommendations out there to simmer the potatoes for a while instead of boiling, as supposedly that changes the starch to keep it from becoming gluey.
I'm going to try slabs next time @Joe. Mashed sounds good right about now.
“If it had gone bad you'd have nasty smells and flavors” — not necessarily. Some microbes can produce nasty smells/flavours/colours, but others are undetectable (without biochemical equipment — or by the effect it might have on you…) So taste and appearance are not necessarily an indication of safety; that's why we have guidelines such as in Ecnerwal's answer.
I would not expect 2 hours to be long enough for the food to spoil, in any case my point is that the issues with the mashed potatoes' consistency is not due to bacterial growth.
@GdD This is a great suggestion! Have you personally observed a difference in how fast it spoils based on whether it's overboiled or not? I would love to try this out. But not sure whether peeling them before boiling would be good. I'm wondering whether the potatoes are spoiling because they drank too much water? Because if you sprinkle water on mashed potatoes they seem to spoil much faster. And I've been mashing them while they're hot at which time they're somewhat wet.
It's not spoiling @Mugen, that's the wrong term. Spoiling implies food safety concerns where this is a problem with texture. Although I have overboiled potatoes in the past it's a mistake I only made once, so I haven't observed how quickly the texture turns to goo.
I feel that this answers my question better. It clarifies that the potatoes aren't spoiled and also that it's important to avoid overcooking them.
If you "keep them out" (presumably meaning unheated and unrefrigerated) they are halfway to throwing out at 2 hours from a food safety point of view (where the common metric is that they should be disposed of after 4 hours in the bacterial danger zone temperature range between 140°F/60°C and 41°F/5°C.) I have no idea why you'd prepare them and then hold them for two hours, but if you are not going to eat them when prepared they either need to be held hot or rapidly cooled and refrigerated.
"Become somewhat sticky" is not a sign of spoilage (in the food safety sense,) it's probably the starch gelatinizing. Unappealing as mashed potatoes, but not a clear sign that it will make you sick if you ate it. But better to make the potatoes closer to the time they will be eaten so that they are more appealing.
I did not know that it's not common to keep them out for a few hours. So what you're saying is that after boiling the potatoes we should not peel them (if we're not going to use them immediately). Is that correct? And any idea how long we should keep them out (unpeeled) before we can keep them in the fridge without causing any spoilage?
When I say "somewhat sticky" - if you pick up a lump and try to break it apart with your fingers you can see the sticky lines popping out between them. AFAIK, that is spoiled.
@Mugen What you're describing isn't spoilage, it's the development of the starch from the potatoes. Boiling starchy foods causes starch granules to rupture, allowing the starch to spread through the liquid. As the liquid cools, the starch molecules begin connecting with each other and produce a sticky, glutinous material. It's not harmful to eat, and in fact such gels are the basis for many foods, such as puddings.
@barbecue A massive portion of Italian pasta dishes in particular would not be possible without the gelatinization of starches.
@barbecue Are you sure? I understand if starch sticks together like in pasta or cheese or bread, that's not harmful. But we're talking about potatoes. Are you sure the stickyness is okay?
@Mugen Yes, I'm very sure. Potato starch is actually used to make glue because it produces such a sticky gel. https://www.intercol.info/adhesives/hot-melt-en-lijm/317-potato-starch-adhesives.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.357223
| 2023-10-14T11:24:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125548",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mugen",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"barbecue",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71038
|
Am sprouting beans in machine is the color normal
I have been sprouting my beans for three days now I am not sure if it is ready to harvest and is the color normal and what is the best way to store it? I've attached photos.
Thank you
You should tell us exactly what you're sprouting. I can think of several beans all of different colours.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this question seems to be about growing food, not cooking it.
Catija, while the question isn't about cooking them, I still think it's related. As for growing food, most people think of growing plants and in a garden, nit the kitchen. For that matter, when we make yogurt, it's basically growing a bacterial culture.
I can't see anything wrong with your sprouts as far as colour. If you're referring to the blush of the beans, yours are a bit pinker than most I've seen but still normal. I've spen them ranging from an almost white tan to blush. Since I don't know whether you kept yours in utter darkness, so I can't say whether it's related to light levels. It's also possible that a number of different mung bean cultivars are used for sprouting (since the majority of food we eat has countless cultivars). If so, possibly different cultivars might show different variations in colour.
I'm surprised that your sprouts are only 3 days old though. They already have developed leaves and that doesn't usually happen that quickly. Perhaps a little warmer than usual? That might even account for colour variations too.
There's no harm eating them with developing leaves but they taste milder when the leaves just start peeking out for the two halves. I gave up sprouting mung beans as I never could figure a good way to get rid of most if the loose skins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.357971
| 2016-06-29T05:40:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71038",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78670
|
Pressure Cooker "Safety Fuse Plate" Bubbles During Use
I recently bought a 9.5 Quart Tramontina Pressure Cooker for the purpose of cooking dried beans and legumes since I've moved to an altitude that makes simple stove top cooking impractical.
I've only used the cooker twice, and each time, it pressure locks but steam/bubbles continue to come out of the handle (on and off), the manual pressure release valve (frequently) and something called the "safety fuse plate" (almost continuously). Very little steam comes out of the pressure limiting valve from what I can tell.
I am not familiar with pressure cooking, but have done quite a bit of reading and cannot figure out if this is normal or unsafe or really anything. I know I'm not overfilling it and I doubt the pressure is too high. The food does not come out cooked/finished, although that could be due to incorrectly adjusting the times for the altitude.
So my questions are:
1) Is this normal?
2) Does this sound unsafe?
Happy to provide any more information as requested.
EDIT: After replacing the safety fuse plate, the bubbling continued. I reached out to customer service and they think its probably an issue with the valve itself. If I get a replacement, I'll try the cooker again and update with the results.
Is there a fill line on the inside (or instructions not to fill past a certain volume...say 2/3 full)? Maybe too high a fill?
It doesn't have a fill line, but the directions state to not fill it past 2/3 full. I have only filled it about a 1/4 full. It's a very large pressure cooker.
I'm not familiar with your paritcular model of cooker, but that sure looks like a defective or failed "safety fuse plate" - it should vent nothing there unless/until the temperature limit is exceeded and the fusible plate melts. Assuming this was purchased new, I'd contact the store or the manufacturer.
@Ecnerwal I thought that may be the case, but since I'm inexperienced I figured it was more likely something I was doing wrong. I'll try reaching out to the manufacturer and see what comes of it.
Beans and legumes produce a lot of scum/foam (it's a mostly denatured protein mat) while cooking. For a pressure cooker, this can clog your vents (a bad thing). So you want to ensure that not too much is produced. Your user manual should have a section describing the cooking of beans and/or legumes with appropriate instructions.
An example is on page 23 of this manual. To summarize:
Don't fill cooker more than 1/2
Adding a tbsp of oil per cup of legume can reduce frothing [I haven't tried this]
Bring the legumes to a boil and skim the initial scum before closing the cooker
The manual is very small and does not have any cooking instructions, but thanks for those tips. I'll try 2 and 3 in a couple days and see how they work. I'm already only filling the cooker less than half full.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.358136
| 2017-02-24T00:59:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78670",
"authors": [
"CMB92",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54783",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113983
|
How to clean/wash (Sichuan) peppercorns?
Tragically, I spilled over a bottle of Sichuan peppercorns on the kitchen floor, which is fairly dirty (we walk on it with outdoor shoes, and if you wipe at the floor with a cloth it will pick up a thin layer of dirt/grime).
To avoid eating dirt/germs, do I have to throw out the split peppercorns? Or can I "sanitize" them someway, either by washing with water, baking to a certain temperature, etc.?
Life hack: take off shoes at the door and don't wear them inside. Your kitchen floor will improve immensely.
It probably isn't worth washing them. You could try washing them with water alone but this certainly won't remove many types of dirt such as oils. The main flavour compounds in most spices are not highly soluble in water, so most of the flavour (Hydroxy-alpha sanshool in this case) will remain. However, if you used a detergent to remove any oils, it is likely that this will also wash off some of the flavour compounds, and likely be difficult to remove from the seeds. You would also need to dry them thoroughly after washing, especially if you wanted to store them.
You may be able to bake them - it seems that the Hydroxy-alpha sanshool has a boiling point of 574 C (1065 F), which is much hotter than most ovens will reach. However, this risks burning them and thereby destroying the flavours before you can sterilize. Dry heat at 176-232 C (349-450 F) is sufficient to sterilize food with dry heat (see section on sterilization by heat in chapter here (paywall?)), however these are baking temperatures and will cook the seeds quite rapidly, so you will most likely burn them before you could cook off any dirt and before most bacteria get killed. With this method you would still be eating dirt, it just wouldn't be able to make you sick.
A third option is to just pick them up individually - so as to not scrape them across the floor any more than they already have, then place in a sieve, shake up and down a few times to winnow (in the intransitive verb form) out any particulate dirt. Then store, and consider that cooking them will very likely kill >99.99% of any contaminating bacteria/fungal spores.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.358390
| 2021-01-27T18:55:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113983",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"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
}
|
114111
|
Pork belly strips and ribs
I’d like to know if I can safely lay down pork belly slices on top of pork ribs while smoking? I’m using a pellet grill/smoker at 200-225 degrees for 6 hours.
Can you describe what you plan to do? Are you planning on adding the slices and ribs together at the -6 hour point or adding them later? If later, how much later?
I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be "safe". You can "safely" smoke both those items at those temperatures.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.358575
| 2021-02-05T01:47:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114111",
"authors": [
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71520
|
Gluten Free Challah not keeping shape
I use the following dough recipe, it tastes okay, but is very difficult to shape and never holds its shape. Advice please
15 g Dried Yeast (Green Tin when make in Machine / Yellow Tin when make by Hand)
20 g Salt
900 g Light Spelt Flour
150 ml Honey
118 ml Oil
3 Eggs
350 ml Luke Warm Water
Flour for shaping, egg for painting and sesame seeds topping
Sorry to rain on your parade, but spelt is not gluten-free...
I've changed the title of your question as it was phrased as a recipe request, which is off topic. Your question isn't a recipe request anyway, you have a problem with an existing recipe.
Spelt flour is not gluten-free. Light spelt flour has less protein (gluten is a protein) than regular spelt or strong bread flour, but it's still there (5-8% from what I've seen), so if you need gluten free you need to pick another ingredient.
To answer your question, there are limitations to what you can do with low or gluten free doughs. Bread made with gluten is stretchy and keeps its shape because the gluten strands relax and become intertwined with each other, if you take the gluten out you lose that stretchiness and body. Dough improvers like xanthan gum can help give some stretchiness but not to the point of being able to make something like challah. Low or gluten free doughs are always going to be a bit crumbly - it's the nature of the beast - so my advice is to pick bread types where that's an asset.
Apologies I realised after posting that spelt is 'gluten light' and not 'gluten free' - it was a blond moment
No problem @GideonS, the answer is the same for gluten light and gluten free.
Gluten free dough is runny so I put it in a tin.
Google Backform Zopf to get some pictures of challah-shaped baking tins with the plait pattern built in, so you don't need to plait it.
Some shop near you will have them, or there's always Amazon... Look for Zopf or Hefezopf (sorry, I can't find an English name).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.358652
| 2016-07-19T11:03:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71520",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Gideon S",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48146"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87119
|
Can coconut oil be used for frying?
I found various contradicting sources as to whether coconut oil can be used for frying or not. Some claim it is "The ideal oil for frying" as it has a high smoking point, while some say it is not suited for frying, since it has a low smoking point. So which is true? Please give trustworthy sources - the more scientific the better.
Thanks in advance
also: if someone with reputation >300 reads this: Maybe you want to create the taggs coconut-oil (as [tag:olive-oil] exists) and smoking-point for me
I have a suspicion (no time to check now) that like olive oil it will depend how refined the oil is. Perhaps you could link to the sources you found.
There are multiple qualities, differently refined, on the market. Highly refined qualities that leave only the oil (various fatty acids) itself will have a very high smoke point and be suitable for high heat frying. There is a lot of saturated fats in coconut oil, which result in both the solid texture at low temperatures and the stability at high heat.
Unrefined or less-refined qualities will have other compounds left in, which can contribute to aroma (and possible nutritional benefits) but will also lower the smoking point and can actually result in an off taste and/or byproducts not considered healthy (why is off topic here).
Various smoke points are quoted, from 300°F for some unrefined varieties to 450°F for some highly refined ones. Exact smoke points likely depend on how exactly it was refined.
The exact same applies to olive oil, BTW: Highly refined varieties are known to be perfectly usable for high heat work, with the opposite being true of unrefined ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.358820
| 2018-01-16T03:19:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87119",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Neuron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43435"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110974
|
Gritty Mouth Feel from Moroccan Spice Blend
I made a tagine style chicken dish that was very tasty, but the sauce had a subtle but fine gritty mouth feel that I'd like to eliminate the next time I try this.
I haven't experienced this with most cooking before, but my thought is this mouth feel comes from the one of the spices named below, and I'm thinking it may be from the ground cinnamon.
The spices used were: salt, coriander, turmeric, paprika, black pepper, ginger power, cumin, and chili powder. Some dried fruit, added toward the end of cooking, was simmered in a pot of water with sugar and cinnamon.
For what it's worth, all of my spices were pre-ground except for the black pepper and coriander, which I fine ground in a coffee grinder.
Is this gritty mouth feel to be expected? (I think I would have noticed it when eating this sort of dish at a restaurant.) If not, what might I do to fix it?
Are you blooming your spices in oil, or adding them directly to the stew? The later could easily be the cause of your problems, but it would help to know the exact steps you are following.
I think you're on to something. I never heard of blooming until you mentioned it. I noticed that many of the the tagine recipes (as seen in videos) seemed to call for just piling most of the ingredients into the pan, after sauteing onions and garlic, add the chicken, then top with spices, then add other things. It seemed odd to me and not like I had done with other dishes. But tagine recipes are also new to me, so I just went along with it. I also used a large lidded saute pan instead of a tagine, but I will bet that is not the problem, after giving your question some thought.
Please edit and give us the step by step method you used. How and when did you add the spices? Are the spices relatively fresh, or old?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.358967
| 2020-10-01T20:05:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110974",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"GdD",
"Jim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120832
|
What is this pan made of?
Thinking this was carbon steel, I tried to strip it using the canned tomatoes technique, and a lot of elbow grease.
The sides are still black and very hard to clean, but the bottom of the pan reached the metallic color I was expecting.
What I didn’t expect though was to discover what looks like a film, either translucent or of a different metallic color, which is starting to strip down although it doesn’t come off easily.
Hopefully the pictures I attached will be good enough.
The main question is "what is this pan made of?", and the bonus question is "can I still restore it to a useable state, or should I just get a new one?"
The whole pan from above. The weird scratches/layers on the bottom are already noticeable at this scale.
A close-up of what's looking weird to me: it looks like a layer on top of the metal is peeling off.
And for reference, this is what the pan's bottom looks like. I don't know if it is clear but it has a blueish tint.
Adding this as it might help identification, but I still need help please.
I looked up a few things, found an item that looks very similar (I live in Japan), and after translating, it looks like it could be hard nitriding cast iron?
Do magnets stick to it? If so, do they stick strongly, or poorly?
The first and last picture look like my wok (without the effects of the second picture). It is of stainless steel. I got it from a vietnamese cooker who said it was the best type to buy (oil it after use for non chinese dishes) about 10 years ago. (magnets stick strongly to the sides)
was it maybe some kind of nonstick coating (teflon)?
@Esther that’s one thing I’m pretty sure it’s not!
That patchy layer looks a lot like seasoning. It would be interesting to see what soaking in ammonia does to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.359156
| 2022-06-14T01:52:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120832",
"authors": [
"David Stosik",
"Esther",
"Mark Johnson",
"Mark Ransom",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114470
|
How do I keep my chocolate ganache in the right consistency?
I made a chocolate ganache and after a few hours in the fridge it was in the perfect consistency. I left it out of the fridge so it would be room temperature, and an hour later it became much harder. I tried putting it back in the fridge but it didn't help. I need to use the ganache on a cake in 12 hours. How do I get the ganache back to the right consistency?
I would expect ganache to harden/thicken in the fridge and loosen up at room temp, not the opposite...
I'm confused like mbjb ... I would expect it to harden when colder ... so I'd try warming it slightly. Either placing it over a double boiler, or on a heating pad for a while, etc.
@Joe I just tried warming it and it worked. Thanks! Also I was a bit confused when it hardened.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:57.359339
| 2021-02-23T21:39:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114470",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"MBEllis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91549",
"mbjb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.